USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Technology and teacher training

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Technology and teacher training the systematic design and development of a framework for integrating technology into Jamaica's teacher training programs
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Granston, Carol N
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
proficiency
pre-service teachers
VIBES action plan
model
computers
Dissertations, Academic -- Secondary Education -- Doctoral -- USF
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: Over the last five years, there has been an increased number of computers in schools and teachers' colleges in Jamaica. In addition, recently revised national policy documents have indicated the need to infuse technology into the curricula of all schools. Despite these investments in computers, however, there has been little corresponding development in training teachers to use computers and emerging technologies as teaching learning tools.The purposes of the study were three-fold: (a) to describe the current state of technology integration in Jamaica's teacher training programs (b) assess the extent to which teachers' college faculty and pre-service teachers perceived themselves as prepared to teach with computers, as well as their perceived computer proficiency; and (c) to use data gathered in the study to inform an action plan for integrating technology into Jamaica's teacher training programs. To gather required data, a survey design was employed because the study required collection of data from a large number of persons located in diverse sections of the island. Data were collected from three distinct groups of participants in three teachers' colleges in Jamaica. These included six teachers' college administrators--two principals and four vice-principals, 121 teachers' college faculty, and 268 final-year pre-service teachers.Data were gathered through interviews with college administrators and IT faculty, questionnaires administered to college faculty and pre-service teachers, and focus group discussions with pre-service teachers.The results indicate that, in general, teacher training programs in Jamaica have not systematically incorporated technology in the college curricula. In addition, to a large extent, teachers' college faculty and pre-service teachers did not perceive themselves as prepared to teach with computers. These respondents also reported low levels of proficiency with various computer tools. In response to the urgent need to integrate technology into Jamaica's teachers' college curricula, the author proposes a new VIBES conceptual framework as an action plan specifically designed to facilitate technology integration into this setting. VIBES is comprised of five components: Vision, Infrastructure, Behaviour, Experience, and Support, hence the acronym.Each component of VIBES is required in teacher training programs if technology is to be systematically incorporated into the college curricula.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Carol N. Granston.
General Note:
Includes vita.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 286 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001498098
oclc - 57708470
notis - AJU6693
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0000472
usfldc handle - e14.472
System ID:
SFS0025163:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001498098
003 fts
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 041209s2004 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000472
035
(OCoLC)57708470
9
AJU6693
b SE
SFE0000472
040
FHM
c FHM
090
LB1601 (ONLINE)
1 100
Granston, Carol N.
0 245
Technology and teacher training
h [electronic resource] :
the systematic design and development of a framework for integrating technology into Jamaica's teacher training programs /
by Carol N. Granston.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2004.
502
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
500
Includes vita.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 286 pages.
520
ABSTRACT: Over the last five years, there has been an increased number of computers in schools and teachers' colleges in Jamaica. In addition, recently revised national policy documents have indicated the need to infuse technology into the curricula of all schools. Despite these investments in computers, however, there has been little corresponding development in training teachers to use computers and emerging technologies as teaching learning tools.The purposes of the study were three-fold: (a) to describe the current state of technology integration in Jamaica's teacher training programs (b) assess the extent to which teachers' college faculty and pre-service teachers perceived themselves as prepared to teach with computers, as well as their perceived computer proficiency; and (c) to use data gathered in the study to inform an action plan for integrating technology into Jamaica's teacher training programs. To gather required data, a survey design was employed because the study required collection of data from a large number of persons located in diverse sections of the island. Data were collected from three distinct groups of participants in three teachers' colleges in Jamaica. These included six teachers' college administrators--two principals and four vice-principals, 121 teachers' college faculty, and 268 final-year pre-service teachers.Data were gathered through interviews with college administrators and IT faculty, questionnaires administered to college faculty and pre-service teachers, and focus group discussions with pre-service teachers.The results indicate that, in general, teacher training programs in Jamaica have not systematically incorporated technology in the college curricula. In addition, to a large extent, teachers' college faculty and pre-service teachers did not perceive themselves as prepared to teach with computers. These respondents also reported low levels of proficiency with various computer tools. In response to the urgent need to integrate technology into Jamaica's teachers' college curricula, the author proposes a new VIBES conceptual framework as an action plan specifically designed to facilitate technology integration into this setting. VIBES is comprised of five components: Vision, Infrastructure, Behaviour, Experience, and Support, hence the acronym.Each component of VIBES is required in teacher training programs if technology is to be systematically incorporated into the college curricula.
590
Adviser: White, James A.
653
proficiency.
pre-service teachers.
VIBES action plan.
model.
computers.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Secondary Education
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.472



PAGE 1

Technology and Teacher Training: The Systematic Design and Development of a Framework for Integrating Technology into Jamaica’s Teacher Training Programs by Carol N. Granston A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Secondary Education College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: James A. White, Ph.D. Constance Hines, Ph.D. William Kealy, Ph.D. Kofi Marfo, Ph.D. Date of Approval: August 17, 2004 Keywords: Pre-service Teachers, VIBES action plan, computers, model, profici ency Copyright 2004, Carol N. Granston

PAGE 2

Dedication To my parents, Dorothy, Maud and Cyrus, Earl Granston.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to all those persons who have contributed in some way, tangible or otherwise, to the completion of this project. Most significantly, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of m embers of my doctoral committee. To my Major Professor, Dr. James A. White, you have been there through every step of this four-year journey. Your insights have exposed to me to novel ways of examining old issues. To Dr. Constance Hines, your dedication to quality and detail has made the product what is currently is. To Dr. Kofi Marfo, thank you for taking the time and providing your expertise in opening my eyes to new ways of looking at my study data. To Dr. William Kealy, you have been a guiding light through the last four years of this journey. To my family who have been my strength and my light. To Peter, your words of wisdom and encouragement kept me going when the journey seemed endless. To Martha, Darrel, Eric, Ellajean and, Phyllis, I could always call on you for anything. To the administrators, faculty and students at the colleges that participa ted in the study, I am eternally grateful to you for taking the time to complete the instrument s. Without your help, this product would not have come to fruition. To all my friends and acquaintances who have touched my life in some way, thank you. I will always remember you fondly.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables v List of Figures vii ABSTRACT viii Chapter 1 1 Introduction 1 Overview of the Teacher Preparation System in Jamaica’s Teachers’ Colle ges 4 Overview of the Integrating Technology into Teacher Training Programs (IT 3 P) Framework 6 Purpose of the Study 10 Research Questions 11 Operational Definition of Terms 12 Pre-service Teachers 12 Technology 13 Technology Integration 13 Technology Productivity Tools 13 Technology Communications Tools 13 Technology Research Tools 13 Significance of the Study 13 Limitations 15 Delimitations 15 Chapter 2 17 Review of Related Literature 17 Overview of Technology and Teacher Training 18 Theoretical Framework 22 Social Learning Theory 23 Diffusion Theory 24 Barriers to Technology Integration 27 Barriers to Integrating Technology in Classrooms 28 Barriers to Integrating Technology in Teacher Education Programs 35

PAGE 5

ii Factors that will Facilitate Technology Adoption 39 Training/ staff development 39 Access 41 Modeling 42 Support and leadership 43 Positive attitude and self-efficacy 44 Effective Training Programs 45 Models for Integrating Technology into Pre-service Teacher Training 47 A systematic Design Model 49 RIPPLES 50 Synthesis of the Integrating Technology into Teacher Training Programs (IT 3 P) Framework 53 Approaches for Integrating Technology in Teacher Education Programs 61 Common Threads Across Models 62 Conditions that Facilitate Implementation of Educational Technology Innovation 64 Recommendations for Integrating Technology in Teacher Education Programs 66 Conclusion 67 Chapter 3 69 Method 69 Research Questions 69 Design 71 Population and Sample 72 Target Population 72 Sample 72 Teachers’ colleges 73 Participant Sample 74 Strategies for Increasing Response Rate 75 Data Collection Methods 77 Document Analysis 78 Questionnaires 78 Interviews. 78 Focus Group Discussions 79 Description of Instruments 79 Faculty Technology Integration Instrument 80 Pre-service Teachers’ Technology Integration Instrument 81 Interview Schedules 83 Focus Group Discussion Schedule 83

PAGE 6

iii Instrument Validity and Reliability 84 Panel Review 85 Pilot Test 86 Cognitive Pretests 87 Internal Consistency Reliability of Self-administered Questionnaires 88 Procedures for Administering Instruments 88 Faculty Technology Integration Instrument 88 Pre-service Teacher Technology Integration Instrument 89 Administrators’ Interviews 90 Faculty Interviews 91 Focus Group Discussions 92 Treatment of Data 93 Coding 94 Missing Data 95 Data Analysis Procedures 95 Research Question 1 96 Research Question 2 99 Research Question 3 101 Research Question 4 103 Chapter 4 105 Results 105 Description of Sample 106 College Administrators 106 Teachers’ College Faculty 106 Pre-Service Teachers 108 Internal Consistency Reliability of Survey Instruments 110 Faculty Technology Integration Instrument 110 Pre-service Teachers Technology Integration Instrument 111 Evidence of Components of the IT 3 P in Jamaica’s Teacher Training Programs. 112 Faculty Perceptions of Preparation to Integrate Computers in their Teaching 157 Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Preparation to Integrate Comput ers in their Teaching 162 Specific Factors Required to Facilitate Technology Integration 170 Chapter 5 179 Summary, Discussions and Recommendations 179 Summary of Findings 182

PAGE 7

iv Perceptions of Evidence of Components of the IT 3 P Framework in Jamaica’s Teacher Training Programs 182 Faculty Perceptions of Preparation to Teach with Computers 206 Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Preparation to Teach with Com puters and Computer Proficiency 208 Specific Factors Proposed to Facilitate Technology Integration into Jamaica’ s Teacher Training Programs 213 Discussion 216 Revisions to IT 3 P Framework 224 VIBESRecommended Plan of Action for Integrating Technology into Jamaica’s Teacher Training Programs 225 Vision 226 Infrastructure 228 Behaviour 230 Experience 234 Support 235 Summary 237 Recommendations for Future Research 238 Appendices 247 Appendix A: Faculty Technology Integration Instrument 248 Appendix B: Pre-service Teachers Technology Integration Instrument 255 Appendix C: Conceptual Plan for Interviews 261 Appendix D. Guiding Questions--Focus Group Discussion 263 Appendix E: Mean Scale Ratings and Standard Deviations by Demographic Attributes and College Affiliation: Faculty Sample 266 Appendix F: Mean Scale Ratings and Standard Deviations by Demographic Attributes and College Affiliation: Pre-service Teachers Sample 271

PAGE 8

v List of Tables Table 1 Demographic Breakdown of Faculty Respondent Sample by College and Total Sample 107 Table 2 Demographic Breakdown of Pre-Service Teacher Respondent Sample by College and Total Sample 109 Table 3 Internal Consistency Reliability of Subscales of the Faculty Technology Integration Instrument 110 Table 4 Internal Consistency Reliability of Subscales of the Pre-service Teachers Technology Integration Instrument 111 Table 5 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT 3 P Prerequisite Factor (Technology Plan) Evident by College 119 Table 6 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT 3 P Prerequisite Factor (Staff Development) Evident by College 121 Table 7 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT 3 P Prerequisite Factor (Access/Resources/Infrastructure) Evident by College 124 Table 8 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT 3 P Prerequisite Factor (Support at the College Level) Evident by College 126 Table 9 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT 3 P Process Factor (Modelling) by College 128 Table 10 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT 3 P Process Factor (Positive Attitude Towards Computers) by College 130 Table 11 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT 3 P Process Factor (Concerns About Using Computers) by College 131 Table 12 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT 3 P Process Factor (Training) by College 133 Table 13 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT 3 P Process Factor (Field Experience/Practice Using Computers) by College 135

PAGE 9

vi Table 14 Percent of Pre-Service Teachers Responding to Evidence of IT 3 P Prerequisite Factor (Access/Resources/Infrastructure) by College 138 Table 15 Percent of Pre-Service Teachers Responding to Evidence of IT 3 P Process Factor (Modelling) by College 140 Table 16 Percent of Pre-Service Teachers Responding to Evidence of IT 3 P Process Factor (Positive Attitude Towards Computers) by College 142 Table 17 Percent of Pre-Service Teachers Responding to Evidence of IT 3 P Process Factor (Concerns About Using Computers) by College 143 Table 18 Percent of Pre-Service Teachers Responding to Evidence of IT 3 P Process Factor (Training) by College 145 Table 19 Percent of Pre-Service Teachers Responding to Evidence of IT 3 P Process Factor (Field Experience/Practice Using Computers) by Colle ge 147 Table 20 Means and Standard Deviations of Faculty Ratings on Subscales of the FTII by College 150 Table 21 Summary Results of ANOVA of Faculty Ratings on the FTII Subscales Across Teachers’ Colleges 152 Table 22 Means and Standard Deviations of Pre-service Teachers Ratings on Subscales of the PTTII by College 154 Table 23 Summary Results of One-way ANOVA of Pre-service Teachers Ratings on the PTTII Subscales Across Teachers’ Colleges 156 Table 24 Percent of Teachers’ College Faculty Responding to Preparation to Teach with Computers Subscale by College 159 Table 25 Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers’ College Faculty Ratings of Computer Proficiency by College and for the Total Sample 160 Table 26 Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers’ College Faculty Ratings of Computer Proficiency by College and for the Total Sample 163 Table 27 Means and Standard Deviations for Pre-service Teachers’ Ratings of Computer Proficiency by College and for the Total Sample 166 Table 28 Means and Standard Deviations for Pre-service Teachers Computer Skills Acquired at College by College and the Total Sample 168

PAGE 10

vii List of Figures Figure 1 Diagrammatic Representation of the IT 3 P Framework 7 Figure 2 Diagrammatic Representation of Revised IT 3 P Framework 225 Figure 3 Diagrammatic Representation of VIBES Framework 227

PAGE 11

viii Technology and Teacher Training: The Systematic Design and Development of a Framework for Integrating Technology into Jamaica’s Teacher Training Programs Carol N. Granston ABSTRACT Over the last five years, there has been an increased number of computers in schools and teachers’ colleges in Jamaica. In addition, recently revised nati onal policy documents have indicated the need to infuse technology into the curricula of all schools. Despite these investments in computers, however, there has been little corres ponding development in training teachers to use computers and emerging technologies as tea ching learning tools. The purposes of the study were three-fold: (a) to describe the current state of technology integration in Jamaica’s teacher training programs (b) assess the extent to which teachers’ college faculty and pre-service teachers perceived the mselves as prepared to teach with computers, as well as their perceived computer profic iency; and (c) to use data gathered in the study to inform an action plan for integrating technol ogy into Jamaica’s teacher training programs.

PAGE 12

ix To gather required data, a survey design was employed because the study required collection of data from a large number of persons located in diverse sections of the i sland. Data were collected from three distinct groups of participants in three teac hers’ colleges in Jamaica. These included six teachers’ college administrators--two pri ncipals and four vice-principals, 121 teachers’ college faculty, and 268 final-year pre-servic e teachers. Data were gathered through interviews with college administrators and IT fac ulty, questionnaires administered to college faculty and pre-service teachers and focus group discussions with pre-service teachers The results indicate that, in general, teacher training programs in Jamaica ha ve not systematically incorporated technology in the college curricula. In addition, to a l arge extent, teachers’ college faculty and pre-service teachers did not perce ive themselves as prepared to teach with computers. These respondents also reported low levels of proficiency with various computer tools. In response to the urgent need to integrate technology into Jamaica’s teachers’ college curricula, the author proposes a new VIBES conceptual framework as an action plan specifically designed to facilitate technology integration into this sett ing. VIBES is comprised of five components: Vision, Infrastructure, Behaviour, Experience, and Support, hence the acronym. Each component of VIBES is required in teacher training programs if technology is to be systematically incorporated into the college curri cula.

PAGE 13

1 Chapter 1 Introduction In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of computer s in schools both in the United States and other developed countries such as Canada and Great Britain, as well as in developing countries such as Jamaica. According to a release from the National Center for Educational Statistics (2002), a survey of public schools in the United States conducted between 1994 and 2001 revealed that the number of computers available in public schools has grown exponentially. Results of the survey indicate that approximately 99% of all public schools in the United States were c onnected to the Internet, an increase from 35 % in 1994. In addition, results from the survey indicate that there has been an improved student/instructional computer ratio and, in general, the ratio of students per computer has fallen from 12.1:1 in 1998 to 6.6:1 in 2000 to 5.4:1 in 2001. Despite these investments in computers and related technologies, there have been little corresponding changes to the way future teachers are being prepared to tea ch. The general findings from studies conducted in the United States show that future teache rs are not adequately prepared to integrate computers in their teaching (National Ce nter for

PAGE 14

2 Educational Statistics, 2000; Office of Technology Assessment Report, 1995; Swaminathan & Yelland, 2003). As in the case in the USA, in Jamaica, while educators, curriculum planners and policy makers have made a coherent case for the infusion of technology in education, teachers have been given little attention. According to Peart (1998), professor of Instructional Technology at the University of the West Indies, Jamaica, “Whil e the use of computer technology has been steadily gaining popularity …there has been little corresponding development in teacher education” (p. 195). If computers and related technologies are to be systematically integrated into the curriculum, t hen teachers must be equipped with knowledge and skills required to teach with computers. Over the last decade, and especially within the last five years, there has be en an increase in the number of computers and related technologies in Jamaican schools Organizations such as the Jamaica Computer Society Education Foundation (JCSEF) and the Human Employment and Resources Training (HEART) Trust in collaboration wi th the Ministry of Education and international funding agencies (e.g., World Bank, USAID) have embarked on a number of projects with the primary aim of ensuring that “by the year 2000, all graduates of Jamaican secondary schools, teachers’ colleges and community colleges will have access to technology-based education” (Crawford, 1999) In order to accomplish this aim, the JCSEF has installed a number of computer laboratories in schools across Jamaica. Other projects (e.g., Ed-Tech 20/20 Proj ect for Primary Schools) have placed computers in primary schools across the island. As a result of these projects, a large percentage of schools in Jamaica has equipped comput er

PAGE 15

3 laboratories. In addition, through The MultiCare Foundation, all teachers’ colle ges in Jamaica have computer laboratories. In addition to equipping schools and teachers’ colleges with computers, project directors have proposed that staff development opportunities have been offered to teachers’ college faculty “so that new teachers being trained to enter the s ystem will already be versed in the use of technology when they begin to work in the classroom” (Crawford, 2001). Despite these developments, however, according to Avril Crawford, Executive Director of the JCSEF (1999), studies indicate that, “teachers and i ndeed lecturers in teachers’ colleges are lagging behind in know-how as it relates t o the use of the technology” (p. 9). A 1996 survey conducted by the JCSEF also indicates that, in many instances, some of the laboratories that were donated to teachers’ co lleges were not being utilized by faculty and pre-service teachers (Crawford, 1999). One of the factor s accounting for this under-utilization of the computers is that teachers who ha d received training left the classroom for more lucrative jobs in the private sector. A nother factor is that teachers graduating from teachers’ colleges were not equipped with knowledge and skills required to use these computers as teaching tools. As a result, computer labs have become an artifact and the potential benefits of using computers as learning tools have not been realized. In Jamaica, recently revised national curriculum documents have stressed the need to infuse technology into teaching. Computers and emerging technologies should be integrated into the curriculum for a number of reasons. Firstly, we are livi ng in a society in which technology plays a significant role in everything we do; therefore, for students to function in the 21 st Century society, they must be equipped with relevant 21 st Century

PAGE 16

4 skills. Secondly, the business community requires that prospective employees be technologically literate; therefore, as part of the education process, stud ents should be equipped with these skills. Finally, integrating technology into the education system i s especially significant for Jamaica and other developing countries. If students a re to compete on a global scale with their counterparts in developed nations, being technologically literate is essential. Overview of the Teacher Preparation System in Jamaica’s Teachers’ Colle ges The teacher training system in Jamaica may best be defined as a dual system where teachers may be trained at either the teachers’ college level or the university level. Both systems differ primarily in terms of entry level requirements--candid ates who attend teachers’ colleges are usually graduates of high schools at grade 11. Those who attend universities, on the other hand, may either be trained teachers who attend one of the universities for re-certification or enter the university directly wit h their sixth form (Grade 13) qualifications. For the purposes of this study, the focus was on pre-service teachers who were currently attending teachers’ college for certifica tion to teach at the early childhood, primary (elementary) or secondary (including grades 7-11) levels. There are six teachers’ colleges in Jamaica offering four types of programs to pre service teachers. To be eligible for admission to one of these programs, prospect ive students are required to have successfully completed five years of high school and earn passing grades (grades 1-3) in at least four subjects on external examinations administered by the Caribbean Examination Council (CXC)-a regional examination for

PAGE 17

5 countries in the English-speaking Caribbean. At the teachers’ colleges, stude nts can choose to pursue one of four programs: special education, early childhood education; primary (elementary) education; or secondary education. Recently, different coll eges have been designated to provide specialized training in different program areas. Despi te differences in programs, however, students are required to complete the same cor e (education) courses, including a 45-hour Introduction to Educational Technology course. Recently revised policies have resulted in the introduction of two 45-hour courses tha t now include Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). To be awarded a diploma in teaching, pre-service teachers in Jamaica’s teac hers’ colleges are required to complete a three-year program of course work an d varying amounts of field experience. These field experience activities include ear ly field experience which is comprised of microteaching and observation during the first two years of the program followed by a three-month extended teaching practice (internshi p) in a kindergarten, primary or secondary (7-11) school. After successfully completi ng their teaching practice, pre-service teachers become eligible for gradua tion in preparation for the world of work. Graduates of teachers’ colleges make up over 78% of the total number of teachers employed in the Jamaican school system. Therefore, providing this population with the knowledge and skills required to integrate computers in their te aching can have a significant impact on how Jamaica’s students are prepared for life in the 21 st Century. There has been a significant amount of research done in the area of integrating technology into teacher training programs in the United States; however, this is a n area that is yet to be explored in the Jamaican setting. The present study examined te acher

PAGE 18

6 training programs in teachers colleges in Jamaica and provided a description of the state of technology integration in these programs. The IT 3 P is a conceptual framework synthesized from the literature on technology and teacher training. It was designed to be used as the conceptual base for this investigation. Overview of the Integrating Technology into Teacher Training Programs (IT 3 P) Framework Finding the most effective and efficient ways of preparing teachers to teach wit h computers is not unique to the Jamaica teacher training situation. An examination of research studies and reports on technology and teacher training, done primarily in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Australia, show that there are so me factors essential to facilitating technology integration. These include the presence of a technology plan (Kimble, 1999; RAND Report, 1995), opportunities for staff development (Jacobsen & Lock, 2004; Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), 1995; Parker, 1997; Sprague et al., 1994), access to resources and infrastructure (Bul lock, 2004; David, 1994, Parker, 1997; Surry, 2001), technical and administrative support (Mackenzie et al., 1996; Munday, 1991; OTA, 1995), modeling of computer use by faculty (Barron & Goldman, 1994; Munday, 1991), as well as display a positive attitude towards computers Mutaz, 2000; Parker, 1997; Shafer, 1997), and training and field experience for pre-service teachers (Bullock, 2004; OTA, 1995; Wetzel & Strudl er, 2002). These factors have been incorporated into a conceptual framework designed to

PAGE 19

7 describe the state of technology integration into Jamaica’s training program s (see Figure 1). A detailed description of this framework is included in chapter 2 of the study. Integrating Technology into Teacher Training Programs (IT 3 P) Framework Figure 1: Diagrammatic Representation of the IT3P framework The IT 3 P is generic and proposes factors that should be in place in colleges of education and practicum settings to ensure pre-service teachers are provi ded with experiences required to integrate technology in their classes. Factors defined a s prerequisite factors are necessary and should be in place to enhance technology integration. Process factors are those that occur while faculty and pre-ser vice teachers interact at the college level. The factors are further divided into two groups : pre-requisite factors and process factors. The IT 3 P is comprised of eight factors--(a) technology plan, Technology Integration in Teacher Training Programs Modelling Positive Attitude Training Field Experience/ Practice Policy/ Plan Staff Development Resources/ Access/ Infrastructure SupportTechnical & Administrative Prerequisite Factors Process Factors Faculty Pre-service Teachers

PAGE 20

8 (b) staff development, (c) access to infrastructure and resources, (d) techni cal and administrative support, (e) modeling of computer use, (f) positive attitude towards computers, (g) training, and (h) field experience. While each factor can be viewe d as an individual entity, to ensure teachers are prepared to teach with technological t ools, there must be an interaction among all factors in this framework. In addition, for teachers to be equipped with knowledge and skills required to integrate technology in their teachi ng, all variables must exist even at a minimum. Its development was influenced by the works of Kortecamp and Croninger (1996); McKenzie, Kirby and Mims (1996); Schmidt (1998); and most significantly, by Surry’s (2001) RIPPLES model. Further, other areas of research that informed t he development of this conceptual framework include: a) Barriers to integrating technology adoption in teacher training programs (Barr on & Goldman, 1994; Cuban, 1998; David, 1994; Parker, 1997; Rosenthal, 1999; Sudzina, 1993). b) Factors that will facilitate technology adoption in colleges of education (Da sher, 1997; Kimble, 1999; Mann & Shafer, 1997; Munday, 1991; Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) Report, 1995; RAND Report, 1995; Sprague, Kopfman, & de Levante Dorsey, 1998). c) Effective teacher training programs (Bowman Alden, 1989). d) Approaches to integrating technology into teacher training programs (Gillingham & Topper, 1999).

PAGE 21

9 The first prerequisite factor, technology plan, refers to a document that outlines the strategies for incorporating technology into teacher training programs. In addit ion to the presence of a technology plan in teachers’ colleges, there must be opportunities for staff development to equip teachers’ college faculty with knowledge and skills r equired to use computers to enhance their practice. Similarly, both faculty and pre-service teachers must have access to resources and infrastructure required to fac ilitate technology integration. There should also be support-both technical and administrative-to fac ilitate technology integration. Technical support refers to the availability at leas t one faculty member who is knowledgeable in both technology and pedagogy to provide colleagues with assistance as they try to incorporate computers in their lessons. In a ddition, there should be support staff within each college to maintain and update computers and other technological devices as these become necessary. Administrative support, on the other hand, alludes to support from administration in terms of encouragement and releas e time for faculty for professional development. The IT 3 P includes four process factors: modelling, positive attitude, training for pre-service teachers in the use of computers, and practice using computers during th eir college experience and during their field experience. Faculty should model computer use to their students as a way of vicariously exposing pre-service teachers to ways in which computers can be integrated into specific content areas. In addition, research s uggests that faculty should model positive attitudes towards computers as this will, in tur n, influence pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards computers (Dasher, 1997; Sprague et a l., 1998). If technology is to be integrated in the teachers’ college curriculum, pre-se rvice teachers must be taught how to teach with technology--therefore, training is essential. Simi larly,

PAGE 22

10 pre-service teachers must be provided with opportunities for practice as ongoing prac tice builds their confidence in technology use. The outcome of the interaction between prerequisite factors and process factors is the integration of technology in the college curriculum. The IT 3 P provides a framework that can be used to describe and assess the state of technology integration in teacher training programs and provide practitioners with guidelines regarding how to integrate technology in teacher training programs. It is comprised of characteristics or features that can be studied and used as the ba sis for future research. Different stakeholders in the education system influence and are affected b y the model at different levels. Stakeholders include curriculum decision and policy ma kers, administrators of colleges of education, faculty, pre-service teachers, a nd more indirectly, students and the business community--the consumers of products of the education system. Each group, in some way, impacts or is influenced by what happens in teacher training programs; obviously, some more directly than others. However, this does not diminish the role others play. The issue of stakeholders will be revisited in subse quent sections of the discourse and addressed as their roles relate to specific asp ects of the model. Purpose of the Study The purposes of the study were three-fold: (a) to provide a description of the current state of technology integration in teacher training programs in Jamai ca and to assess the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are evident in these

PAGE 23

11 programs; (b) to assess the extent to which teachers’ college faculty and pr e-service teachers perceive themselves as prepared to teach with computers, as wel l as their perceived computer proficiency; and (c) to use data gathered in the study to inform an action plan for integrating technology into teacher training programs in Jamaica. Research Questions The following four research questions were used in the study: 1. To what extent are components of the IT 3 P evident in teacher training programs in Jamaica? a. What are administrators’ perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are present in teacher training programs? b. What are faculty’s perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are evident in teacher training programs? c. What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are present in teacher training programs? d. Are there differences, across colleges, in the perceptions of (a) teachers’ college faculty and (b) pre-service teachers regarding evidence of components of the IT 3 P framework in their teacher training programs? 2. To what extent are teachers’ college faculty in Jamaica prepared to integ rate computers in their teaching?

PAGE 24

12 a. What are faculty’s perceptions of the extent to which they are prepared to integrate computers in their classes? b. What are faculty’s perceptions of their levels of proficiency with computer productivity, communication and research tools? c. Are there differences across colleges in faculty’s perceptions of thei r preparation to teach with computers? 3. To what extent are Jamaica’s pre-service teachers prepared to teach with computers? a. What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the training they received during their college program prepared them to integrate computers in their teaching? b. What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their levels of proficie ncy with computer productivity, communication and research tools? c. Are there differences across colleges in pre-service teachers’ per ceptions of their preparation to teach with computers? 4. What do study participants propose as specific factors required to facilitat e technology integration into Jamaica’s teacher training programs? Operational Definition of Terms Pre-service Teachers : Teachers currently enrolled in teacher training programs which lead to teacher certification. These individuals may have had some teaching exper ience, but the majority of them have not spent time in the real classroom setting.

PAGE 25

13 Technology: Within the classroom setting, technology can embody a wide range of audio visual and other instructional tools used to augment instruction. Within the context of this study, technology is limited to computers and related technologies such as the Internet Technology Integration: Computers used as instructional tools to facilitate the development of knowledge and skills acquisition, for communication, productivity and research. Technology Productivity Tools: Computers used to facilitate learning, enhance and promote productivity, and to develop creativity and problem solving skills. These include word processing, web publishing, spreadsheets, databases, presentation software and programming software. Technology Communications Tools: Computers used to facilitate communication and collaboration with peers and other audiences separated in time and place. Technology Research Tools: Computers used to gather data and information from multiple electronic sources. Significance of the Study In recent times, there has been a significant increase in the teacher turn -over rate in Jamaica. Trained teachers have been lured to more lucrative opportunities f or employment in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. As a result, there a re

PAGE 26

14 always vacancies for trained teachers in many schools across the island. Effort s at preparing in-service teachers to integrate computers in their class es are usually in the form of ad hoc workshops conducted intermittently and only with selected schools. Each year, approximately 850 teachers graduate from the six teachers’ colleges across the country; this is an ideal setting where a large number of persons ca n be reached within an organized setting and be taught how computers can be integrated in their teaching. This study is significant for two primary reasons: (a) the Joint Board of Tea cher Education (JBTE), the body that certifies teachers in Jamaica, is currently r evising the existing Instructional Technology curriculum in teachers’ colleges in Jamaica Findings from this study may be used to inform these revisions, and (b) this is the first study of this nature to be conducted in Jamaica and results can provide curriculum policy makers w ith a description of the current state of technology integration in teacher training progra ms. In addition, since a conceptual framework was developed from data gathered in the study, curriculum policy makers can be provided with an action plan for ensuring technology becomes incorporated in the college curriculum. The implementation of a technology integration action plan will have long-term effects in determining the extent to which Jamaican teachers, and indirectly students, will be equipped with knowledge and skill s that will enable them to function effectively in the 21 st Century as well as compete on the global market.

PAGE 27

15 Limitations One of the purposes of this study was to gather data regarding participants’ computer proficiency. Since some study participants may have received computer training on the ir own prior to or during their college experience, this may influence their percep tions of computer proficiency and in effect, the outcome of the study. In addition, study data were primarily based on perceptions of study participants. Despite the fact that multiple sources of data gathering methods were used t o corroborate findings, there is an inherent weakness in using individual perspectives of participant s as they may under or overestimate perceptions of themselves. Another limitation of this study is that pre-service teachers included in t his study participated prior to their extended teaching practice experience (intern ship). Therefore, data were gathered prior to an extended amount of practice in the real class room setting. Perceptions may have been different if data were gathered after their exte nded practice teaching activity as they would have had additional experience during their internshi p. Delimitations The present study was conducted with pre-service teachers enrolled in teacher s’ colleges in Jamaica. Therefore, findings from the study are not generalizable to o ther populations such as teachers who receive their training outside of the teachers’ college system or to in-service teachers. In addition, since the study was conducted in Jamaica findings may not be generalizable to other settings outside this context.

PAGE 28

16 Similarly, only three teachers’ colleges were used in this study. While the se colleges, in some way, comprise features which should also be evident in other co lleges, each college will have features and situations unique to those institutions. Theref ore, findings may be limited to those colleges used in the study.

PAGE 29

17 Chapter 2 Review of Related Literature This chapter presents a synthesis of the literature on technology and teacher training. It includes a review of research studies and reports conducted in place s such as the United States of America (USA), Great Britain and Australia; however works done in the USA dominate this review. This area is still unexplored in the Jamaic an setting, therefore, little have been written about what currently exists in this set ting. This review addresses ten broad areas--the first section presents an overview of techn ology and teacher training, in the second section a theoretical framework is establi shed and includes discussion of social learning theory and diffusion theory. The subsequent sections examine (a) barriers to technology integration in the classroom as well as i n teacher training programs; (b) factors that will facilitate technology integration; (c) effective training programs; (d) models for integrating technology into pre-service teacher training; (e) approaches to integrating technology into teacher education programs; (f) common threads across model are explored; (g) conditions that facilitate implem entation of educational technology innovations; and (h) recommendations for integrating technology in teacher education programs.

PAGE 30

18 Overview of Technology and Teacher Training Classrooms are becoming increasingly technological with computers in many classrooms across the United States. An examination of the Jamaican context s hows that a similar situation also exists in Jamaican schools (Crawford, 2001). Teachers ha ve access to machines that some believe will revolutionize the way we teach and enhance the amount of learning that takes place in schools. The proliferation of these devices ha s complicated the teaching-learning process and finding the best ways of integrating technology into classroom practices is one of the challenges the 21 st Century teacher faces. The advent of the 21 st Century has also significantly changed the roles of classroom teachers--their new function now includes preparing students to live in a world where technology plays a significant part in everything we do; the way we communica te, access information and life in general. Since technology plays such a pervasive rol e in the society in which we live, it is incumbent on educators to prepare students to functi on in an increasingly technological world (Kimble, 1999). A report from the National Advisory Committee on Training and Employment (NACTE, 1997) corroborates this view. It states: “The business world demands that our schools prepare educated workers who can use technology effectively in the global marketplace… technology is a central element of educational reform and student learning” (p. 3). It is incumbent upon schools, therefore, to equip students with knowledge and skills required to function effectively in the society in which they li ve. Despite the proliferation of computers in schools, however, and the obvious need to prepare a technologically literate populace, computers in schools are either

PAGE 31

19 underutilized or misused (Cuban, 1993; 1998). In instances where computers are used, they are being used in what Cuban (1993) describes as “unimaginative” ways: writing term papers, writing tests and for tutorials and drill and practice (Abdal-Ha qq, 1995; Jost, 1995; Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), 1995). The full potential of modern technological devices are not fully explored and utilized in ways that will be benef icial to students. M. Grabe and C. Grabe (2001) propose that technology, when used in the classroom, should facilitate meaningful learning in an environment that “engages t he thinking, decision making, problem solving and reasoning behaviors of students” (p. 10). These, they believe, are cognitive behaviors (italics added) that children need to learn in an Information Age. If technology is to be integrated into the classroom and play a significant role in educational reform, teachers need to be prepared to use emerging technological d evices, including computers, in ways that will facilitate teaching and learning. Des pite the numerous plans to use technology in schools, however, teachers--the catalyst for educational reform, have received little training in this area in their te acher education programs (Vrasidas & McIsaac, 2001). Teacher preparation programs need to play a more proactive role in preparing new teachers to teach in technology-rich clas srooms, or in the very least, classrooms where teachers and students have access to co mputers. According to Gillingham and Topper (1999) teacher education administrators and faculty face the challenge of preparing future teachers for a classroom where technology pl ays a ubiquitous role. If we are of the opinion that teachers are the primary agents of change then teacher education programs must be reformed so that prospective teachers c an be better prepared to integrate various technologies in their teaching (Vrasidas & McIsaac,

PAGE 32

20 2001). Other scholars interested in integrating technology in teacher preparation programs share this sentiment (e.g., Brownell, 1997; Fisher, 1997; Parker, 1997; Schmidt, 1998). Technology should be integrated in teacher preparation programs so that students can see technology in use. This will in turn influence the way they use technology when they become in-field teachers. The task of preparing teachers to use technology in thei r classroom practices should not be relegated to their post-college experien ces, it has to begin with the training they receive in their college experience. “Better prepari ng teachers is not a challenge that begins with teachers already in the class room; it begins earlier” (The CEO ForumSchool Technology and Readiness Report, 1999). Results of research on the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs i n preparing future teachers to integrate technology in their classes paint a blea k picture. The findings indicate that, in general, graduates of teacher preparation programs are not prepared to integrate technology in their classes (International Society for Tec hnology in Education (ISTE), 1999; National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000; NCAT E, 1997; OTA, 1995). The National Center for Education Statistics (2000) in a report entitl ed, Teachers’ Tools for the 21 st Century: A Report on Teachers’ use of Technology used the Fast Response Survey System (1999) to conduct a survey with public school teachers to ascertain their use of computers and the Internet. Results from the survey i ndicate that only 10% of teachers surveyed felt “very-well prepared” to use technology in the classroom; another 23% reported feeling “well-prepared”; about 53% feeling “somew hat prepared” and 13% felt “not at all prepared” to use technology in their classes This indicates that less than 50% of the teachers surveyed felt “well-prepare d” to use computers in their teaching.

PAGE 33

21 In 1999, The Milken Exchange on Education Technology commissioned ISTE to survey teacher preparation institutions to ascertain the status of technolog y education in teacher training programs across the United States. The report entitled, Will New Teachers be Prepared to Teach in a Digital Age? concluded, based on responses from 416 teacher preparation institutions (representative of 90,000 graduate per year) that “…in general, teacher-training programs do not provide future teachers with the kin ds of experiences necessary to prepare them to use technology effectively in their cl assrooms” (p.2). Other studies and reports (e.g., Barron & Goldman, 1994; Campoy, 1992; Fisher, 1997; Howland & Wedman, 2004; Swaminathan & Yelland, 2003; Wetzel, 1994) corroborate the view that teachers are not being adequately prepared to use tec hnology in the classroom. Willis and Mehlinger (1996), synthesized the literature on technology in teacher education. From the studies reviewed, they concluded: “Most pre-service teachers know very little about effective use of technology in education … teacher education, particularly pre-service, is not preparing educators to work in a technology-enric hed classroom” (p. 978). They also found that despite the fact that many pre-service tea chers were exposed to instructional technology (IT) coursework, it was not linked to pedagogy or their field experiences. As a result, teachers were unable to make the connec tion between what they had learned in theory and its practical applications in rea l classroom situations. It is no denying then that there is a relationship between educational reform and technology. It can also be further stated that teacher training is critica l; teachers must feel prepared to use technology if they are to use it in their classes with their stude nts.

PAGE 34

22 Brownell and Brownell (1991) note that, “The possibility exists that new teachers, adequately prepared, can act as change agents and accelerate the process of meeting students’ needs for the Information Age” ( p. 147). The report from the National Center for Education Statistics (2000) posits a relationship between level of prepar edness and technology use. Results of the survey indicate that teachers who felt prepared wer e more likely to integrate technology in the classroom than those who felt unprepared. Teacher s play a significant role in determining whether technology is used and the extent to w hich technology will result in educational reform. Therefore, it is imperative that teacher education programs adequately prepa re new teachers with skills necessary to integrate technology in their class es. Pre-service teachers must be taught with technology as well as exposed to ways in which technology can be used in their classes if technology is to reform the education process (AbdalHaqq, 1995; Brownell, 1997; Fisher, 1997; Howland & Wedman, 2004; Parker, 1997; Pope, Hare & Howard, 2002; Schmidt, 1998; Shenouda & Johnson, 1995). Theoretical Framework Before examining the issues that directly relate to adoption and diffusion of educational technology innovations, it is imperative that a theoretical frame work be established. Two different theories will be discussed in this section ; Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977) specifically as it relates to modeling and self -efficacy and diffusion theory. Two diffusion theories will be examined: (a) Instructional Technology Diffusion theory (Surry, 1997; Surry & Farquhar, 1997) and (b) Innovation

PAGE 35

23 Decision Process Theory (Rogers, 1995). These theories establish a relationship be tween knowledge of these theories and their impact on the adoption and diffusion of technological innovations in teacher education programs. Social Learning Theory The major tenet of the social learning theory is that the social context pl ays a significant role in a learning situation. According to this theory, much of the lea rning that takes place happens vicariously, that is, through observing the behaviors of others. It also emphasizes the importance of modeling and imitation in learning. Learning via this mode is not restricted to the acquisition of new behaviors, but attitudes and emotions are also learned. Bandura (1977) cited online (http://tip.psychology.org/bandura.html) states : Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally though modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed and on later occasions this coded behavior serves as guide for action (p. 22). The theory also postulates that behaviors are more likely to be modeled if the observer perceives it as valuable and if the model is someone held in high esteem Modeling can therefore be an efficient way of teaching new behaviors and determine s the extent to which new behaviors become incorporated into the repertoire of an individual ’s existing behaviors. Modeling also impacts the frequency of new behaviors learned through observation. The social learning theory has a number of implications for education. If we were to agree that students learn by observing, then it is important that the teacher models appropriate behaviors, in this case, technology use.

PAGE 36

24 Another dimension of the social learning theory, the construct self-efficacy is closely related to the notion of self-confidence. The primary principle underlying sel fefficacy is that individuals are more likely to engage in behaviors when they feel confident they can accomplish the task; this means the individual has high selfefficacy. If there is a relationship between feeling competent and the probability of succes sfully accomplishing a task, this speaks volumes to the issue of preparing persons to partic ipate in tasks they will be required to accomplish. This usually means providing them wi th the knowledge and skills required to perform the task. Thus teachers with high self-ef ficacy are more likely to use technology in their classrooms (Sprague, Kopfman & de Levante Dorsey, 1998). Diffusion Theory Instructional Technology Diffusion Theory. The field of Instructional Technology (IT) is undoubtedly one that hinges on innovations and the extent to which they are adopted. In fact, Surry (1997) describes the field as an innovation-based discipline (italics added). Instructional technologists are concerned with novel ways of delivering content to enhance learning and also developing new products and packages that will positivel y impact learning. As a result, it is important that instructional technologis ts be concerned with issues that influence adoption, diffusion and implementation of educational technology innovations. This knowledge will provide a broader perspective of the reason innovations are underused or misused and why practice does not always reflect the potentials of changing technologies.

PAGE 37

25 Surry (1997) and Surry and Farquhar (1997) believe that diffusion theories can be applied to instructional technology at both the macro and micro levels. When applied at the macro level, instructional technology is used to reform an entire organizationSystemic Change Theories. When applied at the micro level, on the other hand, the focus is usually on applying diffusion theories to ensure that particular products are util izedProduct Utilization Theories. These two categories are divided into the Deter minist and Instrumentalist theories. Determinists believe that technology is the sou rce of social change. Little attention is paid to the person(s) who will be using the innovation; c hange will occur by simply putting technological devices in schools. Unfortunately, this shortsighted approach is the one taken by educational policy makers; as a result, technology in schools is often not effectively used. Determinists also focus on the development of products that will bring about change. Change is a complex process that results from an interaction of many factors. Therefore, developing innovative product s will not automatically result in educational reform. The Instrumentalist theory takes a different approach to educational change. Its primary focus is the “human and interpersonal aspects of innovation diffusion”. The persons who will be using the innovation play a significant role and are viewed as “the primary force for change” (Surry, 1997). Therefore, the extent to which an innovation becomes adopted is dependent on how individuals within the organization perceive its impact on the organization and on their lives. Adopter based theories emphasize the social context in which the innovation will be used. Factors unrelated to the technology itself also determine whether it becomes adopted or rejected. Surry and Farquhar (1997) cite three major reasons diffusion theories may be significant in the field of instructional

PAGE 38

26 technology-first, it may give instructional technologists some of the reasons thei r products have not been used in classes. If instructional technologists understand the interrelationships of the myriad factors that influence adoption, then steps can be taken to overcome these potential barriers. Secondly, the authors view instructional tec hnology as an “innovation-based discipline” in that instructional technologists are always produci ng new products and ways of teaching that will require educational reform. Finally, dif fusion theory could lead to the “development of a systematic, prescriptive model of adoption and diffusion” which may define the field in ways similar to Instructional Desi gn models. Therefore, knowledge of innovation diffusion theories can provide instructional technologists with invaluable information regarding reasons innovations do not become adopted. This knowledge can provide them with information needed to proactively plan measures to put in place to facilitate technology use. Innovation Decision Process Theory. Rogers (1995) developed one of the most influential innovation diffusion theories. He defines diffusion as “the process by whic h an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system.” (p. 5). He further sees diffusion as “a kind of social change ” which involves restructuring the social system of an organization. The extent to which an innovation becomes adopted relies on the type of communication that occurs in the innovation diffusion stage. According to Rogers, an innovation is “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (p. 11). The Innovation Decision Process Theory defines a series of stages in the innovation decision process which starts with hearing about the innovation to deciding whether it actually becomes implemented in the organization. The stages are : knowledge,

PAGE 39

27 persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation. In the first stage, knowledge, members of the organization become aware of the innovation and its potential benefi ts to the organization or the system in which it will be implemented. The persuasion st age involves making a judgment about the innovation, while the decision stage includes making a choice to accept or reject the innovation. In the implementation stage, t he innovation is used in the organization. Finally, after the decision to adopt the innovation has been made, there needs to be confirmation in the form of reinforcement. The innovation diffusion process is influenced by a number of factors. These include communication, time, the characteristics of the innovation and the soci al system and climate that exists. The rate at which an innovation becomes adopted depends on a combination and interaction of these factors. If members of the organization reali ze the potential of the innovation to enhance their daily activities, adoption of the innovation is more likely to occur. Diffusion does not occur instantly, the diffusion process occurs over time. Therefore, allowing enough time for individuals to learn about the innovation is important as it can determine the rate at which the innovation is adopted. Barriers to Technology Integration Barriers to technology integration will be discussed under two separate headings: (1) reasons classroom teachers do not use technology in their classes, and (2) barrie rs to integrating technology in teacher education institutions. It is important that these be examined separately because these are two distinctly separate settings and though the barriers may be similar, they have different implications for each.

PAGE 40

28 A synthesis of the literature reveals some common barriers across s tudies namely: teacher attitude, access, lack of time, teaching experience, lack of practi ce using technology, teacher training, lack of technical support, and teacher beliefs about the role of technology. This section of the paper will examine each of these barriers individual ly. Barriers to Integrating Technology in Classrooms Teacher attitude. Rogers (1999) argued that barriers to technology integration can be the result of either internal or external sources. Internal sources in clude “teacher attitude” or “perception” about technology. Teachers’ attitude toward technology is a variable that determines the extent to which computers are used in classes a s this may lead to computer avoidance (Bohlin, 1999; Pettenati et al., 2001). Computer avoidance becomes manifest in two ways, “computer anxiety” and “computer attitude”. A pers on who experiences computer anxiety has a physical reaction to the computer and may experience higher levels of blood pressure and increases heart rate. On the othe r hand, the person who experiences “computer attitude” has a negative attitude to the compute r and may decide not to use it in the classroom (Bohlin, 1999). Teacher attitude toward technology can become manifest in one of two ways-teachers are either anxious about using the technology, or they do not realize the potenti al of the technology and as a result, do not see how using it in their classes will benefi t their students. Sprague et al. (1998), believe that one of the primary reasons teachers do not use technology in their classes is that they are unaware of technology’s potential t o enhance the teaching-learning process. If this barrier is to be overcome, it is imperative that teacher training institutions expose teachers in training to the valu e of technology so

PAGE 41

29 they can view it as something that will positively enhance their classroom a ctivities rather than regard it as a “threat” (RAND Report, 1995). Teachers also need to realize t he impact technology is having on their life and society in general; they must be exposed to the changing role of technology in communication, research and how it affects workplace practices. When teachers see the benefit of being technologically litera te and the impact it will have on student learning, they are more likely to adopt technology innovations. If teachers are to successfully use technology in their classes, they need an attitude that encourages them to be “fearless in the use of technology” (RAND Report, 1995). This new attitude is developed when teachers are sufficiently comfortable wi th the technology and knowledgeable on how to use it in their classes. Inadequate Access/ Inadequate hardware/ software. The barrier discussed in this section has been variously called lack of funds, inadequate hardware and software, and inadequate access to technology. Lack of funds to obtain the necessary hardware and software has been proposed by many scholars as one of the reasons teachers do not use technology in their classes (Mumtaz, 2000; NCATE Report, 1997; OTA, 1995; Ritchie & Rodriquez, 1996). The Office of Technology Assessment (1995) surveyed graduates of teacher education programs in the United States to determine how they were using technology as well as to ascertain whether training received had sufficient ly prepared them to use technology in their classes. The findings indicate that the most signific ant barrier to infusing technology in school was access to resourceshardware and sof tware. A report on teachers’ use of technology by the National Center for Education Statist ics (September, 2000) indicates a correlation between availability of computers a nd

PAGE 42

30 computer use. In general, teachers who had computers in their classes were more like ly to use them in instruction than teachers who did not; more than 50% of teachers who had computers in their schools used them for research and activities related to l esson preparation. A total of 78% of teachers surveyed cited limited access to com puters as a barrier to effectively using computers in their classes. Of this total, 38% t hought “not enough computers” was a “great barrier” to using technology in their classes. The is sue of not enough computers varied by school type and geographical area--secondary school teachers and teachers in large city schools were less likely to report la ck of computers as a barrier than elementary teachers in small schools and rural schools. There fore, access to hardware and software required for technology use is an issue that needs to be addr essed. Lack of time Studies that report lack of time as a factor that hinders technology integration in schools (e.g., Mumtaz, 2000; Rogers, 1999) propose this barrier becomes manifest in two ways: (a) release time and (b) scheduled time. Results of a st udy conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (2000) with in-service teachers revealed that 82% of the participants thought that lack of release time was the mos t significant factor that prevented them for using computers in their classes a s well as prepare materials for use with their classes. Teachers felt that, wit h their regularly scheduled classes, they did not have enough opportunities to practice using computers in their classes. Lack of time scheduled on the timetable to use computers with students is also a factor mentioned by teachers as a barrier to using computers in their classes. Approximately 80% of the teachers surveyed in the aforementioned study thought there

PAGE 43

31 was not enough time scheduled for students to use computers. Even though some of the teachers had a genuine need to use computers with their students, there was no tim e available to do it. In a review of the literature on reasons teachers do not use computers, Mumtaz, (2000) identified lack of time required to successfully integrate technol ogy into the curriculum as a recurring issue. Teaching experience. One of the factors that determines the extent to which teachers use computers in their classes is the number of years they have been te aching. Findings from the National Center for Education Statistics (2000) study reveal t hat teachers with fewer years of experience were more likely to use computers i n their classes than teachers with more years of experience. More specifically, t eachers with three years or less teaching experience reported using computers 48% of the t ime; teachers with 4-9 years, 45% of the time; those with 10-19 years, 47% of the time, while teachers with 20 years or more reportedly used computers only 33% of the time. Teacher s with fewer years teaching experience were also more likely to use the Inte rnet at home to conduct research than their counterparts. This may be due, in part, to the fact t hat new teachers have been experienced to computers during their training and therefore, have more experience using this tool. In addition, these teachers may use the Internet for other reasons such as communication with peers, personal reasons such as shopping and locating information and are therefore more proficient in using the tool for cla ss related research.

PAGE 44

32 Lack of practice using technology. Rosenthal (1999) cited inadequate preparation to use technology as one of the reasons teachers do not systematically use computers i n their classes. She believes teacher education programs fail to give tea chers practice using technology tools and as a result, they go into the field with limited knowledge regarding how technology can be integrated in their teaching. Teachers need to be given opportunities to practice using technology during their teacher raining programs so that they can see ways in which technology can be used to augment their classroom activities. Teacher training It has been proposed that lack of training is the most profound reason for the underutilization of technology in schools (Brownell, 1991; Cole, 1996). Cole (1996) suggested that despite the fact that some teachers may rece ive training on “how to use the hardware and software” much of the training should focus on how to use technology to enhance classroom activities. Training should provide teachers with ways of using technology in their field experiences or teaching practice. The report by the National Center for Education Statistics (2000) indicated that there was a s ignificant relationship between years of experience and the impact of training on ability to use computers. In general, 54% of participants reported that college work prepared them for using computers in their classes. However, this was higher among teachers with le ss than three years teaching experience and approximately. Pope, Hare and Howard (2002) in a study with twenty-six pre-service teachers found that exposure to methods of integrating technology into their teaching during methods classes at college, increased their confidence levels. In addition, thei r levels of

PAGE 45

33 confidence increased when their faculty modeled technology use in their clases. Fu llan (1993), suggested that training should not be one-shot workshops, but rather ongoing experiences so that learners can be kept up-to-date with ever-changing technologi es. Teachers need follow-up training sessions to ensure that they keep abreast with cu rrent technologies. Lack of technical support. The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Report (1997) identified lack of technical support as one of the major barriers that resulted in computers being underutilized in the classes Teachers did not want to use computers because they were not sure where to turn for help when something went wrong while using computers. The National Center for Educational Statistics (2000) survey found that 68 % of the teachers surveyed believed lack of support regarding ways of using technology in the class hindered technology use. The results also show a descriptive relationship between the significance attached to administrat ive support and years of teaching experience. More specifically, teachers with 10-19 year s of experience perceived lack of support to be a greater barrier to their use of technology than teachers with 20 or more years experience. The survey also found that teachers in schools with no technical coordinator were more likely to cite lack of technical support as a barrier to their use of technology than teachers in schools with a technical coor dinator. Sixty-four percent of the teachers surveyed identified lack of technical support or advice as a barrier to using technology in their classes. In a review of the literature on technology use, Mumtaz (2000) also identifies lack of on-site support for teachers using

PAGE 46

34 technology as one of the reasons given by teachers for not using technology in their classes. Teacher beliefs about the role of technology. Whenever there are new innovations, technology-related or otherwise, there has to be some degree of change in one’s behaviors and beliefs (Fullan, 1992). Teachers’ beliefs about technology can determine the extent to which it becomes integrated in the teaching-learni ng process. Ritchie and Rodriquez (1996) postulated that teachers may not fully understand the potential of emerging technologies to augment their teaching activities and this may, in part, account for why they do not use technology in their classes. Some teachers believe that having technology in the classroom will lead to disciplinary problems; others perceive the presence of computers and other technologies in their classes as “ threats”-that somehow these devices will replace them. As a result, they do not want technol ogical devices to be placed in their classes. Another factor that may hinder effective technology integration in the classroom relates to teachers’ concerns that technology in the classes will expose t heir students to inappropriate materials. Findings from the 2000 survey by the National Center for Education Statistics reveal that, although not high on the list of barriers, teacher s’ “concern about students’ access to inappropriate materials” was given by 59% of the participants as a barrier to using computers in their classes. It should be not ed, however, that only 13% perceived it to be a “great barrier” compared with 28% who thought it w as a “small barrier”. Teachers’ failure to see how technology can accentuate l earning and administration can severely hinder technology integration. Unless teachers see how

PAGE 47

35 technology will benefit them and their students, it is quite unlikely that it wi ll be used in the teaching-learning situation. Barriers to effectively integrating technology in the classroom are many and varied. If one is aware of these barriers, steps can be taken to minimize the ir effects, and thereby play a more facilitative role in the technology integration process. Barriers to Integrating Technology in Teacher Education Programs A review of the literature indicates that the barriers to integrating te chnology in teacher education institutions are similar to those in elementary and secon dary school classrooms. A number of studies have looked specifically at teacher education a nd the following factors have been identified as barriers to integrating technology in te acher education programs: (a) lack of equipment/inadequate access, (b) lack of time, (c) inadequate staff development/training, (d) lack of knowledge of the importance of technology, and (e) sociological factors. Lack of equipment/ Inadequate Access. Lack of equipment or inadequate access to technological devices has been reported as a factor that significantly impac ts the extent to which technological innovations are adopted in teacher education programs. Parke r (1997), in a study of 42 faculty members of the College of Education at the Louisiana Tech University (LTU), found that one of the reasons technology was not “systematically” integrated into teacher education programs was lack of equipment. Sudzina (1993) from a synthesis of the literature on trends in educational computing al so reports similar findings. She believes that the availability of hardware and software

PAGE 48

36 influences the extent to which technology is incorporated into teacher education programs. Lack of materials has always plagued teacher education programs (B ullock, 2004; Barron & Goldman, 1994; David, 1994) and as a result, colleges of education are sometimes among the last group to have access to the facilities that will expos e their students to technological innovations. Kortecamp and Croninger (1996) in a study with members of a teacher education program at the University of New England (UNE ) found that one of the major barriers to technology diffusion was the high cost of acquiring, maintaining and upgrading technology. This is especially significant as technologies change so often. There must be a source that will continually upgrade the technologies available if teacher preparation programs are to be on par with other organizations. If teacher s do not have access to hardware and software required, then preservice teachers wil l not be exposed to and given practice using technology. Lack of time. A number of studies found lack of time as a variable that hindered effective technology integration in teacher preparation programs (Parker, 1997; Sudzina 1993). Time is operationalized in terms of time to learn how to use the technology as w ell as time to prepare for technology use in the classroom. Barron and Goldman (1994), in a survey of 70 faculty members of teacher education programs, found that “lack of time to learn about the equipment and to prepare to use new materials in the class” was a significant barrier to technology integration. Faculty, especially those who are not accustomed to using technology, need time to experiment with and practice using technology as well as time to learn how to integrate technology in their classe s.

PAGE 49

37 Inadequate staff development/ training. Teacher educators have identified scarcity of opportunities for staff development as another barrier to technology use. Barron and Goldman (1994), in their study found that institutions that had a great number of persons using technology were more successful integrating technology in the curriculum than those that did not. Faculty of teacher education programs have not been provided opportunities for staff development and as a result, are unable to model technology use with their students. Before faculty of colleges of education programs are required t o integrate technology in their classroom practices, they have to be exposed to tec hnology. McKenzie et al. (1996) recommend that professors participate in staff developme nt activities so they can stay current with ever changing technologies. They need hands on experiences with the technology to see what it can do and how they can use it to facilita te their practices. Therefore, there is a need to train faculty who will in turn t rain pre-service teachers. Lack of knowledge of importance of technology One of the reasons technology is not successfully integrated in the curriculum of colleges of education is that some of these colleges have failed to realize the magnitude of the changes that technology is bringing to education. As a result, their pedagogies have not changed to reflect technological advancements (Rosenthal, 1999). Administrators and faculty of teache r preparation programs need to see the significant impact technology is having on the world in general. They should also realize that preparing a technologically litera te populace should be one of their primary goals. McKenzie et al. (1996) report one of the

PAGE 50

38 reasons technology was successfully integrated in a model at the West George C ollege was that teachers realized the importance of training students to survive i n a technological age. Sociological factors Cuban (1998) postulated that teachers’ underutilization of technology is not limited to the narrow view of lack of hardware and software, trainin g, time, etc. He proposed that chief among the factors related to underutilization i s “teachers’ beliefs about their authority and control of the students and what the teachers’ role is” (p.7). The school is a complex social system with prespecified power relationships-some teachers believe computers will change the social relationships that exist in classes. This, Cuban believes, accounts for a great part of why teachers do not use technology in their class as even in some cases where professors had access to te chnology and opportunities for training, technology was not used. Data gathered from studies with Stanford professors from 1980 to 1994 indicate that the growing presence of technology in schools did not correlate positively with technology use. In a 1994 survey with 750 undergraduate professors, Cuban (1998) found “Fifty-nine percent of the professors said that they never used a computer in the classroom; 19% said that they used the machines occasionally; and 8% said that they used the computers often” (p. 6). He also found that professors who cited “lack of time to develop relevant software for their course” did not take advantage of help available from consultants. Lack of technology adoption may be more a sociological factor than other reasons proposed. In a paper entitled Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins (1993), Cuban echoes this view. He states that the underutilization of technology may be attributable to “…dominant cultural beliefs a bout

PAGE 51

39 what teaching, learning, and proper knowledge are and how schools are organized for instruction” (p. 206). Educational change is a complex process which involves the interaction of many factors. This statement alludes to the fact that simply equipping schools wit h technological devices is necessary for, but not sufficient to facilitate tec hnology integration. There are many other sociological variables that should be take n into account as these have a direct influence on the rate of adoption. Factors that will Facilitate Technology Adoption Adoption of technological innovations is not an end in itself. However, adoption is a critical phase as prior to implementation, any innovation has to be adopted. If instructional technologists are cognizant of the factors that facilitate the adoption process, they will be one step ahead of the game. A number of factors critical to the a doption of technological innovations have been proposed. These include (a) training or staff development, (b) access to computers, (c) modelling computer use, (d) support and leadership, and (e) positive attitude and self-efficacy. Training/ staff development One of the key factors that facilitate technology integration in the classroom is training. If technology is to be integrated in c olleges of education and positively impact performance, there is a need for intensive and ongoing staff development (Kimble, 1999) The RAND report on teacher training (RAND, 1995) reiterates the need for ongoing training to ensure that teachers achieve a level of comfort

PAGE 52

40 with the technology. A statement made by one of the workshop participants effectively captures the need for going staff development“we need professional development in the school’s water supply”. Training should not be conducted in “one-size fits all” or one si ze workshops, but should be ongoing to facilitate changes in technology as well as to provide support for teachers using technology (Jacobsen & Lock, 2004; Sprague et al., 1998). The Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) project, cited in Kimble (1999) recommends “30% of available technology resources be dedicated to providing ongoing staff development for teachers who are implementing its use”. This will ens ure, or in the very least encourage teachers to continue using technology in their classes. Pett enati et al. (2000) suggested that teachers, “not only need to become proficient as users and acqui re new technical skills, but they also need to learn to use the technological means eff ectively as an educational tool” (p.2). Teacher training programs should also be futuristic i n training decisions. Technology is changing at a rapid pace; in order to keep abreast wit h ever changing technologies and the technological demands of the society, designers of teacher training programs must have a vision of how technology will be in the future and design programs that will cater to these needs (Dasher, 1997). Technology training should also be “hands-on” and practical. Simply telling teachers in training about t he technology will not prepare them to use it--they need to see technology in use as well as be provided opportunities to practice using it themselves. Training should not focus only on “computing skills” but on ways of integrating technology into classroom practices (OTA Report, 1995; Parker, 1997; Pettenati et al., 2000). The Milken Exchange on Education Technology study conducted by ISTE (1999) surveyed 416 teacher preparation institutions in the United States. The findings re vealed

PAGE 53

41 that teacher training institutions have to increase the amount of exposure te achers receive if they are to be prepared to use technology in their classrooms. It seems fit the n to reiterate here a statement made by Rosenthal (1999). She postulated that, teacher training programs should ensure future teachers can use technology to facilitate communicat ion, collaboration and develop their critical thinking and creative problem solving. The primary way to do this is through training. Kortecamp and Croninger (1996) report findings from a four-year study conducted at the University of New England with teacher education faculty. The findings indicate, “…careful planning combined with education and training are essential to garnering the support needed to bring about widespread and effective use of technology”. Time should be dedicated to training so that teachers ca n see how technology can be used in their classes (Cole, 1996; OTA Report, 1995). Access Access to technology is a necessary ingredient to integration of technology in teacher education programs (Bullock, 2004; David, 1994; Parker, 1997; Surry, 2001). If teachers do not have the hardware and software required, then technology use will be hindered. The report from the National Center for Education Statist ics (September, 2000) shows a relationship between frequency of use and the number of computers available. Teachers who had more computers available reported using th em more often that those who did not. The report further proposed that teachers who had access to computers and the Internet in classroom were more likely to use them to facilitate instruction than those who did not have adequate access to equipment a nd network connections. Teachers who had computers at home were also more likely to use

PAGE 54

42 computers in their classes than those who did not. There was also an association betwee n years of experience and computer use. Therefore, if teacher training programs ar e to effectively prepare pre-service teachers to use technology, access is cri tical. Modeling Modeling can provide a form of vicarious learning that can be quite powerful; through this medium, complex behaviors, attitudes and emotions can be learned. Methods of teaching displayed by teachers are usually reflective of the ways they were taught to teach during their teacher training (Barron & Goldman, 1994). If this is so, then this statement speaks volumes to the importance of modeling of technology use in teacher education programs. According to Munday (1991), the most effective way of integrating technology into teacher training programs is to incorporate it into the c ollege curriculum through modelling by college professors. Despite the fact that modeling seems to be so effective in teaching new behaviors, many teacher educators do not mode l technology use and as a result, pre-service teachers do not get an opportunity to see technology in use. A number of reasons have been proposed for the paucity of modeling in teacher preparation programs. Findings from the OTA survey (1995) indicate that ther e were generally low levels of technology use in colleges of education classrooms. Students are neither taught with technology or how to use technology to enhance instruction. The 1999 survey by ISTE found that over 70% of teacher training programs include some amount of instructional technology training. Many faculty members describe their technology facilities as “adequate”, however, the majori ty of these faculty

PAGE 55

43 believed that ways in which technology can be used to facilitate teaching were not “adequately” for the pre-service teachers that they teach. The importance of modelling computer use by college faculty is supported by the fact that the report indicated tha t institutions that had a high level of success integrating technology had 75-100 percent of faculty modeling technology use. Faculty do not use technology in their own research and teaching; as a result pre-service teachers have been denied role model who ha ve actively incorporated technology in the classes. Even if other faculty members do not use technology in their practice, it is imperative that faculty of teacher educatio n programs use technology in their classes. They should also use technology while conducting and supervising field experiences (OTA Report, 1995) so that pre-service teachers will be exposed to ways in which technology can be used to augment their practices. Bullock (2004) in a case study with two pre-service teachers aimed at highlighting their experiences as they used computers during their field experiences found a numbe r of factors that facilitated or hindered their technology integration. He found tha t preservice teachers use of technology was facilitated when, during their training, th ey were taught by faculty who used technology in their classes and encouraged pre-service teachers to do the same. Support and leadership The OTA Report (1995) on colleges of education found that institutions where technology was successfully integrated possessed cert ain key characteristics; these include strong instructional leadership, funding and support Support and leadership is critical and can significantly determine the extent to which technology becomes integrated in schools. Integration is facilitated in situations where

PAGE 56

44 the leadership body places great emphasis on technology use. Teachers need both technical and administrative support when they decide to use technology in their cla sses. Fullan (1992) believes that the role of the leader is crucial to the successf ul implementation of educational innovations. If leaders are cognizant of the benefits to be gained from using technology in the teaching learning process, then technology use in school is more likely (Munday, 1991). Mackenzie et al. (1996) found that training programs that were successful were those that provided follow-up training and support as participants continued using technology. The leader must embrace technology and rea lize the role that technology can play in the teaching-learning process. The leader shoul d also provide support and encouragement as members of the organization integrate technology in their practice. Positive attitude and self-efficacy. Faculty’s attitudes towards technology can determine whether technology will be used in the classroom. Teachers with posit ive attitudes are more likely to use technology than those with negative attitude s. Mann and Shafer (1997) in a survey of 4041 teachers found that there was a connection between “teachers’ enthusiasm, initiative and sense of improvements” and the success of technology integration. They also found that teachers who thought technology was able to contribute to school reform and their own work were more likely to integrate it in t heir classes. According to Sprague et al. (1998), teachers with high self-efficac y are more likely to use technology in their classes. Parker (1997) suggested that faculty attitude toward technology can influence preservice teachers’ attitude. Faculty’s attitude toward technology will be come manifest in

PAGE 57

45 the way they use technology in their classes. As was stated earlier, learn ing does not only occur through direct instruction, but according to social learning theory, via observati on as well. If teachers believe technology will enhance the way their students l earn, they are more likely to use it (OTA Report, 1995). It is important then that teachers are exposed to the ways in which technology is changing their lives and the lives of their students Teachers who possess a positive attitude towards information and communicati ons technology are more likely to use technology in their classrooms that those who do not (Mumtaz, 2000). Therefore, faculty need to display a positive attitude toward technology so that pre-service teachers can imitate this behavior. David (1994) proposes four “local conditions for effective technology use”. The figure below depicts the interrelationships between each of these factors. Thi s diagram effectively summarizes the factors that should be in place to facilita te technology adoption in teacher preparation programs. It should also be reiterated here that t he school is a social organization and the fact that these may be in place will not assure te chnology adoption. The social climate of the system, the people involved must be given due consideration in the reform process. Effective Training Programs Sally Bowman Alden, Executive Director of the Computer Learning Foundation (1989) identified five features that define effective teacher training programs. In recognition of the importance of teacher training to successful integration of te chnology

PAGE 58

46 in schools, in 1998, the foundation hosted a competition among teacher training programs to identify features that defined effective training programs. The following we re identified as necessary conditions: incentives and support for teacher traini ng, teacherdirected training, adequate access to technology, community partnerships and ongoing informal support and training. Incentives and support must exist for teachers who are participating in teacher training. At the college level, incentives may be in the form of college credits a t the end of a training program. Bowman Alden also found that programs that were “teacher-directed” that is, based on the needs identified by the teachers themselves, we re more successful than those that were “administrator-directed”. Training progra ms should be designed to address the needs of the participants and should expose teachers to wa ys in which technology can be utilized in their classes. Teacher training programs should a lso “emphasize hands-on experience” and provide teachers with an opportunity to experiment with technology. This can be one of the primary means through which proficiency is achieved. In tandem with access to training opportunities, teacher s must have access to computers in their classes; access correlates positiv ely with use (Bowman Alden, 1989). Programs that had the support of the community were also more effective. Community partnerships can be a source for accessing resources required, hardware software as well as human resources needed. Finally, effective programs wer e those that exposed their teachers to opportunities for continuous training to reflect the consta nt changes in emerging technologies. Ongoing training is needed to ensure continued technology use. Support can be in the form of collaboration among teachers as they

PAGE 59

47 experiment with technology. When teachers work together, they can share experiences and talk about problems and success encountered while using technology. Models for Integrating Technology into Pre-service Teacher Training A number of models for effectively integrating technology into pre-service teacher education programs have been proposed; some of them will be discussed here. Schmidt (1998) postulates that two approaches have been primarily used in pre-servic e teacher education programs -offering an undergraduate instructional technology course or integrating technology throughout all courses. Each of these approaches has its shar e of pro and cons. In the first approach, a complete instructional technology course is offered to preservice teachers as one of the courses in their program of study. This in itself c an be problematic and counter intuitive because technology classes are usually focused on teaching students about using technology at the expense of exposing them to practical ways of applying it in their classroom practices (Parker, 1997). Brownell (1997) argued that pre-service teachers need to understand what computers can do, what learne rs can do with computers and ways of using them in their classes. Findings from the ISTE survey commissioned by the Milken Exchange family Foundation (1999) show that simply implementing a single instructional technology course in teacher preparation programs is not usually very effective. Based on the findings of the study, researchers concluded that exposure to an independent Instructional Technology (IT) course does not does not equip pre-service teachers with skills re quired

PAGE 60

48 to integrate computers in their classes. In an article entitled Information Technology Underused in Teacher Education (September 2002) Bielefeldt proposed that while specific technology training is important, pre-service teachers who had been expos ed to technology throughout their teacher training programs had higher levels of technology shills than those that had been exposed to computer courses. Therefore, integrating technology across the entire teacher preparation programs seems a more viable option that requiring students to do a single instructional technol ogy course. This approach seems the one more likely to result in increased technology use by new teachers. One of the recommendations of ISTE (1999) in that for technology to be effectively incorporated into teacher preparation programs, pre-service t eachers should “complete a well-planned sequence of courses and/ or experiences that will hel p them understand and apply technology in education” (p. 23). Brownell (1997) suggested that technology should be integrated into methods courses and field experiences of all pre-service teachers. Kortecamp and Croninger (1996) proposed a model that was successfully implemented in a teacher education program at New England University (UNE). The model, designed to improve faculty’s skills so they could model technology use in their classes consisted of five components which the authors believe are interrela ted. Familiarization with hardware and software Partnering with mentors Developing personal projects Becoming mentors Keeping current

PAGE 61

49 The first phase of the model involves two steps. First faculty must become famil iar with hardware and software that currently exist. When they are sufficiently f amiliar with current technology, this is followed by aggressive professional development to equip them with the knowledge and skills necessary to use the technology that exists. The second phase, partnering with mentors, involves collaborating with other faculty members who are more experienced using technology. The main reason for doing this is so teachers get exposed to ways of using technology in their professional activit y as well as to provide ongoing support for faculty who are less familiar with technolog y. In the third stage, faculty are involved in designing projects that get their stude nts to use technology in meaningful ways. This stage also includes two basic activitie s: modeling technology use in their teaching activities, facilitating and placing students in technology-rich field practices where they provide skilled supervision. Finally, faculty members become mentors and guide their students in using technology. The final stage is especially important and technologies are constant ly in flux; therefore, keeping abreast with new technologies is critical if techno logy is to be effectively used in teaching. A systematic Design Model McKenzie et al. (1996) describe a model that used Gagne’s systematic design model as the basis for conceptualizing and developing a technology training program that was used at West George College to facilitate staff development. The mode l consists of three distinct stages:

PAGE 62

50 Stage 1: Planning -this phase involves doing a needs assessment to identify areas where training is needed. The target audience is also analyzed to ascertain the ir skills and knowledge so that the training program can effectively address these deficiencie s in their knowledge base. The needs assessment conducted by McKenzie et al. (1996) revealed that areas such as the Internet, word processing, PowerPoint, e-mail, multi media, desktop publishing and distance learning were identified as those needed by the participants Stage 2: Implementation phase --during this phase, the actual training takes place. Training is based on the needs identified in the previous stage. Stage 3: Evaluation -during the evaluation phase, the effectiveness of the training program is ascertained. The program was evaluated at the end of each training session where participants were required to respond to items using a five-point Likert Sc ale. Using the systematic design model to design the training program resulted in positive outcomes. The authors reported that the technology training program at West George College was quite effective. The evaluation revealed that “instructors ’ knowledge of the technology” ranked highest after exposure to the training program. Results of the study also indicated that reported they were more confident in using technology after exposure to the training program. RIPPLES Surry, (2001) developed a model for enhancing the incorporation of technology into teacher training programs. This model was designed from the result of a syste matic review of the existing literature as well as the results of responses to que stionnaires that were sent to deans of colleges of education. The model consists of seven elements:

PAGE 63

51 Resources, Infrastructure, People, Polices, Learning, Evaluation and Support, hence the acronym RIPPLES. Each of these elements will be examined in the subsequent section of the review. Resources --refer primarily to “fiscal” resources. Although not given extensive consideration in the existing literature on adoption and diffusion of technological innovations, the deans surveyed thought that access to financial resources must be give n consideration as this can determine if technology becomes incorporated in colleg es of education curriculum. Infrastructure-refers to hardware, software, network connections and other physical resources required for technology integration. Peoplethe third component of the model emphasizes the important role that people in the organization play. The beliefs, values and attitudes of people in the organization determine the extent to which an innovation becomes adopted and integrated in the activities of the organization. This stage of the model also emphasizes the importance of communication among stakeholders and involving all parties concerned in the decision making process. There is usually cooperative problem solving and decision making at this stage so that resistance will be minimized. Policies -there should always be a plan that outlines steps required and to be taken for adopting new technologies. The plan should also identify prospective sources for funding so that technological devices can be continuously upgraded and maintained. Learning -“Technology should not be seen as an end in itself” but as a means by which learning goals will be accomplished.

PAGE 64

52 Evaluationinvolves an assessment of four main things: (1) the impact of technology on learning, (2) evaluating technology itself, (3) developing an integration plan to identify factors that facilitate or hinder adoption and integration proc ess, and (4) return on investment (ROI) to determine correlation between project costs and bene fits to be gained from it. Supportthe final stage of the model reiterates the need for support as people use technology. There are four critical components of the support system: Training (formal and informal) Technical support Pedagogical support Administrative leadership Support, both technical and administrative, is critical for technology While this model has not been tested in actual classroom settings, the author maintains it is grounded in theory and therefore, should yield significant results It is important to reiterate here that education change is a complex process and the re sult of a combination and interaction of a number of factors. Having the necessary prerequisite factors in place will not guarantee successful adoption and implementation of educational technology innovations, but will facilitate the process.

PAGE 65

53 Synthesis of the Integrating Technology into Teacher Training Programs (IT 3 P) Framework The IT 3 P framework is based on a synthesis of the literature on technology and teacher training. It is divided into two parts: prerequisite factors and proce ss factors. Prerequisite factors pertain to features that should be in place in college s of education to facilitate technology integration. These include the presence of a technology plan/po licy; opportunities for staff development; access to resources required to facilitat e the integration process; and support, both technical and administrative. As was state d previously, different stakeholders impact and are influenced by the model at differ ent levels. At the prerequisite stage, the primary stakeholders include curric ulum decision and policy makers, college of education administrators and faculty, and the business community. The second section of the framework, process factors, presents factors that shoul d occur while students and faculty interact in an effort to integrate technol ogy in the teaching learning process. These factors are critical to ensure prospecti ve teachers are provided with experiences required to equip them with knowledge and skills needed to integrate technology in their teaching. These include modeling technology use, modeling a positive attitude towards technology, training, and providing pre-service teacher s with opportunities for practice through coursework activities as well as field experie nce. Each of these factors will be discussed in detail in the following section of the cha pter. Prerequisite factors are required before process factors can be manifes ted. The presence of these factors will facilitate technology use at the college level.

PAGE 66

54 The third factor, the outcome, results from the interaction between the prerequisite factors and process factors. This outcome is the integration of t echnology into teacher training programs. Prerequisite factors Technology Plan/Policy. The component of the IT 3 P framework, defined as technology plan is evident on two different levels: (1) in terms of a physical document or a policy that should exist in all colleges of education and (2) a plan for a needs assessment to determine where training is required. The technology plan--the physical document, should be the result of collaboration among all the primary stakeholders: curriculum policy makers, college administra tors, faculty and members of the community. Faculty should be involved at this stage of the decision-making process so that there will be a kind of shared vision which will in turn, reduce the amount of resistance that may occur if dissemination of the technology polic y is predominantly top-down. The technology plan should include a detailed physical document that outlines the goals of teacher training programs and how technology will be used to achieve these goals. The plan should also outline how technology will be procured, allocated and maintained (Kimble, 1999). The technology plan should also specify strategies for training faculty as well as how new staff will be em ployed and trained (Mehlinger & Powers, 2002). In the second instance, plan is used here in a similar way as is used by McKenzi e et al. (1996). They propose that during the planning phase, a needs assessment is done to determine pre-service teachers’ technology knowledge and skills to identify t he gap

PAGE 67

55 between what exists currently and what is required. The needs analysis gives policy makers an indication of where training is required and what skills should be trained. Ideally, this step should be conducted prior to the development of the technology policy discussed previously. Staff Development. Critical to the successful integration of technology in teacher training programs is the availability of opportunities for staff development. Howeve r, while providing faculty with staff development opportunities is required, this fe ature is insufficient in and of itself. For staff development to be effective, faculty must participate in these activities. One way of doing this is through providing faculty with incentives tha t will encourage them to participate in staff development activities. Staff development should not only provide faculty with technology skills and hands-on-experiences using technology, but also expose them to ways in which technology can be used to facilitate practice (McKenzie et al., 1996; Pette nati, Giuli, & Abou Kahled, 2001). It should also be ongoing to facilitate the ever changing nature of emerging technologies (Kimble, 1999; RAND Report, 1995). Sprague et al. (1998) propose that staff development activities should not be conducted in “one-size-fits all workshops” but should be customized to suit idiosyncrasies of different situations. Colleges of Education faculty also “ne ed individualized instruction to explore software appropriate to their content areas and need support as they begin to implement new teaching approaches” (ISTE 2000-2002, p.15). One of the most effective ways of ensuring faculty are equipped with skills required to integrate technology in their teaching is via one-to-one sessions where the

PAGE 68

56 individual needs to each participant can be addressed (Stewart, 1999). Mentoring ca n be a means of professional development. The mentoring process can expose faculty to both technical skills as well as provide them with knowledge of ways in which technology ca n be incorporated into their teaching. Howland and Wedman (2004) describe a professional development effort by one of the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to use Technology (PT3) program and found that to ensure future teachers use technology in their classes, it is essential t hat college faculty be equipped with required skills to pass these on to their students. To prepare tomorrow ’s teachers as technology users, faculty must be prepared to integrate computers in their teaching. Therefore, faculty must be provided with staff development so they will be equipped with knowledge and skills to enable them to use technology in their teaching. Access. If technology is to be integrated into the college of education curriculum, faculty and students must have adequate access to the latest technological devic es and required infrastructure. Access to resources is included as a prerequis ite factor because if there are outdated hardware and software and if faculty and students do not have acces s to resources, integration will be hindered. This factor has been variously termed access, resources or infrastructur e. While Surry (2001) makes a distinction between resources and infrastructure in his RIPP LES model, other scholars (e.g., Bullock, 2004; David, 1994; Parker, 1997) do not. Access, used here, will refer to the availability of hardware, software, telecomm unication networks and infrastructures. It is important that available technologies at colleges of

PAGE 69

57 education are on par with those available in the schools as well as the business community. To ensure colleges have adequate access to technology, community support is critical. Colleges of education should develop partnerships with the community as the y can be a potential source of funding to procure technological devices as well as to provide expertise. Access to current technologies should be provided to faculty and students both inside and outside the classroom. Support. The final element included as a prerequisite factor is support, defined both in terms of technical and administrative support. Technical support refers to ha ving a skilled expert available to assist faculty with technical issues whil e administrative support is somewhat less tangible. Administrative support can become manifest in the form of encouragement to use technology in teaching, release time to learn about technology and how to use it to augment instruction; regularly scheduled meetings so faculty can share experien ces regarding success and difficulties using technology as well as to get assista nce and encouragement from each. Support can also come in the form of training sessions to facilitate continued technology skills development and technology use (Kinslow, Newcombe, & Gross, 2002). Faculty should also be provided with technical support from an individual experienced in technology use as well as pedagogy. This person’s primary role is to provide faculty with assistance when they have difficulties using technology, but shou ld be available at all times to provide help when it is required.

PAGE 70

58 Support for technology use has to be ongoing even after faculty decide to use it in their classes. It is critical to ensure continued use of technology tools in t eaching. Process Factors Included in this section of the IT 3 P framework are factors that should occur as college of education faculty integrate technology in their teaching. These factors apply more directly to faculty and, to a lesser extent, to pre-service teachers. Ther efore, faculty should model technology use, model a positive attitude towards technology, provide students with knowledge and skills via training and ensure that they get practice us ing technology as teaching tools through coursework activities as well as during their fi eld experience. Modeling. According to Munday (1991) modelling computer use by faculty is one of the most significant ways of ensuring pre-service teachers are exposed t o ways in which computers can be incorporated in their teaching. When college of education faculty model technology use, pre-service teachers get an opportunity to see how technology can be used in the classroom (Stewart, 1999) as well as how it can be appl ied in content-specific disciplines (Stuhlmann, 1998; Thomas, Larson, Clift, & Levin, 1996) Therefore, faculty should know how to integrate technology in their classes so they can, in turn, show teachers-in-training how to use it in their classes. Positive Attitude Attitude towards technology can become manifest in two ways: (a) technology affinity, which indicates a positive attitude towards technology, or (b)

PAGE 71

59 technology aversion or a negative attitude towards technology. Faculty’s attit ude towards technology can determine the extent to which they use technology in their teaching. It also has an indirect impact on pre-service teachers’ attitude. Teachers who dis play an affinity towards technology are more likely to integrate it into their classes than those with an aversive attitude (Mann & Shafer, 1999). If technology is to be successfully incorporated into teacher training programs, faculty must have and demonstrate a positi ve attitude towards technology. Training. One way of ensuring pre-service teachers are provided with experiences necessary to integrate technology in their teaching is through training. The most t ypical way that has been adopted by colleges of education is by including an instructional technology course in the college curriculum. However, results of research indica te that requiring students to complete a single instructional technology course is not ef fective in equipping them with knowledge and skills necessary to use technology in their teaching (OTA, 1995; Stuhlmann, 1998; Thomas et al., 1996; Willis & Sujo de Montes, 2002). Training should not only focus on equipping preservice teachers with technology skills, but should also expose them to ways in which technology can be incorporated into specific content areas to enhance learning (Bielefeldt, 2001; Thomas, et al., 1996) Field Experience/Practice. In tandem with exposing pre-service teachers to opportunities for training to equip them with knowledge and skills required to incorp orate technology in their teaching, pre-service teachers should be provided with opportunities to see technology in use in actual classroom settings, as well as practice w hat they have

PAGE 72

60 been taught. This practice can become manifest in the form of coursework, or by practicing with their peers, in contrived classroom settings. The most ideal way of ensuring pre-service teachers get practice using technology is through a combina tion of completing content-specific coursework as well as practice in actual cla ssrooms. Faculty should ensure pre-service teachers are provided with opportunities to prepare te chnologybased lessons which require them to practice using technology as teaching tools in th e classroom (Thomas et al., 1996). According to an ISTE document entitled “Essential Conditions for Teacher Preparation” (2000-2002), “Prospective teachers must experience and observe effe ctive uses of technology in their general education and major coursework…coursework must consistently model exemplary pedagogy that integrate the use of technology for learn ing content with methods for working with PK-12 students”. During field experience, college of education candidates should be provided with opportunities to see technology in use, preferably under the supervision of technology using supervisors. Field experience can also provide a means of instilling in pre-service teachers that technology should be considered an integral part of their classroom environment (Stuhlmann, 1998). Wetzel and Strudler, in their editorial report in the Journal of Computing in Teacher Education (Winter, 2002) postulate, “ …field experience has a powerful effect on students’ perceptions of what it means to be a teacher and clearly shapes t heir beliefs and practices” (p.30). Therefore, providing students with opportunities to use technolo gy as well as see technology in use in actual classroom settings is a “cr itical step toward preparing technology-using teachers for the future” (Wetzel & Strudler, 2002, p.30).

PAGE 73

61 The IT 3 P proposes features that should be in place in colleges of education to ensure teachers are provided with experiences required to be able to integr ate technology in their classes. Factors defined as prerequisite factors are necessary a nd should be in place to enhance technology integration. Process factors are those that occur whil e faculty and students interact at the college level. Since the IT 3 P has included features from other models that have been successfully implemented in other settings, it can be considered a good conceptual framework for evaluating Jamaica’s teacher training programs. Differences in settings will require modifications to reflect these differences. Approaches for Integrating Technology in Teacher Education Programs Gillingham and Topper (1999) propose four approaches for integrating technology into teacher preparation programs: (1) the single course approach; (2) technology infusion approach; (3) the student performance approach; and (4) the case-based teacher education program. In the single course approach to teacher preparation, there is a single technology course within the program of instruction taught within the college by an instructor wi th experience with technology and pedagogy. However, from the discussion in a previous section of this discourse, it can be concluded that this is not the most efficie nt means of integrating technology in teacher preparation programs. In the technology infusion approach, aspects of technology are interspersed into each course that students are exposed to during their program. In this approach, student s

PAGE 74

62 get a chance to see technology integrated in all areas of the curriculum and use d by different faculty members teaching different subjects. The student performance approach proposes that the student has the final responsibility to acquire the technology knowledge. This approach seems problematic; while some amount of independent learning is to be encouraged, students should not be given full responsibility for learning about technology. Students need to have access to models who demonstrate technology use. Finally, in the case-based approach, teacher preparation programs include a seri es of cases in which teachers use technology. Each of these approaches has its sha re of potentials as well as problems. The particular approach chosen will depend on the availability of resources, human and otherwise, as well as the aims of the pa rticular program. Based on the review of the literature, it seems that the technology infusi on approach may be the most feasible and the one that will be most effective in not only teaching students the technical skills required, but also expose them to ways in whi ch technology can be used to enhance teaching practices. Common Threads Across Models A review of the models proposed for integrating technology in teacher preparation programs indicates some commonalities among them. Firstly, simply requiring student s to enroll in a single IT course in their program of studies is not sufficient for effectively preparing students to use technology in their classroom practices. Pre-service t eachers need more prolonged exposure to technology; teaching them about it will not facilitate its

PAGE 75

63 use. Therefore, technology use should be incorporated in all aspects of the curriculum with faculty modeling so that students will be exposed to ways in which technology can enhance their practice. Secondly, a number of prerequisites must be in place if technology is to be successfully integrated into teacher education programs. Faculty must have a ccess to staff development facilities that will prepare them to use technology. This is especi ally important as they will in turn model technology use so that pre-service teachers c an learn, through observation, pedagogies for using technological devices in their classes. Resources required should also be in place. Teachers need to have access to hardware a nd software required for technology use. Technical support is also critical as te achers need ongoing support to ensure continued use of technology. Finally, teachers need to feel like they are a part of the innovation decision process. Therefore, there should be constant collaboration between the leader and members of the organization. The leader w ho perceives technology literacy as relevant for effective functioning in an informa tion age is more likely to encourage pre-service teachers to use it as well as put the necessary facilities in place to ensure they are trained. Technology integration takes time, time to learn about the innovation, time to be adequately prepared to use it. The factors mentioned here are minimum requirem ents. Their presence will not guarantee that a technological innovation will become built-into the curriculum; there are other variables at play. However, their presenc e will play a more facilitative role on the road to successfully incorporating technology in the tea cher preparation curriculum.

PAGE 76

64 Conditions that Facilitate Implementation of Educational Technology Innovation Adoption of an educational innovation is not an end in itself. Rather, adoption and diffusion are antecedents to implementation. Therefore, after the decision to a dopt an innovation, there is a final step that needs to be taken, implementation. A number of factors determine the extent to which an innovation becomes implemented in an organization. Ely (1999) identifies eight conditions that were common among programs that had successfully implemented educational technology innovations. Dissatisfaction with the status quothere is the realization that som ething is wrong; the way things have been done is no longer effective. Members of the organization realize that there must be more effective and efficient wa ys of getting things done. When this occurs, the organization is ready for reform. Existence of knowledge and skillsfor an innovation to be successfully implemented, persons responsible for implementing it must possess the knowledge and skills required to do so effectively. Therefore, prior to any attempt at implementation, training those involved should be given priority. Availability of resourcesthis includes hardware, software and funds. In other words, all the physical resources required for implementation must be availabl e in sufficient quantities to facilitate smooth running of the process. Availability of timetime is required to obtain knowledge and skills require d for using the innovation. There should also be time available to “plan for use”, that is, time to plan for ways in which the innovation will be used. Rewards or incentives existrewards can be measured in terms of “sati sfaction” with the innovation (internal) or it may be in the form of external rewards such a s

PAGE 77

65 monetary compensations. However, Ely (1999) found that external rewards were not reported as significantly important in the studies reviewed. Participationin order for the innovation to be effectively integrated, stakeholde rs must “buy into” the innovation. One way of doing this is through “shared decision-making and communication”. The research indicates that when stakeholders feel they are part of the decision making process and not simply implementing something that was conceptualized elsewhere and handed to them, implementation will be facilitated (Fullan, 1992). The process should therefore be more facilitative and not top-down. Commitmentthere should be continuing support to ensure continued use of the innovation. Implementation is not an end in itself; after the decision to use the innovation, participants need continued support both in terms of encouragement and materials so that teachers will continue using the innovation. Leadershipthis is critical to ensure successful implementation of the innovation. In the case of the school organization the role of the principal is critical. Innovations are more likely to be effectively implemented in schools where the principal has brought into the innovation. That is, where implementing the innovation will contribute to the development of the institution and will significantly impact the lives of the members of the school.

PAGE 78

66 Recommendations for Integrating Technology in Teacher Education Programs A number of recommendations for integrating technology into teacher preparation programs have been proposed. The NCATE Report (1997) identifies “changes” that teacher education programs need to successfully prepare new teachers to use tec hnology in their classes. The report states that simply adding a course will not ensure change; change requires a “transformation of the culture of teacher education” (p. 9) This can be achieved in a number of ways. Firstly, teacher preparation institutions need to create vision, a long-term vi ew of how incorporating technology can enhance the program. This involves deciding what technology can do and how it will be used in the program. The vision should also include an examination of how technology can change the practices of future graduates of teacher training institutions. This should also include developing a plan; a physical document which details how the vision will become a reality. According to findings from the IS TE survey (1999), the majority of teacher training programs used in the study did not have a written technology plan that was updated on a regular basis. In addition, the data also showed that there was a connection between the presence of a technology plan and competence to teach with technology. The plan should include steps that will be taken to procure and distribute hardware and software required for the program. It must al so include ways in which technology can be incorporated into the curriculum as well as ways in which teachers will receive on going support when they decide to implement t he innovation in their classes. It should also include facilities that should be in pl ace for staff development, acquisition of hardware and software as well as networking of computers and changing the existing curriculum to facilitate new pedagogies associated wi th using

PAGE 79

67 new technologies (ISTE, 1999). The technology plans should also include a set of goals and objectives that can be achieved though integrating technology into the program (Kimble, 1999). Brownell and Brownell (1991) propose three things that are required if pre-ser vice teachers are to act as change agents: A required course on computer literacy for teachers Exposure in methods courses to the uses of technology to teach specific content and Field experiences where they can apply what they have learned. Field experiences are critical to efficient use of technology in classes as s tudents should be provided with instances that “allow experimentation” in using technology in practical situations (NCATE Report, 1997). Practice using technology will incre ase preservice teachers’ confidence as they become more comfortable using technol ogical devices. Teachers need field experiences using technology under the supervision of qualified instructors. Conclusion The 21 st Century classroom is one that is characterized by the presence of technological devices. Research has shown that the number of computers in classroom s will increase with time and reduced costs of procuring these devices. We are al so living in a world where access to information plays a significant role in everything t hat we do. There are now multiple sources of getting information. For students to function in an

PAGE 80

68 Information Age, they need to be technologically literate, critical thinkers a nd problem solvers. Emerging technologies support the development of these cognitive behaviors However, despite the proliferation of computers in schools, computer use does not correlate positively with availability. The possibility also exists tha t technology will reform the education system. However, for this to occur teachers, the vehicle for educational change, must be given priority. Teachers must be equipped with the knowledge and skills required not only to use technology, but also be knowledgeable of the new pedagogies that will make integrating technology in every classroom a rea lity.

PAGE 81

69 Chapter 3 Method The present study was predominantly descriptive in nature as its primary a im was to describe what is regarding the current state of technology integration in Jamaica’s teacher training programs. Further, the study also aimed at making recommendati ons regarding what should be in place in teachers’ colleges to ensure prospective tea chers are equipped with knowledge and skills required to incorporate computers in their teac hing. This chapter presents the research design that was employed in the study. The following topics are addressed in the subsequent sections of the chapter: (a) rese arch questions; (b) research variables; (c) research design; (d) sampling procedures; (e) inst rumentation; (f) data gathering procedures; (g) methods of data analysis; and (h) how data collected wer e used to answer each research question. Research Questions The following four research questions were examined: 1. To what extent are components of the IT 3 P evident in teacher training programs in Jamaica? a. What are administrators’ perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are present in teacher training programs?

PAGE 82

70 b. What are faculty’s perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are evident in teacher training programs? c. What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are present in teacher training programs? d. Are there differences across colleges in the perceptions (a) teachers’ college faculty and (b) pre-service teachers regarding evidence of components of the IT 3 P framework in their teacher training programs? 2. To what extent are teachers’ college faculty in Jamaica prepared to integ rate computers in their teaching? a. What are faculty’s perceptions of the extent to which they are prepared to integrate computers in their classes? b. What are faculty’s perceptions of their levels of proficiency with computer productivity, communication and research tools? c. Are there differences across colleges in faculty’s perceptions of thei r preparation to teach with computers? 3. To what extent are Jamaica’s pre-service teachers prepared to teach with computers? a) What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the training they received during their college program prepared them to integrate computers in their teaching? b) What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their levels of proficie ncy with computer productivity, communication and research tools?

PAGE 83

71 c) Are there differences across colleges in pre-service teachers’ per ceptions of their preparation to teach with computers? 4. What do study participants propose as specific factors required to facilitat e technology integration into Jamaica’s teacher training programs? Design The primary design used in this study was a survey, supplemented with a number of field interviews and focus group discussions. A survey was the chosen method for this study for two main reasons: (a) the study required collection of data from a larg e number of persons located over a wide geographical area--therefore, administering sur vey instruments (primarily questionnaires) to these participants was t he most efficient means of collecting required data, and (b) since one of the primary aims of the study was to gather various perspectives to describe and make inferences regarding the stat e of teacher training programs in Jamaica, data collection methods used in surveys are especia lly suited for the type of data required for this study. The researcher wanted to gather descriptive data regarding perceptions of various study participants, theref ore, interviews and focus group discussions were integral parts of this design as these means were m ore suitable for capturing in depth opinions and perceptions.

PAGE 84

72 Population and Sample Target Population The target population for this study was comprised of teachers’ college administrators, faculty and pre-service teachers in six teachers’ colle ges in Jamaica. There were approximately 350 faculty employed in these six teachers’ colleges. I n addition, pre-service teachers who participated in this study were enrolled i n the final year of their three-year teacher training program. According to data from the Join t Board of Teacher Education (JBTE), the body that certifies Jamaica’s teachers, there are approximately 850 final year students in all six teachers’ colleges across Jam aica--of this 850, approximately 475 attend the 3 colleges used in this study. Pre-service teachers were selected as a population to be studied for three main reasons: (1) they would have completed all their course work, including their instructional technology courses, ( 2) they would have had a combined three weeks of field experiences in schools from the first and second years of their program and (3) they are getting ready to go out on their extended teaching practice (internship) during the spring semester. Therefore, these pre-service teachers were a potent data source and equipped with knowledge required to provide data to answer the relevant research questions. Sample A two-stage sampling procedure was performed to select the sample for this study: (a) purposive sampling of teachers’ colleges, and (b) selection of study participants--college administrators, faculty and pre-service teache rs, within each college.

PAGE 85

73 Teachers’ colleges There are six teachers’ colleges located in different parts of the island: one in western Jamaica, three in the east, one in the south, and the other i n central Jamaica. Recently, there has been a reclassification of the te acher training system in Jamaica and each college is now specialized and offers different programs to pr eservice teachers. There are four program areas offered in the teachers’ c olleges in Jamaica--early childhood, primary (elementary), secondary, and early childhood education. Bethlehem Teachers’ College offers primary and secondary programs; Chur ch Teachers’ College offers secondary education programs only; The Mico College offe rs secondary and special education programs; Sam Sharpe Teachers’ College (SS TC) offers primary, early childhood and special education programs; Shortwood Teachers’ College offers both early childhood and secondary education programs; and St. Joseph’s offers both primary and early childhood education programs. For the purposes of this study, respondents from three of these six teachers’ colleges were purposely selected to participate in this study. In selecting these three colleges, two primary factors were taken into account: (a) geographic location, and (b) program offerings. Geographic location was used as an inclusion criterion to ensure pr eservice teachers from different regions of the island were included in the study and program offerings was used to ensure pre-service teachers from each of the f our different program areas were selected. Colleges used in this study are hereafter re ferred to as Colleges A, B and C to protect the identities of participants from these ins titutions.

PAGE 86

74 Participant Sample Three distinct samples within Jamaica’s teachers’ colleges were s elected as sources from which data were collected: (a) teachers’ college adminis trators, (b) college faculty, and (c) final year pre-service teachers. College Administrators The sample consisted of seven college administrators in the three teachers’ colleges, six of whom participated in this study. Since the number of college administrators was so small, all were asked to participate in the study. However, one declined to participate citing lack of time as the reason for not doing so. However, since there were 3 administrators at this institution, the researcher believed others adequately supplied data required for the study. Each college administrator was contacted, first via telephone and informed of the researcher’s intent to conduct t he study as well as solicit his/her participation. Once consent was received, a fol low-up correspondence was sent to each administrator where additional details of the study were given. Teachers’ College Faculty There are approximately 160 faculty members in the three teachers’ colleges that constituted the sample for this study. An a pr iori estimate of sample size indicated that, given this population size and an established conf idence interval of 95% and tolerance of .05, a sample size of at least 113 participants was required. Since the required sample size was relatively close to the actual population size, to ensure that the sample size was large enough, the researcher decided to send instruments to all academic staff members in all three teachers’ colleges with the

PAGE 87

75 expectation that at least 117 would be returned (an estimated response rate of approximately 69%). Pre-service Teachers Pre-service teachers from the three teachers’ colleges enrolled in the final year of their three-year teacher training programs duri ng the academic year 2003-2004 constituted this sample. Given a population of 475 pre-service teachers, a prior estimate of sample size with a confidence interval of 95% a nd a margin of error of .5 indicated that this sample should consist of a least 213 pre-service teachers. To ensure that there were at least 213 respondents, all final year s tudents in all three colleges were asked to participate in the study. Strategies for Increasing Response Rate Fowler (1994) proposes a number of measures that a researcher can put in place to reduce non-response to survey instruments. These include: Making follow-up calls to potential respondents. Having flexible schedules especially when participants are to be interviewed. H e also recommends that the researcher makes appointments with interviewees a t a time and day that is more convenient to their schedules. The researcher should also send a cover letter to potential respondents that clea rly states the purpose of the study and inform them that their participation is

PAGE 88

76 voluntary. The letter should also inform potential participants of the signific ance of the study as well as enlist their participation in the study. To increase response rates to questionnaires, the researcher should make s ure that the instrument is as easy to complete as is possible. This includes providing cle ar instructions about how the instrument should be completed as well as making sure that the questionnaires are attractive and easy to read. Questionnaires shoul d also be as short as is required to collect data required for the study. The researcher should also conduct follow-up telephone calls and where possible, visit with study participants to remind them to complete the instruments. Additional instruments should also be provided to replace those that have been misplaced by study participants. Fink (2003a) proposes some additional guidelines for promoting response rate to survey instruments. She believes the researcher should: 1. Provide cash or other types of tangible incentives to study participants. However, the researcher has to be careful not to violate any ethical principles 2. Identify a larger number of participants who fit inclusion requirements of the study than those required in the sample. To increase response rate in the present study, the researcher implement ed the following strategies: 1. The researcher enlisted the support of teachers’ college administrators and faculty who encouraged other respondents to participate in the study. College

PAGE 89

77 administrators also organized meetings so instruments could be disseminate d and collected easily and effectively. 2. The researcher also visited all three teachers’ colleges and had face-t o-face meetings with study participants. During these meetings, study participants were informed of the purpose and significance of the study and their participation enlisted. The researcher also conducted numerous follow-up visits at the different colleges to re-distribute and collect questionnai res. 3. Over-sampling -for each set of study participants, the researcher selecte d and distributed the instruments to a larger group than was required for the study. This was one way of ensuring that the required number of instruments was returned. Data Collection Methods For the purposes of this study, four methods were used to gather data required to answer the research questions: (a) document analysis, (b) self-administe red survey instruments, (c) face-to-face interviews, and (d) focus group discussions. The se multiple data sources were used in this study to corroborate data gathered via individual instruments. The IT 3 P framework formed the basis on which instruments used in the study were developed.

PAGE 90

78 Document Analysis Existing Instructional Technology college syllabi were examined to determine the extent to which these included components that expose pre service teachers to ways in which computers can be incorporated into their teac hing. Questionnaires Self-administered questionnaires were used in this study to gather data from faculty and pre-service teachers regarding perceptions of evidence of the IT 3 P as well as perceptions of their preparation to teach with computers. Interviews. For this study, the researcher used structured interviews to ascertain participants’ perspectives of the extent to which aspects of the IT 3 P were being implemented in teachers’ colleges in Jamaica. Interviews were conducted w ith college administrators as well as instructional technology faculty members. These items were similar to those in the questionnaires and gathered data on the extent to which a spects of the IT 3 P were being implemented in teacher training programs in Jamaica as well as faculty’s levels of proficiency with computer tools. Administrators were interviewed instead of being asked to respond to a questionnaire because the researcher wanted to ensure that they participa ted in the study. According to Weisberg et al. (1989), response rates are higher for face-to-fa ce interviews than for questionnaires, therefore, while administrators did not have time to complete questionnaires, they were more inclined to make time for a face-to-face interv iew. A second reason for using interviews with this group was that the researcher wante d to capture certain attitudes and opinions that may otherwise be excluded if questionn aires were used.

PAGE 91

79 Focus Group Discussions Focus group discussions were used in the present study to collect data from pre-service teachers. This method was selected for use w ith this sample for two main reasons: (a) time and (b) to capture certain group dynamics t hat would not have been otherwise captured from questionnaires (Fowler, 1994). Since focus group discussions were conducted instead of individual face-to-face interviews, the re was a significant reduction in the amount of time required to complete this activit y and, at the same time, allowed the researcher to gather rich data from this group. The re searcher also wanted to capture group dynamics associated with focus group discussions-some were more willing, within the group setting, to discuss issues that were of concern to t hem. In focus groups discussions, participants were also more vocal regarding their att itudes on certain issues. Since self-report data are not always reliable as participants may unde rreport or over report estimates of themselves and their skills, the researcher used foc us group data as a means of validating data gathered via self-administered questionnaires Focus group sessions were conducted with pre-service teachers from all three teache rs’ colleges. During focus group sessions, the researcher was able to obtain in-depth perspectives of their perceptions of their preparation to teach with computers as well as addi tional data regarding their levels of proficiency with computer tools. Description of Instruments Four instruments were developed for this study: (a) The Faculty Technology Integration Instrument (FTII) in the form of a self-administered questionna ire, (b) the

PAGE 92

80 Pre-service Teachers’ Technology Integration Instrument (PTTII) also a s elfadministered questionnaire that used rating scales; (c) Administrator s and Instructional Technology Faculty Interview Schedules, and (d) the Focus Group Discussion Schedule (outline of questions that guided the discussion). Variables inherent in the IT 3 P formed the basis on which instruments used in this study were developed. Faculty Technology Integration Instrument (FTII). This self-administered questionnaire (see Appendix A) was designed to obtain information from teachers’ college faculty regarding (a) the extent to which aspects of the IT 3 P framework were being implemented in the teacher training programs in their college, (b) their per ceptions of how well they considered themselves to be prepared to teach with computers, and (c) their computer proficiency. The questionnaire was comprised of 12 sections; the first (Section A) gathered demographic data (items 1-7). The subsequent nine sections (BJ) solicited faculty’s perceptions of the following: (B) evidence of a technology plan or policy at their college (items 8-11), (C) faculty access to staff development opportunities (items 12-17), (D) administrative and technical support for faculty use of computers (items 18-20), (E) the extent to which faculty model computer use in their class es (items 21-24), (F) the amount and quality of training pre-service teachers receive in the use of computers (items 25-29), (G) the amount of practice pre-service teachers rec eive in the use of computers during their training and field experiences (items 30-35), (H) faculty attitude towards computers (items 36-48), (I) access to computers at their co llege (items 49-52), and (J) faculty’s perceptions of their preparation to teach with compute rs (items 53-57). Participants were asked to respond to these items using a 4-point Likert-type

PAGE 93

81 scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree to 4 = Strongly Agree, to indicate their level of agreement with the given statements. Section K of the FTII solicited faculty’s perceptions of their computer proficiency. Faculty were asked to use a 4-point rating scale: 1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good to 4 = Excellent to rate their proficiency with each software category. Items in sections B through I were based on the IT 3 P conceptual framework and provided data required to answer the first research question. Items in sections J and K provided da ta required to answer the second research question. The final section of the FTII (Sec tion L) gathered data regarding the extent to which different types of software were used in classes or to complete class-related activities. Participants wer e asked to use the following 4-point rating scale: 1 = Never 2 = At least once per week 3 = At least twice per week, 4 = At least three times per week to indicate how often they use the different types of software. Pre-service Teachers’ Technology Integration Instrument (PTTII) This instrument (see Appendix B) consisted of nine sections, seven of which included items aimed at ascertaining pre-service teachers’ perspectives of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P conceptual framework are evident in their teachers’ college. The first section of this instrument contained six items that gathered data on demogr aphic variables such as pre-service teachers’ gender and age, as well as backgro und information such as school attended prior to entering teachers’ college, the college they curr ently attend, and whether or not they received any computer training prior to entering coll ege.

PAGE 94

82 Pre-service teachers were asked to respond to these items by checking the most suitable option. Section B of the PTTII was comprised of items that gathered pre-service t eachers’ perceptions of their preparation to teach with computers (items 5-9). The subs equent five sections of the PTTII (Sections C to G) solicited pre-service teachers ’ perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P were evident in their teacher training program and gathered data regarding (C) the extent to which they received training to use computers during the college experience (items 10-13), (D) the amount of practice p reservice teachers receive in the use of computers during their training and fie ld experiences (items 14-19), (E) the extent to which faculty model computer use during their college experience (items 20-23), (F) access to computers at college, and (G) preservice teachers’ attitude towards computers (items 28-36). Pre-servic e teachers were asked to respond to these items using a 4-point Likert-type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree to 4 = Strongly Agree, to indicate their level of agreement with each statement. Section H of the instrument (items 37-47) was comprised of items designed to gather data regarding pre-service teachers’ perceived proficiency with va rious computer tools. They were asked to use the following 4-point rating scale: 1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Excellent to rate their proficiency with each software category. The final section of the instrument (Section I) gathered data regarding computer skills ac quired at college. Participants were asked to use a 4-point rating scale: 1 = Not at all 2 = To a small extent 3 = To a moderate extent to 4 = To a great extent, to indicate the extent to which they were taught how to use the different types of software indicated.

PAGE 95

83 Interview Schedules Interviews were conducted with both teachers’ college administrators and IT faculty--both were comprised of similar items. Intervi ews were divided into two parts: Part 1 was comprised of eight sections that solicited administrators’ and IT faculty’s perceptions of: (A) evidence of a technology pl an, (B) access to opportunities for staff development for faculty, (C) administrati ve and technical support at college, (D) the extent to which faculty model computer use in their clas ses, (E) the amount and quality of training using computers re-service teachers rece ive during their college experience, (F) the amount of practice pre-service teachers receive during their training and field experience, (G) administrators’ and IT faculty’s att itude towards computers, and (H) faculty and pre-service teachers’ access to computers at c ollege. Items in the first part of the interview schedule gathered data regarding evi dence of components of the IT 3 P framework. Part two of the interview schedule included open-ended questions used primarily to obtain participants’ views of what should be in place in teacher training programs to ensure graduates are equipped with knowledge and skills required to integrate compu ters in their teaching. Interview data along with data gathered from other sources were us ed as a means of proposing recommendations regarding how Jamaica’s pre-service teac hers should be prepared to teach with computers. Focus Group Discussion Schedule The focus group discussion schedule was comprised of two parts. Part 1 was comprised of six sections that solicited pre -service teachers’ perceptions of: (a) the amount and quality of computer training they re ceived at

PAGE 96

84 their college, (b) their perceptions of extent to which their teachers’ colle ge experience prepares them to teach with computers, (c) the amount of practice and experience pr eservice teachers received during their training and field experience, (d) th e extent to which they have access to computers during their college experiences, (e) the ex tent to which faculty model computer use in their classes, and (d) their attitude towards computers. Part 2 of the focus group discussion schedule was comprised of two questions that solicited pre-service teachers’ perceptions of what they think should be in place at their college to ensure future teachers are prepared to integrate computers in t heir teaching. Instrument Validity and Reliability To assess the content validity of the questionnaires, three procedures were use d: (1) a panel of experts was asked to review the questionnaires and provide feedback on content relevance and clarity, (2) a pilot test of each instrument was adminis tered to a small group of participants similar to those who participated in the study, and (3) cognitive pretests were conducted with participants similar to those used in t he study. While these three methods were used to assess the content validity of questionna ires, interview schedules and focus group discussion schedules were pilot tested and subjected to cognitive pretests. Cognitive pretests and pilot tests are two means of ensuring that items on the instruments that are potentially problematic are identified an d rewritten before instruments are implemented in final study thereby reducing the probabilit y of

PAGE 97

85 non-response to survey items. A brief description of each of the procedures used is given below. Content Validity Panel Review Firstly, to establish content validity, the questionnaires were reviewed by a panel of experts familiar with integrating technology in teacher tr aining programs. Since the IT 3 P framework and research questions formed the basis on which instruments were developed, the researcher sought to ensure all variables in the IT 3 P as well as items that provided data required to answer the research questi ons were included in the survey instruments. The review panel consisted of four persons: two members of faculty at the University of the West Indies, Jamaica -one Instructional Technology faculty me mber, the other a faculty member of the Institute of Education who currently has an intere st in technology and teacher training; a member of the Joint Board of Teacher Education ( the body that certifies teachers in Jamaica), and a member of the Ministry of Educati on. The representative from the Ministry is currently working on a pilot project on technology integration in primary schools. Panel members were given a statement indicat ing the purpose of the study, research questions, constructs/variables the instruments were intended to measure, as well as a diagram of the IT 3 P conceptual framework. They were asked to examine each of these along with the instrument and indicate whether the instruments would (a) adequately collect data required to answer each res earch question, (b) if all the variables in the IT 3 P were represented by items on the instrument and, in addition (c) if items on the instruments and directions were clear. Since constr ucts were

PAGE 98

86 reflected in the research questions, panels were given research questions as part of the document they were required to review. Panelists were further asked to read items for clarity and other semantic, languagerelated issues. Finally, they were also asked to examine how items ha ve been grouped together (subscales) to assess whether each group of items was measuring t he construct it was purporting to measure. In general, there was consensus among panelist s that all variables on IT 3 P as well as items required to answer research questions were covered in the instruments. However, panelists expressed concern about how items tha t addressed “attitude towards computers” were developed. The researcher gave t hem a copy of the Hogarty and Kromrey (2000) survey that has been previously validated and which contains items similar to those on the instruments that were used in the prese nt study. Panelists were satisfied with the detailed nature of the instrument a nd expressed a belief that the instruments would gather “rich and useful” data that may be valuabl e beyond the scope of this study. Pilot Test. Questionnaires and focus group discussion schedules used in the study were pilot tested with 10-15 participants similar to those used in the study, howeve r, a smaller number of participants were used to pilot test interview schedules. T he pilot test was conducted with faculty and students from two teachers’ colleges. Two factor s informed the selection of participants for the pilot test, (a) geographic locat ion of the college, and (b) program offering. Given the language situation in Jamaica, it was important that participants from two different sections of the island were included in the pilot test to ensure that problems associated with semantics and other la nguage issues

PAGE 99

87 were resolved prior to formal administration of the instrument. In addition, it w as essential that participants from the various programs offered in teachers ’ colleges be included in pilot test so that this group was representative of the target sample. During the pilot test, participants were asked to do the following: (a) time themsel ves to determine how long it took them to complete the instrument and record the time taken, and (b) identify items that posed difficulty for them to respond to, for instance, items that we re not clearly worded or were ambiguous. Results of the pilot test were used to make revisions to the instruments be fore they were implemented in the final study. For instance, in the pilot test, approximate ly 90% of the pre-service teachers strongly agreed that they used computers to communicate with faculty and peers; however, in the cognitive pre-tests when asked if they used e-ma ils and discussion boards to communicate, they said “No”. As a result, this item was changed t o qualify what communication means in this context. Therefore, the item was revised to include e-mails and discussion boards as examples of using computers to communicate with peers and faculty. Cognitive Pretests: A third measure used to ensure validity of instruments was cognitive pretests. Cognitive pretests are interviews with potential respon dents in which the researcher asks respondents to interpret each question and response choice on the instruments (Fink, 2003b). The researcher asked a small group of participants from tw o of the colleges used in the pilot test to meet with her for the cognitive prete st. She then read aloud each item on the instrument and its options and asked participants to inter pret

PAGE 100

88 them. This was done to determine whether or not items were clearly communicating what they were intended to communicate to study participants. Internal Consistency Reliability of Self-administered Questionnaires Internal consistency is a reliability estimate to ensure all item s grouped together on an instrument are measuring the same construct consistently. If an instrument has high internal consistency, then if participants strongly agree on one item, it is expecte d that they will also strongly agree on other items measuring the same construct. There are a number of procedures that can be used to assess internal consistency of an instr ument. For the purposes of this study, the researcher used Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha to establish reliability of subscales, inter-item correlation, and item -to-item total scale correlation. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha was computed for items on both the Faculty Technology Integration Instrument and the Pre-service Teachers Technology Integrati on Instrument. Results of these procedures are reported in Chapter 4 of the study. Procedures for Administering Instruments This section of the chapter discusses the procedures for administering inst ruments that were used in this study. Faculty Technology Integration Instrument. The principal of each teachers’ college was asked to allow the researcher to visit one of the college’s sch eduled staff meetings to meet with and inform faculty of the purpose of as well as solicit thei r participation in the study. While this was successfully organized at College A a nd the

PAGE 101

89 researcher was able to meet the majority of faculty members at one sitti ng, similar meetings could not be organized at the other colleges. At College B, one faculty volunteered as contact in that institution and disseminated and collected instr uments on the researcher’s behalf. At College C, however, the researcher had to visit, on numerous occasions, to speak with individual faculty members as well as distribute, r e-distribute and collect instruments. In some instances, participants at this institution h ad to be given the same instrument on at least three or more occasions as participants re ported they had not completed the instrument, but were not sure where they placed the ones previous ly given them. Participants were told that by volunteering to complete the survey instrument, they were indicating their consent to participate in the study. Pre-service Teacher Technology Integration Instrument. Questionnaires were administered to pre-service teachers either during the first week of their scheduled orientation or later during that same semester when they were required to r eport to the colleges for one-day workshops. At Colleges A and C, data were gathered at schedule d meetings prior to their departure for their extended teaching practice as signment. At College B, however, the meeting was scheduled for a date later that semester. As a result of these scheduled meetings, the researcher was able to meet with large groups of the participants at one sitting to administer questionnaires--these were com pleted and returned on spot. During these meetings, respondents were informed of the purpose and significance of the study and their participation solicited. Despite the fa ct that these were scheduled, large group meetings, pre-service teachers were told their parti cipation was voluntary and those who did not want to participate in the study could simply decline to

PAGE 102

90 complete the instruments. They were further informed that by volunteering to complete the instruments, they were giving the researcher their consent to take part in the study. As a result of these meetings, the researcher was able to distribute and collect instruments quickly and efficiently, and, in turn, account for the high completion rate of approximately 89%. Administrators’ Interviews. To conduct interviews with college administrators, the researcher followed the four steps suggested by Weisberg et al. (1989). These are: initiating contact; selecting respondents; establishing interview conditions; and informed consent. Initiating contact. Initial contact with college administrators was done via telephone--the researcher called each college and talked with the principal Once contact was established, the researcher gave each administrator a brief overview of t he study and solicited their participation. Participants were also faxed a copy of the informe d consent form as well as copies of the interview schedules so these could be examined prior to the time for the actual interview. Face-to-face interviews were scheduled w ith each administrator. Selecting respondents. Since the number of administrators in the 3 colleges was so small, all administrators were asked to participate in the study. Interview Conditions The researcher made an appointment for a day and time convenient to each college’s administrator(s). Interviews were conducted in the

PAGE 103

91 administrator’s office in order to minimize distractions that may be pres ent at other locations on the campus. Informed consent Despite the fact that participants were previously given a document that informed them of the purpose of the study, at the time of the interview, the researcher also gave each participant a detailed description of the purpose of the study and how data gathered would be utilized. Participants were also informed that thei r identities would remain anonymous and information gathered in the study will be reported as group data, therefore, data will be reported anonymously. Further, in reporting results of the study, the researcher will not report what individual partic ipants said during the interview process. The researcher also requested permission t o record the interviews on audiotape so that perceptions and opinions could be accurately capture d and reported. At the beginning of the each interview, participants were informed of the topics to be covered as well as the approximate time of the interview process. This esti mate was derived from a pilot test done prior to the actual administration of the interview. Participants were also informed, at the beginning of the interview, that their participation in the study was an indication of their consent to be interviewed. Faculty Interviews. Like the administrators’ interviews, the steps proposed by Weisberg et al. (1989) were followed when conducting IT faculty interviews. Initiating contact. Participants were informed about the interview at the beginning of the study. Individual IT faculty were contacted and their participation in faceto-face

PAGE 104

92 interviews requested. Time and place for the interviews were also scheduled w ith each IT faculty. Selecting respondents. Since the number of IT faculty at the three colleges included in this study was small, all instructional technology faculty were asked to participate in follow-up face-to-face interviews. Each of the three coll eges used in this study had a minimum of two IT faculty--therefore, a total of seven interviews we re conducted with this group of participants. Interview conditions. Appointments were scheduled with each interviewee at a time and place that was most convenient for him/her. Each person was interviewed individually. Informed consent. Since participants were previously informed of the purpose of the study, the researcher informed them of the topics to be addressed in the i nterview as well as the approximate length of the interview process. This estimate is ba sed on a pilot test done previously. In all cases, faculty were given a sheet with actual ques tions that were to be asked so they could be somewhat prepared with their responses. During interviews, permission to audiotape interviews was requested and granted in al l instances. While the first section of the instrument was comprised mainly of close-ende d, structured items, participants were free, at all time in the interview process, to ma ke additional comments on issues of interest to them. Interviews were conducted in the office s of IT faculty or at other locations within the staff room. Focus Group Discussions. For this study, focus group discussions were conducted with pre-service teachers from each of the three teachers’ colleges. At all three colleges,

PAGE 105

93 during the week planned for their seminar, the researcher asked 15 students from eac h college to volunteer to participate in a 20-30 minute focus group discussion. Focus group discussions were conducted after pre-service teachers had completed thei r questionnaires. Students were eager to participate and focus group discussions were generally li vely and interesting. The researcher and students who volunteered were given a room where t he activity could be conducted. During the discussions, certain key questions that addresse d the extent to which various components of the IT 3 P are in place were asked. Students were also allowed to give their perspectives on the extent to which their tr aining prepared them to teach with computers as well as what should be in place in colleges to ensur e they are provided with knowledge and skills required to integrate computers in the ir classes. In the focus group sessions, the researcher played the role of moderator. However, the researcher was the only person present with the students as she wanted to ens ure that students felt free to express their opinions on the issues being addressed. Since th e researcher wanted to ensure that opinions and perceptions were correctly capture d, permission was requested and received and all focus group discussions were audio taped. As a back-up, the researcher also made hand-written notes. Treatment of Data This section of the chapter describes how data collected in the study were screened and analyzed. In order to perform the data analysis, the first step the researcher conducted was to develop an analysis plan. Fink (2003b) proposes that an analysis plan is

PAGE 106

94 useful as it helps the researcher identify the type of analysis that will be done to answer each research question. The subsequent sections of the chapter describe how data gathered were used to answer each research question. Coding Coding involves assigning numbers to verbal answers to survey questions. It is important in large surveys where the researcher has large amounts of data t o analyze. Coding is also a useful practice when computers will be used to analyze large amount s of data (Fink, 1985; Fink, 2003b; Fowler, 1984; Weisberg et al., 1989). For the purpose of this study, items in the questionnaires contained inherent codes for each response. Dat a were entered into the SAS software Version 8.0. In keeping with requirements of the SAS software, a period was used to indicate missing data or non-response to a particul ar item. To ensure data were correctly entered into the SAS software, instruments we re selected at random by three independent observers (from a college not used in the study), and responses on instruments checked with data entered in SAS to make sure these were corresponding. Each observer was asked to choose at least five instruments for cros s verification. Reviewers found no errors in data input in SAS software. Qualitative data gathered via interviews and focus group discussions were coded to identify themes that emerged from these data. These themes informed content a nalysis of qualitative data. These data were also subjected to reliability tests w here a faculty member, not assigned to one of the colleges used that participated in the study checked data for reliability of themes identified.

PAGE 107

95 Missing Data Survey researchers sometimes face the formidable task of dealing with missi ng data in survey instruments. Even in instances where survey response rate is high, there may be some items on the instruments that some respondents did not complete. Since survey respondents usually return instruments anonymously, researchers are not be abl e to follow-up with respondents to ask them to complete missing items. Besides, t his is not practical in large scale surveys. There are a number of measures that can be put in place to deal with missing data. These include using “ statistical imputations ” where researchers “impute or estimate how respondents who did not answer particular questions would have answered them if they had chosen to” (Fink 2003b, p.21). However, this practice is often problematic as the research cannot accurately predict what the respondents w ill say; as a result, measurement error may occur. Another way to deal with missing data is not to report it at all. This too can be problematic as not reporting missing data can als o result in measurement error. In the present study, missing data were treated in the following ways: (a) for demographic data, the numbers of respondents who did not complete relevant items were reported, and (b) in cases where descriptive statistics were computed and report ed, missing data were not reported and overall means and percentages were computed for only data provided. Data Analysis Procedures There are a number of procedures for analyzing survey data. The procedure selected is dependent upon a number of factors: (a) the type of data collected (b) t he

PAGE 108

96 variables being measured and the levels at which they are measured (c) the natur e of the research questions (d) whether the researcher is looking for relationships, c omparing groups, describing what exists in the setting being investigated; and finally, (e) if the data are recorded in numbers. For this study, the researcher was primarily interested in describing the cur rent state of technology integration in teacher training programs in Jamaica and to eval uate them in relation to what the literature proposes should exist. Quantitative data analysis techniques included descriptive statistics, specifically, percentages means and standard deviations and inferential statistics (analysis of variance), to ascertai n differences in perceptions among participants within and across colleges. For the ANOVA, composi te means were calculated for individual IT 3 P component subscales and one-way ANOVAs conducted to test differences between these means. Since there were also s ome qualitative data gathered from face-to-face interviews and focus group sessi ons, these data were subjected to content analysis. Research Question 1 To what extent are components of the IT 3 P evident in teacher training programs in Jamaica? a. What are administrators’ perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are present in teacher training programs? Data required to answer this research question were gathered through struct ured interviews with teachers’ college administrators in all three college s. In analyzing these data, the researcher conducted a deductive content analysis where prerequisi te and

PAGE 109

97 process factors inherent in the IT 3 P were used as pre-selected themes that guided the analysis. The data were then carefully examined to ascertain administrator s’ perspectives of the extent to which individual components of the IT 3 P were evident in respective teachers’ colleges. In order to perform the content analysis, a number of steps were performed by the researcher. Transcribe data. Since all data gathered via this medium were audio taped, the researcher undertook a comprehensive transcription of these data. This means tha t tapes were transcribed word-for-word in the first instance, after which data that c ould be regarded as noise including asides such as jokes, were removed. Become familiar with data. After data had been transcribed, the researcher examined them to identify emerging themes or recurring issues. The data were also examined to (a) highlight the perspectives of each interviewee to identify comm onalities among and differences between responses given regarding evidence of components of the IT 3 P, (b) describe how they could be used to support or refute data gathered via other means (c) answer relevant research questions, and (d) identify themes that emerged and how these could contribute to the analysis, inform revision of the IT 3 P framework, or provide new information that was relevant and interesting. In reporting the data, di rect quotations that emphasized interviewees’ attitudes about and opinions of certain i ssues were included. b. What are faculty’s perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are evident in teacher training programs?

PAGE 110

98 To answer this research question, the number and percent of faculty who concurred (strongly agreed or agreed) or were in disagreement (strongly disagre ed or disagreed) that prerequisite and process factors delineated in the IT 3 P are evident in their college were computed for each college and for the total sample of all three col leges combined. The data utilized were faculty responses on the FTII on items pertinent to prerequisite factors: (A) Technology Plan (items 8-11), (B) Staff Devel opment (items 1217), (C) Resources/Access/Infrastructure (items 49-52), (D) Support, technic al and administrative, at the college level (items 18-20) and items pertinent to proc ess factors: (E) Faculty modelling computer use (items 21-24), (F) Faculty attitude towar ds computers (items 36-48), (G) Pre-service teachers’ training (items 25-29), and ( H) Preservice teachers’ Field Experience/practice in Using Computers (i tems 30-35). In addition, data gathered from structured interviews with IT faculty were anal yzed and used to corroborate or refute data gathered from another source. c. What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are present in teacher training programs? To answer this research question, the number and percent of faculty who concurred (strongly agreed or agreed) or were in disagreement (strongly disagre ed or disagreed) that prerequisite and process factors demarcated in the IT 3 P are evident in their college were computed for each college and for the total sample of all thr ee colleges combined. The data utilized were pre-service teachers’ responses to ite ms in five sections (C-G) on the PTTII on items pertinent to prerequisite factors: (A) Resources/Access/Infrastructure (items 24-27), and process factors: (B) F aculty

PAGE 111

99 Modelling Computer use (items 20-23), (C) Pre-service Teachers’ Attitude Tow ards Computers (items 28-36), (D) Pre-service Teachers’ Training to use Compute rs (items 10-13), and Pre-service Teachers’ Field Experience/Practice using Comput ers (items 1419). In addition, data gathered via focus group discussions were used to corroborate data gathered via PTTII. d. Are there differences, across colleges, in the perceptions of (a) teachers’ college faculty and (b) pre-service teachers regarding evidence of components of the IT 3 P framework in their teacher training programs? To answer this research question, subscale scores were computed for each of the four prerequisite factors and the four process factors based on faculty ratings of items on these subscales on the FTII and pre-service teachers responses on the PTTII. Mea ns and standard deviations of these subscale scores were computed. Data were then s ubjected to one-way ANOVA procedures to determine if there are significant difference s in perceptions between faculty and pre-service teachers on individual subscales a cross colleges. Research Question 2 To what extent are teachers’ college faculty in Jamaica prepared to integ rate computers in their teaching? a. What are faculty’s perceptions of the extent to which they are prepared to integrate computers in their classes?

PAGE 112

100 To answer this research question, the number and percent of faculty respondents indicating that they (1) strongly agreed or agreed or (2) disagreed or strongly disagr eed with each of the five statements in Section J, “Preparation to Teach with Com puters” of the FTII (items 53-57) were calculated. Data were examined and percentage of fa culty who perceived themselves as prepared or not prepared to teach with computers repor ted. Data were reported descriptively. b. What are faculty’s perceptions of their levels of proficiency with computer productivity, communication and research tools? To answer this research question, data regarding perceptions of proficiency wi th various computer tools were gathered in section K of the FTII and faculty were aske d to use a four-point rating scale ranging from 1 = Poor to 4 = Excellent to indicate their proficiency with different computer software. Composite means were calculat ed for the total sample for each software type and proficiency levels reported by software t ype. The data were examined and software type that faculty perceived themselves to be most proficient and least proficient with reported. Composite means were also comput ed for faculty within individual colleges and cross-college comparisons done to ascer tain differences in perceived proficiency levels across colleges.

PAGE 113

101 c. Are there differences across colleges in faculty’s preparation to teach with computers? To answer this sub-research question, composite means were calculated for it ems in this subscale--these data were then subjected to a one-way analysis of vari ance procedure to ascertain if there were differences in perceptions of prepa ration to teach with computers among faculty from the three colleges used in this study. In addition, post-hoc analysis using Scheff test was conducted to ascertain where difference s lie. Research Question 3 To what extent are Jamaica’s pre-service teachers prepared to teach with computers? a. What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which training they receive at college prepares them to integrate computers in their teaching? To answer this research question, the number and percent of pre-service teacher s indicating that they (1) strongly agreed or agreed or (2) disagreed or strongly disagr eed with each of the five statements in Section B, “Preparation to Teach with Comput ers” of the PTTII (items 5-9) were calculated. Data were examined and percentage of pre-service teachers who perceived themselves as prepared or not prepared to teach with c omputers reported. Composite means and standard deviations were also calculated for ite ms in this subscale--these data were then subjected to Analysis of Variance procedure t o ascertain if

PAGE 114

102 there were differences in perceptions of preparation to teach with computer s among preservice teachers from all three colleges used in this study. In addition, focus group data were examined to ascertain whether these data corroborated data gathered from other sources. b. What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their levels of proficiency with computer productivity, communication and research tools? To answer this research question, data regarding perceptions of proficiency wi th various computer software were gathered in section H of the PTTII and pre-service teachers were asked to use a four-point rating scale ranging from 1= Poor to 4= Excellent to indicate their proficiency with various types of computer software. Composite mea ns were calculated for the total sample and for participants within individual col leges for each software type and a table of proficiency generated. The data were examined a nd software type that pre-service teachers perceived themselves to be mos t proficient and least proficient with reported. Composite means and standard deviations were also computed for pre-service teachers within individual colleges and cross-coll ege comparisons done to ascertain differences in perceived proficiency levels acr oss colleges. In addition, focus group data were also examined to substantiate or refute data gathe red through the PTTII.

PAGE 115

103 c. Are there differences across colleges in pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their preparation to teach with computers? To answer this research question, composite means were calculated for ite ms in this subscale--these data were then subjected to a one-way analysis of varianc e procedure to ascertain if there were differences in perceptions of preparation to tea ch with computers among faculty from the three colleges used in this study. In addition, post-hoc analysis using Scheff test was conducted to ascertain where differences l ie. Research Question 4 What do study participants propose are specific factors required to facilitate technology integration into Jamaica’s teacher training programs? To answer this research question, the researcher performed a content analy sis on data gathered through interviews with teachers’ college administrators a nd IT faculty and focus group discussions with pre-service teachers. Content analyses were performe d on data gathered from each set of study participants. To conduct the content analysis, the researcher performed the following three steps: Step 1: Transcribe data. Since all data gathered in interviews and focus group discussions were audio taped, a comprehensive transcription of these data was done. T his means that tapes were transcribed word-for-word in the first instance, af ter which data that could be regarded as noise including asides such as jokes, were removed. Step 2 Become familiar with data. After data were transcribed, the researcher examined them to identify emerging themes or recurring issues that emerged. Direct

PAGE 116

104 quotations that emphasized participants’ perceptions of factors required to fa cilitate technology integrating into Jamaica’s teacher training programs were also re ported. Step 3: Analysis To analyze these data, a deductive approach was taken and data were examined to identify themes that emerged from the data. These themes wer e proposed as factors required to ensure future teachers are equipped with knowledge and skills required to incorporate computers in their teaching. In order for em erging themes to be proposed as factors required for technology integration, they have to be proposed by at least one participant from each of the three colleges used in this study. Data from e ach set of participants were analyzed separately to identify factors specific to d ifferent groups of participants.

PAGE 117

105 Chapter 4 Results This chapter presents results of the data that were gathered for this study and highlights how these data were used to answer each of the four research questions. Th e literature proposes eight factors that are characteristic of teache r training programs that have successfully integrated technology into their curriculum. These include having a technology plan, access to staff development activities, access to resources a nd infrastructure, technical and administrative support, modelling computer use by f aculty, positive attitude towards computers, pre-service teachers’ training in the u se of computers and field experience/practice using computers. The present study examined and des cribed the extent to which these factors are present in the Jamaican teacher tr aining system. Further, the study also examined the extent to which teachers’ college faculty and p reservice teachers perceived themselves as prepared to teach with computers Finally, based on data gathered, a for integrating technology into Jamaica’s teacher training progr ams was proposed. The chapter is organized into three broad categories: section one provide s a description of each sample--teachers’ college administrators, fac ulty and pre-service teachers, section two reported the internal consistency reliability res ults of the Faculty Technology Integration Instrument and the Pre-service Teachers Technology Integrati on

PAGE 118

106 Instrument, and the final section (Section 3) report the results of the data anal ysis conducted to answer each research question. Description of Sample College Administrators Six of the seven teachers’ college administrators participated in this study yielding a response rate of 86%. There were four femal es and two males in this sample. Of the six administrators that participated i n this study, there were two principals and four vice-principals. Administrators had qualifications ranging from masters’ to doctorates--two of these respondents held doctorates and the remaining masters’ degrees. However, one administrator at one of the colleges used in the s tudy was currently pursuing a doctorate in Instructional Technology through a collaboration that college had established with an off-shore university. Teachers’ College Faculty: A total of 121 faculty members responded to the Faculty Technology Integration Instrument (FTII) yielding a response rate of 76% for t his questionnaire. A descriptive profile of this sample is provided in Table 1 which show s a breakdown of the respondent sample by selected demographic variables--gender, age range, teaching experience and academic degree level. As in shown in Table 1, the majority of the faculty sample was female (65.3%). This percentage breakdown was consistent for Colleges A and C; in the case of Colleg e B, however, the breakdown of males and females was about equal (45% & 47%). With regards to age, approximately 83% of the respondents were between ages 20 to 39. This was consistent across all three colleges; however, College A had the highes t percentage

PAGE 119

107 of faculty over 40 years age range (28.6%). Relative to years of teaching experience, the majority of the faculty respondents reported that they had been teaching 20 years or les s (81.7%). This pattern was consistent across all three colleges. College B ha d the smallest percentage (5.7%) of faculty teaching 21 years or more. Table 1 Demographic Breakdown of Faculty Respondent Sample by College and Total Sample Demographic Factors College A (N=35) N (%) College B (N=53) N (%) College C (N=33) N (%) Total (N=121) N (%) Gender Male Female Missing 9 (25.7) 26 (74.3) 24 (45.3) 25 (47.2) 4 (7.5) 5 (15.2) 28 (84.8) 38 (31.4) 79 (65.3) 4 (3.3) Age 20 – 29 30 – 39 40 and over 11 (31.4) 14 (40) 10 (28.6) 24 (45.3) 25 (47.2) 4 (7.5) 7 (21.3) 19 (67.8) 7 (21.2) 42 (34.7) 58 (48) 21 (17.4) Total Teaching Experience 1 – 10 years 11 – 20 years 21 years and over 11 (32.3) 13 (38.2) 10 (29.4) 28 (52.8) 22 (41.5) 3 (5.7) 9 (27.3) 15 (45.4) 9 (27.3) 48 (40) 50 (41.7) 22 (18.3) Qualifications Teachers’ Diploma Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate Missing 1 (2.9) 16 (45.7) 16 (45.7) 0 2 (5.7) 0 17 (32.1) 28 (52.7) 8 (15.1) 0 7 (21.2) 24 (72.7) 1 (3) 1 (3) 1 (1.1) 40 (33.1) 68 (56.2) 9 (7.4) 3 (2.2) N = 121 Note. Numbers in parenthesis represent percentage

PAGE 120

108 Approximately 56% of faculty respondents reported having a master’s degree. This pattern was observed at all three colleges; however, a much larger per centage of faculty respondents from College C (73%) reported holding a master’s degree. The re were no faculty members at College A with doctoral degrees, one from College C, a nd the largest percentage (15%, N = 8) from College B The only person with a Teachers’ Diploma--that is, with no university training, but with teacher certification f rom a teachers’ college, was at College A. Pre-Service Teachers. A total of 268 pre-service teachers responded to the Preservice Teachers’ Technology Integration Instrument (PTTII) yielding a res ponse rate of 56% for this questionnaire. A descriptive profile of this sample is provided in Table 2 which shows a breakdown of the respondent sample by selected demographic variables--gender, age range, type of high school attended, and prior training in computer software. As is evident from the data represented in Table 2, the pre-service teacher respondent sample was comprised primarily of females (82%)--this percent age breakdown is consistent across all three colleges and represents the general tr end in teacher training population in Jamaica. Almost all the sample (90.6%) were betwee n the ages 19-39, but across all three colleges, more than 55% of these respondents were between the 19-29 age range. With respect to the type of high school attended prior to attending college, over 48% of pre-service teachers surveyed reported they had attended Traditional High schools, that is, high schools that offer traditional subject areas and do not focus on the

PAGE 121

109 development of technical skills. Students who attend these schools are most likely, af ter graduation, to enter professional fields such as nursing, teaching, medicine, and law Table 2 Demographic Breakdown of Pre-Service Teacher Respon dent Sample by College and Total Sample Demographic Factors College A (N=89) N (%) College B (N=99) N (%) College C (N=80) N (%) Total (N=268) N (%) Gender Male Female Missing 12 (13.5) 74 (83.1) 3 (3.4) 14 (14.1) 79 (79.8) 6 (6.1) 10 (12.5) 66 (82.5) 4 (5) 36 (13.4) 219 (81.7) 13 (4.9) Age 19 – 29 30 39 40 and over Missing 56 (62.9) 28 (31.4) 3 (3.5) 2 (2.2) 53 (53.5) 35 (35.4) 8 (8.1) 3 (3) 41 (51.3) 30 (37.5) 7 (8.7) 2 (2.5) 150 (55.9) 93 (34.7) 18 (6.7) 7 (2.7) High School Type Secondary Traditional Technical Comprehensive Missing 11 (12.4) 46 (51.6) 12 (13.5) 20 (22.5) 25 (25.2) 44 (44.5) 11 (11.1) 17 (17.2) 2 (2) 11 (13.7) 39 (48.7) 8 (10) 21 (26.3) 1 (1.3) 47 (17.5) 129 (48.1) 31(11.6) 58 (21.6) 3 (1.2) Prior computer training? Yes No Missing 56 (63.6) 32 (36.4) 1 (1.1) 40 (40.4) 59 (59.6) 40 (50) 40 (50) 136 (50.7) 131 (48.8) 1 (.5) N = 268 Note. Numbers in parenthesis represent percentage The data also show that approximately 51% of these respondents reported they had received computer training prior to their teacher training experience. How ever, the highest percentage of respondents reporting prior computer training was from College A

PAGE 122

110 (64%) and the lowest percentage from College B (40%). These respondents have received training primarily in the use of word processing software. Internal Consistency Reliability of Survey Instruments Faculty Technology Integration Instrument (FTII) Table 3 presents the internal consistency reliability (Cronbach Alpha) for subscales of the FTII. In additi on, the item with total scale correlation within each subscale is reported. Table 3 Internal Consistency Reliability of Subscales of the Faculty Technology Integration Instrument a Number of items in this subscale reduced from 13 t o 6 items. Remaining 7 items reported as concerns about using computers. An examination of the data presented in Table 3 shows that for all the subscales but two on the FTII, Cronbach alpha ranged from .82 to .89 with the exception of the attitude subscale and concerns about using computers which had internal consist ency reliability coefficient of .74 and .77, respectively. In general, the subscales showed strong internal consistency (interrelatedness) of the items within each subscal e. With respect to Subscale Number of Items Cronbach Alpha Item with Total Scale Correlation Technology Plan 4 .85 .59 .77 Staff Development 6 .83 .48 .73 Support 3 .82 .66 .69 Modelling 4 .83 .50 .72 Training 3 .87 .52 .82 Experience 6 .83 .41 .75 Attitude Concerns about using computers 6 a 7 .74 .77 .39 .64 .47 .76 Preparation 5 .89 .66 .79 Access 4 .85 59 .78

PAGE 123

111 the Attitude Subscale, it should be noted that there were 13 items included in the ori ginal subscale. However, an initial analysis of the 13-item subscale yielded a rather low Cronbach Alpha (.37) suggesting that all the items were not measuring the same construct. A closer examination of these items indicated that some did not belong to t he composite, therefore, the attitude subscale was divided into two sections--it ems that measured positive attitude towards computers (items 36-41) and items that gathe red data regarding concerns about using computers (items 42-48). Items that gathered data regarding concerns about using computers were reported descriptively. Pre-service Teachers Technology Integration Instrument (PRTII) In Table 4 is reported the internal consistency reliability (Cronbach Alpha) for subscales of the PTTII. In addition, item with total scale correlation within each subscale is repor ted. Table 4 Internal Consistency Reliability of Subscales of th e Pre-service Teachers Technology Integration Instrument Subscale Number of Items Cronbach Alpha Item with Total Scale Correlation Preparation 5 .89 .45 .71 Training 4 .86 .51 .72 Experience 6 .85 .56 .71 Attitude Concerns about using computers 5 a 4 .72 .76 .51 .63 .54 66 Access 4 .86 .58-.78 Modelling 4 .81 .39 .75 a Number of items in this subscale reduced from 9 to 5. Remaining 4 items reported as concerns about using computers.

PAGE 124

112 As is indicated from the data reported in Table 4, in all cases but two (the Att itude Subscale and Concerns about using computers), Cronbach Alphas ranged from .81 to .89 indicating strong internal consistency of items within a subscale. In addition, there is strong, positive item-to-item correlation for all variables used in the instr uments. These data provide strong evidence that items that have been grouped on each of those subscales are measuring the same constructs. With respect to the Attitude subs cale, Cronbach alpha of .72 was obtained for a reduced subscale of 5 items rather than the original 9-item subscale. With respect to the 5-item subscale that measure d concerns about using computers, Cronbach alpha of .76 was obtained for this 4-item subscale. Like the FTII, only items on the PTTII that measured positive attitudes towards com puters (items 28-32) were included in this analysis. Items 33-36 gathered data regarding c oncern about using computers--these items were dropped from the Attitude subscale a nd treated descriptively in the study. Evidence of Components of the IT 3 P in Jamaica’s Teacher Training Programs. Research Question 1 1. To what extent are components of the IT 3 P evident in teacher training programs in Jamaica? a) What are administrators’ perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are present in teacher training programs? Data required to answer this research question were gathered through intervie ws with teachers’ college administrators. These data were analyzed descr iptively to identify

PAGE 125

113 administrators’, principals and vice-principals, perceptions of the extent to which prerequisite and process factors delineated in the IT 3 P are evident in the three colleges used in this study. Technology Plan In general, administrators surveyed from all three colleges believed there was no evidence of a written technology plan at their colleges. Wha t existed in all three teachers’ colleges were plans for using technology to fac ilitate distance learning and for upgrading instructional methods using technology, but not a general, written technology plan. At College C, for instance, the administrator interviewed indicated that the college did not have a technology plan that existed in black and white This respondent postulated that since the JBTE are currently revising the IT syllabus for Jamaica’s teacher training programs, devising a technology plan withi n an individual college was not feasible at this time. Staff Development In response to the question of the availability of opportunities for staff development at individual colleges, administrators from all three c olleges concurred that there were opportunities for staff development available to their f aculty. However, there was a lack of consistency in perceptions of whether or not faculty had actually taken advantage of these opportunities. For example, administrators from College B postulated there are opportunities for staff development at that insti tution. They reported that staff development has been offered through partnerships with off-shore universities. One administrator stated, “A number of our lecturers are c urrently doing a master’s or doctorate in Instructional Technology”. In addition, administr ators at

PAGE 126

114 this institution reported that some faculty had “embarked on training in using computers during the summer and at other intervals within the school year”. One administrat or at College B stated: In the training of the staff, the whole training of the staff, we have reached the stage now where we are quite comfortable. Members of staff are using cutting edge technology. (This college) is well on its way with regards to staff development. That does not seem to be an issue at (this college). An administrator at College C stated: I think there are. I think some of them (faculty) are either not managing their time, but there is availability. There are in-house persons who are willing to help them, there are opportunities for them. There are opportunities, I don’t know if they are making use of it. Resources/Access/Infrastructure During their interviews, college administrators were asked to indicate their perceptions of the extent to which both faculty and pre service teachers at their colleges have access to computers. Adminis trators from all three colleges were of the opinion that both pre-service teachers and faculty at th eir individual colleges have access to computers. However, in response to the question of whether faculty and pre-service teachers had adequate access to computers, administr ators at all three colleges posited that they would not describe access to computers as adequate A statement made by an administrator at College A, succinctly captures the p erceptions of this group of participants regarding the adequacy of resources at their colleges This respondent stated, “More resources would be welcomed and would facilitate computer use in the college”. Similarly, at College B, one administrator said: “I do not t hink they

PAGE 127

115 are adequate, adequate would mean each student having a computer”. Another administrator at College B posited, “What we need are portable labs” so that computers can be taken to classrooms by individual lecturers. At College C, one administrator stated: We want more. I don’t think they (computers) are adequate. We want more resources like for instance the camcorder and digital camcorders. I think these are some of the things that would really help. The students are actually excited about the idea. Support (Technical and Administrative) The general perception among teachers’ college administrators from all three colleges that participated in t his study was that they are supportive of computer use within their colleges. In response to the question, Do you encourage your faculty to use computers in their classes? one administrator at College C responded: “Yes, but they don’t have many classrooms with computers--but then they ca n always change classes and have them downstairs” in reference to the computer l ab. At College B, one administrator stated “Well, yes. We would say that we encourage it (computer use). It does not occur often right now, but we encourage it.” They also proposed that technical support was available for faculty who want to use computers i n their classes. In each of the three colleges there were trained faculty mem bers available to provide assistance to faculty who want to use computers in their classes. At C ollege C, there was at least one Peace Corps volunteer available to provide faculty with technical assistance.

PAGE 128

116 Modelling Computer use by Faculty The paucity of faculty who model computer use in their classes was common among the three colleges that participate d in this study. In response to the question of whether or not they have observed faculty modelling computer use in their classes, administrators from all three colleges could indi cate, by name, those faculty members who used computers in their classes. The general perception among thi s group of participants was that faculty used computers primarily to complete word processing tasks such as creating course outlines and quizzes. In addition, a few have been observed using the Internet for research as well as for personal tasks such as r eceiving and responding to e-mails. At College C one administrator stated: “… I think most of t hem have done their course outlines using the computer in the staff room, but, they do not use them in their classes”. Attitude Towards Computers Administrators’ attitude towards computers were ascertained through interviews. The data show that administrators from all thre e colleges displayed a positive attitude towards computers and their role in the teaching -learning process. The consensus among this group of participants is that computers should be available in all classrooms and used by both teachers and students to facilitate the teaching-learning process. In response to the issue of the use of computers in the classroom, an administrator from College A stated: “Computers should be used by teachers the same way they would use any other instructional tools like charts a nd TVs, they are important in the classroom”. At College B, one administrator propos ed “Teachers should use computers. If they have the hardware and software, they have to use computers, as this is a reflection of the times we are living in.” At Coll ege C, one

PAGE 129

117 administrator stated: “If it is used properly, computers can go a long way. The stude nts are ready; the teacher can no longer be the repository of knowledge. Computers should be used to get them to think and make decisions and be creative.” Training During interviews, college administrators were asked to indicate the extent to which the training pre-service teachers receive during the college experience prepared them to teach with computers. Perceptions differed slightly among college administrators. An administrator from College A stated: “I would not describe it (computer training) as adequate, but we do our best with what resources we have”. A t College B, one administrator made the following statement: … we try as much as possible to expose much of the population to computers. We are talking about a population of over 1500 students. That’s a lot. And to bring them to the levels of competence that we would like to provide the types of hardware and software required to do that is a big challenge. But we do try as much as is possible to expose them to computers The following statement was made by an administrator at College C regarding the extent to which pre-service teachers at that college receive adequate t raining to use computers in their classes: “ Yes, if they have that supported classroom. What I have found is that the students who are doing the Advanced IT are well on their way.” Field Experience/Practice Using Computers In general, administrators were not certain whether or not students actually used computers at college or during their field

PAGE 130

118 experience activities. However, at College C, one administrator noted: “Th ere are some students who have a lap top; I have seen them using them outside under the trees”. b) What are faculty’s perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are evident in teacher training programs? Data required to answer this research question were gathered through the Facul ty Technology Integration Instrument (FTII) as well as from interviews with Instr uctional Technology faculty. The data are reported separately for prerequisite factors and process factors depicted in the IT 3 P. Data from the FTII are presented first followed by data gathered though interviews with IT faculty. For the purposes of description, the four response categories from the FTII (Strongly Disagreed and Disagreed and Strongly Agreed and Agreed) have been collapsed into two categories (Strongly Disagreed a nd Disagreed = SD/D and Strongly Agreed and Agreed = SA/A) and reported accordingly in Tables 5 to 13. Prerequisite Factors Technology Plan As is evident in Table 5, the general perception among faculty from all three colleges is there was little or no evidence of a technology plan at t heir college. For all four items on this subscale, between 67% to 87% disagreed with ea ch of the statements that measured the perceptions of the presence of a technology plan a t their individual colleges. The majority of faculty from all three colleges (77% to 91% ) disagreed that there was a technology plan in place at their individual college s that stated

PAGE 131

119 how teachers should be prepared to teach with computers as well as how computers wi ll be acquired and allocated. Table 5 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT3P Prerequisite Factor (Technology Plan) by College College A (N= 35) SD/D A/SA College B (N=53) SD/D A/SA College C (N=33) SD/D A/SA Total Sample (N=121) SD/D A/SA Technology Plan Policy/plan states how teachers should be prepared to teach with computers. 83 17 82 18 91 9 85 15 Policy/plan outlines how computers will be acquired and allocated in my college. 77 23 88 12 97 3 87 13 Document from JBTE that outlines computers skills required to teach in the 21st Century classroom. 49 51 82 18 70 30 68 32 Plan outlines goals of teacher training and how computers can be used to achieve these goals. 49 51 80 20 69 31 67 33 Note: SD/D represent response categories Strongly D isagree and Disagree, SA/A represent response categories Agree and Strongly Agree However, while more faculty from both Colleges B and C disagreed that the JBTE outlines skills that teachers need in the 21 st Century classroom, as well as the goals of teacher training and how computers can be used to achieve these goals, the converse was reported from faculty from College A.

PAGE 132

120 Data gathered from IT faculty interviews corroborate the general perspect ive among faculty that colleges did not have a written, frequently revised technology plan. One IT faculty member at College A reported that he had written a technology plan under the previous college administration, but that the plan had been “put on hold” with the advent of new administration. However, other IT faculty at this same institution w ere not aware that a technology plan existed in their institution. At College B, IT facul ty indicated there was a technology plan that was written by the principal. The prima ry objective of this plan is “To get all students computer literate and able to tea ch using the computer as a tool”. A situation similar to that of College A also existed at this institution--other IT faculty were not aware of the presence of a technology pla n. At College C, IT faculty proposed that while there was not a written technology plan, computers were acquired through partnerships with various organizations. Staff Development Six items on the FTII solicited respondents’ feedback regarding the availability of opportunities for staff development at each college Items were divided into two subgroups: (a) availability of opportunities for staff development i n use of computers (items 12-14) and (b) faculty participation in staff development activities (items 15-17). These data are presented in Table 6. From an initial review of the data presented in Table 6, it is evident that a slight ly higher percentage (51%) of faculty members surveyed concurred there were opportunitie s for staff development for lecturers interested in using computers in their c lasses. For College C, 79% reported that workshops are offered at the college for lecturers to

PAGE 133

121 improve their computer skills as compared with 20% and 19% reporting the offering of such workshops at Colleges A and B respectively. Further review of these data show a majority of faculty surveyed indicated they had received training on how to use computers in their classes (59% to 72% concurrenc e from individual colleges). In addition, a majority an overall of 59% from all three colleges indicated they have received training to improve their computer skill s. Table 6 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT3P Prerequisite Factor (Staff Development) by College College A (N= 35) SD/D A/SA College B (N=53) SD/D A/SA College C (N=33) SD/D A/SA Total Sample (N=121) SD/D A/SA Staff Development There are opportunities for staff development for lecturers interested in using computers in their classes. 52 48 73 27 15 85 51 49 Organizations such as the JBTE offer workshops for lecturers to improve their computer skills. 62 38 77 23 63 37 68 32 Workshops are offered at my college for lecturers to improve their computer skills. 80 20 81 19 21 79 64 36 I have received training on how to use computers in my classes. 31 69 41 59 28 72 36 65 I have received training to improve my computer skills. I have participated in workshops and other staff development activities offered to improve my computer skills. 37 46 63 54 36 65 54 35 36 30 64 70 41 50 59 50 Note: SD/D represent response categories Strongly D isagree and Disagree, SA/A represent response categories Agree and Strongly Agree

PAGE 134

122 With respect to faculty’s participation in staff development training, the gene ral perception among faculty from all three colleges is that they have participa ted in workshops to improve their computer skills as well as workshops that exposed them to ways in which computers can be integrated in their classes. However, it should be noted that the majority (70%) of faculty from College B indicated that they have part icipated in workshops and other staff development activities offered to improve their computer skil ls as compared with 54% and 35% from Colleges A and B, respectively. The data suggest that perceptions of availability of staff development opportunities were uneven across colleges surveyed. Faculty from College C report ed more positively on availability of staff development opportunities, workshops offered at their college and their participation in these activities than faculty at Colle ges A and B. Only with respect to training offered by the JBTE were all three faculties in concurrence where a majority reported a lack of offerings of these workshops. Data gathered from interviews with IT faculty indicate that, at all three c olleges included in this study, IT faculty have struggled with the issue of staff developme nt. At College A, one IT faculty member indicated that while there are attempts a t “in-house” training, these efforts were generally not successful because of lack of time and resistance from faculty. At College B, an IT faculty member noted that “we had staff development activities is previous times, but at present, these are generally unavaila ble”. In addition, faculty “do not always take advantage of these activities”. At College C, one IT f aculty member suggested that while there are attempts at in-house staff developme nt activities, these are not always successful. This respondent stated:

PAGE 135

123 There are attempts at in-house staff development, but while faculty see the immediate need to get these skills, lack of time has been a factor that hinders them from taking full advantage of these opportunities. There have been no recent staff development efforts from organizations outside of the college community. Whatever training happens, occurs locally, within the college by members of technology faculty. These are not very frequently organized. However, some faculty members have received training on their own. IT faculty from all three colleges recalled that the last staff de velopment activity that has been organized by external sources was conducted “over five years ago”. At all three colleges, attempts at in-house staff development have been unsuccessful bec ause of (a) lack of time or (b) resistance from faculty. While IT faculty from Colle ge C reported a paucity in the number of workshops offered at that institution, approximately 85% of college faculty surveyed from this institution concurred there are opport unities for staff development for lecturers interested in using computers in their classes. One of the possible reasons for this is that, as administrators at this institution i ndicated, courses are offered by off-shore universities for faculty who want to improve their computer skills Access/ Resources/ Infrastructure This subscale on the Faculty Technology Integration Instrument gathered faculty’s perceptions on their access to compute rs as well as pre-service teachers’ access to computers at college. These data presented in Table 7. An examination of the data presented in Table 7 show that overall a majority of faculty participants (93%) indicated that they have access to computers at c ollege. However, a further examination of the data on access to computers shows a disparity i n faculty’s perceptions of pre-service teachers’ access to computers acros s colleges. The majority of faculty from Colleges A and C (83% and 94% respectively) concurred that

PAGE 136

124 their students have access to computers at their college as compared with 47% from College B. While 96% of faculty respondents from College B agreed that they have access to computers at college, on 57% indicated that if they want to teach a com puterbased lessons, computers are available for use. Table 7 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT3P Prerequisite Factor (Access/Resources/Infrastructure) by College College A (N= 35) SD/D A/SA College B (N=53) SD/D A/SA College C (N=33) SD/D A/SA Total Sample (N=121) SD/D A/SA Access/Resources/Infrastructure I have access to computers at college. 20 80 4 96 0 100 7 93 During teacher training, my students have access to computers. 17 83 53 47 6 94 30 70 If I have to teach a computer-based lesson, there are computers available for use. 26 74 43 57 0 100 26 74 I can take my class to the computer lab to complete computer-based lessons. 34 66 62 38 6 94 39 61 Note: SD/D represent response categories Strongly D isagree and Disagree, SA/A represent response categories Agree and Strongly Agree With regard to whether or not faculty can take their classes to the computer la bs, only 38% of faculty from College B concurred that they can take their classes to t he lab as compared with 66% and 94% from Colleges A and C, respectively. In addition, only

PAGE 137

125 57% of the faculty in College B concurred that computers are available for them to us e if they wanted to teach a computer-based lesson as compared to 74% and 100% in College A and College C respectively. Like faculty, data gathered from IT faculty interviews corroborate the perc eption of access to computers for both faculty and pre-service teachers at college. IT faculty at College A stated that they have access to at least three computer labs with about 80-90 computers that are fully functional. However, one IT faculty at this institution st ated that “I would not describe access to resources as adequate, we need more to facil itate the number of students we have here”. This respondent further stated that “students and faculty can use the labs when we are not using them for teaching”. At College B, I T faculty believed faculty and pre-service teachers have access to computers and that faculty can take their classes to the computer labs to teach computer-base d lessons. This perception was not consistent with what faculty at this institution report ed. The reason for this difference in perception is not clear, however, one faculty member at this in stitution noted that if faculty want to use the computer lab for teaching their lessons, “the y have to book the lab in advance--long in advance” if they want to use it. Similar opinions were reported at College C. One IT faculty member at this institution reported tha t “Students have access to the lab during the day and between 4:15 p.m. and 9 p.m. when classes are over”, but we need more computers so there will be increased access”. Support at the College Level For the purposes of this study, support was examined on two levels: (a) administrative support and (b) technical support. Three i tems on the faculty technology integration instrument gathered data regarding support at the

PAGE 138

126 college level. Of these three items, 2 measured administrative support and the other, technical support. These data are presented in Table 8. As shown in Table 8, the general perception among a majority (57% to 79%) of the faculty from all three colleges concurred that both administrative and t echnical support was evident in their individual colleges. Table 8 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT3P Prerequisite Factor (Support at the College Level) by College College A (N=35) SD/D A/SA College B (N=53) SD/D A/SA College C (N=33) SD/D A/SA Total Sample (N=121) SD/D A/SA Support College administrators encourage and support computer use. 14 86 36 64 3 97 21 79 There is someone at the college to provide technical assistance. 12 88 22 78 0 100 13 77 There is support from administrators for lecturers who want to use computers. 33 67 59 41 30 70 43 57 Note: SD/D represent response categories Strongly D isagree and Disagree, SA/A represent response categories Agree and Strongly Agree However, in all instances, more faculty from College C concurred that support was evident at their college compared to faculty from the other two colleges. Al l faculty members from this institution who participated in the study agreed there is some one available at the college to provide technical support in the use of computers.

PAGE 139

127 At all three colleges, IT faculty members interviewed indicated that college administrators are supportive of faculty’s and pre-service teachers ’ computer use at their college. In addition, at all three colleges, there is a trained faculty availab le to assist faculty while they attempt to incorporate computers in their classes. Howeve r, these faculty are primarily trained in technology and do not necessarily possess pedagogical skills of integrating computers in the teaching-learning process. Process Factors Faculty perceptions of evidence of process in their colleges are reported in Ta bles 9 to 13. Modelling. In this instrument, modelling computer use was explored to ascertain faculty’s perceptions of the extent to which they model computer use in their cl asses, model a positive attitude towards computers and, the extent to which they feel compet ent to model computer use. The data reported in Table 9 show that the general perception among faculty from all three colleges included in the study is that they did not mode l ways in which computers can be used as teaching tools. Overall, 67% of faculty surveyed reported that, in their teaching, they did not model ways in which computers can be used as teaching tools. Similarly, a majority (73%) of these respondents disagreed that the y show their students how to use computers in their classes. A total of 83% of facult y surveyed concurred that they modeled positive attitudes towards computers. However only 38% of these respondents agreed that they feel competent to model computer use for their students. A closer examination of the data reported in Table 9 indicate that m ore

PAGE 140

128 faculty at College C (64%) disagreed that they felt competent to model computer use f or their students as compared with 56% and 35% from Colleges A and B, respectively. Table 9 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT3P Process Factor (Modelling) by College Item College A (N=35) SD/D A/SA College B (N=53) SD/D A/SA College C (N=33) SD/D A/SA Total Sample (N=121) SD/D A/SA Modelling In my teaching, I model ways in which computers can be used as teaching tools. 65 35 57 43 85 15 67 33 I show my students how to use computers in their classes. 83 17 56 44 88 12 73 27 I model positive attitude towards computers. 9 91 8 92 39 61 17 83 I feel competent to model computer use to my students. 56 44 35 65 64 36 62 38 Note: SD/D represent response categories Strongly D isagree and Disagree, SA/A represent response categories Agree and Strongly Agree The data presented in Table 9 show that relative to faculty modelling positive attitudes towards computers, 91% and 92% of faculty from Colleges A and B, respectively, concurred that they modeled these attitudes towards computers --only 61% of respondents from College C reported modelling positive attitudes towards comput ers. Only at College B did a majority of faculty (65%) concur that they felt competent to model computer use for pre-service teachers.

PAGE 141

129 To corroborate data gathered from self-administered questionnaires, during interviews, IT faculty members were asked if they had observed any faculty member modelling computer use in their classes. Responses to this question ranged from “N ever” to “No” to “Sometimes” to the identification, by name, of one or two faculty member s who have used computers in their classes. At College B, one IT faculty member noted “one person uses a lap top and a multimedia projector constantly, others do not”. At College C, one IT faculty member stated: Yes, not a lot. I would want it to be more frequent, because we have a number of multimedia projectors, some of them will take the multimedia projectors to classes. For instance, Mr. C. in Reading, the people in Guidance will try it. Not a lot of the other lecturers use it for actual teaching, they probably use the lab for getting resources, personal uses, the Internet, that sort of thing Attitude Towards Computers Thirteen items on the Faculty Technology Integration Instrument gathered data regarding faculty’s attitudes towards and concerns about using computers. The first six items measured positive attitude towards computers. The remaining items represented those that identify faculty’s concerns about using computers. These data are presented in Tables 10 and 11. The data represented in Table 10 show that the majority (93% to 100%) of faculty respondents from all three colleges agreed with items that measured positi ve attitudes towards computers. A closer examination of the data reported in Table 10 show that al l faculty members from College B and 97% from both Colleges A and C concurred that computers can improve quality of learning in schools.

PAGE 142

130 Similarly, all faculty from Colleges A and C agreed computers should be placed in all schools. In addition, 90% to 96% of these respondents agreed computers should be placed in all classrooms. Table 10 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT3P Process Factor (Positive Attitude Towards Computers) by College College A (N=35) SD/D A/SA College B (N=53) SD/D A/SA College C (N=33) SD/D /SA Total Sample (N=121) SD/D A/SA Positive Attitude I believe computers can improve the quality of learning that takes place in schools. 3 97 0 100 3 97 2 98 Students who have access to computers are more likely to do better. 18 82 22 78 19 81 20 80 Computers are important learning tools. 0 100 2 98 0 100 1 99 Computers should be placed in all schools. 3 97 0 100 6 94 3 97 Computers should be placed in all classrooms. 4 96 10 90 7 93 8 92 Having computers would enhance my teaching. 14 86 10 90 6 94 10 90 Note: SD/D represent response categories Strongly D isagree and Disagree, SA/A represent response categories Agree and Strongly Agree

PAGE 143

131 Table 11 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT3P Process Factor (Concerns about using Computers) by College College A (N=35) SD/D A/SA College B (N=53) SD/D A/SA College C (N=33) SD/D A/SA Total Sample (N=121) SD/D A/SA Concerns About Using Computers Access to computers should be limited to the school library. 94 6 91 9 94 4 92 8 Students should be monitored when using computers. 26 74 58 42 21 79 38 62 Having computers in my class is a waste of resources. 94 6 100 0 100 0 98 2 If I use computers, I would not have enough time to complete the syllabus. 85 15 95 5 94 6 92 8 I feel nervous when I have to use computers. 74 26 75 25 85 15 78 22 If I have computers in my class, I would use them with my students. 9 91 13 87 3 97 9 91 Computers are potential sources of distraction in the classroom. 76 24 86 14 90 10 84 16 Note: SD/D represent response categories Strongly D isagree and Disagree, SA/A represent response categories Agree and Strongly Agree With regard to concerns about using computers, overall, only 8% of faculty surveyed agreed that access to computers should be limited to the school library. In

PAGE 144

132 contrast, 62% concurred that students should be monitored when using computers. Only 2% of faculty agreed that having computers in classes is a waste of resources. S imilarly, only 8% of faculty members concurred that if they used computers in their classes, t hey would not have enough time to complete their syllabus. Only 22% of the respondents agreed that they are nervous when they have to use computers. In addition, 91% of faculty surveyed concurred that if they had computers in their class they would use t hem with their students. Only 22% agreed that they felt nervous when they have to use computers. Similarly, only 16% of these respondents agreed that computers are potenti al sources of distraction in the classroom. Data gathered through interviews with IT faculty members indicated that all IT faculty members from all three colleges displayed a positive attitude towa rds computers. They were also of the opinion that administrators, faculty and pre-service tea chers were positive about using computers in their teaching. Training Items in this subscale gathered faculty’s perceptions of the extent to which the training pre-service teachers receive during their college e xperience prepares them to use computers in their classes. These data are presented in Table 12. The data reported in Table 12 indicate that, in general, only 40% of faculty surveyed concurred that training pre-service teachers receive prepares t hem to teach with computers. While a small majority of faculty from College A (51%) and College C (6 5%) concurred that training pre-service teachers receive at their colle ges prepares them to teach with computers, only 17% of faculty from College B shared this perspective.

PAGE 145

133 Table 12 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT3P Process Factor (Training) by College Items College A (N=35) SD/D A/SA College B (N=53) SD/D A/SA College C (N=33) SD/D A/SA Total Sample (N=121) SD/D A/SA Training Training students receive prepares them to teach with computers. 49 51 83 17 35 65 60 40 Students in my college are taught how to teach with computers. 31 69 71 29 19 81 46 54 Methodology classes expose students to ways in which computers can be used as teaching tools. 24 76 27 73 38 62 29 71 At my college, there are courses specifically designed to teach students how to integrate computers in their classes. 15 85 62 38 22 78 34 66 At my college, there are courses that teach students specific computer skills. 15 85 63 37 3 97 32 68 Note: SD/D represent response categories Strongly D isagree and Disagree, SA/A represent response categories Agree and Strongly Agree Similarly, while faculty from College A and College C agreed that pre-servi ce teachers at their colleges are taught how to teach with computers, only 29% of fac ulty from College B shared this view. However, more faculty (62% to 76%) from all three colleges concurred that methodology classes expose pre-service teachers to w ays in which computers can be used in their classes. In addition, while more faculty from both

PAGE 146

134 College A (85% in both instances) and College C (78% to 97%) concurred that there ar e courses at their colleges that expose pre-service teachers to how comput ers can be integrated in their classes as well as teach them specific computer s kills, the opposite was reported from faculty from College B (38% and 37%). During interviews, one IT faculty member at College A indicated that pre-service teachers are exposed to two Technology in Education courses at this institution. Thi s respondent explained that the first of these two courses focuses on basic computer literacy and exposes pre-service teachers primarily to Microsoft Office software. This is an in-college course and is examined within that particular college. The s econd course is the one that is common among all teachers’ colleges in Jamaica and is mandated by th e Joint Board of Teacher Education (JBTE) and exposes pre-service teachers t o ways in which computers can be incorporated in their classes. At Colleges B and C, pre-ser vice teachers are required to complete one course, “Introduction to Educational Technology ” which is a requirement of the JBTE. One IT faculty member from College C noted, however, that they have started a program that exposes pre-service teacher s to two courses similar to those at College A, however, current final year students would not have benefited from this program. Field Experience/ Practice Items in this subscale of the Faculty Technology Integration Instrument gathered faculty’s perceptions of the extent to which pre-se rvice teachers receive practice using computers during their training as well as during their field experience activity. These data are presented in Table 13.

PAGE 147

135 Table 13 Percent of Faculty Responding to Evidence of IT3P Process Factor (Field Experience/Practice Using Computers) by College Items College A (N=35) SD/D A/SA College B (N=53) SD/D A/SA College C (N=33) SD/D A/SA Total Sample (N=121) SD/D A/SA Field Experience/Practice Using Computers I require my students to use computers to complete course assignments. 46 54 48 52 78 22 55 44 My students are required to use computers for class presentations. 67 33 70 30 94 6 75 25 I assign activities that require my students to use the Internet for research. 31 69 21 79 28 72 26 74 I encourage my students to use computers to communicate. 86 14 24 76 91 9 60 40 During TP, I require students use computers to prepare lessons. 75 25 83 17 87 13 82 18 During teaching practice, I ask my students to use computers to complete classroom activities. 75 25 90 10 94 6 87 13 Note: SD/D represent response categories Strongly D isagree and Disagree, SA/A represent response categories Agree and Strongly Agree As is evident from the data in Table 13, a majority of faculty surveyed disagreed that they required their students to use computers to complete course assignment s (55%) or for class presentations (75%). In contrast, 74% of these respondents concurred t hat

PAGE 148

136 they assigned activities that require their students to use the Internet for r esearch. In addition, a majority (82% and 87%) of these faculty members disagreed that students a re required to use computers to prepare their lessons or to complete classroom rela ted activities during their teaching practice activities. While the majority of faculty from College A (86%) and College C (91%) disagreed that they required their students to use computers for communication, 76% of faculty from College B agreed that they did. The data in Table 13 also indicate tha t the majority of faculty reported that their requirement for computer use by pre-ser vice teachers was limited to using computers to complete course assignments and to use t he Internet for research. IT faculty from all three colleges required students to use computers for class presentations, research and to complete course assignments. At both Colleges A and B, however, they did not require pre-service teachers to use computers during their practicum activities. According to an IT faculty from College A, “Ideally we would want them to, but they do not have access to lap tops that they can take with them, or to computers in their teaching practice schools”. At College C, however, IT faculty proposed that pre-service teachers who have IT as their “Advanced” area are re quired to use computers during their practicum.

PAGE 149

137 d) What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are present in teacher training programs? Data required to answer this research question were gathered through the Preservice Teachers Technology Integration Instrument as well as focus group discussion s with pre-service teachers. The data were examined by responses to prerequisite and process factors depicted in the IT 3 P model and are reported separately. Data from the PTTII are presented first followed by data gathered though interviews. Prerequisi te factors data are presented in Table 14; process factors are reported in Ta bles 15 to 19. Prerequisite Factors. Only one prerequisite factor, Access to Resources was included on the Pre-service Teachers Technology Integration Instrument as this w as the only prerequisite factor that was relevant to this population. Items in this subs cale gathered data regarding pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the extent to whi ch they had access to computers at college during their teacher training experienc e. These data are presented in Table 14. The data reported in Table 14 indicated a consensus among pre-service teachers that they have access to computers at college (100% agreed) and that they can use computer labs to complete their course assignments (90% of the total sample agre ed). In addition, the majority (60%) of these respondents concurred that they can use the computers in the lab to complete class-related activities during their prac ticum. A majority of pre-service teachers from both Colleges B and C (78% and 99%, respectively) agreed that they have access to the Internet at their coll ege, however, at

PAGE 150

138 College A, approximately 94% of the respondents reported that they did not have access to the Internet. Table 14 Percent of Pre-Service Teachers Responding to Evide nce of IT3P Prerequisite Factor (Access/Resources/Infrastructure) by College College A (N=89) SD/D A/SA College B (N=99) SD/D A/SA College C (N=80) SD/D /SA Total Sample (N=268) SD/D A/SA I have access to a computer lab at college 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 If I want to use computers to complete class assignments, I can use the computer lab. 1 99 23 77 0 100 10 90 I have access to the Internet at college. 94 6 22 78 1 99 40 60 If I want to use computers to prepare lesson plans or complete activities needed for teaching practice, I can use the computers in the lab. 30 70 27 73 38 62 35 65 Note: SD/D represents responses indicating Strongly Disagree and Disagree; A/SA represents responses Agree and Strongly Agree During focus group discussions responses to the question of access to computers at college included: “To some extent, not enough, sometimes, only some persons have access to the computers”. In addition, a pre-service teacher from College C stated: “There are rules about when we can use the lab and there are not always enough computers for all the students to use”. Pre-service teachers from all three colleges s uggested that they did not have adequate access to computers at their college. At College A for instance,

PAGE 151

139 one pre-service teacher stated that “sometimes some of the computers a re not working and there are no computers for us to use”. During focus group discussions it was ascertained that pre-service teachers a t College A did not have access to the Internet at their college. These data are consistent with those gathered in the PTTII where 94% of the respondents disagreed that they hav e access to the Internet at college. Respondents from College B reported that the y have access to the Internet, but one pre-service teacher stated, “If you want to us e the Internet, you have to pay”. Respondents from all three colleges agreed that they can use compute r labs, however, they have access to the labs only “at special times” when the labs are not being used for classes or other scheduled activities. Process Factors The following four process factors were examined in data gathered in the PTTII: modelling, positive attitude towards computers, training to teach with computers and field experience/practice using computers at college and during field experienc e. Preservice teachers’ responses are reported in Tables 15 to 19. Modelling Items in this subscale gathered pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which faculty model computer use in their classes as well as dis play a positive attitude towards computers. The data in Table 15 show that a majority of pre-serv ice teachers surveyed reported that their faculty did not model computer use in their c lasses (73%) or show them how to teach with computers (70%). In addition, 68% of pre-service

PAGE 152

140 teachers from all three colleges disagreed that during their college expe rience, their lecturers used computers as teaching tools. Table 15 Percent of Pre-Service Teachers Responding to Evide nce of IT3P Process Factor (Modelling) by College Items College A (N=89) SD/D A/SA College B (N=99) SD/D A/SA College C (N=80) SD/D /SA Total Sample (N=268) SD/D A/SA Modelling My lecturers model computer use in their classes. 61 39 80 20 77 23 73 27 My lecturers use computers as teaching tools. 63 37 68 32 73 27 68 32 At college, lecturers show us how to teach with computers. 53 47 86 14 70 30 70 30 My lecturers display a positive attitude towards computers. 27 73 41 59 20 80 30 70 Note: SD/D represent response categories Strongly D isagree and Disagree, SA/A represent response categories Agree and Strongly Agree In contrast, the majority (70%) of these respondents concurred that their faculty modeled a positive attitude towards computers. Generally, pre-service te achers from College B rated the extent to which faculty modeled computer use at their colleg e more negatively than their counterparts from both Colleges A and C. In contrast, pre-serv ice teachers from College A generally rated items in this subscale more positive ly than their counterparts in Colleges B and C.

PAGE 153

141 During focus group discussions, the question of whether or not faculty model computer use in their classes resulted in resounding laughter from pre-service te achers. A respondent from College C proposed, “At one point one teacher took us to the lab to use the Internet. Teachers do not even use PowerPoint slides in their classes”. Similar views were shared by pre-service teachers from Colleges A and B. Data gathered through th is medium support data gathered through questionnaires and indicate that pre-serv ice teachers, for the most part, did not perceive that their faculty modeled computer us e in their classes. Positive Attitude Towards Computers Items in this subscale of the PTTII gathered data regarding pre-service teachers’ (a) attitude towards compute rs, and (b) concerns about using computers in classes. The first five items on this subscal e gathered data regarding pre-service teachers’ attitude and the last four items foc used on concerns about using computers in their classes. Table 16 presents data on positive attitude tow ards computers. The data reported in Table 16 show that, in general, a large majority of preservice teachers (66% to 97%) with items that measured positive attitude t owards computers. For instance, 98% of these respondents concurred that computers are important learning tools. This response pattern was consistent at the individua l college level with 95% to 100% of these respondents concurring with these items. However, with regard to the extent to which students with access to computers are more likely t o do better than those who do not, only approximately 59% to 74% agreed with this statement. This pattern was consistent among respondents from all three colleges.

PAGE 154

142 Table 16 Percent of Pre-Service Teachers Responding to Evide nce of IT3P Process Factor (Positive Attitude Towards Computers) by College College A (N=89) SD/D A/SA College B (N=99) SD/D A/SA College C (N=80) SD/D /SA Total Sample (N=268) SD/D A/SA Positive Attitude I believe computers can improve the quality of learning that takes place in schools. 1 99 3 97 3 97 3 97 Students who have access to computers are more likely to do better than those who do not. 32 68 41 59 26 74 34 66 Computers are important learning tools. 1 99 5 95 0 100 2 98 Computers should be placed in all schools. 5 95 9 91 1 99 5 95 Computers should be placed in all classrooms. 19 81 12 88 2 98 12 88 Note: SD/D represent response categories Strongly D isagree and Disagree, SA/A represent response categories Agree and Strongly Agree Concerns about using Computers Table 17 presents data regarding pre-service teachers’ concerns about using computers in their classes. With regards to concerns about using computers in their classes, the data presented in Table 17 show that 99% of the respondents disagreed that computers are potential sources of distraction in the classroom. Similarly, 95% disagree d that access to computers should be limited to the school library. In contrast, 36% disagreed that students should be monitored when using computers. Only a limited number (14%) of

PAGE 155

143 pre-service teachers surveyed concurred they are nervous about using computers in t heir classes. Table 17 Percent of Pre-Service Teachers Responding to Evide nce of IT3P Process Factor (Concerns about using computers) by College College A (N=89) SD/D A/SA College B (N=99) SD/D A/SA College C (N=80) SD/D /SA Total Sample (N=268) SD/D A/SA Concerns About Using Computers Computers are potential sources of distraction in the classroom. 100 0 98 2 100 0 99 1 Access to computers should be limited to the school library. 96 4 91 9 100 0 95 5 Students should be monitored when using computers. 45 55 18 82 47 53 36 64 I feel nervous when I have to use computers. 95 5 86 14 77 23 86 14 Note: SD/D represent response categories Strongly D isagree and Disagree, SA/A represent response categories Agree and Strongly Agree Focus group data regarding pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards compute rs corroborate data gathered via the PTTII. The data indicate that in general, preservice teachers from all three colleges displayed a positive attitude towards the c omputer and the role it can play in the teaching learning process. They were of the opinion that computers are important learning tools and can improve the quality of learning that takes place in schools. They also believe that students who have access to computers are likely

PAGE 156

144 to do better in schools that those do not. At College A, one respondent proposed that “access to computers can expose learners to another world that they have only imagi ned. The computer combines images and sounds to make things real. Therefore, learners need to be exposed to this new world”. These respondents indicated that they were not nervous about using computers and are looking forward to using computers in their classes. Training Items on this subscale gathered data regarding pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which training they received at their college prepar ed them to integrate computers in their classes. These data are presented in Ta ble 18. As is reported in Table 18, only 37% of pre-service teachers surveyed concurred that their teacher training programs exposed them to ways in which computers can be used to manage their classroom activities. While a majority of pre-service teachers from College B agreed that their teacher training programs exposed them to ways in whic h computers can be used to manage their classroom activities, the contrast was observed in responses from pre-service teachers from both Colleges B and C. At these inst itutions, only a small percentage (21% and 19%) from Colleges B and C, respectively, agreed w ith this statement. In addition, 45% of pre-service teachers reported training rec eived during their college experience equipped them with knowledge and skills required to teach with computers.

PAGE 157

145 Table 18 Percent of Pre-Service Teachers Responding to Evide nce of IT3P Process Factor (Training) by College College A (N=89) SD/D A/SA College B (N=99) SD/D A/SA College C (N=80) SD/D /SA Total Sample (N=268) SD/D A/SA Training My teacher training program exposed me to ways in which computers can be used to manage my classroom activities. 24 76 79 21 81 19 63 37 My teacher training equipped me with knowledge and skills required to plan lessons that involve students using computers. 46 54 71 29 74 26 55 45 My teacher training equipped me with knowledge and skills required to teach with computers. 43 57 78 22 66 34 63 37 My teacher training program exposed me to different software that can be used in my classes. 41 59 86 14 63 37 64 36 Note: SD/D represent response categories Strongly D isagree and Disagree, SA/A represent response categories Agree and Strongly Agree Similarly, 37% reported teacher training equipped them with knowledge and skills required to teach with computers and 36% concurred that their teacher trai ning program exposed them to different types of software that can be used in their clas ses. On all four items in this subscale, the pattern of responses from pre-service t eachers at College A differed somewhat from that from Colleges B and C. More specifical ly, a

PAGE 158

146 higher percentage of pre-service teachers from College A concurred with each of t hese statements than their peers at Colleges B and C. During focus group discussions, pre-service teachers described training they received on how to integrate computers in their classes as minimal At College C, for instance, one respondent stated, “assumptions were made about our computer skills, therefore, courses were not carefully designed to cater to the needs of st udents who had little previous experience using computers.” In addition, respondents from all thr ee colleges proposed that while the primary source of their technology training was thr ough their Introduction to Educational Technology class, the course did “not directly” expose them to ways in which computers can be used as teaching tools, but more on how to use particular software, primarily word processing software--exposure to othe r types of software was minimal. At College A, for instance, pre-service teachers indicated that they had been exposed, to a small extent to using presentation software such as PowerPoint. Pre-service teachers from all three colleges indicated that their tea cher-training program did not provide them with adequate exposure to computers and how these tools can be integrated in their classes. Field Experience/Practice Using Computers : Items in this subscale gathered data regarding pre-service teachers perceptions of the extent to which they used c omputers during their teacher training or during their field experience. These data ar e presented in Table 19.

PAGE 159

147 Table 19 Percent of Pre-Service Teachers Responding to Evide nce of IT3P Process Factor (Field Experience/Practice Using Computers) by College College A (N=89) SD/D A/SA College B (N=99) SD/D A/SA College C (N=80) SD/D /SA Total Sample (N=268) SD/D A/SA Field Experience/Practice Using Computers At college, I use computers to conduct research. 15 85 26 74 30 70 24 76 At college, I use computers to complete course assignments. 2 98 16 84 29 71 16 84 At college, I use computers to communicate with peers and faculty. 82 18 78 22 73 27 78 22 During my teacher training, I used computers for class presentations. 63 37 72 28 64 36 66 34 During teaching practice, I used computers to prepare my lessons. 59 41 57 43 80 20 65 35 Note: SD/D represents responses indicating Strongly Disagree and Disagree; A/SA represents responses Agree and Strongly Agree The data represented in Table 19 show that 76% of all pre-service teachers surveyed concurred that, during their college experience, they used computers t o conduct research. In addition, 84% reported that they used computers to complete course assignments. In contrast, only 22% of the respondents concurred that they used computers to communicate with peers and faculty while at college. Approximately 34% to 35% concurred that they used computers for class presentations and to prepare their lessons during their practicum activities.

PAGE 160

148 Data gathered from focus group discussions support findings from the PTTII. Preservice teachers indicated that faculty do not require that they use computers to conduct research or for communication. However, they noted one exception, Technology in Education faculty usually assigned them activities that involved using the Internet, b ut this was not generally done by other faculty members. Pre-service teachers also r eported that they used the Internet as a source of information when they do research even though faculty did not require that they do this. In addition, data from focus group discussions indicated that faculty do not systematically require pre-service teache rs to use computers to complete course assignments, but they sometimes do. Despite the fact that on the PTTII these respondents reported that they have access to computers at college during focus group discussions, additional information was provided regarding the amount of access to and the availability of computers at college. They explained that despi te the fact that there were computers at their colleges in the labs and the library, t hey were not always available and while pre-service teachers wanted to use computers to c omplete their course assignments, they sometimes did not have access to the computer laboratories. In addition, there are rules regarding when and who can use the labs at gi ven points in the day.

PAGE 161

149 d) Are there differences, across colleges, in the perceptions of (a) te achers’ college faculty and (b) pre-service teachers regarding evidence of components of the IT 3 P framework in their teacher training programs? To answer this research question, composite means for each college were calculated for individual prerequisite and process factors delineated in the IT 3 P framework. Table 20 presents means and standard deviations for faculty ratings on the FTII by teachers’ college. A cursory review of data presented in Table 20 reveals that for the prerequisite factor technology plan, a slightly higher mean (M= 2.24; SD= .72) was observed from faculty at College A than for faculty at College B and C (M = 1.95 and 1.83, respectively). For the factors staff development and access to computers, the highes t means were recorded from respondents from College C. For all prerequisite f actors, lowest means were recorded for faculty respondents from College B, indicating the majority of these respondents did not concur these factors were evident in their c ollege. Of all the four prerequisite factors, the lowest mean was recorded for technology pl an showing the least agreement among faculty that there was on evidence of a technol ogy plan in their respective colleges. With regard to process factors, the data suggest that faculty from all three t eachers’ colleges reported generally positive attitudes towards computers wit h means of 3.60, 3.62 and 3.49 from respondents from Colleges A, B and C, respectively. The majority of faculty from College C did not concur that they modeled computer use for their pre-service teachers or that the pre-service teachers at their colleg e had practice using computers in their classes or during their field experience activities. Fac ulty from both

PAGE 162

150 Colleges A and B were more likely to concur with that these two factors were evi dent in their colleges. Table 20 Means and Standard Deviations of Faculty Ratings on Subscales of the FTII by College Subscales College A (N = 35) College B (N = 53) College C (N = 33) Prerequisite Factors Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Technology Plan 2.24 .72 1.95 .52 1.83 .62 Staff Development 2.39 .67 2.26 .49 2.72 .48 Access to Computers 2.86 .87 2.56 .50 3.13 .34 Support at the College Level 3.10 .84 2.55 .62 3.08 .42 Process Factors Modelling Computer Use 2.26 .49 2.39 .83 1.99 .56 Attitude Towards Computers 3.60 .34 3.62 .42 3.49 .39 Pre-service Teachers’ Training 2.93 .60 2.32 .59 2.94 .48 Field Experience/Practice 2.09 .80 2.42 .53 1.86 .52 N = 121 Response Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4= Strongly Agree To determine if these differences in faculty mean ratings were statisti cally significant across colleges, each of the eight subscale scores was anal yzed separately

PAGE 163

151 through a one-way ANOVA procedure. To minimize the probability of a Type 1 error, (i.e., finding a significant difference when there was none), a significance le vel of .01 was employed for these analyses. In addition, the Scheff method was used to perform all possible pair-wise comparisons to identify specific sources of differences among colleges. Table 21 presents ANOVA results for each of the IT 3 P factors. An examination of the analysis of variance summary data reported in Table 21 shows that there were significant differences (p < .01) in mean faculty ratings on t hree prerequisite and three process factors. Post-hoc analysis using Scheff’s test identified the colleges between which mean ratings were statistically significant. Faculty Prerequisite Factors Differences in mean ratings for the prerequisite factor technology plan were not statistically significant. With regards to the prere quisite factor staff development, the significant difference was between mean ratings for f aculty in College C and College B (p < .01). Faculty at College C had more positive ratings for availability of opportunities for staff development as well as faculty partici pation in staff development than faculty at College B. Difference in mean ratings for faculty from College A and C was not statistically significant at p < .01. Relative to access to computers, post-hoc analysis reveal the mean ratings for faculty at College C (M= 3.13) was significantly higher than that of College B (M = 2.56) but not College A (M= 2.86) indicating that faculty at College C rated their access to computers more positively than their counterparts at College B. However, their rat ings were similar to that of faculty from College A.

PAGE 164

152 Table 21 Summary Results of ANOVA of Faculty Ratings on the FTII Subscales Across Teachers’ Colleges Subscales df MS F P Prerequisite Factors Technology Plan 2 1.519 3.97 .021 Staff Development 2 2.135 7.19 .001* Access to Computers 2 3.231 8.98 .000* Support at the College Level 2 4.112 9.87 .000* ___________________________________________________________________ Process Factors Modelling Computer Use 2 5.665 13.16 .000* Attitude Towards Computers 2 0.138 0.835 .437 Pre-service Teachers’ Training 2 5.139 15.98 .000* Field Experience/Practice 2 3.381 8.95 .000* p < .01 With regards the prerequisite factor Support at the College Level, post-hoc analysis show that mean ratings for faculty at Colleges A (M = 3.10) and C (M= 3.08) were significantly higher than that of faculty from College B (M = 2.25). Faculty at

PAGE 165

153 Colleges A and C were relatively similar in their ratings and perceived colle ge level support to be more evident at their college than faculty from College B. Process Factors The data presented in Table 21 indicate that differences in mean ratings of faculty across colleges were significant for three of the four proc ess factors-modelling computer use, training pre-service teachers received in the use of c omputers and field experience/practice pre-service teachers received in using com puters. Relative to faculty modelling, post-hoc analysis show the mean ratings for faculty at Coll ege B (M = 2.39) was significantly higher than that of faculty ratings at College C (M = 1.99) but not from College A (M = 2.26). The means for College A and College C were not significantly different at p < .01. With regards to pre-service teachers’ training, mean ratings of faculty respondents from both Colleges A and C were very similar (M = 2.93 and 2.94, 43spectively) and rated the training pre-service teachers received at the ir college in the use computers more positively than faculty at College B (M = 2.32) Significant differences in mean ratings were observed for faculty from Colle ges A and B and C and B, differences in mean ratings between faculty from Colleges A and C were not significant. Regarding field experience/practice pre-service teacher s receive using computers, post-hoc analysis revealed that the mean faculty ratings for College B (M = 2.42) were significantly higher than mean ratings for faculty from College C (M = 1.82). However, no significant differences in mean ratings were observed for faculty fr om College A (M = 2.09) and College B (M = 2.42) or between mean ratings for faculty from College A and College C p < .01.

PAGE 166

154 Pre-service Teachers To ascertain if there were differences in perceptions of pre-service teac hers across colleges regarding components of prerequisite and process factors delineated in the IT 3 P, composite means were calculated for items in each subscale. Means and standar d deviations for IT 3 P prerequisite and process factors on the PTTII by college are presented in Table 22. Table 22 Means and Standard Deviations of Pre-service Teache rs Ratings on Subscales of the PTTII by College Subscales College A (N=89) Mean SD College B (N=99) Mean SD College C (N=80) Mean SD Prerequisite Factors Access to Computers 3.75 .29 3.34 .12 3.69 .45 Process Factors Faculty Modelling Computer Use 2.45 .62 1.89 .66 2 .20 .63 Attitude Towards Computers 3.14 .34 3.00 .49 3.03 .30 Pre-service Teachers’ Training 2.61 .52 1.75 .43 2 .01 .41 Field Experience/Practice 2.64 .59 2.37 .67 2.23 .7 3 Response Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4= Strongly Agree

PAGE 167

155 An initial review of the data presented in Table 22 suggest that pre-service teachers at College A were more likely to agree that they had access to c omputers at their college than their peers at Colleges B and C. With regard to process factors, t he data suggest that the highest means were recorded from pre-service teacher r espondents from College A on all four process factors. In addition, on the factor, attitude towards computers, relatively high mean ratings were observed from respondents from all t hree colleges suggesting that pre-service teachers from all three colleges ha d generally positive attitudes towards computers. On the process factors modelling and traini ng, the lowest means were recorded from pre-service teachers from College B suggesting these respondents were less likely to concur that these factors were evident i n their college than pre-service teachers in Colleges A and C. To ascertain whether differences am ong these means were significantly different, data for each of the five subscales wa s analyzed separately using one-way ANOVA procedures. To determine if differences in mean ratings were indeed significant and guard against Type 1 error, a more rigorous significance level of .01 was set. To identify specific sources of difference s between colleges, pair-wise contrasts were performed using the Scheff’s post-hoc test. The ANOVA summary results for the PTTII are presented in Table 23. As is evident from the data presented in Table 23, on the prerequisite factor access to computers, there were no significant differences (p > .01) in mean ra tings among pre-service teachers from all three colleges. With regards to proces s factors, significant differences were observed for three of the four process facto rs--modelling computer use, training pre-service teachers received in using computers, and fiel d experience or practice pre-service teachers receive in the use of co mputers.

PAGE 168

156 Table 23 Summary Results of One-way ANOVA of Pre-service Tea chers Ratings on the PTTII Subscales Across Teachers’ Colleges Subscales df MS F p Prerequisite Factor Access to Computers 2 3.312 7.78 .026 Process Factors Modelling Computer Use 2 6.009 14.24 .000* Attitude Towards Computers 2 0.480 3.02 .50 Pre-service Teachers’ Training 2 12.456 37.12 .000* Field Experience/Practice 2 3.211 7.41 .001* In terms of the extent to which faculty model computer use in their classes, ther e was a significant difference (p< .01) between the mean rating of pre-service teachers from College A (M = 2.45) and that of their peer at College B (M = 1.89). Thus, pre-service teachers from College A rated the faculty significantly higher on facul ty modelling computer use in their classes than did their peers at College B. No diff erences were observed between mean ratings of pre-service teachers from College A (M = 2.45) and College C (M = 2.20) or College B and College C. Relative to pre-service teachers’ attitude towards computers, post-hoc a nalysis revealed there were no significant differences (p> .01) in mean ratings among pre-s ervice teachers from all three colleges. These participants were generally posi tive in their ratings

PAGE 169

157 of attitudes towards computers. With regard to pre-service teachers’ tr aining in the use of computers, (p < .01) differences in mean ratings were observed from College A (M = 2.61) and College B (M = 1.75) and between College A (M = 2.61) and College C (M= 2.01). However, there were no significant differences in mean ratings between respondents from Colleges B and C. Finally, the Scheff’ test revealed that for the process factor, field experience/practice using computers in their cla sses and during field experience, there was a significant difference (p< .01) in mean ratings for College s A and C. However, there are no significant differences observed in the mean ratings of preservice teachers from Colleges B and C or from Colleges A and B. Faculty Perceptions of Preparation to Integrate Computers in their Teaching Research Question 2 To what extent are teachers’ college faculty in Jamaica prepared to integ rate computers in their teaching? a. What are faculty’s perceptions of the extent to which they are prepared to integrate computers in their classes? To answer this research question, faculty were asked to respond to five items on Preparation to Teach with Computers on the FTII. Items in this subscale gathered faculty’s perceptions of the extent to which they felt prepared to use computers as teaching tools and to teach their students how to teach with computers. Items in t his subscale also gathered faculty’s perceptions of their preparation to use comput ers for

PAGE 170

158 communication and research. The percentages of teachers’ college faculty who concur red or disagreed with individual items are presented in Table 24. As is indicated from the data presented in Table 24, overall 48% of teachers’ college faculty surveyed perceived themselves to be prepared to teach with computer s. In addition, 40% of the respondents concurred that they felt prepared to teach their stude nts how to teach with computers. However, the response patterns on these two items differed between faculty at College B and those at Colleges A and C. A majority of faculty a t College B (62%) reported that they felt prepared to teach their students how t o teach with computers compared with 25% from College A and 18% from College C. Approximately 30% of faculty reported that they knew enough about different types of software to use them in their classes. However, as was observed previousl y, responses from faculty from College B differed somewhat from the pattern of re sponses from faculty at Colleges A and C. More specifically, 50% of the faculty at College B considered themselves to know enough about different types of software to use them in their classes as compared to only 23% and 6% of faculty from College A and College B, respectively, reporting such knowledge. Approximately, 72% concurred that they felt prepared to use computers to communicate and collaborate and 71% reported that the y feel prepared to use computers to conduct research. Patterns of responses were c onsistent across all three colleges on these items.

PAGE 171

159 Table 24 Percent of Teachers’ College Faculty Responding to Preparation to Teach with Computers Subscale by College Items College A (N=89) SD/D A/SA College B (N=99) SD/D A/SA College C (N=80) SD/D /SA Total Sample (N=268) SD/D A/SA I feel prepared to teach with computers. 66 37 38 62 64 36 52 48 I feel prepared to teach my students how to teach with computers. 75 25 38 62 82 18 60 40 I know enough about different types of software to use them in my class. 77 23 50 50 94 6 70 30 I feel prepared to use computers to communicate and collaborate. 29 71 32 68 21 79 28 72 I feel prepared to use computers to conduct research. 37 63 26 74 24 76 29 71 Note: SD/D represent response categories Strongly D isagree and Disagree, SA/A represent response categories Agree and Strongly Agree b. What are faculty’s perceptions of their levels of proficiency with computer productivity, communication and research tools? To gather data regarding faculty’s perceptions of their computer proficiency, faculty were asked to use a four-point rating scale ranging from 1 = Poor to 4 = Excellent to rate their proficiency with various software types. Means and standard devia tions of faculty ratings of their proficiency for each software type by college as wel l as for the total sample across all three colleges are presented in Table 25. Examination of Table 25 revealed that for the total sample teachers’ college faculty perceived themselves to be most proficient with using E-mail (M = 3.06), w ord

PAGE 172

160 processors (M = 2.88), web browsers (M = 2.79) and web search engines (M = 2.58). They reported themselves to be least proficient in the use of programming and authoring software (M = 1.41), web publishing (M =1.55), electronic Gradebooks (M = 1.55) and desktop publishing software (M = 1.74). Table 25 Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers’ College Faculty Ratings of Computer Proficiency by College and for the Total Sample Software Type College A (N = 35) Mean SD College B (N = 53) Mean SD College C (N = 33) Mean SD Total Sample (N = 121) Mean SD Word Processors 2.60 .85 3.06 .79 2.91 .95 2.88 .88 Databases 1.58 .87 2.24 .97 1.56 .72 1.86 .9 3 Spreadsheets 1.71 .97 2.16 1.03 1.76 .79 1.92 .97 Programming/ Authoring 1.17 .45 1.74 .88 1.13 .56 1.41 .75 Web Publishing 1.37 .81 1.92 .95 1.13 .34 1.55 .85 Presentation 2.00 1.02 2.10 1.02 2.36 .86 2.14 .98 Desktop Publishing 1.63 1.11 2.00 1.04 1.45 .79 1.74 1.02 Web Browsers 2.74 1.05 2.73 1.17 2.94 1.00 2.79 1.08 E-mail 2.74 .95 3.21 .95 3.15 .97 3.06 .97 Other Internet Communication tools 1.80 1.02 2.18 1.02 2.00 .87 2.02 .99 Online Databases 1.76 1.05 1.90 1.04 2.00 1.00 1.89 1.03 Web Search Engines 2.49 1.17 2.54 1.11 2.75 1.11 2.58 1.12 Electronic Gradebooks 1.46 .74 1.88 1.06 1.12 .33 1.55 .88 Scale: 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Excellent

PAGE 173

161 A cursory review of these data suggest that, generally, faculty from College B rated their levels of proficiency with word processors, databases, spreadshee ts, programming/authoring, web publishing, desktop publishing, e-mail, Internet communication tools, and electronic Gradebooks higher than their counterparts from Colleges A and C. In contrast, faculty from College C perceived themselves as mor e proficient in using presentation software, web browsers, online databases and web sea rch engines than their peers from Colleges A and B. Faculty from College A reported le ast proficiency in using all the different software types. c. Are there differences in faculty’s perceptions of their preparation to teach with computers? To answer this research question, composite means for each college were calculated for the five items on the FTII that measured faculty’s percepti ons of their preparation to teach with computers. An examination of these means indicated that the highest mean was reported from faculty from College B (M = 2.69), followed by College C (M = 2.38), and College A (M = 2.29). When interpreted on the response scale of 1= Poor to 4 = Excellent, these means are relatively low indicating that facul ty rated their perceptions of preparation to teach with computers as Fair to Good Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA to determine if differences in mean ratings were significant between colleges. Results from the ANOVA show that means were not significantly different among colleges (F= 3.745, p > .01) at the .01 level of significance used for this study.

PAGE 174

162 Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Preparation to Integrate Computers in t heir Teaching Research Question 3 To what extent are Jamaica’s pre-service teachers prepared to teach with computers? a. What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the training they received during their college program prepared them to integrate computers in their teaching? To answer this research question, pre-service teachers responded to five it ems on the PTTII on Preparation to Teach with Computers Items in this subscale gathered preservice teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which they are prepared to tea ch with computers and use computers for research and communication. These respondents were asked to use a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree to indicate their level of agreement with each of the five statements. The percentages of pre-service teachers who concurred or disagreed with individua l items are presented in Table 26. An examination of the data in Table 26 indicate that a majority (64%) of preservice teachers who participated in this study did not perceive themselves as prep ared to teach with computers. Only 36% of these respondents concurred that they felt prepared t o teach with computers. Similarly, only 36% of pre-service teachers surveyed agr eed that they knew enough about different types of software to use them in their classes. Only 37% perceived themselves as prepared to use computers to teach their students and 4 8% felt prepared to use computers to communicate and collaborate. In contrast, 62% of th e

PAGE 175

163 pre-service teachers surveyed reported that they felt prepared to use compute rs to conduct research. Table 26 Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers’ College Faculty Ratings of Computer Proficiency by College and for the Total Sample College A (N=89) SD/D A/SA College B (N=99) SD/D A/SA College C (N=80) SD/D /SA Total Sample (N=268) SD/D A/SA I feel prepared to teach with computers. 47 53 75 25 71 29 64 36 I feel prepared to use computers to conduct research. 27 73 49 51 41 59 39 61 I know enough about different types of software to use them in my classes. 40 60 86 14 63 37 64 36 I feel prepared to use computers to teach my students. 46 54 74 26 72 28 63 37 I feel prepared to use computers to communicate and collaborate. 51 49 61 39 43 57 52 48 Note: SD/D represent response categories Strongly D isagree and Disagree, SA/A represent response categories Agree and Strongly Agree A closer examination of the data reported in Table 26shows that the pattern of responses relative to pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their prepara tion to teach with computers varied across colleges. On all but one item on this subscale, a majori ty of preservice teachers from College A reported preparedness to teach with computers use computers to conduct research, different types of software in their classes and to use computers to teach their students. In contrast, a majority of pre-service tea chers from

PAGE 176

164 College B and College C reported that they did not feel prepared to teach with co mputers, use different types of software in their classes, and use computers to teach their students. However, a slight majority (51% to 59%) indicated that they felt prepared to use computers to conduct research. They felt prepared to use computers to communicate and collaborate. Data from focus group discussions support the general perceptions among that pre-service teachers do not feel prepared to teach with computers. When pre-s ervice teachers were asked if they felt prepared to teach with computers, responses such as, “To a small extent, not really, more training is needed, I’ll do a computer course afte r college” were recorded from approximately 75% of respondents from all three college Only a moderate number of pre-service teachers reported that they were prepared to us e computers as teaching tools. These pre-service teachers did not attribute their feeling of preparedness to teach with computers to the training they received at their colle ge rather to their own initiative. For instance, one respondent stated, “Preparation to use c omputers did not result from training received at college but from my own initiative and need t o be computer literate. I also acquired computer skills prior to coming to college”. b. What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their levels of proficiency with computer productivity, communication and research tools? To answer this research question, data regarding pre-service teachers’ perc eived Computer Proficiency were gathered from responses to items on the PTII. Pre-service teachers were asked to use a four-point rating scale ranging from 1 = Poor to 4 =

PAGE 177

165 Excellent to indicate their perceptions of their proficiency with various computer tools Table 27 presents means and standard deviations of proficiency ratings for each softwa re type by college and for the total sample. When total sample means in Table 27 are examined for pre-service teachers f rom all three colleges, it was found that, in general, pre-service teachers perc eived themselves as most proficient with word processors (M = 2.91), e-mail (M = 2.67), web search engines (M = 2.64) and web browsers (M = 2.52). They perceived themselves as least proficient with using databases (M = 1.80), other Internet communication tools (M = 1.79), online databases (M = 1.73), web publishing software (M = 1.46) and programming/authoring software (M =1.28). When these data are examined by individual colleges, it was found that pre-service teachers at College A rated their proficiency levels higher on all softw are types except presentation, web browsers, e-mail, online databases, and web search engines as compared with pre-service teachers at the other two colleges. Pre-servi ce teachers from College B reported higher levels of proficiency with web browsers (M = 2.68), and e-mails (M =2.82) than their peers at Colleges A and C. Pre-service teachers fr om College C reported higher levels of proficiency with presentation software (2.49), online databases (M = 2.10), and web search engines (M = 2.93) as compared with their counterparts from Colleges A and B.

PAGE 178

166 Table 27 Means and Standard Deviations for Pre-service Teach ers’ Ratings of Computer Proficiency by College and for the Total Sample Software Type College A (N = 89) Mean SD College B (N = 99) Mean SD College C (N = 80) Mean SD Total Sample (N= 268) Mean SD Word Processors 3.11 .95 2.83 .93 2.79 .85 2.91 .92 Databases 2.08 .84 1.64 .85 1.68 .84 1.80 .86 Spreadsheets 2.49 1.00 1.70 .96 2.08 .98 2.08 1.03 Programming 1.50 .80 1.24 .71 1.10 .34 1.28 .67 Web Publishing 1.67 .90 1.41 .78 1.30 .63 1.46 .79 Presentation 2.45 1.12 1.88 1.04 2.49 .95 2.26 1.08 Web Browsers 2.23 1.18 2.68 1.14 2.65 .99 2.52 1.12 E-mail 2.47 1.20 2.82 1.11 2.70 1.08 2.67 1.14 Internet Communication tools 1.89 1.08 1.82 .94 1.63 .89 1.79 .98 Online Databases 1.48 .75 1.62 .94 2.10 1.07 1.73 .96 Web Search Engines 2.27 1.21 2.72 1.22 2.93 .96 2.64 1.71 Scale: 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Excellent In general, mean ratings for all software types were relatively low when interpreted on the response scale of 1= Poor to 4 = Excellent. The highest mean was reported for proficiency with word processing from pre-service teachers from College A

PAGE 179

167 (M = 3.11); all other means were below 3 indicating that the majority of pre-servic e teachers rated their proficiency with various software types as Fair to Good. In addition to gathering data on perceptions of preparation to teach with computers, pre-service teachers were asked to indicate the extent to which va rious computer skills were acquired during their college experience. Pre-service t eachers were asked to use a four-point rating scale ranging from 1 = Not at all to 4 = To a great extent to indicate their perceptions of the degree to which their training at college exposed them to various software categories. Means and standard deviations for each college as well as the total sample are presented in Table 28. An examination of the data in Table 28 shows that for the total sample, the highest means were reported for word processing and presentation software with me ans of 2.24 and 1.86, respectively. Lowest mean ratings were reported for web publishing (M = 1.18), desktop publishing (M = 1.20) and other Internet communication tools (M =1.2). This indicates that pre-service teachers were of the opinion that they were mos t frequently exposed to word processing and presentation software during their teacher training experience.

PAGE 180

168 Table 28 Means and Standard Deviations for Pre-service Teach ers Computer Skills Acquired at College by College and the Total Sample Software Type College A (n = 89) Mean SD College B (n = 99) Mean SD College C (n = 80) Mean SD Total Sample (n = 268) Mean SD Word Processing 2.90 .76 1.39 .80 2.50 .79 2.24 1.02 Spreadsheets 2.29 .90 1.09 .32 1.89 .72 1.73 .85 Databases 1.84 .93 1.07 .25 1.48 .66 1.45 .73 Presentation 2.35 .92 1.23 .58 2.09 .91 1.86 .94 Programming 1.46 .79 1.10 .30 1.22 .55 1.25 .59 Web Publishing 1.35 .77 1.02 .15 1.20 .46 1.18 .53 Desktop Publishing 1.38 .73 1.03 .18 1.19 .43 1.20 .51 E-mail 1.66 .91 1.14 .43 1.77 .82 1.51 .79 Internet Comm. tools 1.29 .55 1.06 .29 1.30 .59 1.21 .49 The Internet 1.73 .87 1.41 .82 2.24 .89 1.77 .92 Scale: 1 = Not at all, 2 = To a small extent, 3 = To a moderate extent, 4 = To a great extent When data for individual colleges were examined, respondents from College A had the highest mean ratings for all software types except e-mail, Internet c ommunication tools and the Internet. In these instances, highest mean ratings were reco rded from preservice respondents from College C. The lowest means for all categories we re observed

PAGE 181

169 for respondents from College B. Generally, mean ratings for all software types ar e relatively low and fall within the Not at all to To a small extent range. c. Are there differences across colleges in pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their preparation to teach with computers? To answer this research question, composite means were computed for the five items on the PTTII that measured pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their preparation to teach with computers. An examination of composite means, by college, on this subscale show that the highest mean was reported from pre-service teachers from Colle ge A (M = 2.73), followed by College C (M = 2.27) and College B (M= 1.96). When placed on a scale of 1-4, these mean ratings are relatively low ranging from Fair to Good and indicate that the general perception among pre-service teachers from all three c olleges that they are not prepared to teach with computers. To ascertain whether there were significant differences in pre-ser vice teachers’ perceptions to teach with computers across colleges, these data were subje cted to oneway ANOVA procedure. Results from the ANOVA show a significant difference in mean ratings for at least two colleges (F= 37.12, p < .01). Post-hoc analysis using Schef f test revealed that pre-service teachers at College A reported signifi cantly higher ratings for their preparation to teach with computers (M = 2.73) than their peers at Col lege B (M = 1.96) and College C (M = 2.27). There were no significant differences between the mean ratings of pre-service teachers from Colleges B and C.

PAGE 182

170 Specific Factors Required to Facilitate Technology Integration Research Question 4 What do study participants propose as specific factors required to facilitat e technology integration into Jamaica’s teacher training programs? Data required to answer this research question were gathered via interv iews with teachers’ college administrators, faculty and pre-service teachers. Dat a were examined and the following themes emerged and are proposed as specific factors required to facilitate technology integration in Jamaica’s teacher training programs. The themes that emerged from each data source will be reported separately. College administrators proposed the following factors are required to facilit ate technology integration into Jamaica’s teacher training programs: 1. Access to computers All administrators interviewed were of the opinion that the single most important factor that would facilitate technology integration into the college curriculum is access to computers for both students and faculty. One administrator at College B stated, “Resources would be the thing that the col lege needs the most”. He further proposed that each college must have “An instructional technology information center as well as computers for individual students” if technology is to be incorporated into the college curriculum. Another administrator at College A believed that a model on technology integration in teachers’ colleges “would include the presence of computers and a core IT uni t and also the faculty to operate the lab.” Similarly, an administrator from C ollege

PAGE 183

171 C posited, “colleges need to have a lab that is dedicated to computers. I also think you need to have an area in the staff room where people can get online, prepare their lessons and communicate. It does not have to be a one-to-one computer thing.” In addition, administrators from College B proposed that computers in colleges should be wired to facilitate communication and information sharing among the college population. All these participants agreed that while faculty seem willing to use computers in their classes, inadequate resources great ly hinders their drive to teach computer-based lessons, therefore, required hardware software and network connections need to be in place. 2. Security In addition to access to computers, the issue of security was identified as one that needs to be addressed in teacher training colleges in Jamaica. Both administrators from Colleges B and C were concerned about the current levels of security in their colleges. An administrator at College C opined that before computers and related technologies can be placed in individual colleges, necessary security measures have to be put in place. She proposed that this would “mean security if we are thinking of putting a computer in each classroom. In some instances, it would mean that we have to redesign the whole classroom.” One administrator at College B had a similar opinion and postulated “security i s a critical factor in any effort to integrate technology into teacher training programs.” 3. Staff Development According to an administrator from College B, for computers to be incorporated into the teachers’ college curriculum, there is the nee d for “consistent, in-house staff development”. In addition, college administrators nee d

PAGE 184

172 to put measures in place to ensure faculty “buy into and participate in professional development.” These activities, she believes, will better prepare facul ty to use computers in their classes with students. According to an administrator at Col lege C, apart from increased access to computers, “I would want to see the technol ogy department properly staffed. A model on technology integration should account for human resources and how they can be utilized.” Staff development should equip faculty with knowledge and skills regarding how their students can use technology to “find and use information in their classes”. Similarly, an administrator at College B proposed that any model on technology integration must include a component that addresses the need for extensive and ongoing staff development. 4. Training for students According to an administrator at College C, methodology classes have to be designed in such a way that technology becomes a significant component of their delivery. In addition, she believed that technology should be incorporated into all subject areas by all lecturers. An administrator at College A proposed that students’ training should expose them to ways in which they can “use the computer to discover knowledge. It should also enable them to search and know how to go about finding what they want. To have the skills to look for information and know what to look for.” 5. Support Administrators believed support structures have to be established within colleges to ensure continued use of technology by faculty. One administrator at College A postulated, “it is not enough to train staff and students, they need continued support as they use technology throughout the school year.” This

PAGE 185

173 support, she believed, will come primarily from someone who is familiar with different software types that both pre-service teachers and faculty will use in their teaching. The following themes emerged from data gathered through interviews with IT faculty members who participated in this study: 1. Access to computers IT faculty from all three colleges agreed that if technology is to be incorporated into the college curriculum, both faculty and pre-service teachers must have access to computers. For instance, at College B, one IT facult y member stated that if technology is to be integrated into the college curriculum there must be “a proper technology lab with equipment.” Similarly, at Colleges A and C, IT faculty members stated that there must be more computers at individual colleges to facilitate the needs of all students and faculty. At colleg e B, one IT faculty member proposed that for technology to be integrated into the college curriculum, “there must be access to the Internet for all in all classe s. There should also be computers that work and persons to assist lecturers with learning how to use computers.” 2. Training for students Approximately 90% of IT faculty interviewed suggested that if technology is to be integrated into the college curriculum, pre-serv ice teachers must receive training that (a) exposes pre-service teache rs to specific computer skills and (b) show them how computers can be used to facilitate the teaching-learning process.

PAGE 186

174 3. Staff Development and Support IT faculty at College C proposed that one of the key issues that must be addressed is ongoing staff development to “show faculty how to turn their ideas for their regular classes into computer-based lessons.” Faculty, she believed, must be “trained how to use the simplest software such as PowerPoint to other complex types of software.” Other IT faculty shared similar perspectives. At College A, IT faculty suggested that “all staff, especial ly older staff, must be motivated to participate in training if computers are to be inte grated into the college curriculum.” IT faculty at College A proposed that staff development must be paired with support--the college should not simply train faculty and leave them on their own to implement computers in their classes, but training should be coupled with ongoing support as they use computers in their classes. One IT faculty member at College C was of the opinion that “training of faculty coupled with support for technology use” are critical to ensure pre-servi ce teachers are exposed to ways in which computers can be used in their classes. She believed that when pre-service teachers and faculty receive training, they s hould not be left on their own, but be supported in their effort to use technology. Data gathered through focus group discussions with pre-service teachers were examined and the following themes emerged. Pre-service teachers believed that, g iven the important role that technology plays in the society as a whole and more specific ally in education, training them to use technology should not be done in a single semester course but should be ongoing throughout their college experience. Training should also be wider in scope and focus not only on various computer productivity tools, but expose them to

PAGE 187

175 ways in which the computer can be used as an instructional tool. The following factors were proposed by pre-service teachers as those required for technology integration in the college curriculum: 1. Access to computers and the Internet Pre-service teachers from all three colleges were of the opinion that during training, only some students are allowed full access to the computer labs. They believe their proficiency would be enhanced if they had increased access to computers. A statement from one pre-service tea cher from College A captures the sentiments of the majority of pre-service tea chers surveyed for this study. She postulated, “Computer labs need to be upgraded and more computers should be made available to sufficiently serve the college population.” As one participant from College A reported, “Teachers in training must have access to computers and the Internet, and more importantly, we have to be taught how to use it in our teaching.” 2. Practice using computers In addition to access to computers, pre-service teachers proposed that they need extensive practice to boost their proficiency and confidence with computers. They believe that in some instances, they had “no form of instruction on how to use computers” and therefore had limited experience and as a result, were reluctant to use the computer labs because they did not know what to do. There was the general belief among this population that experience with and exposure to computers will make them more confident in their computer use. One participant at College B proposed that: “Technology in education and methodology courses should give us more practice using computers

PAGE 188

176 in our teaching. Lecturers told us what to do, but we did not get practice.” Similarly, one study participant from College C stated, “I’m excited about the idea of using computers, but we need more practice. Courses should be designed in such a way that we get a chance to practice using computers with each other in classroom setting.” At College B, students further stated that, in theory, they fe lt prepared to teach with computers as they were “told how to teach with computers” but were deprived of actual practical experiences regarding how computers can be used to enhance the teaching learning process. 3. Trained Staff Pre-service teachers at Colleges B and C were of the opinion that trained staff was critical to facilitate technology integration. Partici pants from College C proposed that technology integration would be facilitated if their lecturers used technology in their classes, showed them how to use computers and provided them with practice using computers in their classes. One pre-service teacher from College B posited: Lecturers need to spend more time actually teaching student teachers how to use computers in their classes. Technology in education and methodology classes should teach students how to use computers as well as give them more practice using computers in order to enhance teaching and learning In addition, a pre-service teacher from College B stated, “There should be trai ned staff to teach us how to use different software and how to use computers in our classes”.

PAGE 189

177 4. More time for training Pre-service teachers believed that if they are required to teach with computers, then they need time to learn how computers can be integrated in their classes. According to one pre-service teacher from C ollege C, The training we receive at college is not sufficient for us to use computers in our classes. The time that was allotted was limited. I recommend that the time should be longer and that the syllabus covers more topics so that teachers can work more effectively in this technological society. In addition, another participant stated “…technology should be taught indepth for the three years so that we would be adequately prepared to use it.” Participants from other colleges also shared this view. At College A, one participant proposed that the “Technology in Education” course should continue throughout the duration of the college experience and not be taught as a single course.” At College B, one pre-service teach er reported, “There was never a lesson in using computers in the classroom” in their Technology in Education class, rather, the course focused on “realia and charts.” When these data are examined, the following emerge as factors that should be included in teacher training programs in Jamaica to ensure future teachers are prepared to teach with computers. There must be increased access to computers at the coll ege level. In addition, there should also be ongoing staff development to ensure teachers’ college faculty are prepared to incorporate computers in their classes. There should a lso be continuous training for students. This training should also be combined with hands-on practice and experience using computers. Support structures must also be establi shed within colleges to ensure continued use of computers. Necessary security pr actices and devices must be put in place when computers and related technologies are placed in individual classrooms. An examination of these data revealed that all factors propos ed

PAGE 190

178 except security were included in the IT 3 P framework, therefore, what these participants proposed are consistent with what was proposed in the generic IT 3 P framework with an additional factor, “security”.

PAGE 191

179 Chapter 5 Summary, Discussions and Recommendations The purposes of the study were three-fold: (a) to provide a description of the current state of technology integration in teacher training programs in Jamai ca and to assess the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are evident in these programs; (b) to assess the extent to which teachers’ college faculty and pr e-service teachers perceive themselves as prepared to teach with computers, as wel l as their perceived computer proficiency; and (c) to use data gathered in the study to inform an action plan for integrating technology into teacher training programs in Jamaica. The following four research questions were examined in the study: 1. To what extent are components of the IT 3 P evident in teacher training programs in Jamaica? a. What are administrators’ perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are present in teacher training programs? b. What are faculty’s perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are evident in teacher training programs? c. What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which components of the IT 3 P framework are present in teacher training programs?

PAGE 192

180 d. Are there differences, across colleges, in the perceptions of (a) teachers’ college faculty and (b) pre-service teachers regarding evidence of components of the IT 3 P framework in their teacher training programs? 2. To what extent are teachers’ college faculty in Jamaica prepared to integ rate computers in their teaching? a. What are faculty’s perceptions of the extent to which they are prepared to integrate computers in their classes? b. What are faculty’s perceptions of their levels of proficiency with computer productivity, communication and research tools? c. Are there differences across colleges in faculty’s perceptions of thei r preparation to teach with computers? 3. To what extent are Jamaica’s pre-service teachers prepared to teach with computers? a. What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the training they received during their college program prepared them to integrate computers in their teaching? b. What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their levels of proficie ncy with computer productivity, communication and research tools? c. Are there differences across colleges in pre-service teachers’ per ceptions of their preparation to teach with computers? 4. What do study participants propose as specific factors required to facilitat e technology integration into Jamaica’s teacher training programs?

PAGE 193

181 A two-stage sampling procedure was employed in this study and included (a) purposive selection of teachers’ colleges and (b) study participants. The participa nt sample was comprised of six of seven teachers’ college administrators in cluding two principals and four vice-principals yielding a response rate of 86% for this sample ; 121 faculty indicating a response rate of 76%, and 268 pre-service teachers indicat ing a completion rate of 86%. These respondents were currently employed or attending three teachers’ colleges--one in western Jamaica, one in eastern Jamaica and the other in the south of the island. The high completion rate for each instrument is attributed to the fact that questionnaires were administered on-site by the researcher. For the purposes of this study, three sets of instruments were used to gather required data. These included: (a) Faculty self -administered questionnaire, ( b) Preservice Teachers’ self-administered questionnaire, and Administrato rs’ and IT Faculty Interview Schedules. The faculty questionnaire, the FTII was comprised of 12 sec tions which gathered demographic data, data regarding perceptions of evidence of components of IT 3 P framework, and faculty’s perceptions of their preparation to teach with computer s and perceptions of computer proficiency. The pre-service teachers’ self-a dministered questionnaire was comprised of nine subscales that gathered demographic data, pr eservice teachers’ perceptions of evidence of components of the IT 3 P framework in Jamaica’s teacher training programs, their perceptions of their preparati on to teach with computers and levels of computer proficiency. The administrators’ interview sche dules was comprised of two sections--Section I included closed-ended questions and gathered data regarding administrators’ perceptions of evidence of components of the IT 3 P framework and, Section II was comprised of open-ended questions that solicited

PAGE 194

182 administrators’ perspectives of specific factors required to facilita te technology integration in Jamaica’s teacher training programs. The IT faculty interv iew schedule was comprised of the same items in the administrators’ interviews. In addition to the instruments previously mention, focus group discussions were conducted with pre-service teachers to corroborate data gathered via self-admi nistered questionnaires as well as to ascertain their perspectives of specific factors that are required to facilitate technology integration in Jamaica’s teacher train ing programs. This chapter is divided into three broad areas: (a) summary of findings, (b) discussions of the findings, (c) revisions to the generic IT 3 P framework, (d) discussion of the proposed VIBES action for integrating technology into Jamaica’s teacher trai ning programs, and (d) recommendations for future research. Summary of Findings Perceptions of Evidence of Components of the IT 3 P Framework in Jamaica’s Teacher Training Programs To answer this research question, interviews were conducted with teachers’ college administrators and IT faculty. In addition, data were gathered through teache rs college faculty self-administered questionnaires, pre-service teachers ’ self-administered questionnaires and focus group discussions with pre-service teachers. Prerequisite Factors Technology Plan From interviews with college administrators, it was evident that there were differences in their perceptions regarding the presence of a tec hnology plan at

PAGE 195

183 their individual colleges. In general, college administrators were either unaware whether a technology plan existed at their college and what the plan included. While one colle ge administrator acknowledge that the college did not have a plan that existed in “bl ack and white”, others were more reluctant to acknowledge that there was no writte n technology plan at their college. What seems to exist were plans regarding what can be done using technology, to facilitate distance learning, for example, but there was no evidence of written technology plans that outlined (a) sources of funding for acquisition of technological devices and (b) technology skills students need to function in the 21 st Century classroom, and (c) how individual colleges were going to equip their students with these skills. In addition, there were no provisions for the re-training of fac ulty to accommodate changes in technology as well as account for staff turn-over within colleges. One college administrator noted that the Joint Board of Teacher Educat ion was currently revising the IT syllabus, therefore, this participant suggeste d that it did not make any sense to “devise a plan” until such revisions are complete. Similar findings were evident in data gathered via interviews with IT facult y at all three colleges that participated in this study. When IT faculty members we re interviewed, over 80% of them reported that they did not know if their college had a technology plan. In some instances, there was a disparity in perceptions among IT faculty membe rs within the same college--some believed there was a plan in place, others did not know. At College A, for instance, one IT faculty member indicated that this participant had de vised a plan under the previous administration, however, the plan has been “put on hold” with the installation of new administration--other IT faculty within this instit ution were not aware that a technology plan existed or what the components of the technology plan

PAGE 196

184 were. Similar observations were made in other colleges and one IT faculty at C ollege B proposed that it was difficult to establish a technology plan because of lack of funding. Plans for the acquisition of computers are based on the “kinds of marriages we c an make with the different projects”. Specific technology skills pre-service te achers need are mandated in the curriculum that is devised by the Joint Board of Teacher Education (JBTE). Like IT faculty, the majority (85%) of teachers’ college faculty surveyed di d not agree that their college had a technology plan that indicated how teachers s hould be prepared to teach with computers. In addition, a composite mean rating of 2.01 (on a four-point rating scale ranging from 1= Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree) on thi s subscale of the FTII represent a low score and indicate that, in general, facul ty did not concur that a technology plan existed at their college. When individual means were examined across colleges, the data reveal that that the highest mean of 2.24 (SD.72) was reported from faculty from College A indicating that a larger number of facul ty from this college concurred there was a technology plan at their college than faculty fro m both Colleges B and C. Results of one-way ANOVA conducted on these data show that differences in mean ratings were not significant across colleges indic ating that faculty from all three colleges had similarly low ratings for evidence of a technology pl an in their colleges. Staff Development : Another key requirement for effective technology integration cited in the literature and proposed in the IT 3 P framework is the availability of opportunities for staff development. In addition to the availability of these activi ties,

PAGE 197

185 necessary measures must be implemented to ensure faculty participate in s taff development workshops. Administrators who participated in this study believed opportunities for staff development were available at their colleges, however, faculty were not fully tak ing advantage of these opportunities. An administrator at College C proposed that there a re “in-house people who are willing to help” but staff were not fully taking advantages of the opportunities offered as “some of them are not effectively managing their ti me”. She stressed however, that opportunities are available. This view was supported by re marks made by one IT faculty member at this institution who stated: …there are attempts at in-house staff development, however, while faculty see the immediate need to get these (technical) skills, lack of time has been a factor that hinders them from taking full advantage of these opportunities. There have been no recent staff development efforts from organisations outside of the college community. Whatever training happens occurs locally, within the college by members of the technology faculty. These are not very frequently organized. However, some faculty members have received training on their own. While administrators at College B believed that “training of staff…doe s not seem to be an issue” at that college, a different perspective was reported from bo th the general faculty sample and IT faculty at that institution. Items on the FTII solicit ed faculty’s perspectives of the extent to which there were opportunities for staff developme nt at their college and whether or not they had participated in these activities. An examina tion of these data shows that only 27% of faculty from College C concurred that that were opportunities for staff development at their college. IT faculty at this insti tution proposed that the most recent organized staff development activity was over four years a go.

PAGE 198

186 Interview data from IT faculty and administrators revealed that withi n the last 3-4 years there have been very few opportunities for staff development at the different colleges. At College B, for instance, IT faculty reported that opportunities f or staff development at that institution were provided by off-shore universities and are ma inly done for faculty pursuing their master’s or doctoral degrees in Instructiona l Technology. At College A, one IT faculty member reported that despite efforts to offer w orkshops at that institution, lack of time for faculty to participate in these workshops had hi ndered the successful organization of these activities. This respondent proposed that there were problems scheduling blocks of time where all faculty members could attend workshops In addition to lack of time, resistance from “older” faculty had prevented this ins titution from successfully conducting workshops aimed at improving faculty’s computers skills and exposing them to ways in which computers can be used to enhance their practice. One IT faculty member at College A also shared a similar perspective and post ulated that lack of time has contributed to faculty’s reluctance to participate in staff development exercises that have been organized within that institution. With regard to faculty, data were gathered to ascertain their perceptions o f the extent to which there were opportunities for staff development at their college a nd whether or not that they had taken advantage of these opportunities. The data indicate that only 49% of these respondents concurred that there are opportunities for staff development at their college. In addition, only 32% of faculty respondents agreed that organizations such as the JBTE offer workshops to improve their computer skills. Similarly, only 36% of faculty respondents concurred that workshops are offered at thei r colleges to improve their computer skills. The composite mean rating of 2.43 (on a four-

PAGE 199

187 point rating scale ranging from 1= Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree), on this subscale further support the conclusion that faculty did not generally agree that there were opportunities for staff development at their college or that they had partici pated in these activities. When the mean ratings were examined across colleges, the highest mean of 2.72 was reported for faculty at College C and means of 2.39 and 2.26 from Colleges A and B, respectively. These data reveal that more faculty from College C concurre d that there were opportunities for staff development and that they had participated in these act ivities. Results of one-way ANOVA conducted on these data show a significant difference in perceptions of opportunities for staff development across colleges (F = 7.19, p < .01). More specifically, post-hoc test revealed that faculty from College C rate d staff development opportunities and that they have taken advantage of these opportunities significantly higher than faculty at College B. No differences in ratings wer e found between College A and College B or College A and C. Support at the College Level : For the purposes of this study, support at the college level was examined in terms of administrative support and technical support. Administrators from all three colleges indicated that they were supporti ve of computer use by both their faculty and pre-service teachers. At College B, one of the adminis trators posited that, while faculty do not often use computers in their classes at this point in time, administrators do encourage it. At the same institution, another administrat or was more hesitant in her response. When she was asked whether or not she encouraged her facul ty to use computers in their classes, there was a brief pause and then she stated, “ Yes” She

PAGE 200

188 explained that since there are limited resources, it is hard for faculty to use computers as much as she would like to see them use it. She also believes that more needs to be done by way of staff development to ensure faculty are indeed ready to use computers in their classes. The administrator at College C eagerly agreed that she encourage s computer use by both faculty and pre-service teachers. However, she cited paucity of resources as one of the issues that must be addressed before faculty can fully be encouraged and be expected to use computers in their classes. The issue of financial support is one with which administrators at all t hree colleges grappled. In all three colleges, one of the computer labs was donated to them during in 1998-1999 school year though a project spearheaded by the Jamaica Computer Society Education Foundation (JCSEF). Since the project ended, colleges have had to purchase new computers and maintain old computers from funds generated locally within individual colleges. As a result, colleges are suffering from a severe lack of resources. However, some colleges have recently established a partnership with a private company that allows them to purchase computers at a reduced cost. However, funding for these computers has to come from college resources. In terms of administrative and technical support, the general perception among teachers’ college faculty was that administrators were supportive of te chnology use within teachers’ colleges. The data indicate that the majority of faculty r espondents (79%) concurred that administrators at their college were supportive of t echnology use. In addition, 77% of faculty respondents concurred that there was someone available at their college to provide them with technical support for using computers.

PAGE 201

189 Cross-college comparisons of mean ratings on this subscale indicate that fac ulty from both Colleges C and A were similar in their ratings of administrative and t echnical support for computer use at their colleges. Both had stronger mean ratings ranging from 3.08 to 3.10 on this subscale than their counterparts at College B (M = 2.56). The results of a one-way analysis of variance conducted on these data reveal that differences i n mean ratings on this subscale were statistically significant (F= 9.87, p < .01). Post -hoc analysis using the Scheff test indicates that faculty from Colleges A and C reported signi ficantly stronger support for technology use at their college than faculty at College B. Howe ver, administrators and IT faculty at College B reported that there was both technic al and administrative support at that institution. Access/ Resources/ Infrastructure. The issue of access to resources and infrastructure to facilitate technology integration needs to be addresse d in all three colleges that participated in this study. Findings from the study indicate a consens us among study participants that, in general, both faculty and pre-service teache rs have access to computers at their college. Data gathered from interviews with both teachers’ college administrators and IT faculty members suggest that both faculty and preservice teachers have access to computers at their college. In addition, on the FTII, 93% of faculty respondents concurred that they had access to computers at their college. Seventy percent of these respondents a greed that pre-service teachers had access to computers at individual colleges. Sim ilarly, on the PTTII, 100% of the pre-service teachers surveyed concurred that they had access to computers at college. In addition, 93% of these respondents agreed that they were able to

PAGE 202

190 use the computers in the laboratory to complete their class assignments. While t he data show that faculty and pre-service teachers mean ratings on this subscale was relatively high (ranging from 2.57 to 3.31 and 3.34 to 3.75, respectively), the extent to which access can be described as adequate is one that needs to be addressed in all three colleges that participated in this study. College administrators and IT faculty agreed that there were not enough computers at their individual colleges to accommodate the number of students enroll ed in each institution. One administrator at College B adduced that while the college currently has two equipped computer laboratories as well as computers in the library, there w ere not enough computers to meet the needs of the present student population at that institution. Similar perspectives were shared by administrators at Colle ge C. One administrator at this institution stated, “We need more. I don’t think they are adequate”. She believed that technology integration would be facilitated if there were incr eases, not only in the number of computers, but access to other resources such as camcorders, digital cameras and so on. For another administrator, adequate means that “every st udent would have access to something they can work with”. She indicated that one way to increase access is to stipulate that students entering college should ow n a laptop computer. However, she pointed out that she realizes this is somewhat unrealist ic given the nature of the population to which teacher training programs cater. The dearth of resources available at all three colleges was further confirm ed in interviews with IT faculty. According to an IT faculty member from College B using the computer lab means booking the lab in advance, “ long in advance” IT faculty at College C believed that the issue of access is one that needed to be addressed, but was s atisfied

PAGE 203

191 with efforts being made at the college to ensure increased access to computers. T his respondent stated that there are increased opening hours when students can use the computers in the lab to complete their assignments and activities. During focus group discussions, pre-service teachers expressed dissatisfaction with the limited number of computers at their respective institutions. Duri ng these discussions, they explained that despite the fact that there are computers at their colleges, sometimes there were not enough computers for everyone to use. In addition, there wer e rules regarding when and who can access the labs. Pre-service teachers were al so of the opinion that access to computers at various locations on the college campus woul d greatly enhance their computer use. One of the weaknesses observed, however, was that some pre-service teachers were not aware of the facilities that were available at their colle ges. From the focus group discussions with pre-service teachers at College B, it was evident that som e pre-service teachers were not informed about the facilities that are available at t hat institution. However, college administrators stated that there was a drive to use profes sional development activities to inform pre-service teachers of the facilitie s that were available to them. Process Factors Attitude Towards Computers: The findings from the present study show that, in general, all sets of study participants reported positive attitudes towards c omputers. Data gathered via the FTII indicate that teachers’ college faculty in Jamaic a reported positive attitudes towards computers (M =3.56, SD = .41). Results from the one-way ANOVA

PAGE 204

192 show that differences in means across colleges were not significant (F = 0.835, p < .01). In addition, pre-service teachers from all three colleges also reported a posi tive attitude towards computers (subscale means range from 3.00 to 3.14) on a four-point scale. Like faculty, no significant difference in attitude towards computers was observed acr oss colleges. These findings are supported by data gathered through focus group discussions and interviews with IT faculty and college administrators support the view tha t administrators, faculty and pre-service teachers reported positive attit udes towards computers. According to an administrator at College C, “If it [the computer] is used properly, computers can go a long way”. Modelling Computer Use : Findings from the study indicate a consensus among study participants that, in general, faculty in teachers’ colleges in Jamaic a did not model computer use in their classes. On the FTII, only 33% of faculty surveyed concurred that they model ways in which computers can be used as teaching tools In addition, only approximately 27% of teachers’ college faculty surveyed agreed that they show their students how to use computers in their classes In contrast, 62% of these respondents indicated that they feel competent to model computer use. Despite this however only 33% of them reported that they actually use computers in their classes. Inadequa te resources is one of the factors that may account for limited computer use among tea chers’ college faculty in Jamaica. Similar perceptions were reported by pre-service teachers from data gathere d on the PTTII. The data show that only 27% of the pre-service teachers surveyed agreed t hat

PAGE 205

193 their faculty modeled computer use in their classes Further, only 32% concurred that their faculty used computers as teaching tools In addition, only 30% of pre-service teachers surveyed believed that faculty showed them how to teach with computers In contrast, over 70% were of the opinion that faculty displayed a positive attitude towards computers During focus group discussions these respondents postulated that only IT faculty systematically used computers in their classes. At College C, the quest ion of modelling computer use and whether faculty use the computer lab for teaching resulted i n resounding laughter from pre-service teachers. One commented, “At one point one teacher took us to the lab to use the Internet. Teachers do not even use PowerPoint sli des in their classes”. At College B, however, some of the students indicated that their Social Studies and Geography lecturers use PowerPoint presentations occasionally. How ever, these instances were few and far between. During interviews with college administrators, these participants were a ble to identify, by name and subject areas, the few faculty who used computers in their classe s. Faculty who used computers used them only occasionally and primarily for word processing tasks such as completing their course outlines and syllabi as well as preparing notes and handouts for their students. IT faculty at all three colleges shared thi s perspective-faculty generally used computers for word processing and very few used them in their classes. According to administrators and IT faculty, one of the primar y reasons faculty do not use computers in their classes is that they do not have acces s to required resources. Cross-college comparisons of means indicate that faculty from College B re ported modelling computer use significantly more than their counterparts from Colleges A and C

PAGE 206

194 (mean ratings of 2.74, 2.39, and 1.99, respectively). Results of one-way ANOVA indicate a significant difference across colleges in faculty ratings of their model ling computer use in their classes (F = 13.16, p < .001). Post-hoc analysis using Scheff test indicat ed that mean ratings for faculty at College B was significantly higher than that for fa culty at College C. However, there were no differences in mean ratings between facult y at College B and those at College A and faculty at Colleges A and C. With regards to pre-service teachers, cross-college comparisons of mean r atings on this subscale indicated that the highest mean was recorded from pre-service t eacher respondents from College B (M= 2.43), followed by College C and A with mean ratings of 2.20 and 1.93, respectively. Results of one-way ANOVA conducted on these data showed that there were significant differences in pre-service teachers mean ratings on this subscale across colleges (F = 12.24, p < .01). Post-hoc analysis using the Scheff tes t indicate that mean ratings were significantly different between College s A and B with pre-service teachers from College A rating the extent to which faculty model comput er use at their college significantly higher than pre-service teachers from College B. There were no other significant differences in mean ratings. Training : Training pre-service teachers to teach with computers is critical to facilitate technology integration at the college level. The data show that in ge neral, study participants indicated that training pre-service teachers receive d during the college experience did not adequately prepare them to integrate computers in their teac hing. On the FTII, only 40% of faculty surveyed concurred training pre-service teachers re ceived prepared them to teach with computers. In addition, only 54% of faculty respondents agreed that pre-service teachers are taught how to teach with computers.

PAGE 207

195 Similarly, only 37% of pre-service teachers concurred that teacher trai ning program exposed them to ways in which computers can be used to manage their classroom. Only 45% of pre-service teachers surveyed indicated that their teac her training program equipped them with knowledge and skills required to plan computer-based lessons. In addition, 37% of these respondents agreed that their teacher train ing programs equipped them with knowledge and skills required to teach with computers. Likewise, 36% of pre-service teachers expressed the opinion that their te acher training programs equipped them with knowledge of different types of software that can be used in their classes. Data gathered through focus group discussion corroborate data from PTTII. During focus group discussions, pre-service teachers confirmed that their training did not adequately prepare them to teach with computers. At College B, for instance, one study participant described training to integrate computers received at coll ege as minimal Other participants proposed that the training they received was primarily though the ir Introduction to Educational Technology course, but that this course did not directly expose them to ways in which computers can be integrated in their teaching. From th ese discussions with these respondents, it was further ascertained that during thei r college experience, they were primarily exposed to Microsoft Office products and more specifically with Microsoft Word. They reported no exposure to instructional softw are of any type. In addition, pre-service teachers also pointed out that their exposure to computer use was primarily theoretical and that they lacked practical, handson experiences regarding how computers can be used in actual teaching.

PAGE 208

196 Data from interviews with IT faculty corroborate pre-service teacher s’ perceptions that they were not exposed to various types of software that can be used i n their teaching. IT faculty from all three colleges believed that their ind ividual colleges suffered from a severe lack of instructional software. In all three colleges the computers were equipped with productivity tools, primarily Microsoft Office products. One I T faculty member at College C reported that that college had limited supplies of a Reader Rabbit series as well as some tutorials for Language Arts and Mathematics. These were acquired from participants of a recent workshop conducted at the college. Generall y, there were no deliberate efforts on the part of college administrators or other stakeholders to acquire specific instructional software packages. It is interest ing to note that some faculty who were completing the Faculty Technology Integration Instrument did not know what drill and practice, tutorials and so on were when used within the context of computer software. Such lack of knowledge seems to suggest that pre-service teache rs are not the only ones who need to be exposed to different types of educational software and how these can be used in the teaching learning process, but there must be a systematic drive to educate faculty as well. With regards to training to teach with computers, College A seems to be somewhat ahead of the game in the technology training they offer their students. IT faculty members at that institution attribute this to the fact that, even be fore it was a requirement by the JBTE, this college had been exposing pre-service teachers to not one, but two computer courses. The first of these two courses introduces pre-service teachers to general computer skills, the second exposes them to ways in which computers can be incorporated into their teaching.

PAGE 209

197 When data gathered through the PTTII were examined, the majority (76%) of preservice teachers from College A concurred that their teacher training pr ogram exposed them to ways in which computers can be used manage their classroom activities compared with 21% from College B and 19% from College C. In addition, 57% of pre-service teacher respondents from College A agreed that their training equipped t hem with knowledge and skills required to teach with computers compared to 22% from College B and 34% from College C. One IT faculty member at College C informed the researcher that, while current final year students were not as exposed to the computer as much as they would have liked, the current Year Two and Year One students are now doing two computer courses similar to those offered at College A--one that teaches them basic com puter skills and the other technology integration skills. IT faculty and administrators from all thr ee colleges were very optimistic about the future of technology training in their colleges as new students coming into college from high schools are increasingly more computer lite rate with many of them doing Information Technology as a subject in their high school experience. While one administrator at College B believed that the training students re ceived at the college prepared them to teach with computers, this belief was not support ed by responses from pre-service teachers. Other administrators and IT fac ulty at this institution had different views. They reported that while they “try as much as possible to expose t he entire population to computers” and how they can be used to enhance classroom practices, the size of the population they are trying to reach, coupled with the fac t that

PAGE 210

198 resources are limited, result in problems getting students to the levels of compet ence they need to teach with technology. During focus group discussions, pre-service teachers from College B proposed that technology should become a central part of their teacher training and that being exposed to a one-semester course will not equip them with skills required to inte grate computers in their classes. They suggested that they should be exposed to computers continuously during the three years of their teacher training experience. They fur ther proposed that IT classes should not focus on teaching them how to create charts and write on the chalk board, but should expose them to ways in which computers can be used to enhance their classroom practices. When composite mean ratings on the training subscale were examined across colleges, the data show that the highest mean ratings were reported from facult y at College A (M=2.94), followed by College C (M=2.93) and College B (M=2.35). Results of one-way analysis of variance indicate that a significant difference in f aculty ratings of the training pre-service teachers received in the use of computers acros s colleges (F = 15.98, p < .01). Post-hoc analysis using Scheff’s test show that faculty at Colleges A and C rated the training pre-service teachers received at their college s similarly, and that the means for these two colleges were significantly higher than the mean for Coll ege B. However, while faculty at College C had more positive ratings on the training subsc ale, a relatively low mean of 2.01 was recorded from pre-service teachers at th is institution indicating a difference in perspectives between these groups of participants. When crosscollege comparisons were made on data gathered on the PTTII, composite means of 2.61, 2.01 and 1.75 were reported from pre-service teachers responses from Colleges A, C and

PAGE 211

199 B, respectively. Results of one-way ANOVA conducted on these data indicate a significant difference in mean ratings (F=37.12, p < .01). Post-hoc analysis using Sch eff test indicate that there were significant differences in mean ratings of training to teach with computers between pre-service teachers from Colleges A and B and Colleges A and C, however, respondents from Colleges B and C rated their training to use computers similarly. An examination of the old IT syllabus show there is not a significant technology integration component. However, this syllabus is under revision and the new IT curriculum includes two courses that focus specifically on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and how these can be used to facilitate communication, research and productivity in classroom settings. Field Experience/Practice Using Computers at College : Colleges of Education that have incorporated technology into their curriculum were those that provide pre-service teachers with opportunities for extensive practice using technology both duri ng their training and their field experience. The findings from the present study suggeste d that a majority of the faculty did not systematically require pre-service teachers to use computers during their college experience to complete instructional-based a ctivities or during their field experience. The data show that only 45% of faculty required their students to use computers to complete course assignments. Paucity of resources at the college level was cited as one of the primary reasons pre-service teachers were not required to use computers to complete course assignments. Similarly, only a combined 25% of faculty surveyed indicated that they required their students use computers f or

PAGE 212

200 class presentations. A closer examination of these data shows that IT facul ty members were primarily those who required their students to use computers to complete c lass assignments and for class presentations. In addition, the majority of these respondent s did not require students to use computers to communicate with them or with their peers. In contrast, however, approximately 74% of faculty included in the study concurred that they assigned activities that required the use of the Internet for researc h. Similarly, teachers’ college faculty surveyed indicated that pre-servic e teachers were not required to use computers during their teaching practice activiti es. Only a cumulative18% of faculty respondents surveyed concurred that they required their students to use computers to prepare their lessons. In addition, 13% agreed that they required their students to use computers to complete classroom related acti vities during field experience. Like faculty, a large percentage (76%) of pre-service teachers surveyed re ported that, during their college experience, they used computers to conduct research. In addition, while faculty did not require pre-service teachers to use computers to com plete course assignments, 84% of pre-service teachers surveyed indicated that they used computers for this purpose. During focus group discussions, pre-service teachers explained that while faculty do not require that they do this, they believed using word processing software to complete their assignments would enhance their presentat ions-therefore, they took the initiative to use computers to complete their course as signments. Like faculty, the majority of these respondents indicated that they did not use comput ers to communicate with faculty and peers (a combined 78%). However while 76% of faculty from College B indicated that their pre-service teachers were require d to use computers

PAGE 213

201 to communicate with them, only 22% of pre-service teachers surveyed from this college agreed that they did. During focus group discussions, pre-service teachers explained that, apart from IT faculty, faculty at their college did not require them to use computers for cla ss-related activities. While IT faculty members try to get their students to use c omputers on a more regular basis than other faculty, the reality of (a) limited resources, and (b) limited skills on the part of the students, are issues that must be addressed. As one IT faculty suggested, “At given points in the semester, students will have a number of assignments that they need to submit, if all teachers require them to use computers, we would not have enough resources to facilitate this”. Secondly, many of the students who attend college have limited word processing skills and find it easier and quicker to complete thei r assignments by hand. Therefore, while IT faculty anticipate increased computer use in the future, for now, they agreed that it may be unreasonable, given the current situation, to expect faculty to insist that pre-service teachers use computers to complete va rious activities. The data support the following conclusions regarding evidence of IT 3 P prerequisite and process factors in Jamaica’s teacher training program s: Technology Plan. There was no written, constantly revised and updated technology plan or policy in teachers’ colleges in Jamaica. College administra tors and IT faculty proposed that there was no plan that existed in black and white In instances where there was evidence of aspects of a plan, these were devised and written by one person and not disseminated to the entire college population. If technology is to be

PAGE 214

202 incorporated in teacher training programs, there is the need for a frequently revis ed and updated technology plan. The plan should include a written document that details how computers will be acquired and allocated. If teacher training programs in Ja maica are to successfully integrate technology in their curriculum, the issue of devising a w ritten technology plan that indicates (a) how computers will be acquired and allocate d, (b) skills students need to teach with technology as well as the (c) goals of teacher training and how technology will help achieve these goals must be evident. Further, the technology plan should be the result of a joint effort from all stakeholders--college fac ulty as they will be implementers of the innovation, administrators and members of the business community. Staff Development Findings from the research show that staff development activities have not been frequently organized and do not adequately satisfy the needs of the college population. Attempts at in-house workshops have not been very successful. In some instances, study participants reported that the last college-wide st aff development workshops were conducted approximately 5 years ago. In instances where these have been organized, they have focused primarily on the development of computer literacy skills, rather than expose faculty to ways in which computers can be used as teaching tools. There is the need for more frequently organized staff development activit ies to improve teachers’ college faculty’s computer skills as well as equip them with skills required to integrate technology in their classes. Having the last workshop more that “five years ago” as one IT faculty noted, is not enough to provide faculty with knowledge and skills required to teach with computers. Staff development efforts must be ongoing to (a)

PAGE 215

203 facilitate changing technologies and (b) ensure new lecturers are equi pped to use computers as teaching tools and in turn, teach their students how to use computers i n their classes. Access/Resources/Infrastructure Lack of resources and infrastructure to facilitate technology integration seems to be the most significant hindrance to technology integration in Jamaica’s teacher training programs. All colleges that par ticipated in the study suffered from a severe paucity of resources in terms of computers (hardwar e and software) as well as related infrastructure (network connections) to fa cilitate technology integration. Resources are very limited and cannot fully cater to the needs of the c ollege population. In order for technology to be incorporated in the college curriculum, faculty and pre-service teachers must have access to these resources. Support. All participants surveyed were of the opinion that college administrators were supportive of technology use. While administrative support does not seem to be a major issue, faculty need more technical support as they try to incorporate technol ogy in their teaching. Similarly, colleges suffer from a shortage of financial re sources to facilitate the acquisition of technological devices. Therefore, while adm inistrative support does not seem to be a major issue at the college level, financial support is an issue that must be addressed. Since teachers colleges do not have the financial resource s to purchase required hardware and software as well as establish network connec tions, technology integration at the college level is severely hindered. Institutions s uch as the JBTE have to be more actively involved in providing funding for the acquisition of these

PAGE 216

204 resources. In addition, colleges have to identify ways in which partnerships can be established so resources can be acquired. Modelling. All study participants expressed the view that faculty do not generally model computer use for their students. The issues of access to computers and staf f development need to be addressed before faculty can be fully expected to model technology use in their teaching. Attitude. While the literature indicates that negative attitude towards comp uters was generally evident among college faculty (RAND Report, 1995; Rogers, 1999), this was not the case in the Jamaican setting. Findings from the study show study participants reported perceived positive attitude towards computers and were generally of the perception that computers should be placed in all schools and classrooms. Survey participants were also of the opinion that computers are important learning t ools and can facilitate increased quality of learning. Training. While students receive some amount of training during their college experience, training they receive has focused primarily on the development of computer skills at the expense of exposing them to ways in which computers can be infused into their teaching and used as cognitive tools. The college syllabi should be revised in such a way that technology classes no longer focus primarily on teaching pre-service how to make charts and realia, but should introduce them to ways in which computers and emerging technologies can be used to (a) manage their classes (b) motivate their students

PAGE 217

205 to learn (c) enhance their presentation (d) for research and (e) access infor mation and enhance communication and collaboration with not just their peers within their c olleges, but with those at other colleges as well. In general, training should expose pre-serv ice teachers to how to use computers to develop students’ cognitive skills. Field Experience/Practice. Findings from the study show pre-service teachers do not receive adequate practice using computers during the college experience or as par t of their practicum experience. Factors such as lack of resources and the fact that college faculty do not require that they use computers to complete given activities cont ribute to limited computer use among pre-service teachers. Apart from research ac tivities, faculty did not require their students to use computers for other course related activitie s. In addition, pre-service teachers were not required to use computers as tea ching tools during their practicum exercise. Whatever practice they receive is prim arily as a result of their own initiative and not a requirement from college faculty. Despite the fact tha t resources are scarce, it is imperative that both faculty and pre-service teacher s receive practice using computers both within real as well as contrived classroom settings. It is only through extensive practice that participants can concretize their computer knowledge and skills. The literature proposed that prerequisite and process factors represented in t he IT 3 P framework identify teacher training programs that have effectively incorporate d technology in their curriculum. Data from the study suggested that there was litt le evidence that these factors were systematically present in the Jama ican teacher training

PAGE 218

206 system. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that technology has not been systematically incorporated into Jamaica’s teacher training programs Faculty Perceptions of Preparation to Teach with Computers The general perception among teachers’ college faculty in Jamaica is that to large extent, they were not prepared to teach with computers. Data gathered through the FT II indicate that a combined 48% of faculty respondents concurred that they are prepared to teach with computers. In addition, 40% agreed that they are prepared to teach their students how to teach with computers. Similarly, 30% of faculty respondents concurred that they know enough about different types of software to use them in their classes. In contrast, however, 72% reported that they feel prepared to use computers to communicate and collaborate with peers and 71% concurred they feel prepared to use computers to conduct research. When aggregated mean ratings for this subscale were examined across colleges, the data revealed that relatively low mean ratings were evident from facul ty respondents from all three colleges ranging from 2.29 to 2.70. Results of one-way analysis of variance conducted on these data revealed that differences in mean ratings were not signific ant across colleges (F = 3.75, p < .01). There were general low perceptions of prepara tion to teach with computers from faculty from all three colleges, however, the highes t mean rating (2.70) for this subscale was recorded from faculty respondents from College B. In addition to perceptions of preparation to teach with computers, data regarding faculty’s proficiency with various computer tools were also gathered. The data s howed generally low levels of computer proficiency for different software types were indicated

PAGE 219

207 by teachers’ college faculty. Mean ratings for the various software types ra nged from 1.41 to 3.06 indicating perceptions of proficiency levels of Fair to Good among college faculty. A closer examination of the data revealed that faculty perceived themse lves as most proficient with E-mail (M = 3.06), word processors (M = 2.88), web browsers (M=2.79) and web search engines (M = 2.58). In addition, they were least proficient with programming and authoring software (M=1.41), web publishing software (1.55), electronic Gradebooks (M=1.55) and desktop publishing software (M=1.74). Mean ratings for faculty from College B were higher than those from faculty from Coll eges A and C in most instances indicating these faculty members perceived themselve s as more proficient with certain tools than their counterparts. However, apart from re latively high mean ratings for proficiency with E-mail, word processors and web browsers, means f or proficiency with other software types were relatively low. The data support the following conclusions regarding teachers’ college faculty’s perceptions of preparation to teach with computers as well as their proficienc y with various computer tools. a) Jamaica’s teachers’ college faculty: I. For the most part, did not perceive themselves as prepared to teach with computers II. In general, did not concur they were prepared to teach their students to teach with computers III. Generally, did not perceive themselves as knowledge about different types of software to use them with their students.

PAGE 220

208 IV. Felt prepared to use computers to communicate and collaborate with peers as well as to conduct research. While they are of the opinion that they are prepared to use computers to conduct research, they report low levels of proficiency with online research tools such as online databases. However, they report high levels of proficiency with web search engines. V. Faculty did not perceive themselves to be proficient with various types of software. Further, they had very little experience using both application and instructional software to enhance their instructional activities. If technology is to be integrated into the college curricula, college faculty mus t be equipped with knowledge and skills required to teach their students with as well as how to teach with computers. Members of teachers’ college faculty need exposure to experiences that will not only develop their computer literacy skills but the ir technology integration skills as well. While they possess knowledge of how to use some product ivity and communication tools, knowledge of instructional/educational software is lacking. Staff development should focus on how instructional software can be used. Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Preparation to Teach with Computers and Computer Proficiency Findings from the study indicate that, in general, Jamaica’s pre-service t eachers do not perceive themselves as prepared to teach with computers. In addition, pre-ser vice teachers in Jamaica reported low levels of proficiency with various computer tools. The

PAGE 221

209 data showed that 36% of the pre-service teachers surveyed concurred that they f elt prepared to teach with computers. In addition, approximately 36% concurred that they knew enough about different types of software to use them with their prospective stude nts and 37% agreed that they are prepared to use computers as instructional tools with their students. Similarly, approximately 48% of pre-service teachers surveyed we re of the opinion that they are prepared to use computers for communication and collaboration and 61% believed they are prepared to use computers for research A cursory look at the data further showed that pre-service teachers from Coll ege A were generally more positive about their training to teach with computers (M= 2.73) than their counterparts from Colleges C and B with composite mean ratings of 2.27 and 1.96, respectively on this subscale. Results of one-way analysis of variance conducted on these data indicated that mean ratings were significantly different (F = 37. 12, p < .01) across colleges. More specifically, post-hoc analysis using Scheff test indi cated that mean ratings were significantly different between Colleges A and B, and Colleges A and C, but not between Colleges B and C. This means that pre-service teachers at Co llege A rated their training to use computers significantly higher than their counterpa rts from both Colleges B and C, however, pre-service teachers from Colleges B and C rated thei r training to teach with computers similarly. Pre-service teachers’ general lack of preparation to teach with comput ers was also reflected in their self-reported levels of proficiency with various compute r software types. The data indicated that among pre-service teachers, there were generally pe rceived low levels of proficiency with various software types with mean ratings ranging from 1.4 6 to 2.91. This means that perceived proficiency ranged from Fair to Good on a four-point

PAGE 222

210 scale. A more detailed examination of these data revealed that pre-service teachers perceived themselves as most proficient with word processing software (M = 2.91), e mail (M = 2.67), web search engines (M = 2.64) and web browsers (M = 2.52). They perceived themselves to be least proficient with web publishing and (M= 1.46) and programming/authoring software (M= 1.28). When cross-college tabulations were examined, the data showed that higher mea n ratings were reported from pre-service teachers from College A for perc eived proficiency with word processors (M= 3.11), Databases (M= 2.08), Spreadsheets (M= 2.49), programming/authoring (1.50), web publishing software (M= 1.67) and other Internet communication tools (M= 1.89). One possible explanation for perceived higher levels of proficiency with these types of software is that pre-service teachers at College A have always had to, as a requirement of the college and not the Joint Board of Teacher Educators (JBTE), complete what would be equivalent to an introductory computer course. According to an IT faculty member at this institution, the college has al ways tried to make computers accessible to all the students as well as ensure pre-servi ce teachers complete this mandatory course as a preface to the educational technology course they are required, by the JBTE to complete as partial requirement for their teachers ’ diploma. It is worthwhile to note that even with perceived low levels of proficiency wit h various software types reported by pre-service teachers, data from focus gr oup sessions indicated that pre-service teachers did not attribute their levels of prof iciency or exposure to these different software types to training they received at college. During foc us group discussions, approximately 75% of the participants explained that they came to colle ge already possessing some computer skills (mainly word processing), others proposed they

PAGE 223

211 “picked them up on the way” primarily through experimenting and learning, through trial and error, to use various software tools. In addition, others explicated that t hey had taken the personal initiative to acquire computer literacy skills on their own through t raining with institutions external to the teachers’ college. These perceptions were corroborated by data gathered through the PTTII and 51% of pre-service teacher respondents acknowledged that they had received computer training prior to their teachers’ c ollege experience. To further corroborate data on their preparation to teach with computers, pre-service teachers were asked to respond to a set of items aimed at gathering da ta regarding the extent to which they acquired certain computer skills during their teacher tra ining experience. Mean ratings on all variables were found to be relatively low with t he highest mean rating of 2.24 recorded for word processing software and the lowest (1.18) for web publishing software. The composite mean rating of 1.54 shows that these respondents believed that their training exposed them, only to a small extent to different types of software. When composite mean ratings were compared across colleges, the data showed that the highest mean ratings for all software types except e-mail, Interne t communication tools and the Internet in general were reported from pre-service teacher respondents from College A. In the instances previously cited, the highest mean ratings were report ed from pre-service teachers from College C. In all instances, the lowest mean rat ings for all software types were reported from respondents from College B. The fact that the se preservice teachers from College A were exposed to an introductory computer course co uld be one of the factors that account for their perceived higher levels of proficiency w ith

PAGE 224

212 various software types. Other factors include the fact that, from indirect obs ervation by the researcher and confirmation from interviews with IT faculty, pre-ser vice teachers from College A had access to more computers than their counterparts in other col leges (there were more computer labs at this college than at the other two col leges and there were more computers that are operational). The data support the following conclusions regarding pre-service teachers’ perceptions of preparation to teach with computers and their perceived proficie ncy with different software types. Like college faculty, the majority of pre-service teachers surveyed reported that they were not prepared to teach with computers. Pre-serv ice teachers in Jamaica: a. Did not perceive themselves as prepared to teach with computers. b. Did not believe they were knowledgeable of different types of software to use them with their students. c. Did not perceive themselves as prepared to use computers as instructional t ools to enhance their practice. d. Are generally not proficient with various computer productivity, communication and research tool. Relatively low mean ratings were reported for proficiency wi th different software types. In most cases, mean ratings on proficiency with diffe rent software were below 2.00 on a four-point scales indicating that proficiency with different software types was, at best, Fair The fact that a majority of pre-service did not perceive that they were (a) p repared to teach with computers and (b) proficient with various computer tools, corroborate

PAGE 225

213 the conclusion that Jamaica’s teacher training programs have not effectively incorporated technology into their curriculum. Specific Factors Proposed to Facilitate Technology Integration into Jamaica’s Teacher Training Programs A number of factors were proposed by college administrators, IT faculty and pre-service teachers as necessary to ensure future teachers in Jamaica ar e equipped with knowledge and skills required to teach with computers. These data were examine d and a number of themes emerged from the data. These themes are proposed as specific fa ctors required to facilitate technology integration into Jamaica’s teacher tra ining programs. 1. Access to Resources and Infrastructure Access to resources and infrastructure was proposed as the single most important factor required to facilitate tec hnology integration in Jamaica’s teacher training programs. All teachers’ coll ege administrators, IT faculty and groups of pres-service teachers proposed this as a specific factor required to facilitate technology integration. In addition to hardware and software, faculty and pre-service teachers need to have acces s network connections to facilitate communication sharing of resources as we ll as other types of technologies that can be used to facilitate teaching and learning. I n addition, IT faculty and pre-service teachers also suggested that faculty a nd preservice teachers must have access to computers and the Internet. In addition t o the availability of productivity tools, teachers’ colleges should also be furnished wit h different types of instructional software.

PAGE 226

214 2. Staff development for faculty If technology is be systematically incorporated into teacher training programs, there must be on-going staff development to equip faculty with knowledge and skills required to teach with computers. This factor was proposed by both college administrators and IT faculty from all three colleg es that participated in the study. 3. Training for pre-service teachers All three groups of participants suggested that training for pre-service teachers is an essential prerequisite to fac ilitate technology integration into Jamaica’s teacher training programs. In addition, pre-service teachers suggested that they required more time for training to teach with computers. They proposed that training to use computers should not be conducted in a single-semester course, but should be continued throughout the three years of their teacher-training experience. Like pre-service teachers, colle ge administrators expressed concerns about the quality of training to use computers pre-service teachers received during their college experience. According to an administrator at College C, if technology is to be effectively incorporated into the teachers ’ college curriculum and influence how future teachers teach, methodology classes have to be redesigned so that technology integration becomes the most significant component. In addition, technology has to be interwoven into all courses so that pre-service teachers can be exposed to ways in which technology can be used in specific content areas. 4. Support College administrators and IT faculty proposed that, in tandem with staff development, faculty should be provided with on-going support as they attempt to use computers in their classes. An IT faculty member at College C suggested that

PAGE 227

215 faculty should not only be trained and left on their own to integrate computers in their classes but should be provided with continuous support as they attempt to use computers in their classes. Administrators proposed that support structure s should be established within colleges so that faculty can receive support from each other as they use computers in their teaching. 5. Experience and practice using computers Faculty and pre-service teachers reported that if technology is to be incorporated into the college curriculum, pre-service teachers need practice using computers in real as well as contri ved classroom settings. Pre-service teachers suggested that practice using com puters will increase their computer proficiency as well as their confidence i n using computers. In addition, pre-service teachers indicated that college lectur ers should not only “tell” them how computers can be integrated into their teaching, but should provide them with opportunities for hands-on practice using computers as teaching tools. 6. Security This factor was proposed by administrators from both Colleges B and C as one that needs to be addressed prior to any attempt to equip teachers’ colleges with computers and related technologies. Security, they believed, is critical to ensuring that incidences of larceny are reduced. If security is not addressed in teachers’ colleges, one administrator at College B proposed that equipping teachers’ colleges with computers will be futile as equipment will have to be constantly replaced.

PAGE 228

216 Discussion From a review of the existing literature on technology and teacher training, a number of factors emerged as those essential to facilitate technology integration into the college curriculum. These include: a) Evidence of a written, continuously revised and updated technology plan (ISTE Report, 1999; Kimble, 1999). b) Access to opportunities for staff development for faculty. Staff development activities should be on-going to facilitate technology use (Kimble, 1999; RAND Report, 1995) as well as to accommodate changes in emerging technologies (Jacobsen & Lock, 2004; Sprague et al., 1998). In addition, staff development activities should not focus only on the development of computer skills, but should also expose participants to ways in which computers can be integrated into thei r classes (OTA Report, 1995; Parker, 1997; Pettenati et al., 2000). c) Access to required resources and infrastructure to facilitate technology in tegration is fundamental in teacher training programs (Bullock, 2004; David, 1994; Parker, 1997; Surry, 2001). d) Technical and administrative support at the college (OTA Report, 1995; Fullan, 1992; Munday, 1999; Mackenzie et al., 1996). e) Faculty modelling of computer use in their classes plays a critical role in determining the extent to which technology becomes integrated into teacher training programs (Barron & Goldman, 1994). Modelling computer use by faculty has been proposed as one of the most effective ways of incorporating technology

PAGE 229

217 into the college curriculum (Munday, 1991; Wetzel, 1998, Wetzel & Strudler, 2002). f) Positive attitude towards computers and their roles in the teaching-learnin g process. Research suggests that faculty who portray a positive rather than negative attitude towards computers and their roles in the teaching learning process we re more likely to use them in their classes (Parker, 1997; Shafer, 1997; Sprague et al., 1998). g) Training for pre-service teachers regarding how computers can be incorporated into their teaching. In addition, training pre-service teachers to use technology should be continuous throughout their training (Bielefeldt, 2001; ISTE, 1999). h) In tandem with training to use technology in their classes, pre-service teache rs should also receive extensive practice and field experience using computers in their classes as well as during their field experience activities ( Brownell, 1997; Wetzel, 1998). These factors were incorporated into a generic conceptual framework for integrating technology into teacher training programs. The findings from the current study indicate that while the majority of the components of this generic framework we re evident in Jamaica’s teacher training programs, some were more evident tha n others. The literature attached significant importance to evidence of a written te chnology plan as one of the primary factors that identified teacher training programs that have systematically integrated technology into their curriculum (ISTE Report 1999; Kimble, 1999; NCATE Report, 1997). Findings from the present study suggested that there was no written technology plan in Jamaica’s teacher training programs. What was evident

PAGE 230

218 were plans regarding how computers can be used to facilitate distance learning or how the library will be wired, but no indication of the roles of computers and related technologies in the college curriculum. There were also no plans regarding how computers will be acquired and allocated in teacher training programs or skil ls preservice teachers need to teach in the 21 st Century classroom and how computers will be used to facilitate the acquisition of the skills. The findings of the present study are consistent with what was found in studies conducted in the USA. Findings of the ISTE study (1999) conducted with 416 teacher training programs in the USA revealed that teacher training programs used in the study did not have a written technology plan that was updated on a consistent basis. The NCATE report (1997) proposed that teacher training programs need to develop a vision-a long-term view of the role of technology and how it can be incorporated into the college curriculum. The vision should include the development of a plan that outlines steps that will be taken to acquire required hardware and software and how these will be all ocated in teacher training programs. In addition, the vision should include provisions for re-training of faculty as new technologies emerge as well as to accommodate new f aculty who are employed after initial training had been conducted. While the literature proposed that there should be evidence of a technology plan in teacher training programs, none of the study participants identified this as a specific factor required for technology integration in the Jamaican setting. However, based o n what the literature proposed and data gathered in the present study, the researcher i s proposing that, in the current study context a technology plan is required to facilitat e technology integration. However, in the Jamaican setting, the researcher is proposi ng that

PAGE 231

219 the term vision be used instead of technology plan. Data gathered in this study showed that one IT faculty member at College A proposed that there was a technology plan at that college and that this respondent was instrumental in developing this plan. H owever, other study participants, including administrators and other IT faculty member s within this institution, were not aware of the presence of such a plan. In essence, the t echnology plan had not been the result of contributions from different participants and had not been effectively disseminated to the key players in the technology integration proce ss. Therefore, while the researcher recognizes the need for a technology plan in all teacher training settings, the researcher is proposing that, in the Jamaican context, the term vision be used instead of technology plan. Vision is more appropriate in this setting to emphasize the need for a shared vision--one that was created from the input of a ll major stakeholders and disseminated to all relevant parties. The term vision also i mplies a more long-term, broad-range view than is captured in technology plan. Mehlinger and Powers (2002) proposed that teacher training programs should possess a vision, that is, a statement indicating what is possible with technology. The development of the vision should precede the acquisition of technological devices. Therefore, while the generic IT 3 P uses technology plan, the action that was proposed specifically for the study context will use the term vision. With regard to staff development, findings from the study suggested that staff development activities have not been systematically organized within individual c olleges or by external organizations such as the JBTE. These findings are consistent with findings from a study conducted by Kimble (1999) where faculty highlighted the need for ongoing staff development to equip them with knowledge and skills required to teach

PAGE 232

220 with computers. Barron and Goldman (1994) proposed that faculty members who have received staff development were more likely to use computers in their classes t han those who did not. However, in one of the colleges that participated in this study, participants indicated that they had participated in staff development activities. Despit e this, however, low levels of technology use were reported by these faculty respondents. One possible explanation for the underutilization of technology in this college is the sever paucit y of resources in this college. Like studies conducted in the USA (David, 1994; Parker, 1997; Surry, 2001), inadequate access to computers hindered technology use in the Jamaican setting. Des pite the fact that 96% of college faculty and 100% of pre-service teachers surveyed indica ted that they had access to computers at college, data gathered via qualitative m eans provided additional explanations that support the view that access to computers was not per ceived as adequate In some instances, faculty did not teach computer-based lessons as they did not have access to computers and had to schedule use of the computer labs “long in advance”. Therefore, access to resources is an issue that must be addressed in the Jamaican setting. Findings of studies conducted in the USA, (NCATE Report, 1997; National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000; Mumtaz, 2000) identified lack of support as o ne of the main barriers to technology integration. Findings from the OTA (1995) survey indicated that institutional leadership and support are critical to facili tate technology integration (OTA, 1995) in teacher training programs.In terms of administrative and technical support, study participants indicated that college administrator s were generally supportive of computer use in individual colleges. Support was evident in terms of

PAGE 233

221 encouragement and technical assistance for faculty who want to use computers in the ir classes. However, what was lacking were support structures required for tec hnology integration. Study participants proposed that support structures should be establis hed within teacher training programs as faculty attempt to integrate computer s in their classes. In addition, an IT faculty member suggested that support for technology use should be ongoing and coupled with staff development activities. In the Jamaican set ting, support includes establishing support structures as faculty integrate computer s in their classes. In terms of modelling computer use, the literature proposed that when faculty model computer use in their classes, pre-service teachers experience, vi cariously, ways in which computers can be used in content specific areas. Findings from the curren t study indicate that only 33% of faculty surveyed indicated that they modeled computer use for their students. In addition, administrators and IT faculty concurred that facult y did not systematically use computers in their classes. These findings are consisten t with what was observed from studies conducted in the USA that found there were generally low levels of technology use in classrooms in colleges of education (OTA, 1995). Similarly, findings from the ISTE (1999) survey of 416 teacher training programs indicated that faculty did not model computer use in their classes. The researcher is proposing two possible reasons for lack of computer use in teachers’ colleges in Jamaica : (a) inadequate knowledge of how computers can be used in their classes and (b) inadequate access to computers at the college level. If Jamaican Teachers’ college facult y are to model computer use, they must have access to computers and possess knowledge of how computers can be integrated in their classes.

PAGE 234

222 In the context of this study, the findings showed that all study participants reported positive attitudes towards computers. In a survey of 4041 teachers, Shafer (1997) found that teachers who displayed positive attitudes towards computers were more likely to use them in their classes than those who did not. Faculty who thought technology was able to contribute to school reform and their own work were more likel y to integrate it in their classes than those who did not. Despite overwhelmingly posi tive attitudes towards computers from study participants, there was little c orresponding computer use in classroom settings. One of the major factors that can account for t his limited computer use among college faculty is limited access to resource s and infrastructure to facilitate technology integration. Participants’ positive attitudes towards computers can be attributed to the fact that study participants recognized the i mportant role of technology and therefore displayed a positive attitude towards its use in the classroom setting. With regard to pre-service teachers’ training to use computers in their clas ses, findings from the current study showed that, in general, pre-service teachers did not believe that the training they received at college adequately prepared them to i ntegrate computers in their teaching. These findings are consistent with those of studies re ported in the literature (Brownell, 1991; Cole, 1996; National Center for Education Statisti cs, 2000) that found that pre-service teachers did not generally believe their tra ining prepared them to teach with computers. Within the Jamaican setting, despite the fact that computers have been placed in schools and colleges, little corresponding training has been done to ensure future teachers are prepared to teach with computers. Revisions to existing syllabi have included a technology component, however, these revision have not

PAGE 235

223 been implemented with the current study population. Therefore, it is not surprising that perceptions of training to teach with computers are low among this population. In addition, findings from this study are consistent with what was observed in the literature--college faculty were generally not prepared to incorporate comput ers in their teaching (ISTE, 1999; National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000; NCATE, 1997; OTA, 1995). Only 48% of faculty surveyed indicated they felt prepared to teach with computers and 40% reported that they felt prepared to teach with computers. Therefor e, the issue of preparing faculty to teach with computers is one that needs to be addr essed in the Jamaican teacher training setting. With regard to practice and experience using computers, findings from the present study showed that pre-service teachers had minimal experience using computers bot h during their college experience and their practicum activities. Apart from using computers to conduct research, use in other areas was, at best, minimal. Bowman-Alde n (1989) proposed that teacher training programs should include a component that emphasizes practice and hand-on experience using computers. Field experience using computers can provide pre-service teachers with concrete experience rega rding ways in which computers can be used in their classes (Stuhlmann, 1998; Wetzel & Strudler 2002). When data from the present study were examined, it was evident that all specific factors, with the exception of security, proposed by study participants as required t o facilitate technology integration in Jamaica’s teacher training programs we re included in the generic IT 3 P framework. This indicates that the IT 3 P framework adequately addressed factors required to facilitate technology integration in teacher training pro grams, not only

PAGE 236

224 in developed counties, but in developing countries such as Jamaica as well. While security was not addressed in the IT 3 P, in a developing country such as Jamaica, the issue of security becomes significant and needs to be addressed. As one study participant suggested, this would mean redesigning all the classrooms if computers are to be pla ced in individual classrooms. Classrooms have to be designed in such a way to ensure equipment will not be removed. Revisions to IT 3 P Framework Data gathered from the present study suggested the following changes to the generic IT 3 P conceptual framework. Figure 3: Revised IT 3 P Framework The revised IT 3 P includes two components not represented in the original conceptual framework--vision and security. The researcher believes that, whi le these two Technology Integration in Teacher Training Programs Modelling Positive Attitude Training Field Experience/ Practice Vision (Policy/ Plan) Staff Development Resources/ Access/ Infrastructure SupportTechnical & Administrative Security Prerequisite Factors Process Factors Faculty Pre-service Teachers

PAGE 237

225 additional components of the IT 3 P were suggested by study participants in the Jamaican setting, their addition to the revised IT 3 P make it more generalizable to other settings. The following section of the chapter discusses components of a new action plan specifically designed to facilitate technology integration in the Jamaican s etting. VIBESRecommended Plan of Action for Integrating Technology into Jamaica’s Teacher Training Programs Given the urgent need to prepare the Jamaican teacher population to integrate technology into their teaching, the VIBES is proposed as an action plan to facilitate technology integration into Jamaica’s teacher training programs. VIBES is a c onceptual framework for an action plan for integrating technology into Jamaica’s teacher t raining programs. A number of specific factors were proposed by college administrators, IT faculty and pre-service teachers as necessary to ensure future teachers a re equipped with knowledge and skills required to teach with computers. These factors were synthes ized into a model for integrating technology into Jamaica’s teacher training programs. In addition, one factor was retained from the generic IT 3 P and expanded to assure its relevance to the Jamaican setting. Having used this generic IT 3 P to frame the state of technology integration in Jamaica’s teacher training programs, it provided the springboard for an action plan that is, specific recommendations for facilitating technology integration into the Jamaican setting. As a result of the data, the re searcher is proposing a new model, the VIBES framework, specifically designed as an action plan to facilitate technology integration in Jamaica’s teacher training systems. V IBES is comprised of five components that are essential for effective technology integra tion in

PAGE 238

226 Jamaica’s teacher training programs. These are Vision, Infrastructure, Be haviour, Experience and Support, hence the acronym VIBES. The components are represented in a systematic order and each preceding variable is a requirement for the succ eeding one. However, all the variables are invariably intertwined. VIBES was develope d from data gathered primarily through interviews with teachers’ college administrat ors, IT faculty and focus group discussions with pre-service teachers in Jamaica. In addition, data gathered via all other means used in this study were incorporated into this conceptua l framework. The primary purpose of VIBES is to provide curriculum policy makers and college administrators with recommendations for infusing technology into Jamaica ’s teacher training programs. See a diagram of VIBES below. VIBES Figure 4. Diagrammatic representation of the VIBES Framework Vision The first component of VIBES, vision, and more specifically, a shared vision, defines the overall conceptualization of the role of technology in teacher tra ining programs. In VIBES, the vision is the overarching factor that influences/determi nes all Infrastructure Behaviour Experience Support

PAGE 239

227 other components of the framework. It encapsulates all the other features and is singularly the most essential component of VIBES. As a result of its signific ance, it encircles all other variables in VIBES and impacts each of them. The vision i nvolves devising a technology plan which includes long-term plans for the acquisition and allocation of computers (hardware and software), as well as other technologic al devices that will facilitate integration. While college administrators play a leading role in the decision making process, defining the vision must include input from all major stakeholders. Faculty must be included at this critical stage so their input c an be ascertained and their roles in the whole reform process defined and validate d. Further, the vision should also include: a) Conducting a comprehensive needs assessment to identify teachers’ college faculty’s and pre-service teachers’ competence levels. Administrato rs interviewed proposed that students entering college possess certain computer skills. If a nee ds assessment is conducted, curriculum policy makers and college administrators will be provided with information where training is required. A needs assessment should also be conducted with faculty so that areas to be addressed in staff development activities can be ascertained. b) An in-depth examination of the future of teacher training and how technology can enhance the teacher preparation process. This involves establishing long-term goals for teacher training and highlighting ways in which technology can be used to facilitate these goals. In addition, the vision should include provisions for sustainable development of the use of technology in teacher training programs.

PAGE 240

228 c) A clear definition of knowledge and skills that prospective teachers need to be able to teach in the 21 st Century classroom and skills their students need to function in the 21 st Century society. A comprehensive needs assessment must be conducted to determine (a) necessary technology literacy skills and (b) more significantly, key integration skills that will enhance the teaching learnin g process. d) The vision should also include steps for establishing partnerships with funding agencies as well as other stakeholders within the community. This will not only provide colleges with sources of funding, but these partners can be instrumental in defining future needs of prospective employers. At College C, for instance, IT faculty members at that institution suggested that they had acquired a number of computers and related software through partnerships that they had established with a number of projects. This seems to be one way in which teachers’ colleges can increase the number of computers available to them. e) Finally, steps for the re-training or faculty as emerging technologies change and make provisions for the training of staff employed after initial training had been conducted. The vision should be constantly revised to (a) reflect changes in the needs of the populace and in emerging technologies as well as to (b) envision future needs and developments of teacher training. Infrastructure The second factor included in VIBES is infrastructure and is used in a similar way as access proposed in the literature or resources used in Sur ry’s

PAGE 241

229 RIPPLES model (Surry, 2001). However, infrastructure is used in VIBES instead of resources to account for, not only required computers (hardware and software), but to include all physical resources and network connections, (Local Area Network & W ide Area Network) to facilitate communication and collaboration as well as t he exchange of ideas and information within and among colleges. Findings from the study indicate a consensus among participants that the major factor that hindered technology integrat ion in Jamaica’s teacher training programs was lack of resources. As a matter of fact, over 90% of participants surveyed proposed this as the factor that most often deterred f aculty and students from gaining knowledge and experience using computers in their classes. While the issue of access to infrastructure still plagues teachers’ col leges in Jamaica, there seems to be some hope as administrators from colleges that were sampl ed in this study have been able to establish partnerships with some companies that will al low them to acquire computers at a reduced cost. However, when a college has a population of approximately 1500 students, 90 computers is not nearly sufficient to facilitate technology integration. Access to required resources is critical to facilit ate technology integration into the curriculum of teacher training programs. College administrators proposed that students need to have access, not only to computers, but also to other technologies such as digital cameras and camcorders, multimedia projectors, and so on, as these are becoming more widely available in sc hools where they will become in-service teachers. One administrator proposed that one w ay to increase access is to have “portable labs” which will allow faculty to t ake the lab to their classrooms instead of taking their students to the computer lab. Another is of the opin ion that college administrators should make having access to a lap top computer one of t he

PAGE 242

230 requirements for entering college as a way of increasing the amount of access t o computers in colleges. This in itself is quite unrealistic given the nature of t he teacher training population. It seems therefore that it is incumbent on (a) organisat ions such as the JBTE or (b) the colleges themselves to ensure faculty and pre-service te achers have increased access to computers. Organizations such as the Joint Board of Teacher Educators needs to become more actively involved in ensuring colleges are equippe d with resources and infrastructure required to facilitate technology integr ation. In addition, colleges have to establish partnerships with the business community as well as national and international funding agencies and projects so that required hardware and softwa re can be acquired to facilitate technology integration in individual colleges. Infrastructure also includes ensuring that necessary security devices are in place in teachers’ colleges to guarantee that whatever technologies are install ed remain in place. One administrator believes this would essentially mean redesignin g the entire classroom structure to ensure there is security if each classroom should be e quipped with at least one computer. The issue of security must be addressed within individual coll eges as there are idiosyncrasies related to individual colleges that will deter mine the levels of security measures needed. Behaviour Adopting a new innovation requires a change in behaviour, sometimes over time. In order for technology to be systematically incorporated into teacher tra ining programs, college faculty must posses knowledge and skills required to integrate computers in their classes. In VIBES, behaviour requires mobilizing human resources t o effect changes in technology skills and knowledge and subsequently, computer use. In

PAGE 243

231 this case, a change in behaviour requires staff development for faculty and intensive, o ngoing training for pre-service teachers. Any model on technology integration must include a component that addresses ongoing staff development. As one IT faculty observed, while some faculty members believe they are capable of teaching with technology, perception is one thing, but efficacy and utilization are not evident. Data from this study revealed that there are not many organized staff development exercises in the form of workshops to teach specific skills or expose facul ty to ways in which computers can be incorporated in their teaching. As a matter of fact, it see ms that some colleges have struggled to provide these activities for their faculty. Col lege administrators suggested that some faculty are not too eager to admit they nee d help and therefore, do not take advantage of these activities. In designing staff development activities, organizers should be careful to ensure these activities focus not only on computer skills, but must be conducted by persons knowledgeable in technology and pedagogy so essential technology integration skills can also be taught. Staff development activities should be frequently scheduled to account for (a) changes in emerging technologies (b) changes in required knowledge and skills by pre-service teachers and their prospective students and (c) staff turn-over in the colleges. The researcher was informed that the last major, organized staff development ac tivity that involved all faculty took place approximately 3-5 years ago. Since then a number of new staff members have joined the faculty and therefore have not benefited from thes e activities. The data also show that faculty employed at the college level for less than 3 years were less likely to indicate that they have participated in staf f development than their counterparts who have been there for longer periods. Most of these faculty have

PAGE 244

232 reported that they have received training on their own and while some may possess computer skills, knowledge of how to integrate technology into their teaching is severely lacking. Changing faculty’s behaviour through staff development involves not only the provision of these activities, but also ensuring measures are put in place to guarant ee faculty take advantage of these activities. In all three colleges sam pled in this study, there was evidence that, even in instances where staff development activities wer e organized, some were not effective as faculty did not take advantage of them. College admini strators must devise innovative ways of mandating and encouraging faculty to participate in planned staff development activities. These can be through incentives, providing fac ulty with release time, course certification and so on. It is imperative that st aff development activities be planned at least twice per year--at the beginning of the school y ear and at other intervals later in the school year. Training pre-service teachers to teach with computers must also be an es sential component of the teacher training curriculum. However, while exposing pre-service teachers to a single computer course is necessary, this will not suffic iently address their technology integration needs. This does not mean that pre-service teachers should no t be taught essential computer skills, however, this should be done only as a preface to exposing them to essential integration skills. During focus group sessions, students proposed that in order for technology to be successfully integrated in teacher training programs, apart from to access computers and different types of software, there should be trained faculty to teach them (a) how t o use different types of software and (b) how to use technology as teaching tools. Since t he majority of subject specialists also teach related methodology courses, all fa culty should

PAGE 245

233 be trained so using technology and exposing pre-service teachers to ways in which technology can be used can become an integral part of their methodology classes. In order to effect a change in behaviour in pre-service teachers, they must be exposed to some level of training to improve their computer skills as well as knowle dge of how to use computers as teaching and cognitive tools. The data from the present study revealed that, while perceptions of preparation to teach with computers were rel atively low, respondents from College A were more likely to indicate that they are prepa red to integrate computers in their classes than their counterparts in Colle ges B and C. While these pre-service teachers are similar to their counterparts in other c olleges in many ways, one of the distinguishing features is the presence of an introductory computer course in their college curriculum. This means that while the literature proposed that havi ng a stand-alone computer program does not often work, the researcher is proposing that one be in place in teacher training programs in Jamaica to ensure students are te chnologically literate before they are exposed to ways in which computers can be infused in their teaching. In addition, it is important that training not be done over the course of one semester or two semesters, but ongoing throughout pre-service teachers’ college experience. Further, integrating technology should become an integral part of methodology. As one college administrator noted, “I think the technology in education component could be the most visible integrative tool in teacher training”. She fur ther suggested that while technology in education should be taught as a single subject, it should also be used to “combine the different subject areas”. Technology has to become the center of methodology. Prospective teachers should be taught how to use the computer as a teaching tool and, more significantly, how to get their students to select

PAGE 246

234 evaluate and use materials and information they access via the computer. Preservice teachers should be exposed to how they can use computers as cognitive tools that will develop critical thinking and problems solving skills in their students. While traini ng in colleges in Jamaica should include a course aimed at developing specific computer skills in teachers, students should be exposed to, both directly and indirectly, through methodology classes and modelling of computer use by faculty, content specific integrative skills. Experience In tandem with staff development and training, faculty and preservice teachers need extensive and continuous practice using computers as it is through practice that knowledge and skills become concretized. Once behavior is changed through training, faculty and pre-service teachers need hands-on practice using computer s in real as well as contrived classroom settings. One way of doing this is to requ ire that during methodology classes, computers be used as teaching tools as any other teaching aid previously used by faculty and pre-service teachers. From focus group discussions, i t was clear pre-service teachers did not believe their technology in education c lasses were adequately providing them with “hands-on” practice using computers and related technologies. In order to increase the amount of practice pre-service tea chers receive, faculty must (a) assign activities that require using computers for researc h as well as to complete the activities (word processing) (b) require that students use co mputers for class presentations as they would with any other media and (c) as best as is possible, us e

PAGE 247

235 computers for intra class and college and inter college communication and collabor ation with peers and learners in other parts of the world. Faculty, too, need experience and practice using computers as teaching tools as this will not only make them more proficient, comfortable and confident in using the technology, but help them provide pre-service teachers with ideas regarding how computers can be used in their classes. Through this vicarious medium, pre-service teachers will be provided with examples of how computers can be used in specific sub ject areas as well as models of best practices using computers as teaching tools During focus group discussions, students proposed that technology should not be taught as a single course as it is currently being done, but should be ongoing throughout the 3 years of their teacher training programs. This way, they will receive adequate practice and will become more competent using computers as teaching tools Support The final variable in VIBES, support speaks to the issue of institutional support at the college level. This is not so much in the form of administrative suppor t as findings from the study indicate that administrators recognize the importance of a nd the need to incorporate technology in the college curriculum and are supportive of efforts to integrate computers. Support is used in VIBES to represent more technical a nd pedagogical support. While faculty possess, in theory, knowledge of how computers can be infused in their teaching, technical knowledge of how it can actually be accomplished is lacking. College administrators need to ensure there is someone at the college who has the primary responsibility of showing faculty how to do tasks that range from creating and

PAGE 248

236 formatting documents using a word processor to creating PowerPoint slides to sett ing up and using the multimedia projectors and digital cameras and camcorders and so on. According to one IT faculty member, integration of technology into the college curriculum would be enhanced if faculty had more support. She further proposes that they do not systematically use computers because they do not have required support. “The big thing would be training for faculty with support, so we do not just provide them with the skills and leave them on their own, we provide them with ongoing support as they try to design and teach computer-based lessons”. IT faculty believe that many times facul ty have interesting ideas regarding how to teach a lesson that incorporates teaching w ith the computer, but they need technical support to provide them with assistance to put their lessons in a format they want. Apart from technical support in the form of technical assistance, facult y, as they work together to integrate computers in their classes, need to develop support struc tures among themselves where they can share stories of success and challenges using technology in their classes. When faculty see others succeeding using technology or realize that they are not the only ones who are struggling to integrate computers i n their classes, they will be encouraged by stories. In addition, faculty members need pedagogical support to enhance their integration efforts. This suggests that all c olleges should have at least one faculty member who is knowledgeable in both technology and pedagogy so faculty can receive assistance from this person when this is required.

PAGE 249

237 Summary The current study examined and described the current state of technology in Jamaica’s teacher training programs. It also assessed teachers’ colle ge faculty’s and preservice teachers’ perceptions of their preparation to teach with computers as well as their perceived levels of proficiency with various computer tools. In addition, the study proposed a conceptual framework in the form of an action plan for integrating technology into Jamaica’s teacher training programs. Administrators, faculty and f inal year preservice teachers in three teachers’ colleges in Jamaica provided data r equired for the study. Data were gathered via interviews, self-administered questionnai res and focus group discussions. It was evident from data gathered in this study that technology has not been effectively incorporated into Jamaica’s teacher training curricula. The I T 3 P proposed eight factors required for and identified teacher training programs that have systematically integrated technology into their curriculum. Of the eight f actors proposed in the IT 3 P, only two--administrative support and positive attitude towards computers are evident in colleges used in this study. Others existed only minimally in some inst ances-however, even in these cases, they did not exist sufficiently to facilitate integra tion efforts. Access to computer hardware and software and related infrastructure as well as lack of knowledge and skills regarding how computers can be used as teaching tools were the major factors that hindered technology integration in Jamaica’s teachers ’ colleges. In addition, both faculty and pre-service teachers did not perceive themselves as prep ared to teach with computers. Both sets of participants also reported low levels of proficiency with various computer tools.

PAGE 250

238 The IT 3 P framework provided a good scaffold for conducting the research, it also provided a springboard for a plan of action for improving technology integration in Jamaica’s teacher training programs. This new plan of action became manif est in VIBES. The VIBES framework proposes five factors relevant to ensure technology become s incorporated into teacher training programs in Jamaica. These five components are Vision, Infrastructure, Behaviour, Experience and Support. While VIBES is not prescriptive, it identifies factors that are relevant for technolo gy integration in this setting. Recommendations for Future Research The descriptive nature of the present study provided an understanding of the state of technology integration in Jamaica’s teacher training program. These descrip tive data provided an indication of what currently exists and provide a number of directions for future research. This section of the chapter provides recommendations and direc tions for future research. 1. Follow-up studies should also be conducted with in-service teachers to determine if they are using technology in their classes and how technology is being used by these teachers. In-service teachers should also be provided with on-going support as they use computers with their students. 2. The study should also be replicated with a larger group of participants and should include students from other institutions that are considered “multidiscipli nary” institutions, but include a teacher training component.

PAGE 251

239 3. Future research could also test VIBES to determine if alterations are required. Follow-up research could also be done to determine if its implementation results in any changes in behaviour for college faculty as well as pre-service teachers. This will include conducting a longitudinal study were data are collected over a 3-5 year period to ascertain if changes in behaviour can be attributed to the implementation of VIBES in Jamaica’s teacher training programs. 4. Future research should also be conducted with recent graduates (within the last three years) of teacher training institutions to identify the extent to whic h they are currently using computers and other technologies in their teaching.

PAGE 252

240 References Abdal-Haqq, I. (1995). Infusing technology into preservice teacher education. ERIC Digest. ED 389969 Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning theory. Retrieved September 2002 from http://tip.psychology.org/bandura.html. Barron, L. C., & Goldman, E. S. (1994). Integrating technology with teacher preparation. In B. Means Ed. Technology and Education Reform (81-110). JosseyBass Publishers, San Francisco. Beck, J., & Wynn, H. C. (1998). Technology in teacher education: Progress along the continuum. ERIC Digest. ED 424212 Bielefeldt, T., (2001). Technology in teacher education: A closer look. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(4), 4-15. Bohlin, R. M. (1999). Avoiding computer avoidance. IT Forum Paper #35 Retrieved October 2002 from http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper35/paper35.html Bowman Alden, S. (1989). Effective programs for training teachers on the use of technology. Retrieved September 24, 2002 from http://www.computerlearniing.org/articles/Training.htm. Brownell, G. & Brownell, N. (1991). Designing tomorrow: Preparing teachers as change agents for the classroom of the future. Computers in the Schools 8 (1/2/3), 147-149. Brownell, K. (1997). Technology in teacher education: Where are we and where do we go from here? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 5 (2/3), 117138. Bullock, D. (2004). Moving from theory to practice: An examination of the factors that preservice teachers encounter as they attempt to gain experience wit h technology during field placement activities. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 12 (2), 211-237. Campoy, R. (1992). The role of technology in the school reform movement. Educational Technology 32(8), 17-22.

PAGE 253

241 CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness Report, (1999). Professional development. A link to better learning. Retrieved September 24, 2002 from http://www.ceoforum.org/reports.cfm Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Complementary research design Sage Publications. USA. Cole, S. 2000. Technology Has Found its Way into Our Schools…Now What? TechTrends 44 (6), 23-27. Crawford, A. (1999, November). Management of technology in education projects. Jamaica 2000. Jamaica Computer Education Foundation. Retrieved May 21, 2003 from http:// www.col.org/tel99/acrobat/crawford1.pdf Crawford, A. (2001). Building sustainable ICT capabilities in Jamaica. Retrieve d May 21, 2003 from www.capacity.org/10/editorial3.html Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers College Record 95 (2), 85-210. Cuban, L. (1998). High-Tech schools and low-tech teaching. A commentary. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14 (2), 6-8. Dasher, J. M. (1997). Teaching the teachertechnology training in the classroom. Journal of Instructional Delivery Systems 11 (3), 3-7. David, J. L. (1994). Realizing the promise of technology: A policy perspective. In B. Means Ed. Technology and Education Reform (169-189). Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. Ely, D. P. (1999). Conditions that Facilitate the Implementation of Educational Technology Innovations. Educational Technology 39 (6), 23-27. Fink, A. (2003a). How to manage, analyze and interpret survey data (2 nd edition). Sage publications Inc, USA. Fink, A. (2003b). The survey handbook (2 nd edition). Sage publications Inc, USA. Fink, A. & Kosecoff, J. B. (1985). How to conduct surveys. A step-by-step guide Sage publications Inc, USA. Fisher, M. (1997). The voice of experience: Inservice teacher technology compet ency recommendations for preservice teacher preparation programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 5 (2/3), 139-147.

PAGE 254

242 Fowler, F. J. (Jr.) (1984). Survey research methods. Applied social science research methods series volume 1 Sage Publications Inc. USA. Fullan, M. (1992). Successful school improvement: The implementation perspective and beyond. Open University Press, Philadelphia, USA. Fullan, M. G. 1993. Why Teachers Must Become Change Agents. Educational Leadership, 50 (6), 12-17. Gillingham, M., G. & Topper, Andrew. (1999). Technology in teacher preparation: Preparing teachers for the future. Journal of Technology and Teacher Preparation 7 (4), 303-321. Grabe, M., & Grabe, C., (2001). Integrating technology for meaningful learning Houghton Muffin Company. USA. Hogarty, K. & Kromrey, J. (2000). The nature of technology use in classrooms: The development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers' perceptions Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association (FERA), Tallahassee, Florida Howland, J. & Wedman, J. (2004). A process model for faculty development: Individualizing technology learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education .12 (2), 239-263. International Society for Technology in Education (2000). National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for Teachers. Retrieved June 21, 2002 from http://cnets.iste.org ISTE Nets Project, (2000-2002). Essential conditions for teacher preparation. Retr ieved June 21, 2003 from http://cnets.org/teachers/t_esscond.html Joint Board of Teacher Education (JBTE) (2003, February). Curriculum Guide for three year diploma in teacher-education-primary. Technology in education courses Kingston, Jamaica. Jacobsen, M. & Lock, J. (2004). Technology and teacher education for a knowledge era. Mentoring for student futures, not our past. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 12(1), 75-100. Jost, K. (1995). Creating a learning environment for teachers. EDRS Document. ED 383 313. Kimble, C. (1999). The impact of technology on learning. Making Sense of the Research. Policy Brief. Mid-Continental Regional Educational Laboratory

PAGE 255

243 Kinslow, J., et al., (2002). Forming a cadre of learners. Effective educational technology integration in a teacher preparation programs. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 18(3), 81-86. Kortecamp, K. & Croninger, W. R. (1996). Addressing barriers to technology diffusion. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education 5 (1/2), 71-82. Krathwohl, D. R. (1993). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. Longman, NY. USA. Mann, D. & Shafer, E. A. (no date) Technology and achievement. An investment in technology pays off in student performance, these researchers say. Retrieved March 31, 2001 from http://www.asbj.com/achievement/ci/ci10.html Mayring, Philipp (2000, June). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 1 (2). Retrieved September 26, 2003 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-00/2-00mayring-e.htm McKenzie, B. et al., (1996). Preparing for the future with technology: Extending past the classroom. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education 5 (1/2), 83-92. Mehlinger, H. & Powers, S. (2002). Technology and teacher Education: A guide for educators and policymakers. Houghton Muffin Company. USA Milken Exchange on Education Technology. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? A national survey of information technology in teacher education. Retrieved on April 9, 2002 from http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=154 Milken Family Foundation (2002). Information technology underused in teacher education. Retrieved April 9, 2002 from http://www.mff.org/edtech/article.taf?_function=detail&Content_uid1=131. Munday, J. (1991). Technology for learning: Are teachers being prepared? Educational Technology 31 (3), 29-32. Mumtaz, S. 2000. Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education 9 (3), 319-342. NCATE (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21 st Century classroom. Retrieved on April 9, 2002 from http://www.ncate.org/accred/ptojects/tech/tech-21.htm.

PAGE 256

244 Office of Technology Assessment, (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. Retrieved November 2003 from http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html. Parker, R. D. (1997). Increasing faculty use of technology in teaching and teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 5 (2/3), 105-115. Peart, M. (1998). Essential skills for teachers in the age of information tec hnology and interactivity. In R. King (ed.) Institute of Education Annual Kingston: University of the West Indies. 1, 194-204. Pettenati, M.C., (2001). Information technology and staff development: Issues and problems related to new skills and competence acquisition. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 9(2), 153-169. Pope, M. et al. (2002). Technology integration: Closing the gap between what pre-service teachers are taught to do and what they can do. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 10 (2), 191-203. Qualitative Methods 101 Handout. (no date). Retrieved April 2003 from http://www.ucsf.edu/fhop/docs/training/data-m/qualitative-handout.pdf RAND Report: Teacher training, (1995). Technology and teacher professional development. Retrieved April 2003 from http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Plan/RAND/Tecaher.html. Ritchie, D. & Rodriquez, S. (1996). School administrators and educational technologies: Narrowing the divide. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education 5 (1/2), 107-114. Rogers, E. M., (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4 th Edition).The Free Press. Rogers, P. (1999). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. EDRS Document. ED 439 556. Rosenthal, I. G. (1999). New teachers and technology: Are they prepared? Technology and Learning, 19 (8), 22-24, 29-28. Schmidt, D. (1998). Technology and teacher education: Preservice teachers can hel p make a difference. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 14(2), 2-3.

PAGE 257

245 Shenouda, W. & Johnson, G., (1995). Cooperative effort to integrate computer technology into teacher education curricula. EDRS Document, ED 378 109 Spiegel, H. (2002). Pre-service teacher training and implementation in the class room: Considerations. EDRS Document, ED 475-952 Sprague, D. et al., (1998). Faculty development in the integration of technology courses in teacher education courses. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 14 (2), 24-28. Stewart, E. (1999, Fall). Learning together: The use of mentoring for faculty develop ment in the integration of technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 16 (1), 15-21. Stuhlmann, J. M., (1998) A model for infusing technology into teacher training programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 6(2/3), 125-139. Sudzina, M. R. (1993). Technology, teachers, educational Reform: Implications for teacher preparation. EDRS Document, ED 355 207 Surry, D. W. (1997). Diffusion Theory and Instructional Technology. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), Albuquerque, New Mexico, February 12-15, 1997. Surry, D. W. (2001). A Model for integrating instructional technology into higher education. Proposal submitted to SIG: Instructional Technology. Retrieved October 2002 from http://tigersystem.net/aera2000/viewproposaltext.asp Surry, D. W. & Farquhar, J. D. 1997. Diffusion Theory and Instructional Technology. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology Retrieved October 2002 from http://www.usq.edu/au/electpub/e-jist/docs/old/vol2no1/article2.htm Thomas, L. et al., (1996). Integrating technology in teacher education programs: Lessons from the teaching teleapprenticeships project. Action in Teacher Education 17(4), 1-8. Retrieved from http://lrs.ed.uiuc/TTA/Papers/TLCL.html Trochim, W. M. K. (2002). Probability sampling. Retrieved January 28, 2003 from http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/sampprob.htm University of South Florida TECH initiative survey. (2003) Retrieved February 2003 from http://www.metiri.com/usf/pt3survey/ U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Teachers’ tools

PAGE 258

246 for the 21 st Century: A Report on teachers’ use of technology. NECS 2000-102 by Becky Smerdon, Stephanie Cronen, Lawrence Lanahan, Jennifer Anderson, Nicholas Iannotti, and January Angeles. Washington, DC: 2000. Varsidas, C., & McIsaac, M. (2001). Integrating technology in teaching and teacher education: Implications for policy and curriculum reform. Educational Media International 38 (2/3), 127-132. Weisberg, H. F. et al. (1989) An introduction to survey research and data analysis (2 nd edition) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-publication. USA. Wetzel, K. (1998). The implementation of educational change in teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 14 (2), 4-5. Wetzel, K., Strudler, N., (2002) Experiencing technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(2), 30-32. Willis, E. M., & Sujo de Montes, L., (2002). Does requiring a technology course in preservice teacher education affect student teacher’s technology use in the classroom? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(3), 76-80. Willis, J.W., & Mehlinger, H. D. (1996). Information technology and teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2 nd ed., 978-1029).

PAGE 259

247 Appendices

PAGE 260

248 Appendix A: Faculty Technology Integration Instrument Teachers’ College Faculty Technology Integration Instrument The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather data regarding the extent to which graduates of teachers’ colleges in Jamaica are prepared to teach with computers. Your participation is strictly voluntary and any in formation given will remain confidential and anonymous. Section A: General information 1. Gender Male Female 2. Age 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-45 Over 45 3. Name of college where you currently teach. Bethlehem Church SSTC Mico Shortwood St. Josephs 4. How long have you been teaching? 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years More than 25 years 5. How long have you been teaching at this college? Less than 3 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years 6. What subjects do you teach? (Choose all that apply). English Language Music English Literature Science Mathematics Geography Physical Education Home Economics Social Studies Art & Craft Foreign Languages Instructional Technology Methodology (Please specify) _________________ ____________ Other(s) (Please specify) ____________________ _____________ 7. Qualifications: Choose highest degree attained. Teachers’ Diploma Bachelors Masters Doctorate

PAGE 261

249 Appendix A: (Continued) Instructions: For each of the items in sections B-J use the following scale to indicate your level of agreement with each statement. Circle: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree and 4 = Strongly Agree Section B: Technology Plan SD D A SA 8. There is a policy or plan in place at my college th at states how teachers should be prepared to teach with computers. 1 2 3 4 9. There is a plan that outlines how computers will be acquired and allocated in my college. 1 2 3 4 10. My college has a document from the Joint Board of T eacher Education (JBTE) that outlines computer skills students need to be able to teach in the 21st Century classroom. 1 2 3 4 11. There is a plan that outlines the goals o f teacher training and how computers can be used to achieve these goals. 1 2 3 4 Section C: Staff Development SD D A SA 12.There are opportunities for staff development fo r lecturers interested in using computers in their classes. 1 2 3 4 13. Organisations such as the JBTE and the Ja maica Computer Society Education Foundation (JCSEF) offer work shops for lecturers to improve their computer skills. 1 2 3 4 14. Workshops are offered at my college for l ecturers to improve their computer skills. 1 2 3 4 15. I have had training on how to use compute rs in my classes. 1 2 3 4 16. I have received training to improve my co mputer skills. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 262

250 Appendix A: (Continued) SD D A SA 17. I have participated in workshops and other staf f development activities offered to improve my comput er skills. 1 2 3 4 Section D: Support at the College Level SD D A SA 18. College administrators encourage and support co mputer use. 1 2 3 4 19. If I encounter problems when using the computer there is someone at the college to provide technical assistance. 1 2 3 4 20. There is support from administration (e.g., rel ease time) for lecturers who want to learn how to use computers. 1 2 3 4 Section E: Modelling Computer Use SD D A SA 21. In my teaching, I model ways in which computers can be used as teaching tools. 1 2 3 4 22. I show my students how to use computers in thei r classes. 1 2 3 4 23. I model a positive attitude towards computers. 1 2 3 4 24. I feel competent to model computer use to my st udents. 1 2 3 4 Section F: Training SD D A SA 25. The training students receive at my college ade quately prepares them to teach with computers. 1 2 3 4 26. Students in my college are taught how to teach with computers 1 2 3 4 27. Methodology classes expose students to ways in which computers can be used as teaching tools. 1 2 3 4 28. At my college, there are courses specifically d esigned to teach students how to integrate computers in their classes. 1 2 3 4 29. At my college, there are courses that teach stu dents specific computer skills. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 263

251 Appendix A: (Continued) Section G: Field Experience/ Practice Using Computers SD D A SA 30. I require my students to use computers to compl ete course assignments. 1 2 3 4 31. My students are required to use computers for c lass presentations. 1 2 3 4 32. I assign activities that require my students to use the Internet for research. 1 2 3 4 33. I encourage my students to use computers (e.g., e-mail) to communicate with their lecturers and peers. 1 2 3 4 34. During teaching practice, I require my students to use computers to prepare their lessons. 1 2 3 4 35. During teaching practice, I ask my students to use computers to complete classroom related activities (e.g., keep records, presentations). 1 2 3 4 Section H: Attitude Toward Computers SD D A SA 36. Computers can improve the quality of learning t hat takes place in schools. 1 2 3 4 37. Students who have access to computers are more likely to do better than those who do not. 1 2 3 4 38. Computers are important learning tools. 1 2 3 4 39. Computers should be placed in all schools. 1 2 3 4 40. Computers should be placed in all classrooms. 1 2 3 4 41. Having computers in my class would enhance my teach ing 1 2 3 4 42. Access to computers should be limited to the sc hool library for research. 1 2 3 4 43. Students should be monitored when using compute rs. 1 2 3 4 44. Having computers in my class is a waste resourc es. 1 2 3 4 45. If I use computers, I will not have enough time to cover all the topics on the syllabus. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 264

252 Appendix A: (Continued) SD D A SA 46. Computers are potential sources of distraction in classrooms. 1 2 3 4 47. I feel nervous when I have to use a computer. 1 2 3 4 48. If I have computers in my class, I would use th em with my students. 1 2 3 4 Section I: Access to Computers at College SD D A SA 49 I have access to computers at college. 1 2 3 4 50. During teacher training my students have access to computers to complete course assignments. 1 2 3 4 51. If I want to teach a computer-based lesson, the re are computers and available for use. 1 2 3 4 52. I can take my class to the computer lab to comp lete computer-based activities. 1 2 3 4 Section J: Preparation to teach with Computers SD D A SA 53. I feel prepared to teach with computers. 1 2 3 4 54. I feel prepared to teach my students how to tea ch with computers. 1 2 3 4 55. I know enough about the different types of soft ware to use them in my classes. 1 2 3 4 56. I feel prepared to use computers to communicate and collaborate with peers in the field. 1 2 3 4 57. I feel prepared to use computers to conduct res earch. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 265

253 Appendix A: (Continued) Section K: Computer Proficiency For each of the following software category, rate your proficiency using the following scale: Circle : 1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Excellent Poor Fair Good Excellent Word processing software (e.g., MS Word, Claris Wor ks). 1 2 3 4 Databases (e.g., Access) 1 2 3 4 Spreadsheets (e.g., Lotus, Excel). 1 2 3 4 Programming/ authoring software (e.g., AuthorWare) 1 2 3 4 Web publishing software (e.g., DreamWeaver, FrontPa ge). 1 2 3 4 Presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint). 1 2 3 4 Desktop Publishing software (e.g., Publisher) 1 2 3 4 Web browsers (e.g., Internet Explorer, Netscape Nav igator). 1 2 3 4 E-mail. 1 2 3 4 Other Internet communication tools (e.g., listservs chat, discussion boards). 1 2 3 4 Online databases (e.g., ERIC Online). 1 2 3 4 Web search engines 1 2 3 4 Electronic Gradebooks 1 2 3 4

PAGE 266

254 Appendix A: (Continued) Section L: Software used in Class or to Complete Classroom Activities Using the following scheme, indicate how often you use the software indicated to prepare activities for your students or as part of the learning activities in whic h students participate. Circle : 1 = Never, 2 = At least once per week, 3 = At least twice per week, 4 = At least three times per week. Never At least once per week At least twice per week At least three times per week Word processing software (e.g., Word, Claris Works) 1 3 4 Databases (e.g., Access). 1 3 4 Spreadsheets (e.g., Lotus, Excel). 1 3 4 Programming/ authoring software (e.g., AuthorWare) 1 3 4 Presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint). 1 3 4 Graphics software (e.g., PhotoShop) 1 3 4 Web publishing software (e.g., DreamWeaver, FrontPa ge). 1 3 4 The Internet 1 3 4 Desktop publishing (e.g., Publisher). 1 3 4 Drill & Practice 1 3 4 Tutorials 1 3 4 Simulations 1 3 4 Educational/ Instructional Games 1 3 4 Problem Solving 1 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

PAGE 267

255 Appendix B: Pre-service Teachers Technology Integration Instrument Pre-service Teachers Technology Integration Instrument The purpose of this instrument is to gather data re garding your perceptions of your preparation to teach with computers. Your participation is strictly voluntary and any in formation given will remain confidential and anonymous. Section A: General Information 1. Gender Male Female 2. Age 19-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-45 Over 45 1. Which college do you currently attend? Bethlehem Church SSTC Mico Shortwood St. Josephs 2. What type of school did you attend before coming to college? Secondary High Technical High Traditional High Comprehensive High 3. Did you receive computer training prior to coming t o college? Yes No 4. If yes, what types of software did you learn to use? (Choose all that apply). Word processing Presentation software Spreadsheets Web publishing software Databases Desktop publishing Other(s) (Please specify)______________________________________________

PAGE 268

256 Appendix B: (Continued) Instructions: For each of the items in sections B-G use the following scale to indicate your level of agreement with each statement. Circle: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree and 4 = Strongly Agree Section B: Preparation to Teach with Computers SD D A SA 5. I feel prepared to teach with computers. 1 2 3 4 6. I feel prepared to use computers to conduct researc h. 1 2 3 4 SD D A SA 7. I know enough about different types of software to use them in my classes. 1 2 3 4 8. I feel prepared to use computers to teach my studen ts. 1 2 3 4 9. I feel prepared to use computers to communicate and collaborate with peers and faculty (e.g., through e-mails, discussio n boards, chat rooms, etc.,). 1 2 3 4 Section C: Training SD D A SA 10. My teacher training program exposed me to ways in w hich computers can be used to manage my classroom activities. 1 2 3 4 11. My teacher training equipped me with knowledge and skills required to plan lessons that involve students using compute rs. 1 2 3 4 12. My teacher training program equipped me with knowle dge and skills required to teach with computers. 1 2 3 4 13. My teacher training program exposed me to different types of computer software that can be used in my classes. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 269

257 Appendix B: (Continued) Section D: Field Experience / Practice Using Computers at Colle ge SD D A SA 14. At college, I use computers to conduct research. 1 2 3 4 15. At college, I use computers to complete course assi gnments. 1 2 3 4 16. At college, I use computers to communicate with pee rs and faculty (e.g., e-mail). 1 2 3 4 17. During my training, I used computers for class pres entations. 1 2 3 4 18. During practice teaching, I used computers to prepa re my lessons. 1 2 3 4 19. During practice teaching, I used computers to prepa re handouts, quizzes, etc. for my students. 1 2 3 4 Section E: Modelling Computer Use (by lecturers). SD D A SA 20. My lecturers model computer use in their classes. 1 2 3 4 21. My lecturers use computers as teaching tools. 1 2 3 4 22. At college, lecturers show us how to teach with com puters. 1 2 3 4 23. My lecturers display a positive attitude towards co mputers and its impact on learning. 1 2 3 4 Section F: Access to Computers at College SD D A SA 24. I have access to a computer lab at my college. 1 2 3 4 25. If I want to use computers to complete class assign ments, I can use the computers in the lab. 1 2 3 4 26. I have access to the Internet at your college. 1 2 3 4 27. If I want to use computers to prepare lesson plans or complete activities need for my teaching practice, I can use the lab. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 270

258 Appendix B: (Continued) Section G: Attitude Towards Computers SD D A SA 28. I believe computers can improve the quality of lear ning that takes place in schools. 1 2 3 4 29. Students who have access to computers are more like ly to do better than those who do not. 1 2 3 4 30. Computers are important learning tools. 1 2 3 4 31. Computers should be placed in all schools. 1 2 3 4 32. Computers should be placed in all classrooms. 1 2 3 4 33. Computers are potential sources of distraction in c lassrooms. 1 2 3 4 34. Access to computers should be limited to the school library. 1 2 3 4 35. Students should be monitored when using computers. 1 2 3 4 36. I feel nervous when I have to use a computer. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 271

259 Appendix B: (Continued) Section H: Computer Proficiency Instructions: For each of the following software, rate your proficienc y using the following scale: Circle: 1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Excellent Poor Fair Good Excellent 37. Word processing software (e.g., MS Word, Claris Wor ks). 1 2 3 4 38. Databases (e.g., Access) 1 2 3 4 39. Spreadsheets (e.g., Lotus, Excel). 1 2 3 4 40. Programming/ authoring software (e.g., AuthorWare) 1 2 3 4 41. Web publishing software (e.g., DreamWeaver, FrontPa ge). 1 2 3 4 42. Presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint). 1 2 3 4 43. Web browsers (e.g., Internet Explorer, Netscape Nav igator). 1 2 3 4 44. E-mail. 1 2 3 4 45. Other Internet communication tools (e.g., listservs chat, discussion boards). 1 2 3 4 46. Online databases (e.g., ERIC Online). 1 2 3 4 47. Web search engines (e.g., Google, Yahoo) 1 2 3 4

PAGE 272

260 Appendix B: (Continued) Section I: Computer Skills Acquired at College The following section of the questionnaire seeks to gather data regarding whether or not you were taught to use the following types of software in yo ur training program at college. For each of the following software categories, indi cate the degree to which you were taught how to use it at college. Choose: 1for not at all 2to a small extent 3to a moderate extent 4to a great extent Not at all To a small extent To a moderate extent To a great extent Word processing 1 2 3 4 Spreadsheets 1 2 3 4 Databases 1 2 3 4 Presentation software 1 2 3 4 Multimedia authoring 1 2 3 4 Web publishing 1 2 3 4 Desktop publishing 1 2 3 4 E-mail 1 2 3 4 The Internet 1 2 3 4

PAGE 273

261 Appendix C: Conceptual Plan for Interviews Part 1 Section A: Technology Plan Is there a technology plan at your college? o What is this plan comprised of? Do you think the plan is adequate? What are some of the things you would include in a technology plan? Section B: Staff Development Are there staff development opportunities for faculty interested in integrati ng computers in their classes? Will members of staff get release time to participate in workshops to o Improve computer skills? o Show them how to integrate computers in their classes? Section C: Support Do you encourage your faculty to use computers in their classes? Is there technical assistance available for faculty who want to use compute rs? Does the college receive any financial or other tangible support from the business community? Section D: Modelling Have you observed any faculty members modelling computer use in their classes? Generally, what is faculty’s attitude towards computers? Section E: Training Do you believe students at your college receive adequate training to use computers in their classes? o What are some of the topics addressed in their training? Are there courses specifically designed to teach students how to integrate computers in their classes? Section F: Field Experience/ Practice Using Computers Are students required to use computers during their field experience?

PAGE 274

262 Appendix C: (Continued) Do they use computers to complete course work and other course related activities? Do students use computers to communicate with faculty and peers? Section G: Attitude How do you feel about computers/ presence of computers in classroom? What role should computers play in the teaching learning process? Should teaching pre-service teachers how to integrate computers in their classe s be included in the college curriculum? Section H: Access to Resources Are there adequate resources at your college to facilitate technology inte gration? Are faculty and students allowed to use this lab? Are there computers at other places on the college grounds where faculty and students have access to computers? Do you believe the facilities at your college are adequate to facilitate technology integration? Part 2 What recommendations would you make regarding how technology should be integrated in the curriculum of teacher training programs? What are some of the factors that should be in place in teachers’ colle ges to ensure teachers are provided with knowledge and skills required to integrate computers in their classes? What role do you think computers should play in the college curriculum?

PAGE 275

263 Appendix D. Guiding Questions--Focus Group Discussion Part 1 Training 1. While you are at college, do you get any training on how to use computers in your classes? 2. Did you get classes that teach you how to use specific types of software in your classes? 3. Did your teacher training programs equip you with knowledge and skills required to plan lessons using computers as teaching tools? 4. Do you think your teacher training program has equipped you with knowledge and skills required to use computers as teaching tools? 5. Apart from your technology in education class, are there any other classes that expose you to ways in which computers can be used as teaching tools? Preparation to Teach with Computers 6. Do you feel prepared to use computers in your classes when you graduate? 7. Do you feel prepared to use computers to conduct research? 8. Do you know enough about different types of software to use them in your classes? Experience/Practice Using Computers 9. At college are you required to use computers to communicate with faculty? 10. Are you required to use computers to conduct research? 11. Are you required to use the computer to write your course assignments?

PAGE 276

264 Appendix D: (Continued) 12. Do you use computers for class presentations? 13. Do you have access to computers while on your practicum experience? 14. Do you use computers in your classes or to prepare activities while on Teaching Practice? 15. What kinds of activities do you do with computers? Access 16. Do you have access to computers at college? 17. Do you have access to the Internet? 18. Do you have to pay to access the Internet at your college? 19. If you want to complete your course assignments of to prepare for class presentations, can you use the computer labs? Modelling 20. Do your faculty model computer use. 21. Do faculty show you/expose you to ways in which computers can be used in your classes? 22. Do they take computers to class and use them. Attitude 23. How do you feel about the presence of computers in your classes? 24. What role should computers play in the teaching/learning process? 25. If you had computers in your classes, would you use them with your students? 26. Do you feel nervous/anxious about using computers?

PAGE 277

265 Appendix D: (Continued) Part 2 27. What do you think should be in place at your college to facilitate technology integration? 28. What are some factors that should be evident/present to ensure you get the training required to use computers in your classes?

PAGE 278

266 Appendix E: Mean Scale Ratings and Standard Deviations by Demographic Attributes and College Affiliation: Faculty Sample Technology Area Subscale College A College B Colleg e C Technology Plan Total Sample Gender Male Female Age 20 – 29 30– 39 40 and above Total Teaching Experience 1 – 10 years 11 – 20 years Over 21 years Qualifications Teachers’ Diploma Bachelors Masters Doctorate 2.24 (.72) 2.22 (.70) 2.24 (.74) 2.36 (.70) 2.00 (.73) 2.43 (.72) 2.55 (.80) 2.08 .70) 2.10 (.67) 2.88 (1.24) 2.20 (.66) 2.14 (.74) 1.95 (.52) 1.98 (.53) 1.92 (.51) 2.07 (.55) 1.83 (.54) 1.94 (.31) 2.12 (.60) 1.86 (.47) 2.00 (.25) 1.67 (.54) 1.99 (.41) 2.00 (.88) 1.83 (.62) 1.90 (.55) 1.82 (.65) 1.75 (.75) 1.89 (.56) 1.75 (.75) 1.92 (.77) 1.82 (.60) 1.76 (.56) 1.61 (.61) 1.92 (.62) 1 Staff Development Total Sample Gender Male Female Age 20 – 29 30 – 39 40 and above Total Teaching Experience 1 – 10 years 11 – 20 years Over 21 years Qualifications Teachers’ Diploma Bachelors Masters Doctorate 2.39 (.67) 2.54 (.68) 2.34 (.67) 2.23 (.71) 2.43 (.68) 2.52 (.65) 2.59 (.75) 2.21 (.71) 2.35 (.52) 3.33 (.47) 2.29 (.67) 2.33 (.62) 2.26 (.49) 2.43 (.39) 2.10 (.34) 2.25 (.53) 2.22 (.46) 2.60 (.19) 2.21 (.55) 2.29 (.41) 2.58 (.23) 2.31 (.30) 2.25 (.48) 2.21 (.79) 2.72 (.48) 2.45 (.25) 2.77 (.50) 2.76 (.64) 2.63 (.47) 2.90 (.32) 2.72 (.57) 2.67 (.50) 2.79 (.41) 2.60 (.58) 2.75 (.47) 2.72 (.48)

PAGE 279

267 Appendix E: (Continued) Technology Area Subscale College A College B Colleg e C Support at College Level Total Sample Gender Male Female Age 20 – 29 30 – 39 40 and above Total Teaching Experience 1 – 10 years 11 – 20 years Over 21 years Qualifications Teachers’ Diploma Bachelors Masters Doctorate 3.10 (.84) 3.41 (.57) 2.99 (.90) 3.36 (.43) 2.90 (1.05) 3.01 (.85) 3.48 (.50) 2.88 (.95) 2.83 (.89) 4 3.35 (.45) 3.09 (.84) 2.55 (.62) 2.68 (.64) 2.42 (.59) 2.77 (.47) 2.36 (.70) 2.58 (.42) 2.67 (.61) 2.45 (.62) 2.22 (.38) 2.61 (.41) 2.57 (.57) 2.46 (1.05) 3.08 (.42) 2.87 (.65) 2.11(.36) 3.10 (.50) 2.98 (.38) 3.33 (.38) 3.00 (.50) 3.01 (.31) 3.19 (.50) 2.81 (.42) 2.13 (.37) 4 Modeling Computer Use Total Sample Gender Male Female Age 20 – 29 30 – 39 40 and above Total Teaching Experience 1 – 10 years 11 – 20 years Over 21 years Qualifications Teachers’ Diploma Bachelors Masters Doctorate 2.39 (.83) 2.81 (.73) 2.24 (.83) 2.80 (.68) 2.36 (.85) 1.94 (.81) 2.89 (.74) 2.19 (.73) 2.03 (.90) 3.88 (.18) 2.33 (.68) 2.25 (.76) 2.26 (.49) 2.99 (.43) 2.47 (.63) 2.80 (.44) 2.72 (.64) 2.44 (.97) 2.75 (.53) 2.77 (.58) 2.33 (1.15) 2.71 (.58) 2.77 (.53) 2.69 (.82) 1.99 (.56) 2.30 (.67) 1.94 (.53) 2.07 (.45) 1.97 (.62) 1.96 (.53) 2.25 (.53) 1.83 (.55) 2.00 (.56) 1.96 (.78) 2.01 (.51) 1.50 (.53)

PAGE 280

268 Appendix E: (Continued) Technology Area Subscale College A College B Colleg e C Training Total Sample Gender Male Female Age 20 – 29 30 – 39 40 and above Total Teaching Experience 1 – 10 years 11 – 20 years Over 21 years Qualifications Teachers’ Diploma Bachelors Masters Doctorate 2.93 (.60) 2.82 (.82) 2.97 (.52) 2.76 (.65) 2.99 (.59) 3.03 (.59) 2.94 (.72) 2.85 (.58) 2.97 (.55) 3.58 (.25) 2.91 (.62) 2.82 (.58) 2.32 (.59) 2.45 (.54) 2.18 (.61) 2.38 (.63) 2.26 (.55) 2.65 (.66) 2.30 (.64) 2.37 (.55) 2.60 (.53) 2.54 (.44) 2.19 (.47) 2.50 (1.04) 2.94 (.48) 2.60 (.32) 3 (.48) 2.86 (.28) 2.95 (.52) 3.00 (.55) 2.78 (.32) 2.95 (.47) 3.09 (.61) 2.77 (.37) 3.03 (.50) 2.40 (.49) Field Experience/Practice Using Computers Total Sample Gender Male Female Age 20 – 29 30 – 39 40 and above Total Teaching Experience 1 – 10 years 11 – 20 years Over 21 years Qualifications Teachers’ Diploma Bachelors Masters Doctorate 2.09 (.80) 2.20 (.88) 2.04 (.79) 2.36 (.64) 2.01 (.94) 1.88 (.73) 2.41 (.81) 1.96 9.77) 1.95 (.84) 3.83 (.25) 1.91 (.77) 1.96 (.51) 2.42 (.53) 2.59 (.49) 2.26 (.53) 2.46 (.47) 2.41 (.59) 2.33 (.36) 2.41 (.48) 2.46 (.59) 2.33 (.33) 2.50 (.32) 2.33 (.55) 2.58 (.70) 1.86 (.52) 1.63 (.38) 1.90 (.54) 2.02 (.68) 1.83 (.46) 1.76 (.55) 1.98 (.61) 1.89 (.47) 1.67 (.52) 1.67 (.47) 1.94 (.58) 1.17 (.39)

PAGE 281

269 Appendix E: (Continued) Technology Area Subscale College A College B Colleg e C Attitude Towards Computers Total Sample Gender Male Female Age 20 – 29 30 – 39 40 and above Total Teaching Experience 1 – 10 years 11 – 20 years Over 21 years Qualifications Teachers’ Diploma Bachelors Masters Doctorate 3.60 (.34) 3.64 (.39) 3.58 (.32) 3.69 (.23) 3.48 9.43) 3.67 (.24) 3.67 (.28) 3.55 (.37) 3.64 (.32) 3.20 (.28) 3.61 (.33) 3.63 (.35) 3.62 (.42) 3.72 (.40) 3.54 (.43) 3.37 (.54) 3.79 (.27) 3.65 9.34) 3.42 (.52) 3.78 (.27) 3.72 (.35) 3.49 (.54) 3.68 (.40) 3.50 (.44) 3.49 (.39) 3.37 (.54) 3.51 (.56) 3.67 (.43) 3.47 (.33) 3.56 (.49) 3.52 (.48) 3.45 (.32) 3.51 (.44) 3.43 (.53) 3.50 (.36) 3.33 (.45) Access to Computers at College Total Sample Gender Male Female Age 20 – 29 30 – 39 40 and above Total Teaching Experience 1 – 10 years 11 – 20 years Over 21 years Qualifications Teachers’ Diploma Bachelors Masters Doctorate 2.86 (.87) 3.28 (.55) 2.71 (.92) 3.07 (.34) 3.77 (1.21) 2.75 (.75) 3.11 (.36) 2.73 (1.02) 2.63 (1.01) 3.63 (.53) 3.09 (.50) 2.52 (1.09) 2.56 (.50) 2.56 (.46) 2.55 (.55) 2.66 (.53) 2.44 (.47) 2.88 (.32) 2.59 (.54) 2.52 (.48) 2.75 (.25) 2.78 (.39) 2.39 (.45) 2.75 (.67) 3.13 (.34) 3.15 (.34) 3.13 (.35) 3.11 (.28) 3.18 (.42) 3.00 (.35) 3.19 (.39) 3.13 (.31) 3.06 (.37) 3.07 (.31) 3.16 (.37) 3.00 (.45)

PAGE 282

270 Appendix E: (Continued) Technology Area Subscale College A College B Colleg e C Preparation to Teach with Computers Total Sample Gender Male Female Age 20 – 29 30 – 39 40 and above Total Teaching Experience 1 – 10 years 11 – 20 years Over 21 years Qualifications Teachers’ Diploma Bachelors Masters Doctorate 2.29 (.87) 2.91 (.81) 2.07 (.79) 2.69 (.80) 2.16 (.92) 2.02 (.78) 2.67 (.87) 2.08 (.82) 2.10 (.90) 3.50 (.42) 2.01 (.81) 2.33 (.81) 2.69 (.77) 3.07 (.68) 2.33 (.68) 2.85 (.68) 2.61 (.81) 2.45 9.62) 2.81 (.59) 2.63 (.91) 2.33 (.70) 2.85 (.70) 2.58 (.76) 2.83 (.79) 2.38 (.64) 2.12 (.67) 2.43 (.64) 2.57 (.50) 2.41 (.71) 2.11 (.58) 2.71 (.65) 2.48 (.50) 1.89 (.62) 2.29 (.70) 2.46 (.59) 1 (.54)

PAGE 283

271 Appendix F: Mean Scale Ratings and Standard Deviations by Demographic Attributes and College Affiliation: Pre-service Teachers Sample Technology Area Subscale College A College B Colleg e C Preparation to Teach with Computers Total Sample Gender Male Female Age 19 – 29 30 39 Over 40 High School Type Secondary Traditional Technical Comprehensive Prior computer training? Yes No 2.73 (.54) 2.93 (.56) 2.70 (.54) 2.81 (.53) 2.59 (.55) 2.48 (.44) 2.62 (.59) 2.65 (.50) 2.71 (.52) 2.94 (.58) 2.85 (.54) 2.50 (.47) 1.96 (.62) 2.35 (.65) 1.89 (.60) 1.84 (.46) 2.07 (.73) 2.28 (.78) 1.85 (.54) 1.96 (.56) 1.77 (.76) 2.33 (.72) 2.14 (.66) 1.88 (.57) 2.27 (.59) 2.15 (.69) 2.36 (.57) 2.16 (.54) 2.21 (.57) 2.31 (.74) 2.35 (.53) 2.33 (.51) 2.15 (.33) 2.15 (.59) 2.55 (.49) 1.98 (.52) Training Total Sample Gender Male Female Age 19 – 29 30 39 Over 40 High School Type Secondary Traditional Technical Comprehensive Prior computer training? Yes No 2.61 (.52) 2.55 (.46) 2.33 (.55) 2.65 (.47) 2.31 (.78) 2.21 (.67) 2.55 (.33) 2.75 (.45) 2.65 (.78) 2.78 (.52) 2.66 (.56) 2.21 (.66) 1.75 (.43) 2.04 (.46) 1.78 (.56) 1.72 (.66) 1.62 (.69) 1.32 (.86) 1.53 (.52) 2.10 (.67) 1.67 (.25) 1.99 (.56) 2.11(.34) 1.98 (.76) 2.01 (.41) 2.13 (.55) 2.17 (.46) 2.01 (.51) 1.97 (.43) 1.89 (.63) 1.99 (.61) 2.22 (.35) 1.78 (.72) 1.89 (.52) 2.44 (.54) 1.87 (.55)

PAGE 284

272 Appendix F: (Continued) Technology Area Subscale College A College B Colleg e C Field Experience/Practice Using Computers Total Sample Gender Male Female Age 19 – 29 30 39 Over 40 High School Type Secondary Traditional Technical Comprehensive Prior computer training? Yes No 2.64 (.59) 2.65 (.59) 2.65 (.58) 2.63 (.60) 2.65 (.62) 2.50 (.17) 2.58 (.35) 2.50 (.53) 2.74 (.60) 2.91 (.71) 2.75 (.60) 2.45 (.53) 2.37 (.67) 2.44 (.71) 2.36 (.66) 2.48 (.47) 2.27 (.82) 2.10 (1.03) 2.40 (.59) 2.51 (.66) 1.83 (.88) 2.30 (.53) 2.67 (.60) 2.18 (.66) 2.23 (.73) 1.83 (.65) 2.30 (.73) 2.33 (.71) 2.14 (.75) 2.26 (.75) 2.36 (.63) 2.38 (.71) 1.98 (.68) 2.01 (.72) 2.51 (.68) 2.00 (.66) Modeling Computer use by Lecturers Total Sample Gender Male Female Age 19 – 29 30 39 Over 40 High School Type Secondary Traditional Technical Comprehensive Prior computer training? Yes No 2.45 (.62) 2.64 (.59) 2.42 (.62) 2.48 (.62) 2.35 (.66) 2.17 (.14) 2.48 (.55) 2.35 (.59) 2.46 (.56) 2.59 (.74) 2.53 (.63) 2.25 (.57) 1.89 (.66) 2.39 (.80) 1.81 (.60) 1.79 (.61) 1.96 (.68) 2.43 (.79) 1.77 (.69) 2.03 (.69) 1.64 (.71) 2.05 (.62) 2.01 (.70) 1.87 (.68) 2.20 (.63) 1.95 (.72) 2.24 (.61) 2.16 (.57) 2.19 (.67) 2.64 (.71) 2.34 (.66) 2.29 (.66) 1.91 (.40) 2.04 (.62) 2.33 (.63) 2.07 (.62)

PAGE 285

273 Appendix F: (Continued) Technology Area Subscale College A College B Colleg e C Access to Computers at College Total Sample Gender Male Female Age 19 – 29 30 39 Over 40 High School Type Secondary Traditional Technical Comprehensive Prior computer training? Yes No 3.75 (.29) 3.23 (.45) 2.88 (.62) 2.88 (.44) 2.75 (.56) 2.65 (.34) 3.33 (.46) 2.68 (.76) 3.13 (.41) 3.33 (.76) 3.76 (.31) 2.66 (.65) 3.34 (.12) 3.11 (.12) 2.11 (.32) 3.33 (.67) 2.21 (.45) 1.98 (.43) 2.12 (.23) 3.22 (.23) 2.67 (.36) 3.56 (.68) 3.23 (.23) 1.99 (.67) 3.69 (.45) 3.05 (.45) 1.98 (.32) 2.66 (.67) 2.45 (.43) 2.57 (.61) 2.55 (.54) 2.42 (.32) 2.99 (.45) 3.01 (.68) 3.22 (.36) 2.79 (.43) Attitude Towards Computers Total Sample Gender Male Female Age 19 – 29 30 39 Over 40 High School Type Secondary Traditional Technical Comprehensive Prior computer training? Yes No 3.14 (.34) 3.22 (.31) 3.13 (.34) 3.16 (.34) 3.12 (.30) 3.00 (.40) 3.13 (.24) 3.10 (.41) 3.08 (.26) 3.14 (.33) 3.14 (.35) 3.16 (.32) 3.00 (.49) 2.73 (.48) 3.04 (.49) 2.96 (.55) 2.99 (.44) 3.25 (.30) 3.22 (.43) 2.81 (.56) 3.29 (.37) 3.02 (.29) 2.78 (.54) 3.16 (.41) 3.03 (.30) 3.26 (.25) 3.00 (.30) 3.09 (.31) 2.30 (.30) 3.00 (.28) 3.05 (.32) 2.96 (.32) 3.23 (.17) 3.11 (.28) 3.05 (.32) 3.03 (.29)

PAGE 286

End Page About the Author Carol Granston is currently a lecturer in the Department of Technology in Education at the Sam Sharpe Teachers’ College in Jamaica. Prior to undertaking he r Ph.D. work at the University of South Florida, Ms. Granston taught English at the high school level for five years and at the college level for two years. She also taught a number of a number of education courses including Technology in Education at Sam Sharpe Teachers’ College. During her Ph.D. work, Ms. Granston taught an introductory Instructional Technology course to undergraduates and co-taught a master’s level Instructional Design course in the College of Education. Ms. Granston holds a Bachelor’s in Education (B.Ed, honours) from the University of the West Indies in Jamaica. She also has a master’s in Educati onal and Training Systems Design from the University of Twente in The Netherlands (Holl and). She has a keen interest in the design and development of courseware materials for Jamaican students.