Technology is used widely in teacher education for a variety of purposes, including skill development. Recent research on technology in teacher education is investigating the potential of technology to provide high-quality learning experiences that include authentic practice outside of class time to increase the efficiency of teacher education goals. This study investigated the feasibility and utility of technology to teach preservice teachers to accurately assess oral reading fluency (ORF), an important skill for monitoring growth in reading. In this study, in-class practice with peers was compared to web-based audio and video practice conditions. All groups (N = 18) made significant improvements on a test of knowledge about reading fluency and for skills in their accuracy in scoring ORF probes. On a measure of self-efficacy for teaching and assessing ORF, unlike their peers in the audio and video conditions who made statistically significant change, the in-class practice group did not become more confident following instruction. However, they made similar gains in skills and knowledge, suggesting that technology-based practice conditions may be a more effective method for increasing self-efficacy. This study has implications for teacher education practice, supporting the use of technology to deliver effective skills practice for developing accuracy in scoring ORF, a common curriculum-based measure of reading competency.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Education Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2.
AtkinsD. E.BennettJ.BrownJ. S.ChopraA.DedeC.FishmanB. (2010). Learning Technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.
3.
BallD. L.ForzaniF. M. (2010). What does it take to make a teacher?Phi Delta Kappan, 92(2), 8–13.
4.
BlantonL. P.PugachM.FlorianL. (2011). Preparing general education teachers to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, National Center for Learning Disabilities.
5.
BorkoH.WhitcombJ.ListonD. (2009). Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of technology and teacher learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 3–7.
6.
BransfordJ. D. (2000). Learning and transfer. In BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L.CockingR. R. (Eds.), How people learn: Brain, mind experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7.
BransfordJ. D.BrophyS. P.WilliamsS. (2000). When computer technologies meet the learning sciences: Issues and opportunities. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 59–84.
8.
BransfordJ. D.SherwoodR. D.HasselbringT. S.KinzerC. K.WilliamsS. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In NixD.SpiroR. (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115–141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
BransfordJ. D.VyeN. J.BatemanH.BrophyS. P.RoselliB. (n.d.). Vanderbilt's AMIGO3 Project: Knowledge of how people learn enters cyberspace. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
10.
BrownJ. S.CollinsA.DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.
11.
BrownellM.BishopA. G.GerstenR.KlingnerJ.PenfieldR. D.DiminoJ. (2009). The role of domain expertise in special education teacher quality. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 391–411.
12.
BullG.KnezekG.RoblyerM. D.SchrumL.ThompsonA. (2005). A proactive approach to a research agenda for educational technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 217–220.
13.
CantorJ. A. (1988). How to design, develop, and use performance tests. Training & Development Journal, 42(9), 72–75.
14.
ClarkR. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459.
15.
ClarkR. E. (1994). Media and method. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 7–10.
16.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19, 2–10.
17.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52–70.
18.
CollinsA.BrownJ. S.HolumA. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 6, 38–46.
19.
CollinsA.BrownJ. S.NewmanS. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft in reading, writing, and arithmetic. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
CondermanG.MorinJ.StephensJ. T. (2005). Special education student teaching practices. Preventing School Failure, 49(3), 5–10.
21.
DonovanJ. J.RadosevichD. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don't. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 795–805.
22.
GerstenR.BeckmanS.ClarkeB.FoeganA.MarshL.StarJ. R. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, What Works Clearing House.
23.
GibsonJ. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In ShawR.BransfordJ. D. (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
GrossmanP. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In Cochran-SmithM.ZeichnerK. M. (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 425–476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
HaladynaT. M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
HasbrouckJ.TindalG. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636–644.
28.
HudsonR.MercerC. D.LaneH. (2000). Exploring reading fluency: A paradigmatic overview. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
29.
KennedyM. K.HartJ. E.KellemsR. O. (2010). Using enhanced podcasts to augment limited instructional time in teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education. 34(2), 87–105.
30.
KozmaR. B. (1994). A reply: Media and methods. ETR & D, 42, 11–14.
31.
LudlowB. (2001). Technology and teacher education in special education: Disaster or deliverance?Teacher Education and Special Education, 2, 2.
32.
MarraR. M.HowlandJ.WedmanJ.DiggsL. (2003). A little TLC (Technology Learning Cycle) as a means to technology integration. TechTrends, 47(2), 15–19.
33.
MayerR. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
34.
MitchemK.KouryK.FitzgeraldG.HollingseadC.MillerK.TsaiH.-H. (2009). The effects of instructional implementation on learning with interactive multimedia case-based instruction. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(4), 297–318.
35.
National Education Association. (2010). New policy statement on teacher evaluation—Adopted as amended. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/grants/46326.htm.
36.
National Institute for Literacy. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.
37.
OchoaT. A.KellyM. L.StuartS.Rogers-AdkinsonD. (2004). The impact of PBL technology on the preparation of teachers of English language learners. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(2), 35–46.
38.
OsbornJ.LehrF.HiebertE. H. (2003). A focus on fluency. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.
39.
PajaresF. (1995). Self-efficacy in academic settings. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
40.
PecheoneR. L.ChungR. R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 22–36.
41.
PikulskiJ. J.ChardD. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58, 510–519.
42.
PrenskyM. (2008). Let's be “digital multipliers.” Eliminating the digital divide is something educators can do. Educational Technology, 49(1), 64–65.
43.
PT3 Group at Vanderbilt. (2003). Three AMIGO3s: Using “anchored modular inquiry” to help prepare future teachers. ETR & D, 51, 105–123.
RestaP.CarrollT. (n. d.). Redefining teacher educationfor digital age learners: A call to action. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.
46.
RiccominiP. J.SteckerP. M. (2005). Effects of enhanced technology practice on scoring oral reading fluency. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(3), 5–12.
47.
RichardsonV. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640.
48.
RiethH. J. (2006). Project MAINSTEP: Multimedia Anchored Instruction Networking to Support Teacher Education Project. Available at http://www.mainstep.org.
49.
RiethH. J.ThomasC. N.KimS.DrayB. J.KethleyC. I.HartmanP. (2011). Program development and evaluation of Project MAINSTEP: Multimedia Anchored Instruction Networking to Support Teacher Education Project. Manuscript submitted for publication.
50.
RoblyerM. D.KnezekG. (2003). New millennial research for educational technology: A call for a national research agenda. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 60–71.
51.
SamuelsS. J. (2002). Reading fluency: Its development and assessment. In FarstrupA. E.SamuelsJ. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 166–183). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
52.
SchraderP. G.LeuD. J.KinzerC. K.AtayaR.TealeW. H.LabboL. D. (2003). Using Internet delivered video cases, to support preservice teachers' understanding of effective early literacy instruction. Instructional Science, 31, 317–340.
53.
SherwoodR. D.KinzerC. K.HasselbringT. S.BransfordJ. D. (1987). Macro-contexts for learning: Initial findings and issues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 93–108.
54.
SpiroR. J.CollinsB. P.ThotaJ. J.FeltovichP. J. (2003). Cognitive flexibility theory: Hypermedia for complex learning, adaptive knowledge application, and experience acceleration. Educational Technology, 43(5), 5–10.
55.
StephensJ. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: A review of the research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.
57.
ThomasC. N.RiethH. J. (2010). A research synthesis of the literature on multimedia anchored instruction in preservice teacher education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(2), 1–22.
58.
ThompsonA. (2005). Scientifically based research: Establishing a research agenda for the technology in teacher education community. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 331–337.
59.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2009). 28th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2006, Vol. 1, Washington, DC: Author.
60.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2010). ESEA blueprint for reform, Washington, DC: Author.
61.
WillisJ.ThompsonA.SaderaW. (1999). Research on technology and teacher education: Current status and future directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46, 29–45.
62.
WolfM.Katzir-CohenT. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 211–239.
