The integration of technology into curriculum delivery in one small Texas school district serving 1320 students began in the fall of 1998. Twelve technology proficient teachers were trained as trainers for the train-the-trainer model used to introduce the university resources. Forty-nine middle and high school teachers were evaluated under the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM). The Innovation Configuration for this study was the use of the Internet as an instructional tool. Pretest and posttest data on the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) were elicited electronically and Levels of Use (LoU) data were elicited in face-to-face interviews. The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Tests showed significant differences on both the SoCQ and LoU. This study led to the development of online collection of LoU data as larger samples of preservice teachers, university instructors, and mentor teachers participate in training with similar Innovation Configurations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KozmaR. and ShankP., Connecting with the 21st Century: Technology in Support of Educational Reform, in 1998 Learning with Technology, DedeC. (ed.), Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, pp. 24–25, 1998.
BrownellK., Technology in Teacher Education: Where Are We and Where Do We Go From Here?Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 5: 2/3, pp. 117–138, 1997.
5.
BuhendwaF. M., Preservice Teachers' Computer Literacy: Validation of an Instrument to Measure Self-Efficacy for Computer-Based Technologies, ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. 405 355, 1990.
6.
ClawsonE. P., Increasing the Computer Literacy of Preservice Teachers through an Applied Integrated Curriculum, ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. 398 872, 1996.
7.
FisherM. M., The Voice of Experience: Inservice Teacher Technology Competency Recommendations for Preservice Teacher Preparation Programs, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 5: 2/3, pp. 139–148, 1997.
8.
DedeC., (ed.), 1998Learning with Technology, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, 1998.
9.
FullanM. and MilesM., Getting Reform Right: What Works and What Doesn't, Phi Delta Kappan, 73: 10, pp. 744–752, 1992.
10.
LittleJ., Teachers' Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15: 2, pp. 129–151, 1993.
11.
HallG.GeorgeA., and RutherfordW., Measuring Stages of Concern about the Innovation: A Manual for Use of the SoCQ Questionnaire (2nd Ed.), University of Texas Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, Austin, 1979.
12.
HallG.LoucksS.RutherfordW., and NewloveB., Levels of Use of the Innovation: A Framework for Analyzing Innovation Adoption, Journal of Teacher Education, 26: 1, pp. 52–56, 1975.
13.
HallG. and HordS., Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process, State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, 1987.
14.
LoucksS.NewloveB., and HallG., Measuring the Level of Use of the Innovation: A Manual for Trainers, Interviewers, and Raters, University of Texas Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, Austin, 1975.
15.
National Staff Development Council (NSDC)National Staff Development Council's standards for staff development. Middle level edition, Oxford, Ohio, 1994.
16.
National Staff Development Council (NSDC) and National Association of Secondary School Principals, Standards for staff development: High School edition. Oxford, Ohio. National Staff Development Council; Alexandria, Virginia: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1995.
17.
IngwersonD., A Model for Technology Training: The Los Angeles County Office of Education's Technology for Learning Initiative, T.H.E. Journal., 25: 4, p. 84, 1997.
18.
WildyH. and WallaceJ., Understanding Teaching or Teaching for Understanding: Alternative Frameworks for Science Classrooms, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, pp. 143–156, 1995.
19.
RolheiserC.RossJ., and Hogaboam-GrayA., Assessment in the Cooperative Classroom: Using an Action Research Enhanced Version of the Train the Trainer In-Service Model to Impact Teacher Attitudes and Practices, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 19–23, 1999.
20.
National School-to-Work Center, School-to-Work and Professional Development for Teachers, Resource Bulletin, November 1997.
21.
RossJ. A., Student Achievement Effects of the Key Teacher Method of In-Service, Science Education, 74: 5, pp. 507–516, 1990.
22.
NeefN. A., Paramedial Parent Training by Peers, Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 28: 3, pp. 333–337, 1995.
23.
FullanM., Successful School Improvement, OISE Press, Toronto, 1992.
24.
FullanM., Change Processes and Strategies at the Local Level, Elementary School Journal, 84, pp. 391–420, 1985.
25.
GuskeyT. R., Professional Development in Education: In Search of the Optimal Mix, in Professional Development in Education: New Paradigms and Practices, GuskeyT. R. and HubermanM. (eds.), Teachers College Press, New York, 1995.
