Teacher Education and the Internet: Preparing for the Technology Revolution

Jane F. Rudden, Anne L. Mallery

 

      New technologies and their effectiveness as instructional tools have been the focus of research efforts for more than a decade. Results of these investigations have shown the positive effects of learning with multimedia technology for pre-kindergarten children (Liu, 1996); hypermedia lessons for kindergartners (Boone, Higgins, Notari, & Stump, 1996); and on-line communications applications for elementary students (Follansbee, Hughes, Pisha, & Stahl, 1997). Studies specific to the use of the Internet as a resource for learning with technology are rapidly outnumbering those specific to software applications. Learning with technology is an inevitable component of the 21st century educational objectives (Dede, 1998).

      The Consortium for School Networking (1991), established by the National Research and Education Network (NREN), recommended the expansion of the Internet and assistance from the federal government in connecting public schools in every congressional district to the Internet. This expansion was bolstered by President Clinton’s push for a technology initiative that could cost the country between $40 and $100 billion over the next five years. The new technology holds promises of exciting curriculum, exploratory learning, and worldwide linkages but also places new demands on school personnel. The ubiquitous presence of computers wired for Internet access in elementary classrooms raises the issue of how to use this resource judiciously. It speaks to the responsibility for preparing elementary teachers in the use of technology in teaching. Leu (1998) alerted educators that the Internet and other networked technologies are essential, if we hope to prepare students for the future they deserve.

Today, we no longer live in an agrarian or industrial society, but in an informational age in which problem solving, information access, and communication is essential to success. Now and in the future, the most successful individuals will be able to access information quickly and approach literacy as a endless developmental process involving new ways of critical thinking about information as they compose, comprehend, and respond to new combinations of media. (p. 5)

The Need for the Study

      Preparing teachers for the challenges of an interactive classroom environment required gathering information about the teacher; information preliminary to plunging headlong into strategies for using technology that were mere add-on’s to existing methods. We first needed to know the nature of our student, the preservice teacher. The task of training preservice teachers in the benefits Internet could bring to their practice required a transition from a general mindset of seeing a computer as word processor, to viewing it as a resource for purposeful teaching.

      A 10-year analysis of the disposition of elementary education students toward computers (Reed, Ervin, & Oughton, 1995) revealed recent majors had more prior computer experience and lower computer anxiety than those entering the program earlier in the 10-year period, and male students had higher computer anxiety than female students. In the spring of 1996, we conducted a pilot study to determine if Internet training and guided practice affect the attitudes of pre-service teachers about the use of computers in the classroom, focusing on sophomore level pre-service teachers (Rudden & Mallery, 1997). George, Hall, and Rutherford’s (1977) The Stages of Concern Toward Innovation instrument was used as a pre- and posttreatment measure, with innovation defined as the Internet. A self-reporting questionnaire was used to gather information about past experiences with computers, and participants were grouped by degree of prior experience. Results revealed that only half of the participants had experience with computers prior to the project. It was also revealed that significant differences could be expected in students’ attitudes toward the value of Internet as a research tool after brief (1.5 hours) instruction and guided practice. We attributed this finding to the fact that students were taught the process at the same time it was most needed; that is, when it was directly tied to a graded class assignment in a required education course.

      This article is a report of Phase II of this study, the purpose of which was to gather information about pre-service teachers’ concerns regarding the use of Internet in planning instruction, and to determine the relationship between/among these concerns and the following variables: learning style, academic major/option, and computer experience. Information from this study was to be used to inform the decisions of the Elementary & Early Childhood and Educational Foundations Departments regarding computer training for the student population we served. The following questions guided our inquiry:

Question 1:     What are the learning characteristics of the teacher education candidates in our classes?

Question 2:     Is there a relationship between and/or among the variables of learning style, major/option, and computer experience, relative to the stages of concern elementary pre-service teachers hold about the use of Internet in planning instruction?

Question #3:   Does Internet instruction and guided practice offered in sophomore methods classes facilitate teacher education students’ ability to use it as a resource in designing elementary instruction?

Method

Participants

      Initially, there were 99 elementary and secondary education majors participating in this study. Due to some students returning incomplete surveys, the posttreatment results are based on 67 elementary and secondary education majors enrolled in the Sophomore Bloc methods classes.

Instruments

The Stages of Concern Toward an Innovation (George, Hall, & Rutherford, 1977), was administered to determine levels of prior experience, and pre- and posttreatment levels of concerns toward the Internet as a planning tool (see Appendix A). Innovation was operationalized in this study as the use of the Internet as a teaching and planning resource. The survey was administered before and after completing an assigned academic task. Reed (1990) describes the rationale for this instrument by stating:

When people are exposed initially to an innovation, their concerns tend to be very self-oriented. . . Once these concerns are accommodated, they become more concerned about managing the innovation in their teaching, how the innovation will affect their students, how they might work with others in relation to the innovation, and when best to use the innovation. (p. 7)

      The Stages of Concern instrument includes the seven stages identified by George, Hall, and Rutherford (1977).

w    First stage is Awareness: I am not concerned about Internet.

w    Second stage is Informational: I would like to know more about Internet.

w    Third stage is Personal: How will using Internet affect me?

w    Fourth stage is Management: I seem to be spending all my time getting material ready when using Internet.

w    Fifth stage is Consequence: How is my use of Internet affecting my students?

w    Sixth stage is Collaboration: I am concerned about relating my use of Internet with what other instructors are doing with it.

w    Seventh stage is Refocusing: I have some ideas about how something might work better.

      The second instrument used, Kolb Learning Style Inventory, (1981,1985), was administered only once, at the pretreatment stage (see Appendix B). The Kolb inventory is designed to assess an individual’s method of learning, not the ability to learn. By rank ordering 9 sets of four words describing learning characteristics, each participant was able to determine his/her learning style using Kolb’s calculation and graphic plotting procedures. The four learning styles included in the inventory are:

w    Diverger: characterized by innovation and ideas; function by value clarification; goals are to be involved in important issues and to bring harmony; favorite question is why?

w    Assimilator: characterized by creating concepts and models; function by thinking things through; goal is intellectual recognition; favorite question is what?

w    Converger: characterized by practical application of ideas; function by factual data garnered from kinesthetic, hands-on experience; goal is to align their view of the present with future security; favorite question is how does this work?

w    Accommodator: characterized by action, getting things done; function by acting and testing experience; goal is to bring action to ideas; favorite question is if?

      The third instrument used was an informal demographic survey to gather information about gender, age, major, area of interest, and self-assessed level of computer experience.

Treatment

All participants attended an orientation session on how to access and navigate the Internet. A university librarian conducted this session. Instruction on how to complete the academic tasks required of this study was provided by the methods course professors.

      Internet orientation and instruction included: defining the World Wide Web, showing the procedure for logging on and accessing the Internet, showing how to use web browsers, explaining URL, showing where to find the subject catalog, identifying the names and foci of automatic indices (search engines), providing 30-40 minutes for participants to navigate sites independently.

Academic tasks

Following the Internet orientation, participants worked independently to complete the following tasks that required the application of the Internet instruction.

Task #1: Use the automatic indices to locate an Internet site not typically associated with language arts; for example, sports, cooking, spelunking, agriculture. Complete the following:

Site address.

What is the featured subject of this site?

Why do you think it is suitable for literacy skill development?

List three possible questions you could ask your students about the information at this site that would encourage literacy development.

Describe an activity you might conduct with your students that would incorporate the information at this site and foster the development of their literacy skills.

Task #2: Use the automatic indices to locate three different Internet sites where you would find information that could further your professional development as a teacher. Complete the following:

Site Address.

This site is a good source for professional development because:

Results

      Question 1: What are the learning characteristics of the teacher education candidates in our classes?

      Results of the Kolb Learning Style Inventory revealed a distribution across the four learning styles. Since some surveys were incomplete, only 60 records were recorded. There were 19 Divergers, 4 Assimilators, 10 Convergers, and 27 Accommodators. The predominance of Accommodators (45%) and Divergers (31.6%) indicates a population of pre-service teachers predisposed to functioning by testing experience, innovation, and ideas. Convergers represented 16.6% of the population, and are characterized by practical application of ideas. Assimilators, interested in creating concepts and models, represented the smallest percentage of the population (6.6%).

      Question 2: Is there a relationship between and/or among the variables of learning style, major/option, and computer experience, relative to the stages of concern elementary pre-service teachers hold about the use of Internet in planning instruction?

      Across all variables, significant mean differences among the participants at each stage of concern were shown in the areas of Awareness and Information (Table 1). In the area of Awareness, p=.017 indicates that there is a relationship among all variables (learning style, academic major, and computer experience) in terms of the participants’ awareness of the uses of the Internet. That is, all students showed a significant level of concern in the awareness and information stages, compared with their levels of concern for all other stages. Awareness is the first stage of concern, and is measured by the statement: “I am not concerned about the Internet.” These data indicate that the participants’ concern about the Internet was high, even when responses were analyzed across all the variables. This is in contrast to their holding onto a continued general apathy about the functions of the Internet and its relevance to teaching. In the area of Information, p=.0003 indicates a relationship among all variables in terms of the participants’ need to know about the Internet. Information is the second stage of concern, and is measured by the statement; “I would like to know more about the Internet.” These data indicate that the participants desire for more information about the Internet was not diminished after factoring together the variables of learning style, academic major, and computer experience. This may be due to a high level of comfort inherent in using the technology and immediately applying the information to complete the academic tasks.

Table 1

Pre-Post Paired Means Differences of All Data on Stages of Concern

 

Pre-Post Paired Means Differences

Std Deviation

Std Error

Probability

Awareness

1.447

4.837

0.591

0.017 *

Information

-3.432

7.257

0.886

0.0003 *

Personal

-1.104

5.527

0.675

0.106

Management

-1.402

8.406

1.027

0.176

Consequences

-0.641

5.381

0.657

0.335

Collaboration

-6.223

36.228

4.426

0.164

Refocusing

-0.820

4.631

0.565

0.151

N=67

      Taking the variables separately allows a look at just which one may be attributed to the changes in concern. First, learning style had a significant posttreatment effect on their concerns about managing Internet as a resource (Table 2).

Table 2

Pre-post mean differences on Stages of Concern by learning style

Stages of Concern

Learning Style

Pre

F Value

P=

Post

F Value

P=

Awareness

Assimilator

3.75

 

 

9.25

 

 

 

Converger

2.5

1.92

.13

7.85

.28

.83

 

Accommodator

1.88

 

 

7.68

 

 

 

Diverger

0.84

 

 

6.30

 

 

Information

Assimilator

33.5

 

 

25.5

 

 

 

Converger

27.2

2.48

.07

23.3

.61

.61

 

Accommodator

26.3

 

 

22.2

 

 

 

Diverger

24.3

 

 

21.5

 

 

Personal

Assimilator

27

 

 

28

 

 

 

Converger

26.2

1.01

.39

25.5

1.51

.22

 

Accommodator

25.8

 

 

23.4

 

 

 

Diverger

23.8

 

 

22.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Management

Assimilator

27.7

 

 

25.5

 

 

 

Converger

23.3

2.29

.08

21.1

2.99

.03 *

 

Accommodator

19.2

 

 

17.7

 

 

 

Diverger

17.4

 

 

16.4

 

 

Consequences

Assimilator

25.9

 

 

25

 

 

 

Converger

24.5

.70

.55

23.5

.17

.91

 

Accommodator

23.6

 

 

23.3

 

 

 

Diverger

22.7

 

 

22.6

 

 

Collaboration

Assimilator

37.7

 

 

22.2

 

 

 

Converger

23.8

.8

.5

20.1

.16

.92

 

Accommodator

22.7

 

 

19.8

 

 

 

Diverger

19.8

 

 

19.6

 

 

Refocusing

Assimilator

24.7

 

 

25.7

 

 

 

Converger

24.5

.56

.64

23.1

.75

.52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accommodator

22.7

 

 

22.3

 

 

 

Diverger

22.2

 

 

21.6

 

 

Assimilator (N=4), Converger (N=10), Accommodator (N=27), Diverger (N=19)

 

      Second, academic major/option had no significant effect on the changes in levels of concern. This lack of effect was evident across all majors: elementary education only, secondary education only, and special education/reading option/science option (Table 3).

 

 

Table 3

Pre-post means differences for Stages of Concern among academic major/option

Stages of Concern

Academic Major

Pre

F Value

P=

Post

F Value

P=

Awareness

Elem Education

1.64

 

 

10.7

 

 

 

Sec Education

1.88

2.59

.08

6.8

2.55

.08

 

Sped/ECd/Sc/Rd

2.07

 

 

6.9

 

 

Information

Elem Education

24.8

 

 

21.2

 

 

 

Sec Education

24.4

.52

.59

21.8

.67

.51

 

Sped/ECd/Sc/Rd

26.4

 

 

23

 

 

Personal

Elem Education

26.1

 

 

25.4

 

 

 

Sec Education

23.1

1.01

.37

23.6

.53

.59

 

Sped/ECd/Sc/Rd

25.1

 

 

23.7

 

 

Management

Elem Education

22.6

 

 

18.6

 

 

 

Sec Education

16.4

1.43

.24

18

.2

.82

 

Sped/ECd/Sc/Rd

20.5

 

 

19.3

 

 

Consequences

Elem Education

24.3

 

 

22.5

 

 

 

Sec Education

23.5

.06

.94

23

.33

.73

 

Sped/ECd/Sc/Rd

23.9

 

 

23.9

 

 

Collaboration

Elem Education

20

 

 

17.5

 

 

 

Sec Education

22.2

.35

.70

22.7

1.65

.20

 

Sped/ECd/Sc/Rd

28.9

 

 

20.1

 

 

Refocusing

Elem Education

23.07

 

 

22.5

 

 

 

Sec Education

23.3

.01

.99

22.7

.00

.99

 

Sped/ECd/Sc/Rd

23.2

 

 

22.6

 

 

Elementary Education Only (N=14), Secondary Education Only (N=9), Special Education Early Childhood, Science or Reading Option (N=43)

      Third, level of computer experience had a significant pretreatment effect on levels of concern between the advanced/expert and the no experience/beginner in the areas of Awareness (F=6.3, p=.013), Personal (F=5.28, p=.02), and Management (F=11.7, p=.001). Posttreatment data revealed significant differences between these two levels of experience in their concern regarding Information about the Internet (F=10.86, p=.001), and Management of the resource (F=8.6, p=.004). (Table 4)

Table 4

Pre-post means differences on Stages of Concern between levels of computer experience

 

Stages of Concern

Experience

Pre

F Value

P=

Post

F Value

P=

Awareness

Adv/Expert

3.65

 

6.3

 

.013 *

8.60

 

.70

 

.40

 

None/Beginner

0.51

 

 

7.34

 

 

Information

Adv/Expert

3.7

 

.04

 

.84

19.

 

10.86

 

.001 *

 

None/Beginner

3.31

 

 

23.7

 

 

Personal

Adv/Expert

22.95

 

5.28

 

.02 *

23.45

 

.20

 

.65

 

None/Beginner

25.91

 

 

24.12

 

 

`Management

Adv/Expert

22.46

 

 

11.7

 

.001*

20.34

 

8.6

 

.004 *

 

None/Beginner

15.1

 

 

15.4

 

 

Consequences

Adv/Expert

25.3

 

 

1.61

 

.20

23.5

 

.01

 

.90

 

None/Beginner

23.46

 

 

23.3

 

 

Collaboration

Adv/Expert

20.95

 

.53

 

.46

18.65

 

.84

 

.36

 

None/Beginner

28.23

 

 

20.34

 

 

Refocusing

Adv/Expert

24.6

 

2.08

 

.15

22.6

 

.02

 

.88

 

None/Beginner

22.7

 

 

22.38

 

 

Advanced/Expert (N-20) None/Beginner (N=47)


 

      Question #3: Does Internet instruction and guided practice offered in sophomore methods classes facilitate teacher education students’ ability to use it as a resource in designing elementary instruction?

      Evidence of the participants’ ability to use Internet as an instructional planning resource is indicated by the majority’s success in completing the academic tasks following treatment.(Table 5). The instruction was to search for a site not typically associated with language arts instruction, and incorporate the information at that site in a lesson plan suitable for developing literacy skills. The participants had the option of working independently or with a partner to complete this task. 18 sites meet the criteria; 8 sites do not because they are specific to language arts.

      A typical correct response to this task follows:

Site address: http://www.signature.pair.com/letters/archive/meloy.html

Featured subject of this site: William Meloy, clerk for US Treasury

Suitability for literacy skill development: This web site is a letter documenting Lincoln’s assassination, so it could be tied in with a lesson on letter format and into a history lesson.

Three possible questions you could ask your students about the information at this site that would encourage literacy development: 1) how could we change the dialect to Modern English? 2) Can you tell me how much of this letter you easily understand? 3) Why do you think English dialect has changed? Compare it to the dialect in this letter.

An activity you might conduct with your students that would incorporate the information at this site and foster the development of their literacy skills: After we studied Lincoln’s assassination, the students could write a letter to a family member as if they were a witness to the assassination. If desired, they could use 19th century dialect, using the web page and other documents we’ve viewed as a model.

      A typical incorrect response to this task focused on a site that is generally associated with language arts and/or literacy skills. For example,

Site address: http://eng.hss.cmu.edu/poetry/

What is the featured subject of this site: Poetry

Why do you think it is suitable for literacy skill development: Students can find reading and interpreting poems fun, while learning important literacy skills.

List three possible questions you could ask your students about the information at this site that would encourage literacy development: 1) Can you find a poem that uses rhyme and repetition? 2) Can you find a poem with alliteration? Show examples. 3) Using a poem of your choice, what is the underlying theme?

Describe an activity you might conduct with your students that would incorporate the information at this site and foster the development of their literacy skills: Have the entire class agree on one poem to choose. Have students read the poem in small groups. Then have each group prepare an interpretation of the poem to share with other groups. Discuss different views as a class.

      In Task #2, participants were asked to locate a minimum of three Internet sites appropriate to their professional development as teachers. There was a 100% success rate for all participants. A representative response to this task follows:

Address #1: http://www.ash.udel.edu/ash/

This is a good source for: materials and ideas for teaching K-12 (exhibit hall class project of ecosystems)

Address #2: http://www.askasia.org/

This is a good source for: wide variety of educational resources, lesson plans, maps; suitable for K-12 Asian studies curricula

Address #3: http://www.classroom.net/

This is a good source for: “homebase” to thousands of K-12 educators and students around the globe: 1) locate and use the bast K-12 educational resources; 2) interact with your colleagues; 3) discover how Classroom Connect Newsletter can help save you time.

Table 5

Focus of Internet sites selected for Task #1

Language Arts Related

Non-Language Arts Related

Language Arts

Social Studies, Life Skills

Dr. Seuss

World Travel

Education: Kidstuff

Sports for the Disabled

Katherine Paterson

Virtual Art Room

Alphabet

Civil War

Illustrated Stories from Around the World

Ball Parks/Notre Dame Stadium

Poetry

Fish

Literature and Language Arts

Alaska

 

Gardening

 

Holidays/An American Thanksgiving

 

Betsy Ross/American Flag

 

Clouds

 

Black History

 

Australian Rainbows

 

NHL Goaltender Biographies

 

Campfire Songs

 

Letter on Lincoln’s Assassination

 

Animals

 

Discussion

      This inquiry focused on three variables associated with incorporating technology into learning and teaching: learning style, academic major of the pre-service teacher, and level of computer experience. The importance of investigating the characteristics of this population is grounded in the unavoidable presence of computers in today’s elementary classrooms. These computers are generally linked into a local area network (LAN) and extended into a wide area network (WAN), commonly called the Internet. Without an understanding of how to use this resource in their teaching, we feared our pre-service teachers would look at the hardware as a liability versus an asset. Seen as a liability, possible inappropriate uses could be either free time on computer games or electronic worksheets for those who need more help, or, the worst of all, to ignore the possibilities and shove the equipment into a corner. If seen as an asset, the Internet could serve as a resource for different forms of instruction, an avenue for exploring a topic from sources spanning the globe, or an interface between learner and peers/learner and experts. Researchers stress the importance of integrating technology into classroom teaching and subject matter curricula (Bruce & Rubin, 1992; Ruopp, Pfister, Drayton, & Gail, 1993).

      Before making any assumptions about how to best prepare pre-service teachers to develop their instruction using the Internet as an resource, we needed to find out the nature of our audience. Past observations have taught us that computer-shy students are very adept at avoiding any demonstration of their skills. They seem to prefer leaning on their self-perceived inadequacies, rather than risk the possibility of not understanding the technical nature of the Internet. This fear of failure incapacitates their risk taking. The low risk nature of the treatment and academic tasks gave us hope that even those hiders would approach the Internet with some degree of ease and assurance.

      Question #1 focused on the learning characteristics of the teacher education candidates in our classes. The results of the Kolb Learning Style Inventory showed a predominance of the Accommodator and the Diverger. This indicates a population well suited to encouraging active learning in their classrooms. Accommodators’ strengths are action and getting things done. Divergers’ strengths are innovation and ideas. There were also ten Convergers, characterized by hands-on learning. Teachers with these learning styles are most likely to encourage students to engage in active learning: manipulating, exploring, observing, using various sensory modalities, discussing, experimenting, and otherwise being involved in the learning process (Ryder & Hughes, 1997). Those few Assimilators (4), characterized by creating concepts and models and thinking things through, are likely to see the Internet as a resource for students to acquire information, and generate their own artifacts of learning: for example, home page development, multimedia presentations, cross-country journaling.

      Question #2 focused on the relationship between/among the variables of learning style, major/option, and computer experience, relative to the stages of concern our students have about using the Internet in planning instruction. A significant relationship was revealed in the areas of Awareness and Information. Awareness is a self-oriented stage of concern, and this significant relationship can be interpreted in terms of the students having a keen sense of wanting to know more about what the Internet can offer them. This also indicates that the instruction and tasks designed for this inquiry made them aware of the Internet and its uses for teachers. The relationship of variables relevant to the Information stage can be interpreted in terms of the students reaching a comfort level about incorporating the Internet into curriculum.

      A closer look at each variable indicates that learning style had a significant effect on preservice teachers’ concerns about managing the Internet as a resource. That is to say, their sense of the breadth of the Internet, as it relates to their purposes, seemed a great deal more to manage than they previously thought. Following treatment, their concerns centered on cutting down on the time it took to get their materials together, locating sites appropriate for their instructional objectives, and getting to the hands-on component of exploring the Internet sites.

      Academic major/option had no significant effect on the changes in levels of concern. This may reasonably be explained by the students’ characteristic open-minded approach to strategies and techniques that will help them plan and teach. This is not surprising in pre-service teachers, whose nature typically runs toward enthusiasm and willingness.

      Level of computer experience made a difference in levels of concern both pre- and posttreatment. Awareness was clearly of little concern to the beginner prior to treatment. This reflects a general apathy toward the Internet and lack of understanding of its uses in teaching. Their increased posttreatment scores show a heightened awareness of the role the Internet might play in their teaching. The beginner group also showed a sharp posttreatment increase in the area of Information. This is logical given the change in their Awareness. The beginner group also showed a marked difference in their concern over the Personal stage: how will using the Internet affect me? This difference can reasonably be assigned to their sudden awareness of others’ expertise with this resource, and a personal aspiration to distinguish themselves as teacher candidates who are technologically savvy. The differences in concern over Managing the Internet were significant, both pre- and posttreatment, between the beginner and advanced users. Given the brief period of treatment, this difference can be reasonably explained. A beginner may have a concern about managing this resource, and the treatment did not contribute to additional experience. So, the beginner’s concern cannot compare to that of a more advanced user who sees the overwhelming possibilities of the Internet. The advanced user is generally thoughtful about the time and discernment necessary to find appropriate sites, let alone the efforts involved in modifying content to suit teaching objectives.

      Question #3 focused on the effect instruction and guided practice had on preservice teachers’ ability to apply this instruction. Given that 8 sites were specific to language arts, it is reasonable to presume these students did not understand the directions. The proposed plans using these sites were adequate to literacy skill instruction, but failed to meet the treatment criteria. Those eighteen sites associated with non-language arts topics did meet the criteria, and revealed little or no difficulty in modifying the site information to further a literacy skill lesson.

      In summary, these pre-service teacher candidates were more likely to be active learners, preferring hands-on experiences and creation of models, to assimilating and analyzing information. Their concerns about the Internet as a resource for planning instruction changed after treatment, revealing a general increase in the importance they assigned to using the Internet as a teaching tool, and the possibilities it holds for them as 21st century teachers. This was true regardless of their academic major/option. It was further shown that the treatment and guided practice were sufficient to the successful completion of the academic tasks. There was no problem reported in navigating the Internet, using the indices to narrow searches, and further narrowing in on sites within sites. Their ability to see non-language arts information as modifiable and appropriate for teaching literacy skills was very heartening. It portends a generation of teachers open to the possibilities of integrating the Internet into cross-curricular instruction.

 

 

References

Boone, R., Higgins, K., Notari, A., & Stump, C. S. (1996). Hypermedia pre-reading lessons:Learner-centered software for Kindergarten. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7, 39-69.

Bruce, B., & Rubin, A. (1992). Electronic quills: A situated evaluation of using computers for writing in classrooms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Consortium for School Networking. (1991). Position paper on school networking. In D. Carey (Ed.) Technology and teacher education annual 1992. Proceedings of the annual conference on technology and teacher education. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Dede, C. (Ed.). (1998). Introduction. Learning with Technology. ASCD Yearbook. Association for Supervision and Curriculum and Development; Alexandria, VA.

Follensbee, S., Hughes, B. Pisha, B., & Stahl, S. (Winter, 1997). Can on-line communications improve student performance? Results of a controlled study. ERS Spectrum, 15-26.

George, G. E., Hall, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1977). Measuring the stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the stages of concerns questionnaire. Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. The University of Texas.

Kolb, D. (1981, 1985). Learning style inventory. Boston: McBer & Company.

 

Leu, Jr., D. J. (1998, February/March). From the ground up. Reading Today, pp. 3-5.

Liu, M. (1996). An exploratory study of how pre-kindergarten children use the interactive multimedia technology: Implications for multimedia software design. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education. 7, 71-92.

Reed, W. M. (1990). The effect of computer-and-writing instruction on prospective English teachers’ attitudes toward and perceived uses of computers in writing instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23, 3-27.

Reed, W. M., Ervin, J., Jr., & Oughton, J. M. (1995). Computers and elementary education students: A ten-year analysis. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 6, 25-24.

Rudden, J.F. & Mallery, A.L. (1997). Teacher training and the effect of past experience on preservice teachers’ concerns for the role of Internet in planning and instruction. American Reading Forum Yearbook.

Ruopp, R., Pfister, M., Drayton, B., & Gail, S. (1993). Supporting teachers with telecommunications: The LabNetwork. Computers and Education, 14, 183-191.

Ryder, R. J., & Hughes, T. (1997). Internet for educators. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

 

Authors’ note

      This study was supported by a grant from the Millersville University Faculty Development Committee. Thanks to Barry Walton for his statistical expertise and assistance. This study is Phase II of a study on the impact of Internet on preparing preservice teachers in technology related resources.

       Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jane F. Rudden, Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education, Millersville University, Stayer 217, P.O. Box 1002, Millersville, Pennsylvania, 17551-0302. Electronic mail may be sent to [jrudden@marauder.millersv.edu]


Appendix A

The Stages of Concern Toward Innovation (George, Hall, & Rutherford, 1977)

DIRECTIONS: Answer as completely and truthfully as you possibly can when thinking how each of the following statements applies to your PRESENT attitude toward using the INTERNET.

Circle the number that best reflects your present attitude. The higher the number, the better the statement reflects your present attitude.

0      1     

2       3        4      

5       6          7

Not true of me now

Somewhat true of me now

Very true of me now

 

01234567

1. I am concerned about people's attitudes toward using the INTERNET.

01234567

2. I now know of several approaches for how I might go about using the INTERNET.

01234567

3. I don't even know what the INTERNET is.

01234567

4. I am concerned about not having enough time to learn about the INTERNET so that I can use it effectively.

01234567

5. I would like to help other people use the INTERNET.

01234567

6. I have very limited knowledge about the INTERNET

01234567

7. I would like to know how the INTERNET might affect me when I am trying to teach.

01234567

8. I am concerned about what my employer might expect me to know about the INTERNET and how those expectations might be in conflict with what I would like to do.

01234567

9. I am concerned about improving what I presently know about the INTERNET.

01234567

10. I would like to work with potential or present fellow workers and others who are using the INTERNET.

01234567

11. I am concerned about how the INTERNET might affect my students.

01234567

12. I would like to know who would make decisions about my using the INTERNET.

01234567

13. I would like to discuss the possibility of using the INTERNET.

01234567

14. I would like to know what resources are available if the INTERNET is to be integral to my job.

 

01234567

15. I am concerned about my inability to learn all there is to know about using the INTERNET effectively.

01234567

16. I would like to know how my job is supposed to change because of the INTERNET.

01234567

17. I would like to familiarize my fellow workers and my employers about the INTERNET as I learn about it and work with it more.

01234567

18. I am concerned about how the INTERNET might affect my students or clients.

01234567

19. I would like to be able to change how the INTERNET might be used as I learn more about it.

01234567

20. I do not care much about the INTERNET because my schedule prevents me from caring too much.

01234567

21. I would like to modify the use of the INTERNET in my job based on the experiences of my students and clients.

01234567

22. Although I don't care much about the INTERNET, I am concerned about it.

01234567

23. I would like to excite my students or clients about the uses of the INTERNET.

01234567

24. I am concerned about the time needed to learn about the INTERNET that will keep me away from doing what I am supposed to beoing as part of my job.

01234567

25. I would like to know what using the INTERNET would require in the immediate future.

01234567

26. I would like to coordinate my efforts in learning about the INTERNET with fellow workers.

01234567

27. I would like to have more information on the time and energy required in order to learn about the INTERNET.

01234567

 

28. I would like to know what other people are doing in relation to using the INTERNET

01234567

29. At this time/ I am not interested in learning about the INTERNET.

01234567

30. I would like to determine how to supplement and enhance the use of the INTERNET

01234567

 

31. I would like to use feedback from my students or clients to change the use of the INTERNET.

01234567

32. I would like to know how my job would change when I am using the INTERNET.

01234567

33. My present schedule is preventing me from learning too much about using the INTERNET

01234567

34. I would like to know how using the INTERNET is better than the methods I presently use or plan to use when I do my job.

 

 

 


Appendix B

Kolb Learning-Style Inventory (Kolb, 1981, 1985)

The Learning‑Style Inventory describes the way you learn and how you deal with ideas and day‑to‑day situations in your life. Below are 12 sentences with a choice of four endings. Rank the endings for each sentence according to how well you think each one fits with how you would go about learning something. Try to recall some recent situations where you had to learn something new, perhaps in your job. Then, using the spaces provided, rank a "4" for the sentence ending that describes how you learn best, down to a "1" for the sentence ending that seems least like the way you would learn. Be sure to rank all the endings for each sentence unit. Please do not make ties.

Example of completed sentence set:

When I learn:

 

4

I like to deal with my feelings

1

I like to watch and listen

2

I like to think about ideas

3

I like to be doing things

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. When I learn:

 

I like to deal with my feelings

 

 

I like to watch and listen

 

I like t think about idea

 

I like to be doing things

 

 

 

 

 

2. I learn best when:

 

I trust my hunches and feelings

 

I listen and watch carefully

 

I rely on logical thinking

 

I work hard to get things done

 

 

 

 

 

3. When I am learning;

 

I have strong feelings and reactions

 

I am quiet and reserved

 

I tend to reason things out

 

I am responsible about things

 

 

 

 

 

4. I learn by

 

Feeling

 

Watching

 

Thinking

 

Doing

 

 

 

 

 

5. When I learn:

 

I am open to new experiences

 

I look at all sides of issues

 

I like to analyze things, break them down into their parts

 

I like to try things out

 

 

 

 

 

6. When I am learning

 

I am an intuitive person

 

I am an observing

 

I am a logical person

 

I am an active person

 

 

 

 

 

7. I learn best from:

 

Personal relationships

 

Observation

 

Rational theories

 

A chance to try out and practice

 

 

 

 

 

8. When I learn:

 

I feel personally involved in things

 

I take my time before acting

 

I like ideas and theories

 

I like to see results from my work

 

 

 

 

 

9. I learn best when:

 

I rely on my feelings

 

I rely on my observations

 

I rely on my ideas

 

I can try things out for myself

 

 

 

 

 

10. When I am learning:

 

I am an accepting person

 

I am a reserved person

 

I am a rational person

 

I am a responsible person

 

 

 

 

 

11.When I learn:

 

I get involved

 

I like to observe

 

I evaluate things

 

I like to be active

 

 

 

 

 

12. I learn best when:

 

I am receptive and open-minded

 

I am careful

 

I analyze ideas

 

I am practical

 

 

 

 

 

 

Used with permission from McBer & Company.