Enhancing Collaboration and Skill Acquisition Through the Use

Jl. of Technology and Teacher Education (2006) 14(2), 407-433

Enhancing Collaboration and Skill Acquisition Throughthe Use of Technology

TARA JEFFSEast Carolina University

Greenville, NC [email protected]

SAVILLA BANISTERBowling Green State University

Bowling Green, OH [email protected]

The research study presented here was conducted by two ed-ucational technology faculty members, one from special edu-cation and the other from general education, and their re-spective undergraduate classes. This study applied an actionresearch model (Hubbard & Power, 1999; Mills, 2000), cou-pled with a pre and posttest design, in examining the profes-sional development of preservice teachers in the areas of col-laboration and technology. As instructors examined theircourses in comparison to the NETS-T, a void within the re-quired technology classes for both special education andgeneral education majors was discovered. Three primary out-comes were sought: (a) Provide special education teachercandidates with more exposure to multimedia technologiesfor P-12 classrooms; (b) provide general education teachercandidates with more exposure to assistive technologies forP-12 students; (c) create an environment in which special ed-ucation and general education teacher candidates could buildcollaboration skills through mutually beneficial activities.Pre and postsurveys were administered to 42 students en-rolled in the participating classes. Data positively supportedeach of the project’s outcomes. The major implications ofthis study are three-fold, encompassing the domains of teacher

408 Jeffs and Banister

candidate technology expertise, collaborative practice, andthe feasibility of replicating the model described here intoother teacher education programs.

As students with special needs continue to be included in general P-12classrooms, teachers (both general education and special education) arechallenged to work together to meet the educational needs of every student.In addition, state and national standards require that teachers use computertechnologies to support teaching and learning (Kelly, 2002). Teacher prepa-ration programs, in an effort to address these areas, traditionally have re-quired students to complete courses with technology components, withmixed results (Pope, Hare, & Howard, 2002). Often times, preservice teach-ers graduate from their programs with little experience in how to collaboratewith their peers, integrate technology into their daily lessons, or how to planinstruction for students with special needs.

This study focused on these issues, applying an action research model(Hubbard & Power, 1999; Mills, 2000) in examining the professional devel-opment of preservice teachers in the areas of collaboration and technology.Teacher-researchers began with an interest in strengthening student achieve-ment in their educational technology courses, as well as students’ abilities tocollaborate with their general education/special education counterparts. In-structors brainstormed strategies, implemented these strategies, and contin-ued to adjust these processes throughout the semester. Specifically, teachercandidates in special education were partnered with those in early and mid-dle childhood education, as part of their assistive technology/classroomtechnology courses, respectively. The experiences of these students are de-scribed in this article, as well as their reactions and subsequent developmentof knowledge, skills, and dispositions in the areas of multimedia and assis-tive technologies in P-12 classrooms.

CONTEXT

The university courses participating in this study are part of a Doctoral Iuniversity located in the Midwest. Student enrollment each year is approxi-mately R�20,000. The university is highly committed to student and facultyintegration of computer technologies, as indicated by the continued mainte-nance and expansion of its technology infrastructure. The campus was re-cently wired for high-speed, high-volume Internet access and the use of thissystem for innovative teaching and learning strategies has been emphasized.

Enhancing Collaboration and Skill Acquisition 409

Electronic classrooms are provided in most university buildings and over 20computer labs are available for student use, in addition to computer labsprovided in residence halls. A specially-designed technology tutoring lab isalso provided, giving students a place to find personal, hands-on instructionand assistance with computer-related assignments. This type of universityinterest and support in computer technology served as a helpful backdropfor emphasis of technology integration in the College of Education.

The college serves 4,500 undergraduate students; 3,220 of these stu-dents are teacher education majors. The four teacher education programs(early childhood, middle childhood, adolescent-young adult, and special ed-ucation) graduate over 700 students each year. As a result, this university isthe largest producer of teacher-education graduates in the state.

Because of the number of teacher candidates at the university, and thedifferences in the expectations for the various majors, special education(SE) majors and general education (GE) majors rarely cross paths. Teachercandidates participate in parallel experiences, but normally are in classeswith those of the same major. Concerning technology standards, studentspursuing degrees in GE are required to take a computer utilization coursethat emphasizes classroom technology integration and multimedia skills(digital video, web design, etc.). SE majors are required to complete an as-sistive technology course that focuses on assistive technology explorations,web accessibility, and universal design for learning. Both of these coursesare three-hour, one-semester courses, usually taken during the student’s jun-ior year.

A FRAMEWORK FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

The International Society for Technology in Education (Kelly, 2002)asserted that preservice teachers must complete a sequence of experiencesthat develop an indepth understanding of how technology can be used as atool in teaching and learning. In addition, they must see technology modeledby faculty in their university classes and in field placements. Research hasfound that graduates from typical teacher education programs lack the skillsand knowledge to model technology use and/or teach their students how toeffectively infuse technology into the learning environment (Beyerbach,Walsh, & Vannatta, 2001; Edyburn, 2000; Ferris, Roberts, & Skolnikoff,1997; Kemp, 2000). As a result, the National Educational Technology Stan-dards for Teachers (NETS-T, 2000; http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/index.shtml) provided a closer look at technology within the preservice cur-riculum. As instructors examined their courses in comparison to the NETS-


T, a void within the required technology classes for both SE and GE majorswas discovered. This void pertained to the following three categories: (a) SEstudents were not receiving exposure to multimedia development tools andissues, (b) GE students were not gaining experience in the domain of assis-tive technologies, and (c) Students were not participating in experiences thatfostered collaboration across their disciplines. The subsequent paragraphselaborate on these categories of need.

First, the assistive technology course did not include exposure to andpractice in using multimedia tools. The majority of the SE students enrolledin the course possessed minimal computer skills, and the need to spend timeaddressing basic skills superseded the need to incorporate graphics, digitalvideo, and web authoring. Once basic skills were obtained, students spentthe majority of their time exploring and demonstrating various assistivetechnology software and hardware resources, and learning the essentials ofuniversal design. Thus, little time was left for any additional topics or learn-ing activities. Appendix A provides a list of projects completed by SE stu-dents during the semester.

Second, GE students received little instruction in and exposure to assis-tive technologies. Moving through word-processing, spreadsheet, presenta-tion, and database software applications, they were required to developprojects for their future teaching. Appendix B provides a list of projects stu-dents completed during the course; more complete projects descriptions andcourse details can be found at http://edhd.bgsu.edu/

~sbanist/. Students designed technology-integrated lesson plans, createdpresentations based on their research of current technology issues (Figure 1),and produced digital videos related to educational technology. Designingand assembling a web-based professional portfolio that incorporated variousmultimedia products (Figure 2) consumed a good portion of their time.Working with technologies to accommodate students with special needs wasa lower priority.

Figures 1 and 2 provide examples of student projects in the educationaltechnology course. Additional examples can be found at http://edhd.bgsu.edu/~sbanist/profweb.htm


Figure 1. Student presentation

Figure 2. Student web portfolio

Finally, since the SE teacher candidates and the GE teacher candidatesparticipated in coursework related to their chosen disciplines, they had littleinteraction with each other. This reality posed a broader concern to faculty,who realized that collaboration across these disciplines was essential to ef-fective inclusionary strategies in the P-12 settings. If teacher candidateswere to be successful in designing instruction that accommodated and sup-ported student needs, then special and general educators had to possessskills in communicating with each other.


This research study sought to fulfill three primary outcomes—(a) pro-vide SE teacher candidates with more exposure to multimedia technologiesfor P-12 classrooms, (b) provide GE teacher candidates with more exposureto assistive technologies for P-12 students, (c) create an environment inwhich SE and GE teacher candidates could build collaboration skillsthrough mutually beneficial activities. With these in mind, initial planswere made that were critiqued and modified throughout the semester. Thefaculty members observed, recorded, and reflected on the new work occur-ring in their classrooms. They met regularly with each other, discussing theprocesses and made decisions regarding their activities. While pre and post-surveys were a source of data in this study, the research process was more ofa hybrid model of action and quantitative research designs. Thus, allowingthe researchers to become active participants in the study by critiquing, andmodifying the research environment (course content) throughout the semester.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The research study presented here was conducted by two educationaltechnology faculty members, one from SE and the other from GE, and theirrespective undergraduate classes. Once the needs of both classroom technol-ogy courses were identified, the instructors brainstormed possible methodsto fill the void noted. Constraints considered in this process included time,effort, and practicality. Both courses were already brimming with assign-ments and activities that were considered essential in assuring studentachievement of specific course objectives. Neither faculty, nor studentswould be able to take on additional responsibilities for the courses withoutsuffering repercussions of fatigue and frustration. The instructors ap-proached their syllabi with eyes towards adapting course assignments in away that would address the needs identified without drastically altering theexisting course structures. A careful evaluation of the course activities yield-ed some interesting connections between the assistive technology and early/middle childhood technology courses.

Student Assignments

An overview of collaborative class projects to promote peer interactionand the development of technology application skills is shown in Figure 3.SE students were required to present a piece of assistive technology soft-ware or hardware, in a demonstration format, for their classmates. GE


students were assigned a digital video project that involved creating a movieabout educational technology for their websites. Instructors brainstormed,“What if the GE students videotaped an assistive technology demonstrationand edited the footage to publish on their web pages?” This process wouldallow SE students to experience the use of digital video and give GE stu-dents some exposure to examples of assistive technology. These assignmentmodifications would require some communication and planning among thestudents, but would not significantly increase the time and effort needed tocomplete the projects.

Figure 3. Opportunities for collaboration and technology learning projects

On another note, GE students would be constructing professional port-folio websites in their computer utilization course. GE and SE studentswould be studying 508 compliance and web accessibility issues, with SEstudents delving into these topics in more detail. Again, the instructors in-quired, “Couldn’t SE students evaluate GE students’ websites in light ofthese accessibility concerns?” In this way, GE students would receive feed-back based specifically on considerations of populations with special needs,and SE students would be exposed to the process of webpage constructionwhile putting their knowledge of 508 compliance to use. Again, this processwould require communication among the SE and GE students, but not anoverwhelming amount of additional time.

AT Demo/Videotaping

Web Page Development/Accessibility testing

Multimedia Learning/ AT Adaptations

AT Demo/Videotaping

Web Page Development/Accessibility testing

Multimedia Learning/ AT Adaptations


Finally, SE students would be focusing on elements of universal designfor learning; GE students would be developing multimedia tutorials for spe-cific curricular objectives. SE students could evaluate these products, givingGE suggestions on how to better design such tutorials to meet the needs ofdiverse learners. These modifications in student assignments would requireminimal changes in either course practices, yet would target the needs artic-ulated by the faculty.

Student Communication Structure

To modify the SE and GE technology classes to include the activitiespreviously delineated, students needed a structure that would facilitate pro-ductive communication and collaboration. Students’ busy schedules prevent-ed most of them from being available to meet during the scheduled classtimes of their SE or GE counterparts. While some components of theirblended assignments would require face to face meetings, the course instruc-tors realized that much of the necessary dialogue could be conducted online.An asynchronous Computer Mediated Discussion (CMD) model was chosento support the project (Bonk, 2003-2004; Fauske & Wade, 2003-2004;Schallert & Reed, 2003-2004). Students were placed in small groups (twoSE and two GE students in a group) and given discussion forum space onone of the course online shells available through the university’s coursewaresystem. This arrangement did require each instructor to add 10 or 11 stu-dents from the other’s course list to create the groups. As a result each fac-ulty member hosted five discussion forums.

Final Modified Curriculum

When SE and GE students began their respective technology courses,they were given course syllabi that had incorporated the project revisionspreviously explored. They found themselves placed in a small group consist-ing of two SE and two GE students who would be their partners for the se-mester. As partners, they would be collaborating to complete the followingassignments:

1. Assistive Technology DemonstrationSE: Research and Demonstrate Selected ATGE: Video tape, edit and publish AT on the web


2. Professional Website EvaluationGE: Edit professional portfolio websites to meet accessibility guide-linesSE: Examine GE websites based on 508 compliance guidelines and of-fer suggestions for better accessibility

3. Multimedia Tutorial Usability TestGE: Create an interactive tutorial that could be used by learners withvarious needsSE: Conduct usability tests on tutorials and provide feedback on revi-sions that would make product more beneficial to learners with specialneeds

Appendix C includes the descriptions of these projects, as shared withthe GE teacher candidates. Students were shown how to contact their groupmembers that were not physically enrolled in their particular class throughthe small group discussion forums. They were asked to post an introductionof themselves during the first week of class, and then begin making plans tocomplete their first project: making a movie about a specific type of assis-tive technology. Throughout the semester, the instructors fielded questionsfrom students concerning their group work, if asked, but strategized that al-lowing the students’ autonomy in negotiating how their projects were com-pleted would give them the most authentic experience in collaboration. Bythe end of the semester, all students had successfully completed the projectsassigned.

DATA COLLECTION

Pre and postsurveys (see Appendix D and E) were administered to theSE and GE students enrolled in the participating classes (SE n=21; GEn=21) through the survey/ assessment manager in Blackboard. These sur-veys have been used over a five-year period for the GE computer course,and contained items related to educational technology skills/knowledge thatcould yielded useful data both in general and assistive technologies. Bothsurveys consisted of 14 open-ended response items (i.e., “What types of pre-sentation software have you used?”; “List specific software that can be usedto benefit the learning of students with special needs.”) and 12 Likert scaleitems exploring students’ knowledge and skill of various multimedia and as-sistive technologies. A final open response questions targeted students’ aspi-rations for the course, in the pre survey, and in the postsurvey students’ had


the opportunity to reflected on their professional development and collabo-rative work. The last two open response items were added to the postsurveyspecifically for this study. Those questions were:

1. In thinking about teaching in an inclusive classroom, how will you ap-proach meeting the needs of all your students, assuring them a success-ful learning environment?

2. You have learned many aspects of collaboration online with other pro-fessionals throughout the semester. Share how these activities will sup-port your work with colleagues in the future.”

Appendices D and E provide a complete list of survey items. These sur-veys were administered electronically, through the course software systems(Blackboard). Students completed the first survey during the first week ofclasses and the postsurvey was conducted during the last week of classes.Thus, the findings below are indicative of student achievement over a onesemester period of time.

FINDINGS

A total of 42 students participated in the study. Each student submitteda complete pre and postsurvey online. The results in Table 1 provide insightto overall perceptions of confidence ratings for using technology for bothGE and SE students. Students’ confidence level of technology use rated asagree or strongly agree had increased in all areas from the beginning to theend of the semester.

For example, students’ ratings of agree to strongly agree in reference tobeing familiar with Pk-12 educational software had increased from zero to71% for GE students and zero to 64% for SE. Overall, perceptions of com-puter skills had also increased. For the item, “In general, I have excellentgeneral computer skills (i.e., using menus, managing files, navigating operat-ing systems, etc.),” 48% GE students and 33% of SE students responded onthe presurvey as strongly disagree or disagree. Thirty-three (33%) GE and29% SE students responded with agree and strongly agree. In the postsurveyGE and SE students responded to the same question with 0% responded tothe same item as strongly disagree or disagree and 94% GE students and60% SE students rated this item as agree and strongly -agree.


Table 1Perceptions of Preservice Teachers’ Confidence Ratings for

Using TechnologyTechno lo g y

To p ic C onfiden t in

U s ing…

Tota l N = (42 )

21 G E 21 S E

5 =

S trong ly Ag ree

%

4 Ag ree

%

3= S om ew hat

Ag ree %

2 D isag ree

%

1 = S trong ly D isagree

%

E -m ail G enera l E duca tion

P ost 100%

0 % 0% 0% 0%

P re 81%

14% 0% 5% 0%

S pec ia l E duca tion

P ost 96%

0% 0% 0% 4%

P re 81%

10% 5% 0% 5%

W o rd P rocess ing

G enera l E duca tion

P ost 100%

0% 0% 0% 0%

P re 67%

5% 14% 10% 5%


P ost 76%

16% 0% 4% 4%

P re 43%

48% 5% 5% 0 %

B ib liograph ic D atabases


P ost 29%

47% 12% 6% 6%

P re 14%

24% 10% 24% 38%


P ost 4% 24% 44% 28% 0 %

P re 5% 5% 48% 29% 14% In ternet G enera l

E duca tion P ost 65%

12% 24% 0% 0%

P re 24%

48% 14% 14% 0%


P ost 36%

56% 4% 0% 4%

P re 5% 62% 24% 5% 5% S e tup & U sing D atabases


P ost 35%

47% 18% 0% 0%

P re 0%

5% 24% 5% 67%


P ost 0%

28% 20% 36% 16%

P re 0%

5% 33% 24% 38%

F am ilia r w ith P K -12 S o ftw are


P ost 0%

71% 24% 6% 0%

P re 0%

0% 29% 19% 52%


P ost 20%

44% 32% 4% 0%

P re 0%

0% 19% 29% 52%

E lectronic S preadsheets


P ost 24%

53% 18% 6% 0%

P re 14%

5% 24% 33% 24%


P ost 4%

60% 28% 4% 4%

P re 0%

10% 29% 33% 29%


Table 1 (continued)Perceptions of Preservice Teachers’ Confidence Ratings for

Using Technology

Students’ knowledge base of technology had also increased. For exam-ple, in the presurvey, students were asked to list some educational softwareprograms that they were aware of, 48% of the SE and 38% of the GE stu-dents could not list a single software program (stating a response of no ideaor N/A ). In the postsurvey, 100% of all students could list at least one edu-cational program and many listed three or four software programs.

When asked to list software that can be used to benefit the learning ofstudents with special needs, the presurvey revealed that 57% of the SE and76% GE students could not list a software program (making responses suchas not sure, ?, or N/A). Postsurvey findings revealed that 100% of the SEand 76% of the GE students could list one or more programs that could ben-efit students with disabilities. This increased awareness of software applica-tions that could be used to meet the needs of students with disabilities re-flected another area of growth for SE and GE students.

Frequently read technology-related journals

General Education

Post 0%

18% 35% 24% 24%

Pre 0%

0% 14% 19% 67%

Special Education

Post 8%

12% 32% 32% 16%

Pre 5%

10% 14% 29% 43%

In general, I have excellent computer skills

General Education

Post 53%

41% 6% 0% 0%

Pre 19%

14% 19% 24% 24%

Special Education

Post 16%

44% 40% 0% 0%

Pre 5%

24% 38% 33% 0%

Technology Topic

Confident in Using…

Total N= (42 ) 21 GE 21 SE

5 =

Strongly Agree

%

4 Agree

%

3= Somewhat

Agree %

2 Disagree

%

1 = Strongly Disagree

%


In addition, when asked to list specific assistive technology devices thataddressed the needs of students with disabilities, the presurvey revealed that48% of SE and 71% GE could not list a single device (making responsessuch as I don’t know any, not sure, ? or N/A). Postsurvey revealed that100% SE and 88% GE listed at least one or more assistive technology de-vices. Thus, indicating that awareness in assistive technology devices had in-creased.

Survey results that closely relate to the three primary outcomes for thisstudy are shown in Table 2. Data positively supported each of the project’soutcomes: (a) provide SE teacher candidates with more exposure to multi-media technologies for P-12 classrooms, (b) provide GE teacher candidateswith more exposure to assistive technologies for P-12 students, and (c) cre-ate an environment in which SE and GE teacher candidates could collabo-rate in mutually beneficial activities.

When looking at the outcome of more exposure to multimedia technolo-gies for SE students, survey results indicate that 15% SE and 20% GE stu-dents rated the item, I am very experienced in creating and using digitalgraphics, as somewhat agree to strongly agree on the presurvey. An increasein ratings was revealed on the postsurvey; 68% SE and 89% GE studentsrated this same item as somewhat agree to strongly agree. Thus indicatingthat students had gained confidence and increased their perceptions of cre-ating and using multimedia technologies.

The item involving web page design, provided insight to students’ con-fidence in putting together a webpage. Twenty-four (24%) GE and 19% SEresponded on the presurvey as somewhat agreed that they were very profi-cient in putting together a webpage. In the postsurvey GE and SE studentsresponded to the same question with 100% GE and 48% SE students re-sponded with somewhat agree to strongly agree.

When examining the item, I know how to use various technologies toaddress specific special needs of students, 19% GE and 34% SE respondedon the presurvey as somewhat agree to strongly agree. In the postsurvey GEand SE students responded to the same question with 95% GE students and96% SE students responded with somewhat agree to strongly agree.


Table 2Perceptions of Confidence Ratings that Closely Relate to the Projects’ Three

Primary Outcomes

In addition, responses to the short answer/essay question; In thinkingabout teaching in an inclusive classroom, how will you approach meetingthe needs of all your students, assuring them a successful learning environ-ment? GE students provided the following responses:

Technology Topic

Confident in Using…

Total N= (42 )

21 GE 21 SE

5 =

Strongly Agree

%

4 Agree

%

3 Somewhat

Agree %

2 Disagree

%

1 = Strongly Disagree

%

Using and creating digital graphics

General Education

Post 24%

53 % 12% 12% 0%

Pre 5%

10% 5% 29% 52%

Special Education

Post 4%

20% 44% 24% 8%

Pre 0%

5% 10% 43% 43%

Putting together a webpage

General Education

Post 12%

70% 18% 0% 0%

Pre 5%

5% 14% 29% 48%

Special Education

Post 0%

20% 28% 28% 24%

Pre 0%

5% 14% 19% 62%

Technology to address special needs of students

General Education

Post 18%

53 % 24% 6% 0%

Pre 5%

0% 14% 29% 52%

Special Education

Post 20 %

44% 32% 4% 0%

Pre 0%

5% 29% 43% 24%


GE1 : I will personally learn how to use any assistive technology that a stu-dents might need so I can be an expert and help them use it. If the assis-tive technology is not available to the students, I will fight to get it forthem or explore options that are out there for students so everyone canlearn to their fullest.

GE2: I think this answer goes closely with my answer to 28. I think collabo-ration is the most important way to meet the needs of students in an in-clusive classroom. I don’t believe that I know enough myself to assureall students a successful learning environment, but through collaborat-ing with knowledgeable colleagues, my hope is to be able to grant stu-dents that assurance.

GE3: Look at their IEP’s and adapt my lessons and classroom accordingly.If a child is unable to participate in an activity based upon their specialneeds I will adapt it so they will be included.

GE4: With being computer literate about many applications in which I hopeto someday incorporate into my classroom, I will be allowing my stu-dents to advance in their computer education skills. I will explore themany different programs that could be very helpful in the classroom.While exploring them, I will try to meet the needs of each of my stu-dents.

GE5: I will work with the special education teacher to determine what myparticular student’s disabilities and areas of concern are, and then try toincorporate changes into my lesson plans to allow for those technolo-gies and strategies.

GE6: By adding appropriate material (software, hardware, design matters,etc) to help them learn as much as possible.

These student ratings and open comments provide evidence indicatingthat the outcome to provide GE teacher candidates with more exposure toassistive technologies for P-12 students had been successful.

The outcome for creating an environment in which SE and GE teachercandidates could collaborate in mutually beneficial activities was revealedthrough comments students had written to response to the following postsur-vey item; You have learned many aspects of collaboration online with otherprofessionals throughout the semester. Share how these activities will sup-port your work with colleagues in the future. A few students shared their in-


sight of the fact that teaching goes beyond just working with the students:

GE1: I know that the ideas of the others working around me will help to bet-ter me as a teacher. It also shows me that talking with others could giveme insight on students or things to do with a certain lesson. It hashelped me to realize that we are not just there to teach the students butto teach other teachers and to learn ourselves.

SE1: Collaboration is a huge aspect of special education because there are alot of people who are a part of the student’s life, and every opinion mat-ters. The collaboration activities allowed me to experience a differentkind of collaboration where we had to share our knowledge of technolo-gy with each other and make a final project out of it. Collaboration isabout sharing ideas and knowledge and coming together to make a finalobjective.

A few other students shared that although the collaboration wasn’t easyit was productive:

GE2: This was an example of regular teachers working with special educa-tion teachers. I found it difficult but possible to collaborate with theseindividuals in order to accomplish the tasks needed to be done.

SE2: These activities have shown me that not everyone is going to agree ev-ery time but it is important to listen to one another and respect the otherperson. This will help me to collaborate and communicate with col-leagues in the future.

GE3: Working with colleagues, has provided me with new ideas. I havelearned that there are many different types of teachers and that everyonehas different ideas of what is important. For school to be successful,teachers need to discuss ideas that they have for projects and other ac-tivities in the classroom that are relevant to students of all kinds. I havealready learned a great deal from others from these collaborations.

SE3: The collaboration used during this class really helped me to realize thatthere are aspects that special educators and regular educators need tocome together in order to produce a better classroom for every student.Going through and seeing how the AT class could improve some workof the regular educators really helped a lot!


GE4: I think no matter what you do or how much time you have, you will al-ways have time to talk to others. Sometimes it was a little rough to getthe group together, but when we finally did everything worked out. Ithink that when I do become a professional teacher, I am going to tryvery hard to meet with all the colleagues that I need to meet more on acomputer than face to face.

Other students commented on the use of technology for collaboration:

SE3: These activities have made me realize that teachers can exchange ideasor tips without meeting face to face. I will use something similar to thiswhen I am a teacher.

GE5: Working and collaborating online with colleagues will become moreand more important in the future. This class provided an opportunity toget a taste of that and learn what works and what does not work in anonline environment. By taking these experiences and learning fromthem, I can learn to communicate and collaborate more effectively withcolleagues in the future.

SE5: I think it is great that you can interact with colleagues without evenknowing them. It allows you to communicate with a broad range of peo-ple that you wouldn’t usually have any sort of interaction with.

IMPLICATIONS

The major implications of this study are three-fold, encompassing thedomains of teacher candidate technology expertise, collaborative practice,and the feasibility of replicating the model described here into other teachereducation programs. These areas are explored next.

Teacher Candidate Technology Expertise

This study indicates that preservice teachers can gain significant skillsand knowledge related to multimedia and assistive technologies within thespan of a semester’s time. While the data gathered were self-reports of GEand SE student computer skills and understanding, the gains documentedhave significant implications. If students believe that they are competent in


using various types of multimedia and assistive technologies in the class-room, then they are more likely to choose to integrate these resources intotheir teaching.

Furthermore, students indicated that they gained experience and under-standing of technologies NOT DIRECTLY TAUGHT in their respective GEor SE courses. For example, GE students expressed knowledge of specifictypes of assistive technology software and hardware that were not presentedin the GE computer course. It is probable that they gained this knowledgethrough their work in video-taping, editing, and publishing online demon-strations of these assistive technology resources, presented by their SE part-ners. Conversely, SE students demonstrated growth in the areas of digitalgraphics and webpage construction, even though their SE course did not tar-get these skills. Conversations and activities in which SE teacher candidatesexplored GE teacher candidate websites and multimedia tutorials piquedtheir interest in these constructions, and led to their acquiring skills and un-derstandings in these areas.

Collaborative Practice

Partnering SE and GE teacher candidates in collaborative, mutually-beneficial cohorts can strengthen their understandings of what inclusionmeans in the K-12 classroom, and highlight the power of working acrossdisciplines. Authentic activities that forced GE and SE teacher candidates toNEED each other in order to prepare better presentations and products re-sulted in positive experiences of collaboration. Synergies developed thatcaused teacher candidates to passionately affirm the value of working withtheir SE or GE counterparts in the schools.

SE and GE faculty who worked to create this environment for studentsalso experienced renewed commitment to inclusionary strategies and prac-tices. The modeling teacher candidates witnessed, as a result of faculty col-laboration, further enhanced their understanding and belief in these types ofpartnerships. Therefore, to truly develop strong collaborative opportunitiesfor teacher candidates, the SE and GE faculty must first take steps to openlyand effectively collaborate.

Because of the incompatibility of schedules for SE and GE students in-volved in this project, the online component of the partnerships was the es-sential component. Teacher candidates had a venue that transcended theconstraints of time and space, allowing for dialogues and plans to evolve ina relaxed, rather than forced, manner. While SE and GE teacher candidatesdid have face-to-face meetings, much of the richness of their communication


occurred online. This type of experience provides them with collaborativestrategies that will extend into their life as educators. The hectic schedulesof both GE and SE teachers often preclude deeper dialogues regarding stu-dent needs. Realizing that online tools such as e-mail, newsgroups, and list-procs are effective alternative forums for teachers dedicated to practicing in-clusion is noteworthy.

FEASIBILITY OF REPLICATION

Offering positive, authentic opportunities for GE and SE students tocollaborate during their preservice education is manageable. The process de-scribed was undertaken with only minimal changes in efforts of faculty andstudents. Many colleges already have a separate technology course for spe-cial education and general education majors. Some have both types of pro-gram majors in the same course. In either case, partnering GE and SE stu-dents can be done face-to-face or virtually to encourage the developmentdocumented here. If GE and SE programs do not coexist on the same cam-pus, partnerships could be arranged in online environments.

Replicating this model is dependent on strong SE and GE faculty col-laboration, a relationship that must be actively pursued and nurtured. If GEand SE teacher candidates are to embrace a philosophy of inclusion, theyneed to see the comradery of SE and GE faculty come to life in their teachereducation programs. Perhaps, a simple beginning to such a model could beachieved through discussions between GE and SE courses to brainstormconnections and issues that could be used to develop meaningful partner-ships.

Use of Course Software System

The use of the existing course software systems such as Blackboardprovided faculty and students with easy and convenient ways of accessingand disseminating materials and information. For the most part, the use ofsuch technology was very beneficial. Students and faculty used the technolo-gy to retrieve course materials, discuss course content, check grades, andtake surveys.

However, it should be noted that one major disadvantage of using theexisting technology was the use of the survey manager within the Black-board environment and its default method used to aggregate the data. Ob-taining descriptive statistics other than item percentages and number of


respondents (N) were not possible. Responses for each item were collectedas a group and then reported as percentages. Individual student responsescould not be obtained unless it was an open ended format question. Unfortu-nately this was not discovered until after administering the postsurvey. Re-searchers inquired about obtaining each participant’ individual survey re-sponses but Blackboard administrators indicated that the reporting of indi-vidual responses for each item was not possible. The surveys used in thisstudy were set up as multiple choice selections where the student selects arating of 1-5 or open ended questions where students filled in the blank. Ifother statistics were to be calculated caution must be taken in the use of suchtechnologies.

CONCLUSION

Collaborative projects across university courses are often equated withextra work and challenges for both the students and faculty. Nontenured fac-ulty are especially cautious about taking risks associated with their coursesin fear of lower course evaluation ratings given by their students. Thisproject illustrates that collaborative efforts if creatively integrated acrosssyllabi and using available online technologies can provide students withpositive and meaningful learning experiences without increasing an alreadyseemingly unbearable workload for faculty and jeopardizing course scores.Through these interactions, students become motivated to initiate collabora-tive efforts and share their knowledge and skills. In the same respect theybegin to appreciate efforts shared by others. Likewise, faculty enjoy thebenefits of sharing in the teaching process and collaborating on ideas andmethodology that is often not discussed in the typical semester.

References

Beyerbach, B., Walsh, C., & Vannatta, R. (2001). From teaching technolo-gy to using technology to enhance student learning: Preservice teach-ers changing perceptions of technology infusion. Journal of Technolo-gy and Teacher Education, 9(1), 105-127.

Bonk, C. (2003-2004). I should have known this was coming: Computer-mediated discussions in teacher education. Journal of Research onTechnology in Education, 36(2), 95-102.

Edyburn, D. L. (2000). 1999 in review: A synthesis of the special educa-tion technology literature. Journal of Special Education Technology,15(1), 7-18.


Fauske, J., & Wade, S.E. (2003-2004). Research to practice online: Condi-tions that foster democracy, community, and critical thinking in com-puter-mediated discussions. Journal of Research on Technology in Ed-ucation, 36(2), 137-153.

Ferris, A., Roberts, N., & Skolnikoff, W. (1997). Technology and preser-vice education: Models that work, models that don’t. EducationalTechnology Review, 7, 13-19

Hubbard, R.S., & Power, B.M. (1999). Living the questions: A guide forteacher-researchers. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Kelly, M.G. (Ed.). (2002). National educational technology standards forteachers: Preparing teachers to use technology (1st ed.). Eugene, OR:International Society for Technolgoy in Education.

Kemp, L. (2000). Research in teacher education. Technology competenciesin teacher education: An evaluation to guide implementation of begin-ning teacher technology competencies (A research report prepared forMinnesota State Colleges and Universities and the Council on Profes-sional Education No. BBB36098). Mankato, MN: Minnesota StateUniversity, College of Education.

Mills, G.E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher.Columbus, OH: Merrill.

National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (2000). RetrievedNovember 28, 2005, from http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/index.shtml

Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2002). Technology integration: Closingthe gap between what preservice teachers are taught to do and whatthey can do. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2),191-203.

Schallert, D.L., & Reed, J.H. (2003-2004). Intellectual, motivational, textu-al, and cultural considerations in teaching and learning with computer-mediated discussion. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,36(2), 103-118.


APPENDIX ASPECIAL EDUCATION CLASS PROJECTS

AT Student Presentation 20 points You will sign up to learn and present a specific device or software program. You will be required to make a 20 minute informative presentation, a sample lesson plan integrating the product, and obtain vendor information/ resources for the entire class. A handout and rubric will be provided to guide you in planning and organizing this presentation. AT Demonstration Videotaping 20 points In your EDTL/EDIS partner groups you are to present the AT device or software program that you had signed up to present to class. You and Your EDTL partner groups will plan to meet and discuss details involved so that your EDTL partners can video tape you. Plan a 15-20 minute presentation (just as for the class presentation) although after editing the actual video tape will be 30-60 seconds in length. As team members, you should work together and share ideas in how to make the presentation informative and interesting. It might be helpful to provide a teacher-friendly introduction and summary to your AT product and share ideas of how it can be implemented in the classroom. You will be critiqued on your group involvement and team work as well as your presentation style and accuracy of the AT product. Group Forums 10 points As special education teachers you will be expected to provide a quality education to all your students, many who will come to you with special needs. Learning to communicate and cooperate with your colleagues in regular education will help your students be successful in the classroom.

This semester you will have an opportunity to collaborate with students majoring in Educational Technology Teaching & Learning, and, hopefully, gain valuable skills and knowledge that will better prepare you as an educator. You will be assigned to an group (2 EDTL students from EDTL 302, and 2 EDIS students from this class). Below is a schedule of online discussion forums and activities that you will be participating in together. You will need to meet a few times outside of class in order to present your demo of assistive technology and get videotaped and preview EDTL students’ final Hyper Studio projects and provide feedback on making adaptations or considerations for students with disabilities. Otherwise, most of the interaction will be online. AT Resource Notebook 10 points Throughout this course you will be given great resources through student presentations, instructor handouts and notes! You are required to organize these resources into a useful electronic notebook so in the future you can simply reach and grab resources on the run! This assignment should be compiled through the duration of the course and not at the last minute. You may use any headings or organizational system that makes sense to you and that you can easily justify. Tips for Teachers ( in class activities) 20 points After a fun and meaningful class discussion or reading the week’s chapter assignment – we will reflect and generate a teacher tip or idea on how to design, create or implement Assistive Technology in the classroom. These tips will be completed in class and serve as a participation/attendance check. Note- If absent these tips cannot be turned in nor will a make up assignment be given, therefore points will be lost.


APPENDIX BGENERAL EDUCATION CLASS PROJECTS


APPENDIX CWEBPAGE INDICATING GE AND SE COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS FOR THE

SEMESTER


APPENDIX DPRE SURVEY ADMINISTERED TO BOTH GE AND SE TEACHER

CANDIDATES

Beginning Survey [Fill in the Blank]1. Name2. Teaching Area or Grades of Interest3. List some educational software programs that you are aware of.4. List specific software that can be used to benefit the learning of stu-

dents with special needs.5. List specific technology aids (hardware or assistive technology devic-

es) that address specific needs of students with special needs.6. What bibliographic databases have you used?7. What browsers and search engines do you use?8. If you have constructed a webpage, what tools did you use?9. What database software have you used?10. What email applications do you use?11. What presentation software have you used?12. What spreadsheet applications have you used?13. What technology-related journals are you familiar with?14. What types of graphics construction have you done?15. What word-processing software do you use?

Multiple ChoicePlease indicate your current knowledge, skill, and use of the followingtechnologies. Use the numerical scale to indicate your comfort and/or pro-ficiency with each facet. 5 indicating “strongly agree” and 1 indicating“strongly disagree.”

1. I feel very confident using e-mail.2. I am confident using bibliographic databases.3. I am quite familiar with various software programs for the K-12 class

rooms.4. I am very experienced in creating and using digital graphics.5. I am very proficient at putting together a web page.6. I can always find the information I need on the Internet.7. I can set up and use my own databases very well.8. I effectively use electronic spreadsheets.9. I frequently read articles in technology-related journals.10. I frequently use word-processing software.11. I know how to use various technologies to address specific special

needs of students.12. In general, I have excellent general computer skills (i.e. using menus,

managing files, navigating operating systems, etc.)Fill in the Blank1. From this assessment of your current technology expertise, please de-scribe the areas in which you would like to develop additional knowledgeand skill this semester.


APPENDIX EPOSTSURVEY ADMINISTERED TO BOTH GE AND SE TEACHER

CANDIDATES

Multiple ChoicePlease indicate your current knowledge, skill, and use of the followingtechnologies. Use the numerical scale to indicate your comfort and/or pro-ficiency with each facet. 5 indicating “strongly agree” and 1 indicating“strongly disagree.”

1. I feel very confident using e-mail.2. I frequently use word-processing software.3. I can always find the information I need on the Internet.4. I am quite familiar with various software programs for the K-12 class

rooms.5. I am confident using bibliographic databases.6. I am very experienced in creating and using digital graphics.7. I am very proficient at putting together a web page.8. I know how to use various technologies to address specific special

needs of students.9. I effectively use electronic spreadsheets.10. I frequently read articles in technology-related journals.11. I can set up and use my own databases very well.12. In general, I have excellent general computer skills (i.e. using menus,

managing files, navigating operating systems, etc.)

Fill in the Blank

1. If you have constructed a webpage, what tools did you use?2. List some educational software programs that you are aware of.3. List specific software that can be used to benefit the learning of stu-

dents with special needs.4. List specific technology aids (hardware or assistive technology devic-

es) that address specific needs of students with special needs.5. What bibliographic databases have you used?6. What browsers and search engines do you use?7. What database software have you used?8. What email applications do you use?9. What presentation software have you used?10. What spreadsheet applications have you used?11. What technology-related journals are you familiar with?12. What types of graphics construction have you done?13. What word-processing software do you use?


Short Answer/Essay

1. Explain how this evaluation of your educational technology expertiserelates to your development and practice as a classroom teacher. For yourown professional development, what areas will you be targeting forgrowth?2. In thinking about teaching in an inclusive classroom, how will you ap-proach meeting the needs of all your students, assuring them a successfullearning environment?3. You have learned many aspects of collaboration online with other pro-fessionals throughout the semester. Share how these activities will supportyour work with colleagues in the future.Enhancing Collaboration and Skill Acquisition -27

Enhancing Collaboration and Skill Acquisition Through the Use

Documents