This presentation was at the 2013 annual conference of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE).

1. Instructional Technology
Leadership Academy for Pre-
Service Teachers
AACTE 2013
Presenters:
Norma Boakes, Associate Professor of Education
Douglas Harvey, Associate Professor of Education

2. Richard Stockton College of NJ
Galloway, New Jersey
•About 8,000 students
•7000 of those are
undergraduates
•½ FTF, ½ Transfer
(last academic year)
•About 200 student
teachers currently
•College organized in
“Schools”
•Within “Schools” are
Programs
•The Teacher Education
Program (TEDU) housed
in the School of
Education

3. Anatomy of the
Stockton TEDU Program
• Content coursework
• Elementary- 60 credits in LA
• Subject specific- 30 credits in subject
• Professional requirements
• Educating Students w/Special Needs
• Diversity in Families, Schools, and Communities
• Instructional Technology for K-12 Teachers*
• Professional Education requirements
• Ed Psyc + 40 hours fieldwork (gateway course)
• Intro courses + 80 hours fieldwork
• Intermediate courses + 80 hours fieldwork
• Student Teaching- 15 week internship

4. Seeking to overcome challenges to better preparing
pre-service teachers
Timing and amount of current training in
instructional technology
Limited flexibility in course sequence within
teacher education coursework
Lack of connection between technology courses,
methods courses, and fieldwork
Result of discussions among SOE faculty

5. Alignment to Standards
• CAEP- Standard 2- Clinical Practice- seeks evidence for “candidates integrate
technology into their panning and teaching and use it to differentiate
instruction” (p.21 of draft)
• InTASC- Cross-Cutting Theme Technology
• NJPST- NJ Professional Standards for Teachers
• NETS*T Teachers
“As technology integration continues to increase in our society, it is paramount
that teachers possess the skills and behaviors of digital age professionals.
Moving forward, teachers must become comfortable being co-learners with
their students and colleagues around the world.” (NETS*T website)

6. Lambert & Gong (2010) reported value of even a single stand-
alone course in improving pre-service teacher self-efficacy
Ertmer & Ottenbbreit-Leftwich (2010) note four variables,
including self-efficacy and pedagogical beliefs, that interact to
impact how pre-service teachers should be prepared for
technology integration
Ward and Overall (2010) found that pre-service teachers showed
positive gains in both competency and confidence when
learning technology in conjunction with content-area pedagogy
courses.

7. Honors-style Instructional Technology
Leadership Academy (ITLA) to increase
opportunities for pre-service teachers to gain
confidence, knowledge, and skill
Provide select group of pre-service teachers
with a technology-focused learning
opportunity
Encourage a small group of new teachers to
become teacher-leaders in the area of
technology integration

8. Students apply to program - selectively chosen according to criteria
established by SOE
Those chosen are given:
A three-credit advanced technology course (INTC 4650)
Issued technology for use as part of course (iPod)
Access to computer lab space specifically designed to support
ITLA projects
Extra-curricular opportunities (eg. guest speakers, tech PD
sessions, and attend technology conferences)
When possible, special fieldwork placement with tech-savvy
cooperating teachers
Graduates given entree into the online ITLA 2.0 network.

9. INTC 4650
Advanced Technology
Integration
• 3 credit hybrid course (3 hours per week- about ½
online)
• Access to advanced tech facilities on campus (ETTC)
• Exposure to advanced tech skills/training tailored to fit
teaching certification area
• Specialized assignments to develop understanding of
technology integration in instruction
• Exposure to experts in the field- teachers & admin
• Participation in PD related to tech (f2f and online)
• Current cohort:http://intc4650.wikispaces.com

10. Self-efficacy measurement
Measure degree of reported self-efficacy with technology
integration among
Instrument: Technology Integration Confidence Scale (TICS)
Jeremy Browne - http://www.brownelearning.org/tics/
Based on NETS*T Version 1
We used only first 5 categories - did not include Ethical Issues
as this is not specifically taught in program courses
Technology Integration in the field
Use of proprietary measure (Metiri Group) for technology
integration of student teaching/fieldwork lessons

11. Technology Self Efficacy Survey
-33 items
-6 response scale ranging from not
confident at all to completely
confident
Instrument used was based on Browne (2009) Technology
Integration Confidence Scale and NETS*T standards from
ISTE

12. Classrooms for the Future Lesson
Observation Instrument
•Lesson observation broken into 3 parts- 1st third, 2nd third, and final
third of class observed. Looks at levels of-
•engagement,
•complexity,
•instruction style, and
•Relevance
•Overall analysis of lesson
•Hardware/software
•Instructional strategies
•Technology use (Teacher and Student)
•21st Century Skills
For more information on instrument go to: http://metiri.com

13. Implementation
With any new program comes the challenge of
implementation. Some of the issues we faced and
addressed included:
- What students should be considered for ITLA?
How do we get them interested in joining?
- When, in the professional education course
sequence, do we offer it?
- Finding tech-savvy fieldwork teachers to pair
with ITLA students
- Getting funding for the technology

14. 1st cohort of ITLA
• Consisted of 10 preservice teachers
• Cohort given two-part advanced technology course
• Advanced Technology Integration I (2 cr)
• Advanced Technology Integration II (2 cr)
• Took place Fall 10 & Spring 11
• Lessons learned
• Students advanced their skills and were more apt to
use technology in their teaching
• Structure of ITLA made it difficult to find sufficient
number of participants

15. 2nd ITLA Cohort- 2012
ITLA retooled to be a one-semester add on to
teacher certification coursework
• Intro or Intermediate Semester level student
could apply
• One 3 credit vs. two 2 credit course
experience- Advanced Technology Integration
• Open process for fieldwork experience versus
targeting exact teacher placement

16. A quick look at data from 2 nd
cohort of ITLA
• 7 ITLA students for Spring 2012 cohort matched with 7 non-
ITLA students
• ITLA students:
• Took 3 credit advanced technology integration course
• Received iPod touch to use with fieldwork experiences
• Research methods
• Pre- and post-test of TICS instrument to measure tech self-
efficacy
• Reviewed lesson plans by ITLA versus non-ITLA

17. Results of 2 cohort nd
• ITLA students showed a mean change of +12.86 points
on the TICS scale, while non-ITLA students showed a
mean change of -1.43 points.
• Gains by TICS category:
• Planning and Designing Learning Environments and
Experiences: ITLA +6.86; non-ITLA -0.62
• Teaching Learning and the Curriculum: ITLA +3.80;
non-ITLA 0.00
• Assessment and Evaluation: ITLA +2.60; non-ITLA
-1.00

18. Results of 2 cohort nd
• Lesson plans reviewed on 3 point scale
• 0- no technology use
• 1-tech used was solely teacher-centered
• 6 ITLA vs. 8 non-ITLA
• 2- tech used mostly teacher-centered w/some
student interaction
• 2 ITLA vs. 0 non-ITLA
• 3- tech used by students w/ teacher facilitation
• 2 ITLA vs. 0 non-ITLA

19. Current course Wiki: http://intc4650.wikispaces.com
Used to house all course details
Students track work and collaborate via wiki
All ITLA students given iPod Touch for use during course
http://intc4610.wikispaces.com/iPod+Touch+Presentation
Added headsets and working on purchase of Chromebooks for next
cohort
First 5 sessions focus on exploration of tools in 4 main areas &
speaking w/K-12 experts
Next 5 sessions online via Google Hangout w/featured topic each
week and time to collaborate w/instructor and other students
Last 2 sessions for sharing experiences and preparing for next term
ITLA Ning: (includes first ITLA alumni) http://itla20.ning.com

20. TICS Pre-Test Results for Spring 2013
**28 items (5 points per item- level of self efficacy)
ITLA students efficacy (SE) average total score: 121.70
(n=11)
INTC 3610 SE average total score: 110.00 (n=27)
EDUC 4101 SE average total score 111.44 (n= 35)
EDUC 4600 SE average total score 119.79 (n=26)

21. ITLA INTC 3610 EDUC 4101 EDUC 4600
I - Technology 4.74 3.94 4.29 4.51
Operations and
Concepts 1-8
II - Planning and
Designing Learning 4.41 4.12 4.02 4.30
Environments and
Experiences 9-15
III - Teaching,
Learning, and the 4.14 3.98 3.96 4.24
Curriculum 16-20
IV - Assessment and
Evaluation 21-24
4.25 3.95 4.00 4.34
V - Productivity and
Professional Practice 3.90 3.67 3.30 3.67
25-28

23. ITLA pre-test on aspects
of tech knowledge
• A set of 10 open-ended questions were reviewed for accuracy
• Mostly understood
• 21st century skills- highest
• Technology for assessment
• Meaning of instructional technology
• Some knowledge but limited
• Use of social media in classroom
• Wiki versus blog
• Engaging students
• Online learning
• Minimal to no knowledge of
• Learning management systems
• Flipped classrooms
• When to select technology for teaching

24. Qualitative -Teaching Observations
A
ITL
a nt A
art icip Student teaching – Geometry at high school level
P
Technology Available
Organization of room
Document camera;
Rows then
interactive whiteboard;
switched to clusters of 3
4 computers in
back of room + teacher computer
Style and Strategies
2/3 of class didactic teaching of basic skills
1/3 of class somewhat constructivist
and trying for slightly more complex and higher order skills
Teacher led discussion and questioning,
with informal collaborative learning

25. Qualitative -Teaching Observations
ITLA
Participant nt B
a B Student teaching – Math at 7th grade level
P articip
Technology Available
Interactive whiteboard; Organization of room
Presentation software Rows
response system;
teacher computer
Style and Strategies
2/3 of class didactic teaching of basic skills
1/3 of class somewhat constructivist
Teacher led discussion and questioning
Worked examples on SMART Board
and used response system to check student
comprehension

26. With new group starting, plans are too:
Compare pre-post ITLA students to TEDU students
TICS for self-efficacy
Field Observations
Portfolios of coursework

27. References
• Lambert, J., Gong, Y., & Cuper P. (2008). Technology, Transfer, and Teaching: The
Impact of a Single Technology Course on Preservice Teachers’ Computer
Attitudes and Ability. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 16(4), 385-410.
• Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change:
How knowledge, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 42, 255-284.
• Richardson, G. (2012). What More Can We Do? Analyzing the Impact of
Preservice Teacher Technology Training on Subsequent Classroom Technology
Integration. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of the Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 2386-2392).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
• Ward, G. & Overall, T. (2010). Pre-Service Teacher Technology Integration: The
Team-Taught Cohort Model and TPACK. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.),
Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference 2010 (pp. 3944-3951). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

28. Email:
Norma Boakes, EDUC-
Norma.Boakes@stockton.edu
Doug Harvey, MAIT- harveyd@stockton.edu
Blogs: http://wp.stockton.edu/ITLA or
http://harveyd.edublogs.org