This article examines a study that surveyed 96 school districts regarding the technology skills expected of new teachers. The study found that districts expect new teachers to seamlessly integrate technology into daily lessons as a supporting tool to enhance learning, rather than teaching technology as a separate subject. Universities can better prepare teachers by modeling technology integration in every course, not just teaching technology skills in isolation. Suggestions include requiring technology use for all coursework and giving preservice teachers hands-on experience with technology during fieldwork.

1. NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
VOLUME 30, NUMBER 3, 2013
58
TECHNOLOGY & NEW TEACHERS:
WHAT DO SCHOOL DISTRICTS EXPECT
FROM THEIR NEW HIRES?
Lorrie Webb,Ph.D.
James Jurica, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University-San Antonio
ABSTRACT
This article is an exploratory examination of data collected from 96 school
districts regarding the technology skills that future teachers should be taught in
public schools. Several suggestions are made by study respondents regarding
the changing needs of technology skills expected of new teachers with
implications for instruction in university educator preparation programs.
Future analysis of data from this preliminary study could be useful for future
policy recommendations for school administrators in terms of hiring
expectations and considerations for evaluating and hiring prospective teachers
for public school classrooms.
Introduction
Today‟s educators are pressured to meet the needs of the
students they serve (Williams, Foulger, & Wetzel, 2009). The
Consortium for School Networking (2004) discovered that the internet
was rarely implemented effectively in classrooms, even though 99
percent of elementary and secondary schools have access to the
resource. Universities are struggling to prepare future educators with
the skills needed today, as well as for future technologies. One
challenge is in determining the specific skills these educators will need
(Albee, 2003). “As future students enter their college programs with
more previous exposure to technology, the specific skill development

2. WEBB&JURICA59
needed during their college tenure may look increasingly different
(Collier, Weinburgh, & Rivera, 2004). Donovan and Green (2009)
stated that technology will eventually become as integral as classroom
management in teacher education programs. In order to attain this
goal, research is needed on the expectations that school districts have
on teacher graduates. This study attempted to discover these
expectations in one metropolis area.
Literature Review
Two primary areas of research related to this research project:
characteristics of “digital native” students and preparing teachers to
address these characteristics in their future students. The term “digital
native” has been coined to represent those who have grown up in the
digital age – not having experienced a world without digital media
(Prensky, 2001). According to Small andVorgan (2008), these
students‟ brains were conditioned differently due to the frequent use of
digital media such as email, video games, VOIP, and texting. Students
were no longer passive viewers but active participants. They were
motivated by the desire to be busy and stay connected through
multitasking (Sprenger, 2009).
Tapscott (2009) found that the average 8 to 18 year old spends
approximately 6 hours a day connected to some digital communication
device – sometimes several simultaneously. Lewin (2010) discovered
that an average young American spent at least three hours a day on a
mobile device: one half of an hour talking, two hours consuming
media, and one hour receiving and sending over 500 texts. They were
able to interact with 11 hours of media in only seven and a half hours
due to multitasking. Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) characterized
digital natives as highly social and quick reactors who craved
immediacy and expected the same from others. They are “more
visually literate than previous generations… able to weave together
images, text, and sound in a natural way” (Oblinger&Oblinger, 2005,
p. 2.5). These students also preferred team-based learning in order to
stay connected with others.

3. 60NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
Today‟s students are “in danger of experiencing their education
as irrelevant to their wired lives” (Kitsis, 2010, p. 50). Current teacher
preparation programs need to be able to address the needs of these
digital natives, who will eventually be students in their classrooms.
Technology has normally been addressed in one of two ways in
teacher education programs: a single course or two devoted to teaching
with technology or an integration approach weaving technology
throughout methods courses. Both approaches have their problems. No
single technology course effectively addresses all issues (Brown
&Warschauer, 2006); yet, integration programs do not seem to model
technology within methods courses adequately (Adamy&Boulmetis,
2006). Since the digital native students in the future classrooms could
very well know more about the technologies available, a shift in
teacher education programs is beginning to occur. Instead of
continuing to teach about new technologies, programs should prepare
teachers to learn about new technologies on their own and to
implement them in meaningful ways (Williams, Foulger, & Wetzel,
2009). However, in order to feel confident in learning new
technologies, preservice teachers need foundational technology skills.
Several studies attempted to determine technology skills of preservice
teachers, as well as specific skills needed.
In Northwestern Pennsylvania, education majors completed a
survey based on perceptions of their computer skills (Fleming,
Motamedi, & May, 2007). The study determined that the preservice
teachers perceived their computer skills as less than average in 14
areas. Ninety-six percent of the students surveyed owned their own
computer and used it at least three to five hours each week, yet felt
inadequately prepared to use technology (Fleming, Motamedi, & May,
2007). Benson, Farnsworth, Bahr, Lewis, and Shaha (2004) assessed
preservice teachers‟ technology skills during their first year in the
teacher education program, followed by mid-program and post-
program surveys, and an exit interview. The results of the initial
survey showed knowledge and skills to be minimal with the
exceptions of word processing and the Internet. After taking the
required technology course, the students‟ skill levels showed
statistically significant increases in all areas. The post-program survey

4. WEBB&JURICA61
showed a slight decrease in technology proficiency levels, however.
The exit interview resulted in some positive outcomes. According to
the preservice teachers the two most important aspects gained included
knowledge of software programs and preparedness to use technology
in their future classrooms (Benson et al., 2004). The study
demonstrated how coursework can positively impact students‟
technology skills. “However, without continual reinforcement of the
use of technology, skill level will not be maintained” (Benson et al.,
2004, p. 659).
Schaffhauser (2009) addressed the Technological, Pedagogical,
Content, Knowledge (TPACK) instruction in teacher preparation at
Iowa State. Teacher candidates were allowed to check out equipment
such as iPods, computers, digital cameras, etc. in lots of 10 to use
during their field work in the schools. This alleviated the inequity
issue of technologies they were taught to integrate in their coursework
and the actual equipment available to them in their field work. Mouza
and Wong (2009) hypothesized that case development could help
teachers develop TPACK. They conducted a four-stage study
involving students enrolled in a specific course. During stage one,
teachers identified a pedagogical problem. In stage two, they
developed a technology plan to address the problem. Then the teachers
enacted the technology plan in field-based classroom assignments and
recorded the activities. Finally, the teachers wrote an educative case
during stage four. Mouza and Wong collected data from written cases,
online discussions, and in-depth interviews. The authors proved their
hypothesis; an increased growth in the teachers‟ TPACK occurred, and
teachers engaged in effective reflective practice (Mouza& Wong,
2009).
“Numerous courses in teacher education are not preparing
preservice teachers to use technology because specific technology skill
needs have not been identified, and there is a lack of technology
integration modeled by professors in teacher education courses”
(Albee, 2003, p. 54). Albee (2003) attempted to find solutions to this
problem in a triangulated study. An analysis of administrators‟
expectations of new teachers, preservice teachers‟ perceptions of
preparedness, and coursework technology requirements was evaluated.

5. 62NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
The results confirmed the need for increased technology skill
preparedness. Students conveyed a high level of discrepancy between
expectations of technology use while student teaching and self-
assessed proficiency levels. Results from surveys regarding
technology requirements in program courses revealed a lack of
consistency (Albee, 2003). The expectations of district administrators
can assist teacher preparation programs in determining technology
skills that need to be addressed. The study presented here attempted to
determine the needs of districts in one metropolis area.
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to collect data on technologies
(both hardware and software) available to and used by teachers in
North Texas public school districts. Specifically, the study attempted
to answer the following questions:
1. What software technologies will be available for use by new
teachers?
2. What hardware technologies will be available for use by new
teachers?
3. What do school districts expect from new teachers regarding
technology integration into their teaching?
4. What do school districts expect from new teachers regarding
technology utilization in their job responsibilities?
5. What can universities do to improve their teacher education
program in the areas of technology?
Participants consisted of technology administrators from 98
North Texas districts (from Tarrant County, Dallas County, and all
bordering counties). An email was sent requesting input in the form of
an electronic survey concerning current technologies used in each
district. A follow-up email was sent to those who did not respond
within 2 weeks.

6. WEBB&JURICA63
An electronic survey consisting of quantitative and qualitative
questions was used to gather data. The survey developed by the
researchers included items related to technologies available to
elementary and secondary students and teachers, as well as district
demographics. Qualitative data came from a semi-structured
conversational approach. Qualitative data concerning opinions of
what new teachers needed in areas of technology utilization and
integration and opinions on what universities could do to improve
teacher education programs in these areas was analyzed for key
word/phrase commonalities. Some secondary data, of district
demographics, was collected as well. While statistical and qualitative
data are being analyzed for future studies, the findings reported below
provide some preliminary insights informing the issue of technology
skills expected of 21st
Century teachers.
Preliminary Findings
Open-ended questions developed by the researchers sought to
answer what training and skills are needed by new teachers in the area
of technology and how universities could assist in that endeavor. The
following are representative quotes from participants for each of the
open-ended questions.
1. What area(s) of technology do your teachers need more
training/skills? Integration of technology versus teaching
technology was a consistent theme.
a. “They need to see how to enhance their curriculum and
not add more to the curriculum.”
b. “#1 need is to create the understanding that technology
should be seamless in its instructional use in the
classroom. It should not be separate instruction.”
c. “Seamless integration of technology into their daily
lessons. They use technology as a personal tool but not
a tool with the students to enhance learning and make it
more relative to our 21st century learners.”

7. 64NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
d. “Technology integration into the curriculum, using
technology as a SUPPORTING TOOL rather than the
focus in a lesson.”
2. How can universities better prepare new teachers for
integrating technology? Answers centered on modeling
technology integration.
a. “All university classes need to be modeling technology
integration. Online, problem-based/project-based and
robust technology skills should be demonstrated as well
as expected from the students. Do not teach the
technology as skill-based, isolated courses. They do not
know how to link to the curriculum unless they have
had practice. Use and understand the Texas Essential
Knowledge and Skills standards. Allow teachers to
practice their content by developing their integration
skills.”
b. “Deliver instruction to you university students in the
same ideal manner that they will (should) be delivering
content to their students. Engaging, collaborative, 24/7
access to content and resources should be encouraged.”
c. “They need to include technology integration in every
course as an integral part of the course and not a
separate unit.”
d. “By example with hands on use and integration into
projects, lesson planning, etc.”
3. Other comments/suggestions on how universities can improve
their teacher preparation program pertaining to technology.
a. “The focus on 21st Century skills needs to begin with
the university professors and staff. They need to model,
model, model. Teachers should not be taking copious
notes from an overhead or data projector and expect to
produce a different outcome. The need for a tighter
linkage between K-12 and higher education needs to
begin with higher ed. learning, understanding, and

8. WEBB&JURICA65
teaching teachers according to their content and not just
a broad stroke of content with technology as an add-on.
Allow practitioners to use the technology to
collaborate, monitor, produce, and create learning
communities with their education plan.”
b. “In the last few years, I have seen improvement in new
college grads with respect to some fundamental
computer uses. They seem able to handle the basics or
essentials that their job requires - email, word
processing, using clip art, Power Point, posting on web
pages. I suspect that is just an societal effect from Web
2.0 and the enthusiasm that young adults have for
Facebook, YouTube, etc. Many still lack the
fundamentals that make them technology literate vs.
competent. Model, model, model the use of technology
in your own classrooms. Require the use of technology
in everything that your students do. Make sure you
have all the modern tools - data projectors, document
cameras, electronic whiteboards, clickers, etc. If there's
a way to fit it into your program somehow, take them to
TCEA, area conferences, vendor fairs, etc. You might
even ask vendors to come into your classes and
demonstrate their products. Give them a look at what
might be waiting out there for them to utilize in their
own classrooms. You might help them know what to
look for in a school district when they take that first
job. If there's one thing I wish our existing teachers
could do, it would be to spend time observing teachers
and students in a technology infused environment so
they could see the difference that it makes with the
students.”
Conclusions
“All teachers should engage students in effective technology

9. 66NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
learning experiences that challenge them to think in-depth about
relevant technology content and processes in a learning environment
that is founded in contemporary pedagogical practices” (Ginns,
Norton, McRobbie, & Davis, 2007, p. 198). Oblinger andOblinger
(2005) have determined four critical questions university faculty and
administrators should ask themselves:
Who are the learners?
How are they different from the educators?
What learning activities are most engaging?
Are there ways to use technology to make learning more
successful?
These questions are just as valid for new teachers in elementary and
secondary settings. More technology is not necessarily the answer;
interactive technology, however, engages digital natives‟ quest for
experiential learning.

10. WEBB&JURICA67
References
Albee, J. J. (2003). A study of preservice elementary teachers‟
technology skill preparedness and examples of how it can be
increased.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11
(1), 53-71.
Benson, L. F., Farnsworth, B. J., Bahr, D. L., Lewis, V. K., &Shaha,
S. H. (2004). The impact of training in technology assisted
instruction on skills and attitudes of pre-service teachers.
Education, 124(4), 649-663.
Brown, D.,&Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the
elementary classroom: Students‟ experiences in learning to
integrate technology in instruction. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 14(3), 599-621.
Collier, S., Weinburgh, M. H., & Rivera, M. (2004). Infusing
technology skills into a teacher education program: Change in
students‟ knowledge about and use of technology. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 447-468.
Consortium of School Networking.(2004). Digital divide leadership.
Retrieved from
http://www.cosn.org/resources/grunwald/digital_leadership_di
vide.pdf
Donovan, L.,& Green, T. (2009). Two-way mirror: Technology-rich
K-8 and teacher education programs. Action in Teacher
Education, 30(4), 45-55.
Fleming, L., Motamedi, V., & May, L. (2007). Predicting preservice
teacher competence in computer technology: Modeling and
application in training environments.Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 15(2), 207-231.
Ginns, I. S., Norton, S. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Davis, R. S. (2007).
Can twenty years of technology education assist „grass roots‟
syllabus implementation? International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 17, 197-215.
Kitsis, S. (2010). The virtual circle.Educational Leadership, 68(1), 50-
54.

11. 68NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
Lewin, T. (2010). If your kids are awake, they‟re probably online. The
New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/education/20wired.html
Mouza, C.,& Wong, W. (2009).Studying classroom practice: Case
development for professional learning in technology
integration.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17
(2), 175-202.
Oblinger, D. G.,&Oblinger, J. L. (Eds). (2005). Is it age or IT: First
steps toward understanding the net generation. Educating the
Net Generation. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen
Prensky, M. (2001,October). Digital natives, digital immigrants.On
the Horizon,9(5), 1-6.Retrieved from
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing
Schaffhauser, D. (2009). Which came first – the technology or the
pedagogy? THE Journal, 36(8), 27-32.
Small, G.,&Vorgan, G. (2008).iBrain. New York, NY: Collins Living.
Sprenger, M. (2009).Focusing the digital brain.Educational
Leadership, 67(1), 34-49.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Growing up digital. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Williams, M. K., Foulger, T. S., & Wetzel, K. (2009).Preparing
preservice teachers for 21st
century classrooms: Transforming
attitudes and behaviors about innovative technology.Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3), 393-418.