This study investigated technology use by university faculty and students in an education program to determine if faculty model technology integration and if students employ technology in courses. A survey found that while some faculty incorporate certain technologies like software and the internet, overall faculty do not model most technology types. There was also a discrepancy between the technology integration faculty modeled and what was expected of students. University faculty modeled substantially less technology use than students were expected to demonstrate.

1. COVERPAGE & ABSTRACT INFORMATION
Title
Do University Faculty Model Technology Integration?
Terry Fakeperson
University of Patagonia, Chile
Abstract
The integration of technology into the classroom through
instructor-modeled and learner-centered means is recommended
best practice for teacher preparation. Using a self-report survey,
this study investigated technology use by faculty in a university
school of education program to determine (a) if university
faculty model technology use within the learning environment,
and (b) if student’s employ technology within educator
preparation courses. Both were found to be dependent on the
type of technology available. Overall results indicated (a)
faculty do not model most technology integration types, and (b)
a discrepancy exists between faculty modeling of technology
integration and required student demonstration of technology
integration. University faculty model less technology use than is
expected of those enrolled in a teacher preparation program.
BEGIN BODY OF TEXT
University professors are are encouraged to model technology
use within their instruction. (Insert reference #1 here) To create
effective learning environments, certain essential conditions
must be met: (a) the use of technology for traditional teaching,

2. (b) the facilitation of content learning, and (c) technology use
in the learning environment both in coursework and field
experiences (Insert reference #2 here)
Teacher preparation must address competencies required for
technology use by PreK-12 teachers (Insert reference #3 here).
The Ed Tech teacher endorses the integration of instructional
technology into teacher preparation coursework within six
categories that are relevant to both groups. The categories
include: Technology Operations and Concepts; Planning and
Designing Learning Environments and Experiences; Teaching,
Learning, and Curriculum; Assessment and Evaluation;
Productivity and Professional Practice; and, Social, Ethical,
Legal, and Human Issues (Insert reference #4 here).
In a discussion of technology in teacher preparation, Farnsworth
(Insert reference #5 here) present four possible approaches:
single course; technology infusion; student performance; and
case-based. The first two approaches relate directly to faculty
expertise in technology and the modeling of its use. Although
the single course approach is taught by faculty experts and is
easiest on implementation and record-keeping, negatives
include poor integration of technology in content areas, lack of
attention to individual technology knowledge differences, and a
relatively short time frame for learning and technology use to
occur. A single course usually presents only a functional view
of technology with no focus on how to use it in a classroom.
The technology infusion approach includes the integration of
technology use in each course of a teacher preparation program.
This approach offers opportunities for long-term technology use
and the modeling of technology use in content area courses
(repeat reference to #5 here). However, the technology infusion
approach may result in inconsistent modeling of technology use
by faculty.
Features prominently delineated by research results as deficient

3. include: (a) faculty do not model technology use; do not
facilitate implementation in coursework; often do not have the
expertise to develop technology-mediated instruction; lack the
skills for troubleshooting technical problems; (b) research in the
area of making informed programming decisions is lacking;
systematic training procedures to assist faculty and students in
using new technologies have yet to be developed; and, (c)
technology competencies are usually add-ons, rather than
integrated into coursework; future special educators are more
likely to use technology competently if it has been embedded in
coursework and field experiences (Repeat reference #2 here).
Therefore, it is appropriate for Teacher preparation programs to
gather information related to the degree of technology
integration within teacher candidates’ university coursework.
face-to-face learning environments.
Many times, communications that occur in face-to-face learning
environments, can be enhanced through instructional technology
elements. Synchronous interactive activities (e.g., chat sessions,
video conferences and white boards) are easily incorporated
into a face-to-face environment to enhance the learning
environment and to model the integration of synchronous
interactive activities. For this reason, interactive activities
should be considered when focusing upon the integration of
technology within a face-to-face learning environment and may
enhance the instructor’s as well as the teacher candidates’ use
of instructional technologies within a learning environment.
BEGIN METHODS SECTION
Method
This study used a self-report survey to determine (a) if
university faculty modeled technology use within the learning
environment, and (b) if faculty incorporated teacher candidates’
technology use within educator preparation courses.

4. For the purpose of this study, the researchers addressed the
questions: Do the university faculty who prepare teachers model
technology use in the courses they teach? What types of
technology use, if any, are demonstrated by teacher candidates
in those courses.
A total of 26 full-time faculty members within the School of
Education at a regional university completed the survey
questionnaire. Student enrollment for the Fall semester
previous to the administration of the survey was 1547 with 548
undergraduates and 999 graduate students. Enrollment in the
Spring semester at the time of the administration of the survey
was 1771 with 699 undergraduate students and 1074 graduate
students.
This study utilized the Technology Integration Survey for
Faculty (High Plains Regional Technology in Education
Consortium, 2001). Items were designed to obtain information
related to the degree of technology integration of the faculty
members, as well as the faculty requirements of the educators in
training within the faculty member’s classroom learning
environment. The responses to the survey questionnaire are
evaluated on a 4-point Likert-type scale and include the
following designations: (1) strongly disagree; (2) somewhat
disagree; (3) somewhat agree; and, (4) strongly agree.
Results
Results of the survey indicated that technology use by
university faculty as well as by university students is dependent
on the type of technology integration. In summary, results
indicate that (a) faculty do not model most technology
integration types, and (b) a discrepancy exists between faculty
modeling of technology integration and demonstration of
technology integration by students in the courses. University
faculty model substantially less technology use than is expected

5. of the university students enrolled in the educator preparation
program.
Some faculty (a) are incorporating software packages into
subject-specific courses; (b) are using scanners, digital
cameras, video cameras, and voice recognition programs to
develop and deliver subject-specific instructional units in their
teaching areas; (c) are using video conferencing; and, (d) are
using the Internet to gather resources for teaching in their
subject areas of expertise. However, faculty report that they do
not use a computer with projection devices to develop and
deliver instructional materials in their subject areas.
When the faculty participants responded as to whether they used
a variety of software packages to teach in their subject area,
62.5% of the participants stated that they do use software
packages while only 46.2% of the surveyed faculty stated that
they use spreadsheet applications when teaching. When asked
about the implementation of a scanner to develop and deliver
instruction, 76% of the participants answered as not utilizing
scanners. Additionally, 84.6% stated that they do not use
digital cameras to enhance their teaching.
When asked about their use of projection devices, word
processing, and use of multimedia, 53.8%, 88.5%, and 69.2% of
the participants, respectively, confirmed that they did
incorporate these elements into their teaching. Similarly, 88.4%
of the participants positively noted that they used the Internet in
an informed manner and 69.3% agreed that they used lesson
plans and other resources published on the World Wide Web in
their subject-specific learning environments.
INSERT FORMATTED TABLE 1 NEAR HERE
Table 1
Faculty Modeling of Technology Use

6. Technology Tools
Frequency
Percent
Software Packages
16
61.5
Scanner
6
24
Digital Camera
4
15.4
Video Camera
2
7.7
Projection Devices
14
53.8
Word Processing
23
88.5
Spreadsheet
12
46.2
Multimedia Software
18
69.2
Recommend Software
14
53.8
Distance Education
24
53.8
Critique Internet

7. 23
88.5
Published on the Web
18
69.2
Multimedia
8
30.8
Create a Web Page
5
19.2
Eighty-eight percent of the participants do not integrate
elements of a Web-enhanced learning environment to support
the learners. Concerning the learner-developed digital product
expectation, 57.7% of participants do not have this expectation
within their courses. Participants report that 53.8% do not focus
upon technological enhancements of diverse learning
environments when focused upon the teacher candidate’s
integration. Lastly, 53.8% of participants do not integrate
learner-centered group work into the learning environments.
However, the participants report positive strides towards the
learner-focused integration of technologies. The participants
report that 61.5% focus upon software use by the teacher
candidates. As well, 53.8% of the participants incorporate
higher order thinking skills through the integration of
technology into the teacher candidate’s learning environment.
Perhaps the most significant self-report response by the
participants was that 88.5% of the participants report the
integration of learner-centered Internet use within their course
instructional design. (See Figure 1.)
INSERT FORMATTED FIGURE 1 NEAR HERE – name the
figure Technology Tools

8. Technology Use
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
So
ftw
ar
e
Pa
ck
ag
es

9. Sc
an
ne
r
D
ig
ita
l C
am
er
a
Vi
de
o
Ca
m
er
a
Pr
oj
ec
tio
n
D
ev

10. ic
es
W
or
d
Pr
oc
es
si
ng
Sp
re
ad
sh
ee
t
M
ul
tim
ed
ia
S
of
tw

11. ar
e
Re
co
m
m
en
d
So
ftw
ar
e
D
is
ta
nc
e
Ed
uc
at
io
n
Cr
iti
qu
e

12. In
te
rn
et
Pu
bl
is
he
d
on
th
e
W
eb
M
ul
tim
ed
ia
Cr
ea
te
a
W
eb
P

13. ag
e
Tools
P
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e
s
Technology Use
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
S
o
f
tw
a

14. r
e
Pa
ck
a
ge
s
S
ca
n
n
e
r
D
i
gi
ta
l
C
a
m
e
r
a
V
i
de
o
C
a
m
e
r

15. a
Pr
o
j
e
cti
o
n
D
e
v
i
ce
s
W
o
r
d
Pr
o
ce
ssi
n
g
S
pr
e
a
dsh
e
e
t
M
u
l

16. ti
m
e
di
a
S
o
f
tw
a
r
e
R
e
co
m
m
e
n
d
S
o
f
tw
a
r
e
D
i
sta
n
ce
E
du

17. ca
ti
o
n
C
r
i
ti
qu
e
I
n
te
r
n
e
t
Pu
bl
i
sh
e
d
o
n
th
e
W
e
b
M
u
l

18. ti
m
e
di
a
C
r
e
a
te
a
W
e
b
Pa
ge
Tools
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
The appropriate and successful integration of technology into
the course objectives and expectations within the teacher
candidate’s university coursework portrays the suggestion that
technology infusion is occurring within a learner-centered

19. focus. Nonetheless, convenience sample, sample size and the
use of self-report data limit the findings of this study. The
appropriate and successful integration of instructional
technology within a learner-centered instructional format may
slowly become a consideration within the instructional design
of the teacher candidate’s course of study.Discussion
This study addressed two questions: (a) Do the university
faculty who prepare teachers model technology use in the
courses they teach? (b) What types of technology use, if any,
are demonstrated by teacher candidates in those courses.
Although both were found to be dependent on the type of
technology integration, overall results indicated (a) faculty do
not model most technology integration types, and (b) a
discrepancy exists between faculty modeling of technology
integration and required demonstration of technology
integration. University faculty model substantially less
technology use than is expected of those enrolled in an educator
preparation program.
Conclusions
The field of instructional technology is slowly permeating a
wider expanse of coursework within teacher education units.
However, the permeation of instructional technology may be
focused within a learner-centered model of instruction.
Technology integration towards a supportive learning
environment that focuses upon the individualized needs of the
learners and with the inclusion of concerns towards the
achievement of learners with disabilities can begin to model the
appropriate and successful integration of technology into the
learning environment. University faculty focusing their efforts
upon preparing teacher candidates for the real-world learning
environment must focus their attention upon the learner-
centered integration of technology and the modeling of
technological tools to meet learning objectives.

20. References
Reference #1
Author(s)
James L. Sampano
Title
Technology Using Professors: Who’s in Charge?
Type of Publication
(Journal) Journal of Technology Integration, Volume 67 page
56-68.
Year
2001
Reference #2
Author(s)
Mary Kelly and Debbie Carson
Title
Technology in Teacher Education: An Introduction to Tech
Integration
Type of Publication (Entire Book 2nd. Edition) Chicago, South
Bay Publishing.
Year
2005

21. Reference #3
Author(s)
Dennis Parker
Title
Technology Skills for Pre-Service Teachers
Type of Publication (Web Page) Web Site Title – The Ed Tech
Teacher Spot, URL is http://www.fakepageTechTeacher.org.
Year
2006, Date Accessed is today
Reference #4
Authors(s)
Margaret Gilligan and Anthony Tipton
Title
Preparing teachers for the future: Technology in teacher
preparation.
Type of Publication (Journal) Journal of Teachers and
Educational Technology. Volume 7, pages 303-321
Year
2002
Reference #5
Author(s) Alice Farnsworth
Title

22. What every teacher should know about technology.
Type of Publication (Technical Report) Center for Technology
and Schooling Report # 15.
Year
2004
Remember, you do not change the order of the authors to
alphabetize – order matters.
This last reference has been formatted for you – you simply
need to place it in the correct alphabetical order.
High Plains Regional Technology in Education Consortium
(2001). Technology integration survey for faculty. Retrieved
August 3, 2001, from http://profiler.hprtec.org/smf/survey.jsp
_1108465730.xls
Chart1Software PackagesScannerDigital CameraVideo
CameraProjection DevicesWord
ProcessingSpreadsheetMultimedia SoftwareRecommend
SoftwareDistance EducationCritique InternetPublished on the
WebMultimediaCreate a Web Page
Tools
Percentages
Technology Use
61.5
24
15.4
7.7
53.8
88.5
46.2
69.2
53.8
53.8

23. 88.5
69.2
30.8
19.2
Sheet1Software Packages61.5Scanner24Digital
Camera15.4Video Camera7.7Projection Devices53.8Word
Processing88.5Spreadsheet46.2Multimedia
Software69.2Recommend Software53.8Distance
Education53.8Critique Internet88.5Published on the
Web69.2Multimedia30.8Create a Web Page19.2
Sheet1
Tools
Percentages
Technology Use
Sheet2
Sheet3
Name
ETE 501 APA Formatting Rubric
Category
0
.5
1
Score
Line Spacing / Font Size
Not double-spaced.
Double-spaced some of the time.
Double-spaced throughout, Font size at least 12 point
Title Page
No title page or combined with abstract.
Separate title page numbered 1.

24. Title page with running head for publication, title, byline, and
institutional affiliation. (
Abstract
No abstract or abstract indented
Separate abstract page numbered 2.
Upper and lower case Abstract - paragraph in block style.
Paragraph
First line not indented.
Incorrect - includes extra lines (returns) after paragraphs.
Line indented 1/2 inch
Citations
Not included
Included but have minor errors
Included and accurate
Headings (level 1)
Not Centered
Centered upper and lowercase
Plain text
Table title
Table and Arabic numeral not flush left at top of table.
Flush left title
Above the table ()
Table Spacing, format, readability
Not double spaced, Cells bordered, Data disorganized
Content double spaced, Vertical borders removed, Spacing
inconsistent
Content and headings double spaced, Only horizontal borders
that assist in understanding data included. Neat, orderly,
alignment makes easier to read

25. Figure
Figure caption not flush left, not italic not below figure.
Flush left caption below figure.
Flush left caption below figure. caption italic – description-
plain text.
0
1
3
Individual References
5 total
More than 2 errors
One error in form
Meets APA style requirements
Ex

26. Total Score
/
Note you have a possible 12 points to get a maximum of 11
points.