NATRI AT Resources: Reports: Higher Education Case Study

Examine the findings of a case study that traced more than 35 years of activities related to the development and implementation of technology curricula in a university Department of Special Education. Review the 24 major findings and the implications that those have for college faculty and administrators who are involved in providing instruction about technology applications in special education.

Introduction

In 1994, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) conducted a comprehensive study of factors that affect the use of technology by teachers and how they relate to the integration of technology in our nation’s schools. Following is one of the major findings of that investigation:

Technology is not central to the teacher preparation experience in most colleges of education. Consequently, most new teachers graduate from teacher preparation institutions with limited knowledge of the ways technology can be used in their professional practice. (OTA, 1995, p. 165)

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) conducted a more recent study for the Milken Exchange on Education Technology (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999). Faculty at 416 institutions of higher education (IHEs) were surveyed about technology course offerings, faculty capacity, facilities, field experience opportunities, and the technology skills of graduates of their teacher preparation programs. This sample represented approximately one-third of the IHEs in the United States which produced approximately 90,000 teachers for the 1997-98 school year.

A primary conclusion of that study was that...in general, teacher-training programs do not provide future teachers with the kinds of experiences necessary to prepare them to use technology effectively in their classrooms (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999, Foreword). Although there was evidence that the infrastructure was adequate, or better, about one-third of the respondents indicated that their technology efforts were hindered by deficiencies in facilities. Lack of technology plans at IHEs also was identified as a contributing factor to the above conclusion. Although nearly 85% of the IHEs reported that their students took formal coursework in technology, the researchers concluded that there was insufficient integration of technology into existing courses.

Although the findings of the Milken/ISTE survey did not focus specifically on the preparation of special education teachers, there is no evidence that the situation is any different for those who are being prepared to be special education teachers. The survey did include one question related to special education, however. The most frequently reported response (the mode) for that question was the belief that only 25% to 50% of the graduates were able to recognize when a student with special needs may benefit significantly by the use of adaptive technology and that they could work with a specialist to make such services available. Fifteen percent of respondents reported that they didn’t know whether their students could perform those tasks. It is unknown whether those responding were doing so within the perspective of general or special education. Regardless, those ratings suggest that there is considerable work to be done with respect to preparing graduates of teacher education programs to work with students who have disabilities.

One of the recommendations of the Milken/ISTE study was to examine how the IHEs that reported the highest level of success approached their efforts to prepare their students to apply technology after graduation. The study reported in this article is an effort to respond to that recommendation – specifically as it relates to the preparation of special education teachers.

Purpose

A case study was conducted in an attempt to identiWednesday, August 16, 2006 special education teacher preparation programs to integrate instruction about technology into the curriculum. Interviews and observations were conducted at a University that has had a long history of successful integration of instruction about technology into its basic and advanced special education personnel preparation programs. The lessons that were learned as a result of this investigation will be identified, accompanied by illustrative supporting evidence.

A description of the setting, curriculum offerings, and infrastructure will be described to provide a contextual foundation. Findings and supporting evidence related to five areas that emerged as important factors will then be presented. Those areas focus on the underpinnings that guided the conceptualization of the technology program, approaches that were taken to justify technology activities, procedures used for curriculum development, activities that were used to obtain resources, and issues related to faculty involvement and professional development. Finally, conclusions will be drawn concerning implications for practice.

A caveat should be noted from the onset. The special education department that was studied is a comprehensive one that has a significant history of conducting a variety of technology training, research, demonstration, and service products. Many of the technology projects that have been conducted, and are currently in progress, are unique to that program. However, the findings that are reported here focus primarily on the lessons that were learned which appear to have direct implications for integrating technology into the teacher preparation curriculum; consequently, they should have relevance to other IHEs, regardless of their size and resources that may be at their disposal. Naturally, the cautions that typically apply concerning generalizeability of results from single case studies also should be observed.

Context

“Enormous State University” (ESU) is a large, comprehensive Institution of Higher Education (IHE) that offers degree programs at the baccalaureate, masters, educational specialist, and doctoral levels. It also offers post-doctoral training opportunities. Programs in the College of Education at ESU are fully accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education and have regional accreditation from the Association of Colleges and Schools. It is one of 59 public universities in the United States that is designated as a Class I Research University by the Carnegie Foundation.

The Department of Special Education at ESU consists of 15 faculty members, with five each at the Assistant, Associate, and full Professor levels. Curriculum offerings prepare graduates to qualify for teacher certification either in the areas of mild learning and behavioral disabilities or moderate and severe disabilities. Graduate programs offer specializations in these same certification areas, plus specializations in early childhood special education, instructional or assistive technology, administration of special education programs, and distance education. Graduates of the doctoral program hold positions as special education faculty at IHEs, school administrators, and researchers. A post-doctoral program has provided technology training for more than 50 special education faculty members from other IHEs throughout the United States.

In addition to their instructional responsibilities, faculty in the Department are very involved in research activities. A number of research, demonstration, and training grants are in operation each year. During the 1999-2000 academic year extramural funding for projects operated by the Department amounted to approximately two million dollars.

The Technology Curriculum

The impetus for instruction about media, materials, and technology came as a result of a 1965 grant to establish and operate a regional Special Education Instructional Materials Center (SEIMC). An instructional materials library was part of the SEIMC and faculty actively incoroporated materials from that library into their classes. In addition, students were encouraged to borrow the latest materials and technology for use during their student teaching. Although many of the materials in the library were books and instructional kits, there were a number of audiovisual aids, teaching machines, and low- and medium-tech devices. When funding for the SEIMC ended after 12 years, the materials and media were transferred to the Instructional Media Center in the College of Education, where they continued to be available to faculty and students.

The department entered the high-tech age in the mid-1970's when Professor Ivor E. Tower obtained two grants to study the potential applications of communication satellites for delivering instruction to teachers of students with disabilities. Those studies included the first demonstration of how a satellite could be used to provide a live audio and video link between special educators separated by more than 2,000 miles.

The Department's entry into the personal computer age began in 1981 when Tower used his own funds to purchase an Apple II plus computer and printer and began to use it for word processing. Shortly thereafter, two other faculty members purchased computers. A grant from a philanthropic organization provided funds for five additional computers and the Dean of the College of Education allocated an old typing classroom for use as a computer lab. Within the next two years, salary savings resulting from grant activities were used to purchase additional computers and a full-blown computer lab was born.

Formal instruction in technology was initiated in 1984 with an experimental course, titled Microcomputers in Special Education. By 1989 the course was formally adopted by faculty, integrated into the special education curriculum as a required course for all special education certification students, and approved by the State Department of Education, as part of ESU’s special education teacher preparation curriculum. The course was continually revised and updated. In 1992, it was renamed, Technology in Special Education.

The content of the course included information about technology productivity tools (word processing, database management, spreadsheets, telecommunications, drawing and painting programs), software evaluation, instructional technology, assistive technology, and the development and management of technology programs for students enrolled in special education programs in public schools.

As technology expanded, it became apparent to Tower and his colleagues that there was too much content for a single course. Consequently, the assistive technology content was removed from the course in 1995 and it was retitled, Instructional Technology in Special Education. At the same time, the course, Prosthetics for Students with Disabilities, was revised and content on assistive technology was added to it. That course was retitled, Assistive Technology in Special Education. Both courses were required of all students preparing to be special education teachers.

In parallel developments, appropriate technology applications were infused into the content of other courses in the curriculum as faculty became more aware of technology applications that were appropriate (e.g., computerized test scoring programs, anchored instruction programs on management of students with emotional and behavioral problems, data collection programs, programs for generating graphs of behavioral data, specialized computer assisted instruction programs, and activities related to locating information on the World Wide Web.)

The Infrastructure

A gradual expansion in the technology infrastructure ensued from the first computer lab that was mentioned earlier. Under the leadership of three different Deans, an Apple IIe lab was developed to replace the Apple II Plus machines. The Apple IIe lab was replaced by a Macintosh LC lab, which was then upgraded to a Macintosh PowerPC teaching classroom in 1996. An IBM-compatible teaching classroom was developed, which was then upgraded with Pentium computers running Windows software, also in 1996. Both classrooms were equipped with computer projection systems and multimedia equipment and were upgraded to higher-end computers in the summer of 1999, with additional upgrades in the ensuing two summers.

Separate walk-in labs equipped with high-end Macintosh and Pentium Windows computers were developed in the College of Education in 1996. The College Instructional Technology Center (ITC) was upgraded with a variety of Macintosh and Windows computers which were available for students on a “walk-in” basis. Those labs also were upgraded to newer equipment in the summer of 1999.

In 1996 and 1997, the entire College of Education Complex was wired for high speed Internet access. All faculty and staff within the College currently have computers in their offices that are networked and connected to the Internet. In the summer of 2001, several classrooms in the College of Education and the auditorium were equipped as "smart classrooms". Permanent computer projection systems were installed with multimedia capabilities and access to the Internet.

Findings and Evidence

The findings and supporting evidence have been categorized and arranged in a sequence that appears to fit a logical progression in the development of technology content for delivery in special education personnel preparation programs. Findings are reported on the following topics: Conceptual Underpinnings, Justifying Technology Instruction, Technology Curriculum Development, Obtaining Technology Resources, and Faculty Considerations. The findings do not necessarily reflect the sequence used in studying the variables that were examined in the actual case. Rather, the sequence emerged as a result of the data analyses. The lessons learned during the case study are phrased as recommendations that are displayed in boxes, followed by brief summaries of supporting evidence.

Conceptual Underpinnings

Discussions with faculty members indicated that a number of philosophical positions, theories, and attitudes served as conceptual underpinnings for the technology activities in the Department. Of particular importance was the fact that there appeared to be consensus among faculty about the importance of those underpinnings and that they are highly valued. Following are descriptions of five major conceptual underpinnings that were identified.

FINDING: Technology Vision

Evidence

As technology activities within the Department evolved over a period of approximately 15 years, technology grew to be increasingly-valued by faculty and staff. As part of a strategic planning effort initiated in 1997, faculty identified three common themes that cut across all of the programs within the Department, which served to tie the diverse interests of faculty together. One of these was technology, the other two were distance education and research on the processes of personnel preparation.

The following excerpt from a strategic plan that was developed in 1997 illustrates the importance that Departmental faculty have placed on technology:

Thus, while the faculty each have their own special education or rehabilitation counseling specialties, which represent a diversity of program offerings, these three threads provide a common bond across faculty and programs. Consequently, it is our Vision that we need to build upon our past and current successes to strengthen our efforts in the areas of technology and distance education applications in special education and rehabilitation. We will use technology and distance education as the unifying theme in our future pursuit of excellence in our specialty areas of preparing personnel for careers in early childhood special education, learning and behavioral disabilities, moderate and severe disabilities, assistive technology, and rehabilitation counseling.

The high value placed on technology by the special education faculty at ESU emerged, partly, as the result of the conceptualization described in the next section.

FINDING: Types of Technology

Evidence

When Professor Tower first initiated technology training activities within the Department in 1982, the predominant emphasis was placed on microcomputers. Several faculty began using computers at about the same time and became strong advocates for their use. Others were either uninterested or resistive to the emphasis on computers and other machines that are commonly thought of when the topic of “technology” is broached.

Over the years, however, faculty attitudes changed considerably. The breakthrough apparently came when Tower proposed a broad perspective about technology that included the “technology of teaching”. Following is an excerpt from one of the Department’s long-range planning documents that provides the perspective that is currently held by faculty.

The technology of teaching refers to instructional approaches that are very systematically designed and applied in very precise ways. They typically include very well defined objectives, precise instructional procedures based upon the tasks that students are required to learn, small units of instruction that are carefully sequenced, a high degree of teacher activity, high levels of student involvement, liberal use of reinforcement, and careful monitoring of student performance. Instructional procedures that embody many of these principles include approaches such as direct instruction applied behavior analysis, competency-based instruction, learning strategies, and response prompting.

Instructional technology combines the use of systematic methods and various pieces of equipment in the curriculum. Such applications may use conventional media such as videotapes, computer assisted instruction, or more complex systems, such as hypermedia programs in which computers are used to control the display of audio and visual images stored on videodisc or CD-ROM, and use of telecommunication systems, such as the Internet and its World Wide Web component when related to the delivery of distance education.

Assistive technology employs the use of various types of services and devices designed to help people with disabilities function within the environment. Examples include communication aids, alternative computer keyboards, adaptive switches, and services such as those that might be provided by speech/language pathologists.

Medical and rehabilitation technologies provide support to enable many people with disabilities to stay alive and function within the environment. Such technologies can provide respiratory assistance, monitor life processes, provide nutritive assistance, and supply prosthetic and orthotic devices to enable people to perform tasks that would be difficult or impossible without such devices.

Technology productivity tools are a combination of hardware and software used to enable individuals to enhance their ability to work faster and more effectively and efficiently. Examples are the use of word processors, information databases, electronic spreadsheets, e-mail, expert systems, drawing and graphing, and telecommunication systems.

Information technologies can provide access to knowledge and resources that can facilitate the use and application of each of the prior types of technology. Notable among the various resources for professionals is the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) database, which enables people to search much of the world's literature related to education. The most predominant of the information technologies is the Internet -- particularly, its World Wide Web (Web) component. Not only can the Internet provide information to professionals who provide special education services, Web sites can be used by people with disabilities to facilitate learning, productivity, personal enrichment, and the use of leisure time.

Each of the above types of technology has significant implications for the delivery of special education and rehabilitation services, in and of itself. It is important to note, however, that these also may be used in combination. For example, a student who requires oxygen supplementation (medical technology) and who is unable to use his hands to operate a computer keyboard may benefit from the use of a voice operated computer (assistive technology) that delivers instruction from a software program that was designed to deliver spelling instruction (instructional technology) using a constant time delay response prompt fading instructional procedure (technology of teaching). The student may apply his newly acquired spelling skills when using a word processor (technology productivity tool) to prepare a composition. The teacher may use the World Wide Web to locate additional resources and information that can be used in the instruction and management of this student (information technology).

With this broadened perspective, all faculty have embraced “technology”, and it has become an important part of their vision for the Department, as illustrated in the previous section.

FINDING: A Functional Approach to Technology

Evidence

In the mid-1980’s, Tower forged an alliance with Harry Byrd, Instructional Technology Coordinator for Metro Consolidated Public Schools (MCPS) to ensure that technology-related practicum sites were available for students. That alliance also resulted in the development of collaborative technology research efforts.

Tower and Byrd collaborated on an analysis of decisions that were made about technology when Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) were designed for special education students. They found that many of the decisions were based on the type of disability that a student had and/or the availability of specific technology devices.

For example, it was not uncommon to hear statements such as the following in IEP meetings:

Mary can’t talk; she needs an electronic communication aid.

Decisions made on such a basis often resulted in the selection of inappropriate devices for use by the students. For example, a more fitting solution for Mary may have been a communication board, rather than an expensive electronic device.

As a result of findings such as this, the Department adopted the use of a functional model that guided decision making about the selection of technologies based on the functional demands that are placed on the student from the environment, taking into consideration the strengths and weaknesses exhibited by the student and the student’s personal perceptions about the viability of the solution that was recommended. Additional information about the model that was adopted can be obtained elsewhere (Blackhurst & Lahm, 2000). The model also is described in the report titled, A Functional Approach to Assistive Technology Services, that is listed on the Online Assistive Technology Report Menu of this Web site.

Concomitantly, MCPS adopted the same model to guide decision making in IEP meetings. Thus, a consistent perspective about making technology decisions evolved between ESU faculty and the personnel in the public school system who were the primary employers of its special education graduates.

FINDING: The Technology Continuum

Evidence

Tower and Byrd also observed statements such as the following in IEP development meetings:

Johnny has a learning disability; he should have a laptop computer.

Statements such as this were resulting in the expenditure of funds on expensive devices, when less-expensive ones should suffice.

To counteract such an approach, the concept of the technology continuum was adopted. Basic to this concept was that decisions about the type of technology tools or supports a particular person might require should start with the no-tech solutions and then work up the continuum as needed. For example, in teaching home economics to a student with one arm, it might be better to teach the student how to wedge a mixing bowl into a drawer and hold it with a hip while stirring than to purchase an expensive medium-tech electric mixer that is equipped to stabilize the mixing bowl while it is being operated. Thus, while Johnny may eventually require a laptop computer, an electronic keyboard with memory that can be downloaded into a desktop computer, at a fraction of the cost of a laptop computer, may be a better place to start.

As in the finding described in the prior section, MCPS and ESU personnel both adopted the use of the technology continuum. Its use was taught to ESU students who would be obtaining jobs at MCPS, where IEP decisions involving technology were made based on that continuum.

FINDING: Technology Curriculum Alternatives

Evidence

In the mid-1980's the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) obtained a federal grant from OSEP to provide in-service training about technology to IHE faculty throughout the United States. Professor Tower was asked to serve on the Advisory Board for that project.

A number of comprehensive, hands-on training activities related to technology were provided under the auspices of Project RETOOL, as it was called. Among these were several national symposia that brought large numbers of people together to discuss issues about the use of technology in special education, in general, and in higher education, in particular.

One of the topics that generated considerable debate was the place of technology in teacher education programs. Some people advocated for separate courses on the use of technology, while others claimed that instruction about technology should be infused into the existing curriculum.

Tower was asked to make a keynote speech to one of the symposia to address curriculum development related to technology. The position he took on this issue was based on his experience at ESU, in which a combination approach was used. A separate course was developed in which fundamental technology concepts and skills were taught, with applications of those skills being taught in various other courses.

For example, the operation of computers and the development of technology productivity skills were taught in the separate course. Also included in that course were units on software evaluation, how to manage the use of computers in special education classes, and how to develop a special education technology plan. This course was required early in the special education teacher preparation curriculum.

The applications of technology were infused into existing classes. Thus, an instructor of a “methods” course could assign students to evaluate a piece of educational software, and not have to expend time and effort to explain how to operate computers and conduct a software evaluation. Similarly, an instructor in an assessment course could require students to use test scoring software and use a word processor to write an assessment report and not have to be concerned about knowing whether students had the necessary technology skills to complete the assignment.

This approach received considerable support among conference participants, although some from smaller IHEs cautioned that they may not have the necessary resources to offer separate courses. Other representatives from small colleges did point out, however, that they were working with colleagues from other Departments who were offering general technology coursework to ensure that special education majors were receiving the necessary foundational knowledge and skills.

Justifying Technology Instruction

The successes that ESU faculty had in acquiring administrative support for their technology efforts were due, in large part, to their ability to provide documentation and data to support their needs and justify their efforts to Deans and other decision makers. Several strategies were successful, as described in the following findings and recommendations.

FINDING: Legal Mandates

Evidence

Professor Tower had the support of his Department Chair, Charles Champion, in efforts to obtain faculty support from other Departments in the College who needed to approve curriculum revisions and with Dean Snow and the Vice-Presidents for Research and Academic Affairs, who were approached to provide infrastructure support for technology-related activities. Tower and Champion were able to provide documentation of both State and Federal laws that related to technology applications for people with disabilities.

State laws related to education reform included a significant technology effort to network schools and provide technology-related instruction to all students. Federal laws, particularly Sections 504 and 508 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Technology-Related Assistance Act for People with Disabilities (Tech Act), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) were particularly useful in this regard.

On more than one occasion, either Tower or Champion were heard to say, We have to make these curriculum changes because the law requires that we address the technology needs of people with disabilities. Our students need to be prepared to meet those needs. This argument was very persuasive on more than one occasion. Interestingly, Dean Snow used this same argument when presenting requests for support to the central ESU administration.

It is the opinion of several faculty members in the Department that the legal mandates provide the most persuasive arguments. Those have been bolstered significantly with the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA, which presents strong mandates that assistive technology applications must be considered for every special education student with an IEP.

FINDING: Professional Standards

Evidence

As noted earlier, several revisions of technology coursework were initiated as new technologies, methods, or resources became available. At various times, Tower and Professor Wonder (who also taught technology courses) took turns initiating changes in course descriptions or requirements. They kept abreast of the literature related to the development of professional guidelines and standards and used those to support their recommendations.

Particular attention was paid to the standards related to technology use in the new and experienced teacher standards promulgated by the State Department of Education, since those must be addressed in order to achieve State accreditation for teacher certification programs.

Similarly, the accreditation standards of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards also were reviewed. ESU is on a cycle of applying for complete accreditation every 10 years, with a 5 year interim review. Tower and Wonder made sure that the NCATE standards related to technology were reflected in Departmental coursework. In addition, since Wonder was chairing a committee of the Technology and Media Division (TAM) of CEC to recommend additional technology knowledge and skills for NCATE’s accreditation efforts, the work of that committee was reflected in existing coursework.

Additional sources of information were the technology standards for students, the curriculum guidelines for accreditation of educational computing and technology programs, and related publications of ISTE - the International Society for Technology in Education (2001).

The use of the above resources ensured that the Department met the technology standards that were required by national and state accrediting agencies. In fact, the technology applications were cited as a strength by teams making accreditation visits.

FINDING: Use of Advisory Boards

Evidence

Over the years, the Department had made sporadic use of Advisory Boards. Two Advisory Boards were established in 1968 when the Department was established. One was a Consumer Advisory Board (CAB) and the other was a Student Advisory Board (SAB). Those bodies were quite useful as reality testers and as sources of information for making curriculum decisions. The Boards were most active when curriculum changes were proposed by faculty and when the Department was engaged in Self Studies required for accreditation visits. At other times, the Boards were relatively dormant.

When Professor Champion was appointed as Department Chair, he reactivated the CAB and restructured it by establishing specialty Boards for each program within the Department. One of those specialties focused on technology applications in special education. Representatives were professionals, parents, and consumers knowledgeable about technology and technology applications in special education.

The Technology CAB met frequently in the mid-nineties to provide recommendations about the technology curriculum and to react to technology initiatives within the Department. That Board provided particularly-valuable input about assistive technology that impacted on the Department’s graduate program in that area. Reports of formal actions taken by the Technology CAB were influential in negotiating with Deans and other University administrators about obtaining technology resources and curriculum revisions, since such reports were represented as input from the field.

FINDING: Expectations of Employers

Evidence

In 1984, Professor Tower wrote a proposal to develop an Educational Specialist Degree Program in applications of microcomputers in special education, which was funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the U. S. Department of Education. As part of that project, he developed a list of microcomputing knowledge and skills that should be acquired by students enrolled in that program. As a spin-off of that activity, he also initiated the development of a list of knowledge and skills that special education teachers should have in order to use microcomputers effectively in schools.

Tower converted the competency list into an assessment instrument that was sent to Directors of Special Education throughout the State. Those individuals were asked to make judgments about the relative importance of each of the items on the list. The responses to that questionnaire were used as the basis for faculty decision making about the content related to microcomputers that should be included in the teacher preparation curriculum. In the early 1990’s that work was revised and broadened to include other technologies, in addition to those associated with microcomputers.

FINDING: In-Service Training Needs Assessment

Evidence

In order to determine the technology needs of professionals, Tower converted the technology assessment instrument described in the prior section by changing the response metric. In the original assessment sent to the Directors of Special Education, Tower asked for their opinions about the importance of each competency statement. He changed the responses to the following, in order to determine the needs of teachers for technology in-service training:

DIRECTIONS Provide an assessment of how well you can perform each of these tasks. Use the following key:

N = Not interested in developing knowledge or skills in this area

A = Limited knowledge in this area; Interested in developing heightened awareness

S = Have awareness; Need to develop skills in this area

E = Have some skills in this area; Need to refine and expand them

P = Proficient in the application of this task

For supervisors, he changed the metric again to obtain their perspectives about the need for training among those who were being supervised. Data from such surveys were used to design technology in-service programs for school districts that requested such services. The data also were useful in communicating resource needs to Deans and other decision-makers.

FINDING: Follow-up Studies of Graduates

Evidence

Periodic follow-up studies were performed of graduates of the special education program. Questionnaires were the primary medium for obtaining feedback from students; although, on two occasions, a team of selected graduates was invited to campus to interact with faculty about their experiences as students enrolled in programs within the Department.

Responses to questions about areas in which graduates believed that they had insufficient preparation during their student careers included the area of technology. In the 1980s, those responses focused on preparation for microcomputer use and in the 1990s, responses focused more on assistive technology. Curriculum modifications were made to bolster technology offerings as a result of the follow-up surveys.

Technology Curriculum Development

The foundation for the technology activities within the Department was strongly rooted in the competency-based teacher education (CBTE) movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Many of the processes associated with curriculum development that were initiated in those “pre high-tech days” were successfully applied to the area of technology.

FINDING: Curriculum Development

Efforts to integrate technology into the teacher education curriculum can be facilitated through the use of a systematic approach to curriculum development. A ten-step process is effective:

Develop a vision and mission statement

Define the roles and functions to be performed by graduates

Identify knowledge and skills needed to perform the functions

Specify objectives and evaluation criteria

Identify, select, and/or develop instructional content

Design the structure of the curriculum and instructional alternatives

Implement the curriculum

Maintain a management system

Conduct formative and summative evaluations

Refine and revise the curriculum

Evidence

The ten steps cited above are based on the model that Tower and his colleagues used for all of their curriculum development efforts, which is displayed in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Curriculum development model.

Faculty started with the element in the upper left-hand corner of the model and specified the Mission, which was to prepare teachers who are able to use technology in the education of students with disabilities.

They then turned their attention to the definition of the roles and technology functions which each should be able to perform. They identified the following 9 functions:

Acquire a body of knowledge about the use of technology in special education
Evaluate technology hardware, software, and related materials for their potential use in special education programs.
Develop a plan for technology use in a special education program.
Use technology in special education assessment and planning.
Use technology to facilitate instruction in special education programs.
Use technology to compensate for learning barriers that are due to communication disorders, physical disabilities, visual impairments, or learning disabilities.
Use technology to generate teaching aids for the special education classroom
Use technology as an aid to personal productivity.
Assemble, operate, troubleshoot, and maintain the components of technology systems in a special education environment.

Step three was to identify the competencies associated with each function. Forty-one such competencies were identified and clustered under the nine functions listed above.

The fourth step was to write statements of objectives associated with the competencies. These include (where appropriate) cognitive, affective, performance, consequential, and experiential objectives. Criterion levels and evaluation instruments also were developed at that time.

After competencies and objectives were identified, consideration was turned to the content of the program in step five. That included a determination of the instructional materials, activities, resource materials, texts, and audiovisual aids necessary for meeting the objectives.

In step 6, the content was translated into a course titled, Technology in Special Education and several units within other existing courses. These were then delivered in step 7, and their effectiveness was evaluated in step 8. Revisions were then made, in step 9, based upon the results of the evaluations that were conducted. The block in the middle of the model indicates that formative evaluation and a management system were maintained throughout the curriculum development process.

Although the steps are listed in a linear fashion, an examination of the model will reveal that it is, in reality, a dynamic model, as represented by the double-headed arrows. Tower and his associates were able to make revisions in any single element of the model based upon feedback obtained from managing and evaluating any other element. Additional information about the use of this model for guiding technology professional development programs is provided in a related case study that is reported elsewhere (Blackhurst, 2001).

Obtaining Technology Resources

Like most IHEs, obtaining resources to initiate technology activities at ESU presented a significant problem. Over the years, however, the Department was able to obtain funding for computer labs, software and related materials, hardware and software upgrades, maintenance, and faculty with the knowledge and skills to implement technology the technology programs. Following are factors that appeared to have a major impact on the ability to obtain such resources.

FINDING: Monitor Technology Trends

Evidence

Tower, and his colleagues, have been extremely successful in monitoring technology-related trends and writing successful proposals for funding to initiate projects in response to those trends. Following is a partial list of projects that were funded in the early phases of various technology trends:

Regional Special Education Instructional Materials Center (1965)
Research grant to study potential applications of communication satellites in special education (1976 and 1977)
Training grant to prepare special education microcomputer specialists (1984)
Small foundation equipment grants (annually from 1985 - 1993)
Post-doctoral fellowship programs in applications of microcomputers in special education (1986), technology applications in special education (1990), and multimedia development (1994)
Tech-Act state grant to develop a system for providing assistive technology support services (1989)
Development of computer assisted instruction programs for students with disabilities (1992)
Training grant to prepare doctoral students to use microcomputers (1986), to use technology (1991), and to design distance education programs (1998)
Special training project to develop an expert system on the selection of single subject research designs (1992)
Collaborative research grant to study effects of assistive technology in schools (1996 and 1999)
Grants to provide certification in moderate and severe disabilities to teachers in remote areas via interactive distance education programs (1996)
Training grant to prepare assistive technology specialists (1997)
Grant to develop an expert system on making assistive technology decisions (1999)

FINDING: Strategic Planning

Evidence

As part of a major legislative initiative to reform higher education, Departments at ESU were required to develop five-year plans that capitalized on their current strengths. Under Champion’s leadership, the Department prepared a five-year plan that included goals related to various aspects of technology.

The current five year plan, adopted in 1998, included the following three goals associated with different technology initiatives:

Faculty in the Department will increase their production of research on applications of technology and distance education in special education.
Faculty in the Department will make greater use of information technologies to provide ongoing consultation, in-service education, technical assistance, and support services to special education professionals who work with people who have disabilities.
The Department will increase the number of opportunities for post-doctoral scholars to study and conduct research on technology and distance education applications in special education.

Champion is convinced that specification of technology goals has enabled the Department to highlight its commitment to the use of technology, thus enhancing the probability of competing for additional resources, as they may become available.

FINDING: Facilitating Awareness

Evidence

From the time that technology activities were initiated in the Department, Tower and Champion actively pursued the support of key administrators at both the College and University level. They actively initiated meetings with Deans, Associate Deans, and Vice-Chancellors for Research and Graduate Studies to explain the vision that the Department had for technology, how it fit into the Department’s long range plans, and its importance to the preparation of special education teachers. At the same time, they described the needs that existed in order for the vision to succeed.

As progress was made in implementing the technology initiatives, care was taken to alert those significant decision makers. A steady stream of information was conveyed via written communication, personal contact, and e-mail. Such information included results of follow-up studies of graduates, descriptions of participation of faculty in technology-related state and local committees, notification of successful technology grant activities, citations of technology-related accomplishments of students and faculty, documentation of technology contributions of faculty to professional organizations, and professional publications on technology.

Announcements of the above activities also were sent to the ESU faculty and staff newsletter, the student newspaper, and the public relations office. As the general public became more aware of technology, personnel from that latter agency actively solicited information about items that might be of general public interest. As a result, a number of articles related to technology applications in special education were prepared that were circulated to newspapers throughout the State.

The impact of such activities, accompanied by the data from the aforementioned justification activities, can be documented in three very tangible ways. First, Dean Snow allocated funds for a new faculty line that was specifically devoted to assistive technology. After a national search, Dr. Elise Wonder was employed at the Assistant Professor level in 1994. She assumed responsibilities for all assistive technology curricula following her employment.

Second, the awareness of the Department’s continuous, long-term commitment to technology was instrumental in having the Department designated as one of only 18 “Tier 1” Departments by the ESU administration. This designation, awarded in early 1998, meant that it will receive preferential priority for new resources as they become available. The initial impact was that the Graduate School awarded one new full-time doctoral Fellowship and six new graduate tuition scholarships to the Department for the 1998-99 academic year and each ensuing year.

The third, and most tangible, evidence of increased support was the decision of the President of ESU to award a one million dollar endowed chair in special education technology to the Department in early 1999. A national search for a senior level faculty member resulted in a person with a strong national reputation on technology applications in special education being employed to fill this position in 2000.

FINDING: Proactive Negotiation

Evidence

In 1989, Tower wrote a proposal for a project that required a new, high-end computer. The funding agency, however, would not permit the inclusion of computers in the project budget. He approached the Dean about the possibility of obtaining funds for the computer but was told that none were available due to a budget shortfall.

Subsequently, he obtained the Dean’s permission to approach the Vice-President for Research about this problem. He obtained a commitment from the Vice-President that funding would be provided for the computer if the project was funded. The Vice-President also indicated that he would provide funding for additional equipment for project staff for each ensuing year that the project was continued. The project was funded and resources were made available for three high-end computer systems during the course of the project.

Buoyed by his success, Tower approached the Vice-President again in 1992, with similar results. He was told by the Vice-President that he would be restricted in the amount of funds that he could provide for various projects, because he was using a portion of the funds that were being received in indirect costs for the project and the funding agency limited indirect costs to 8 percent.

When the opportunity presented itself, however, Tower wrote a proposal that resulted in a grant of $300,000 per year for three years with a full indirect cost return of 47%. Prior to the time the proposal was submitted, Tower, with Champion at his side, visited the Vice-President and was able to negotiate the return of $20,000 per year for three years to be used for equipment purchases.

The resulting equipment purchases made possible by those funds enabled the Department to purchase its own Web server, high-end multimedia production equipment, and laptop computers for loan to doctoral students. Tower was quick to point out that it is critical to conduct such negotiations prior to submission of grants, and not after an award has been received.

FINDING: Creative Budget Management

Evidence

The budgets of most IHE Departments are typically very “tight” and restricted. That is, most budgets consist of line items for faculty, staff, and operating expenses (usually very small). Seldom are there funds for equipment – the exception being funds for a computer system made available by the Dean’s office at the time that a new faculty member is hired. This has been the case at ESU.

Champion, however, has been able to perform some creative – and entirely within ESU regulations – budgetary manipulations that have provided additional fiscal resources that have been used to build the technology infrastructure. Following are some examples.

Dr. Esther, a tenured faculty member was asked by University administrators to assume responsibility for a research institute. Champion negotiated to have a portion of Esther’s salary remain with the Department to be used to cover the ongoing teaching responsibilities vacated by her. He then distributed Esther’s teaching load among existing faculty and used the funds freed up to hire part-time staff to teach technology-related coursework. He also used some of those funds to support a technology research assistant.

He also negotiated with Dean Snow to keep any salary savings that were made available by buying out faculty time on research and training grants. He was then able to use those funds to purchase equipment or meet other expenditures related to the technology program.

Champion also tapped other sources of funds at ESU. For example, the summer school budgets and the distance education budgets are negotiated separately from the academic year budget that is administered from the Dean’s office. He was able to obtain funding for technology courses that were made available during the academic year via distance education and during summer. The summer funds could be used to support regular academic year salaries of existing faculty, but the distance education funds during the academic year could only be paid to adjunct faculty.

ESU also has a policy of returning a portion of the indirect costs generated by external grants to the department that initiated the grant. Champion used a portion of those “incentive funds” to support technology activities, as well.

FINDING: Create Alliances

Evidence

Earlier, it was noted that a collaborative alliance was developed with Harry Byrd of MCPS. That alliance provided benefits to both MCPS and ESU. Following are two additional examples of alliances that were formed between personnel in different units within ESU.

In 1991 the Instructional Technology Center (ITC) in the College of Education hired Dusty Rhodes, a new technician. Rhodes was a specialist in IBM computers (and compatibles) but knew very little about Macintosh computers, which are used exclusively by faculty and staff in the Department of Special Education.

Champion agreed to use some of the Departmental incentive funds to send Rhodes to Cupertino, California to receive training in the maintenance and repair of Apple Macintosh computers and printers. He became a certified Apple technician as a result of that training. That designation enables him to obtain special pricing on parts and serve as an Apple-authorized service representative.

This alliance has resulted in major savings to the Department in parts and repair services. Because Rhodes also receives all maintenance bulletins and easy access to computer program upgrades, he is able to maintain the Macintosh computer systems that are operated within the Department.

Another example of a beneficial alliance is that formed with Dr. Toyler, a faculty member who specializes in the development of multimedia materials who was hired in 1995 by the Department of Teacher Education. Toyler obtained a small grant from a foundation to develop teaching cases about educational reform for distribution via CD-ROM. She had funds to purchase the services of a computer graphics artist on a half-time basis for that project.

Tower also had a grant to develop computer assisted instruction programs and had funds to purchase a part-time computer graphics artist. Tower was able to develop a collaborate alliance with Toyler, which enabled them to pool their resources and employ a full-time graphics specialist whom they could share. Not only did this pay handsome dividends for both projects, it provided a very valuable resource person for both Departments.

FINDING: Capitalize on Opportunities

Evidence

Earlier, the importance of monitoring technology trends was highlighted. The examples that were provided as evidence focused primarily on writing proposals to fund research, training, development, service, and demonstration projects. Similarly, information in the prior section focused on forming alliances that had tangible benefits. Faculty at ESU also engaged in a number of activities that had both tangible and intangible benefits, as described in the examples below.

When the State legislature passed a massive Education Reform Act, included was a mandate for each school and each school district to develop a technology plan. While that appeared to be a promising and appropriate goal, it became apparent that people would need to be trained about how to approach technology planning. Tower was approached by State Department of Education personnel to develop a training program for school and district technology coordinators. Subsequently, a day-long training workshop was developed for presentation at the State Technology Conference in 1991. The workshop was offered three times during the conference.

More than 350 people attended the day-long workshops. They left the conference with specific guidelines for developing technology plans and ways to implement those guidelines. The tangible benefit was the impetus for technology planning on a statewide basis. The intangible benefit to ESU was enhanced credibility as having personnel who were considered to be authorities on technology. Also, access to school districts for the collection of survey research data and as sites for other research projects was enhanced.

Because of their early involvement in “cutting edge” technologies, ESU faculty also were called upon to serve on important committees and advisory boards. For example, Tower served on the Project RETOOL advisory board, mentioned earlier, and was able to influence the direction of training for other special education faculty at IHEs throughout the nation. Wonder was appointed chair of the TAM committee to identify technology knowledge and skills for CEC, which were adopted by NCATE. The intangible benefits that continue to accrue to ESU help to establish the credibility of its program on a national basis.

Tower and Wonder also participated in a number of training programs that were designed to teach special education faculty about emerging technologies. As a result of such participation, they developed knowledge and skills that enabled them to prepare proposals for projects that were eventually funded.

Faculty Considerations

Clearly, successful integration of technology into higher education programs is dependent on the commitment, knowledge, and skills of faculty. Typically, a few faculty are more interested in technology than are others. ESU made considerable efforts to involve all faculty, to some extent, in technology activities, as illustrated by the following five findings.

FINDING: Faculty Governance

Evidence

Initially, Tower was the impetus behind the development of technology curriculum offerings at ESU. It quickly became apparent to him, however, that he would need to ensure the involvement of faculty in decision making if the technology initiatives would ever be institutionalized. Consequently, he made a point of bringing all proposals for curriculum changes to the faculty for review.

In addition, he requested that Champion appoint committees to work on problems that had Department-wide implications. Task forces were appointed to identify competencies, make recommendations about course development, suggest ways to infuse technology into existing courses, review technologies that might have implications for instruction, and make decisions about the adoption of Department-wide technologies, such as word processing programs and related productivity tools.

Faculty often were directly involved in deciding which courses that different concepts and technologies should be included. For example, the developer of a videodisc series on the education of students with behavioral disabilities was brought to campus to demonstrate her materials to faculty members and explain ways to use them. Following her visit, faculty reached consensus on the portions of the videodisc series should be inserted into four different courses (introduction to special education, classroom management of exceptional children, assessment of students with learning and behavioral disabilities, and methods for teaching students with learning and behavioral disabilities).

The involvement of faculty in such activities gradually enhanced their knowledge and appreciation for the role that technology could play in the Department’s personnel preparation programs. That appreciation was reflected in the formal decisions that faculty made about curriculum development and revision.

FINDING: Faculty Training Needs Assessment

Evidence

Tower developed a needs assessment instrument that was similar to the one used to identify the technology in-service training needs of special education teachers. The primary difference was that the instrument focused on the technology needs of special education professors. In keeping with the curriculum development model described earlier, the instrument focused on technology functions and competencies. The initial list of those was developed from a 1988 national survey of IHEs.

The following six functions were identified as being important ones for special education professors to be able to perform:

Select and operate technology equipment and software
Use technology to aid personal productivity
Use technology to conduct and disseminate research
Use technology in pre-service and in-service instruction
Provide instruction about technology applications in special education
Incorporate technology applications into service responsibilities

Fifty-five competencies were identified that were subsumed by the functions. A self-assessment instrument was developed and submitted to faculty, who identified their perceived needs for training. A copy of that instrument, titled A Technology Self-Assessment for Special Education Professors, is included in the online reports menu of this Web site.

FINDING: Professional Development for Faculty

Evidence

Tower tabulated the results of the survey described in the prior section and developed a series of in-service training programs for faculty, based on their perceived needs. Some faculty attended all programs, others attended only those that had immediate relevance for them.

As the technology skills of faculty improved, Tower and Champion arranged for more detailed and specific training that was targeted toward the integration of technology into existing courses. External consultants were brought in to provide training on technologies specifically developed for the preparation of special education teachers.

FINDING: Stimulating Faculty Involvement

Evidence

Typically, individual faculty involvement with technology increased as they acquired more sophisticated skills, most of which focused on the use of personal productivity tools, such as word processing, the use of spreadsheets for recording and analyzing grades, and the use of e-mail.

The World Wide Web provided an opportunity to stimulate additional interest. Tower developed a Web server for the Department that included more than 100 links to special education-related Web sites. He then demonstrated to faculty how they could use those links to provide opportunities for students to locate information that could extend and supplement course offerings.

One faculty member became interested in developing a Web page in the area of emotional and behavioral disabilities. A Master’s degree student was taught how to develop Web pages and worked with the faculty member to construct the site. The State Department of Education became interested in the site and initiated a request to become its sponsor. Within a period of less than 18 months, more than 50,000 hits were recorded at that site from people located around the world.

Other graduate students were trained to install software, such as Web browsers, data analysis systems, and graphing programs on faculty computers and teach faculty how to use them. Several detailed “cookbooks” were developed that provided simple, step-by-step instructions for faculty to follow in implementing technology activities with their classes. Three mobile carts were developed that contained computers, videodisc players, video tape players, and projection systems. The carts could be moved into classrooms and used to display computer-based and multimedia programs. Those become more in demand after the classrooms were wired for access to the Internet and its World Wide Web.

Faculty in the Department became more interested in the use of compressed interactive video and communication satellites for the delivery of distance education programs. Several additional grants were obtained to provide teacher certification programs via telecommunication systems to teachers in rural areas with emergency teaching certificates who were working with special education students. Those efforts expanded dramatically. In early 1999, it was documented that the special education program at ESU offered more coursework via distance education and generated more distance education student-credit hour production than any other department at ESU.

FINDING: Leadership Support

Evidence

One of the things that Chairperson Champion and Dean Snow learned during the evolution of the technology activities of the Department was that Tower and Wonder were the primary impetus for the growth and development of technology activities. They were jokingly referred to as the “propeller heads” in the Department. Gradually, however, other faculty became advocates of specific technology applications that they found to be useful, personally, or for their students.

Because Champion and Snow valued the technology initiatives that were forthcoming from those advocates, they were careful to reinforce those who were involved in their development and implementation. Whenever possible, resources were made available to support development activities and implementation efforts. Special care was taken to provide verbal and written reinforcement for their efforts. The result was that Tower and Wonder continued their productive pursuit of technology applications, shared their knowledge and skills with faculty and students, and advocated for the implementation of other technology initiatives.

REFLECTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The 24 recommendations that were generated from the lessons learned in the ESU case have direct implications for personnel at IHEs who are interested in implementing instruction about technology in special education teacher preparation programs. Clearly, however, decisions about which of the recommendations to implement will be dependent upon a number of factors that are idiosyncratic to each IHE. Such factors include the size of the IHE and its special education program, its mission, number of faculty, policies with respect to teaching assignments, technology knowledge and skills of faculty, nature of technology instruction currently underway, status of the technology infrastructure, resources that are available, philosophical orientation of faculty, and attitudes of administrators, to name a few. Consequently, all recommendations may not be relevant for all IHEs.

In analyzing the lessons learned, however, there appear to be several recommendations that have importance, regardless of the idiosyncratic nature of the IHE. Those will be discussed according to the five areas under which the earlier recommendations were clustered.

Conceptual Underpinnings

Three of the five recommendations concerning the development of a conceptual underpinning appeared to be idiosyncratic to the philosophy of the faculty at ESU. Those three recommendations addressed types of technology, the technology continuum, and a functional approach to technology applications. While the concepts described under each of these recommendations were reported by ESU faculty as having both theoretical and empirical support from the technology literature, they clearly represented the biases of ESU special education faculty members. Persons from other IHEs may have other biases. What appears to be of prime importance is that a clear description of major concepts related to technology should be developed and discussed by faculty in order to arrive at a general understanding about how the related topics will be approached.

The importance of having a vision about technology and its place in the teacher preparation curriculum also should not be underestimated. It was not until 1997 that the ESU faculty coalesced in their views of technology. Prior to that time, it was viewed primarily as an area of interest for only a few faculty. While still considered to be an area of specialization within the Department, the importance of technology across all program areas at ESU appears to have been acknowledged and embraced by all faculty. With an impending accreditation visit, a number of faculty expressed confidence that they will be able to discuss the role of technology within the conceptual framework of the Department. This leads to the conclusion that opportunities afforded by accreditation visits and self-studies provide a good time to broach the topic of vision statements (not just for technology) and strive for consensus among faculty.

The recommendation about integrating instruction about technology into existing courses cannot be overemphasized. This supports one of the major findings of the national survey by Moursund and Bielefeldt (1999) that was cited earlier. Ways need to be found to ensure that faculty members are applying and modeling technology use in their classes and that student teachers are provided with opportunities to practice the use of technology with their students, whenever appropriate.

Justifying Technology Instruction

The availability of empirical data to justify the form and structure of instruction related to technology is extremely important for planning. Likewise, such data can be invaluable when attempting to influence the decision making of administrators. Three of the six recommendations related to the justification of technology instruction pertained to the generation of data, either through research or evaluation studies. Recommendations were made to survey prospective employers and practicing professionals to determine the technology knowledge and skills that are important and to identify training needs. Evaluation research, in the form of follow-up studies of graduates was recommended to determine the extent to which their pre-service experiences prepared them to use technology in their teaching. Studies, such as these, can be conducted with relatively little effort. In fact, the evaluation studies regarding technology can be incorporated into evaluations that typically are performed as part of every teacher preparation program.

Of the remaining three recommendations in this area, two suggested that reference to legal mandates and professional standards were important ways to justify instruction about technology. Complying with those recommendations should be relatively easy, since the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA clearly mandates that assistive technology must be considered for all students with an IEP. Furthermore, NCATE’s accreditation standards of special education programs include knowledge and skills related to technology applications, as generated by CEC and ISTE. Thus, there are compelling legal and professional considerations that can be used to bolster technology initiatives.

An additional recommendation was related to the use of advisory boards to help justify technology activities. Although efforts to convene advisory boards require more time and effort than documenting legal mandates and professional standards, the results can be quite beneficial. When such advisory boards are carefully structured, their recommendations can have a powerful influence on both faculty and administrators. Typically, those individuals represent constituencies who employ graduates of the program, use the services of faculty and staff who are involved in the delivery of the program, and apply research and products disseminated from the program. Their advice about effectiveness and recommendations for change can be used to good advantage, both in planning, implementing, and revising technology activities and in obtaining additional resources for technology.

Technology Curriculum Development

The only recommendation that emerged about technology curriculum development focused on the use of a model to guide technology curriculum development that had been successfully used in a variety of other curriculum areas for more than a quarter of a century. However, there were ten different activities encompassed within the model that was being used by the ESU faculty.

Of those activities, several seemed to be particularly important. First, faculty had developed a very comprehensive mission statement that included both the product objectives of the program and the processes that would be used to implement those objectives. The role of technology in implementing the mission also was defined as part of a strategic plan that was developed to guide the implementation of the mission. All faculty were involved in decision making related to the mission; consequently, there seemed to be good unanimity about the implications of technology and how it should be integrated into the curriculum.

Second, the knowledge and skills desired for program graduates were identified. These were based on professional standards and the research literature and served to provide direction to curriculum design and the selection of instructional media, materials, and methods for implementing the curriculum. Assessment instruments and checklists also were developed to help with program planning for students. Those helped both faculty and students define entries for portfolios that were required of students as part of the ongoing assessment procedures. They also were useful in monitoring student progress through the program.

Third, the structure of the courses and units of instruction that were offered were developed after the consideration of the knowledge and skills, identification of objectives, and the selection of content for the program. Faculty indicated that the use of the curriculum model helped them modify their approach to curriculum development and revision. Faculty reported that, prior to the adoption of the model, curriculum revision efforts began with discussions of how specific courses should be revised. They reported that it was more effective and efficient to start with the desired outcomes which drove the content and methods, which then dictated the structure. They reported greater satisfaction with the results of that approach, rather than “jumping in” with discussions of how specific courses should be revised.

Finally, the emphasis on formative and summative evaluation, as prescribed in the model, provided valuable information upon which to base curriculum modification decisions. Faculty appeared to be sensitive to data collection and made good use of formative data to make revisions and summative data to justify activities to administrators and in grant proposals. Summative data collected in the form of follow-up studies provided additional “reality-based” information about the viability of the technology activities and directions to faculty about how they could be improved.

Obtaining Technology Resources

Seven recommendations about obtaining support for technology-related activities emerged from the case study. Two that paid major dividends related to what might be called “opportunism”. A characteristic of faculty who were involved in technology activities appeared to be one of curiosity and inquisitiveness. Those faculty were very active in TAM. They attended many technology conference presentations and were quite attentive to newsletters, journals, and trade publications that focused on new technologies and new applications of old technologies. They appeared to be constantly on the lookout for opportunities to explore applications of different technologies to special education problems. Consequently, they were able to write successful proposals that provided funds that enabled them to “get in on the ground floor” in such areas as computer assisted instruction, hypermedia development, anchored instruction, expert systems, assistive technology, distance education, and Web-based instruction. Such activities paid big dividends in that they were able to establish their credibility in a number of technology areas which enabled them to be competitive in future initiatives related to those topics.

As noted in a third recommendation related to this area, faculty involved in technology activities also were quick to form alliances with personnel with similar interests both within, and external, to the University, as reflected in another recommendation concerning technology resources. They engaged in several collaborative partnerships that evolved into reciprocal benefits for all parties involved. Such activities are closely related to the opportunism that was described in the prior paragraph.

Two recommendations related specifically to fiscal management have significant implications for those attempting to acquire additional technology resources. Faculty and the Department Chair used every strategy possible (within University regulations) to reallocate existing resources to various technology programs. Strategies included the use of salary savings from grants, indirect cost returns from grants, sale of public domain software and training materials, capture of unexpended funds, transfer of line item balances, solicitation of earmarked contributions to the University, capturing funds from partial buyouts of technical staff by other Departments, application for every possible internal research and equipment grant, and charges for clinical services were among the strategies that were employed. Over the years, such activities enabled the Department to develop their technology infrastructure in the absence of direct University line item funds allocated for such purposes. Although this was a slow process, it did result in the Department being able to acquire the resources necessary to support technology activities at a moderate to high level.

Closely related to the above is the recommendation to be proactive in soliciting resources, as opposed to waiting to see whether funds will be made available. As the reputation of the Department grew, the ability to negotiate for resources increased. The Department gradually developed the ability to successfully make requests for support contingent upon obtaining grants. This was particularly the case for equipment, unusual operating expenses, and research assistants.

Strategic planning also contributed to the acquisition of additional resources for technology. In reality, the early technology successes appeared to be almost serendipitous, with various faculty pursuing interests of the moment and opportunities that arose. Serious attention to serious planning did not occur until 1997. In many respects, the earlier activities served to form the groundwork for the development of strategic plans. That is, there had been so many different types of technology projects with a variety of impacts, that even the faculty who were not heavily involved with technology had developed an appreciation for its potential and had seen the positive benefits that had accrued to the Department as a result. Consequently, strategic planning related to technology evolved without much difficulty and with a lot of support from faculty who were not heavily involved in technology applications.

The importance of a strategic plan, however, became very apparent shortly after it was developed. This became evident when decisions were being made about selecting Departments as “Tier 1 Targets of Opportunity” for the infusion of additional funds. One of the criteria that was used for making such decisions was the existence of strategic plans. It is unlikely that the Department would have been selected as one of only 18 to be so designated in the absence of such a plan. Clearly, that plan also contributed to the awarding of an endowed chair in Special Education Technology.

Finally, the recommendation related to facilitating awareness contributed greatly to the Department’s success in acquiring technology resources. The Department Chair, in particular, took every opportunity to disseminate information about the technology activities that were being conducted and the accompanying accomplishments. Those public relations activities helped immensely in developing awareness among decision makers within the University and also members of the general public, many of whom became advocates for the technology activities that were being undertaken.

Faculty Considerations

The final set of recommendations that was made related to considerations with respect to faculty. Of the five recommendations that were made, three related to faculty involvement and support. It became clear that the more that all faculty participated in decisions related to technology, the greater the likelihood that the technology activities would be supported. At the same time, it was acknowledged that not all faculty members were particularly interested in technology applications, except, perhaps, in those cases where technology could increase their own professional productivity. The importance of encouraging, supporting, and reinforcing those faculty who were interested in technology applications, however, was very evident. Those individuals were able to pursue their interests and develop projects and applications (e.g., a Departmental Web site, databases, unique pieces of software) that could benefit other faculty and students.

The value of support services cannot be overestimated. Faculty became extremely frustrated at hardware or software breakdowns. Particular attention should be paid to support technology applications that are integrated into classes. It is critical that systems that use computer graphics and projection systems be supported and that care is taken to ensure that they operate correctly. One or two bad experiences will “turn off” faculty to the extent that they will be reluctant to try new technologies.

The last two recommendations may be the most important ones. The first of these is the identification of faculty and staff technology training needs. The second is the development and delivery of training to meet those needs. Clearly, integration of technology into special education teacher preparation programs will not occur without faculty who have the knowledge and skills to facilitate such integration.

Concluding Observation

Finally, it should be emphasized that many of the lessons learned by special education faculty at ESU did not come quickly or easily. The recommendations presented above evolved as a result of more than 35 years of effort on the part of many faculty, staff, and administrators. Faculty who were the primary advocates for technology initiatives engaged in a number of “false starts” and sometimes encountered dead ends which required reconceptualization and revision of plans and activities. They were able to persevere and be successful, however, because of factors that were identified in this investigation. It is hoped that other IHE personnel will be able to implement the recommendations that are relevant to their circumstances and that those will enable them to develop or expand their capability to integrate instruction about technology into their special education personnel preparation programs.

References

Blackhurst, A. E (2001). Designing technology professional development programs. In J. Woodward & L. Cuban (Eds.). Implementing technology in special education: Implications for curriculum, professional development, and managing change (pp. 138 - 186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Blackhurst, A. E., & Lahm, E. A. (2000). Technology and exceptionality foundations. In J. D. Lindsey (Ed.) Technology and exceptional individuals (3rd. Ed., pp. 3-45 ). Austin, TX: ProEd.

Moursund, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.

Office of Technology Assessment (1995. Teachers and technology: Making the connection. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Credits and Disclaimers

Case Study on the Integration of Instruction about Technology into a Special Education Teacher Preparation Program (© 2001) was prepared for the National Assistive Technology Research Institute by A. Edward Blackhurst, Professor Emeritus, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling, University of Kentucky. It may be duplicated and circulated for noncommercial purposed, provided this credit is included.

This research was supported by the University of Kentucky and the Research to Practice Division of the Officer of Special Education Programs in the U. S. Department of Education under Grant #H180U50025 and Cooperative Agreement #H327G000004 . The information and conclusions presented in this report do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the funding agencies

Case Study on the Integration of Instruction about Technology into a Special Education Teacher Preparation Program

Table of Contents

Introduction

Purpose

Findings and evidence

Reflections and Implications

References

Credits and Disclaimers

Introduction

Purpose

Context

The Technology Curriculum

The Infrastructure

Findings and Evidence

Conceptual Underpinnings

FINDING: Technology Vision

Evidence

FINDING: Types of Technology

Evidence

FINDING: A Functional Approach to Technology

Evidence

FINDING: The Technology Continuum

Evidence

FINDING: Technology Curriculum Alternatives

Evidence

Justifying Technology Instruction

FINDING: Legal Mandates

Evidence

FINDING: Professional Standards

Evidence

FINDING: Use of Advisory Boards

Evidence

FINDING: Expectations of Employers

Evidence

FINDING: In-Service Training Needs Assessment

Evidence

FINDING: Follow-up Studies of Graduates

Evidence

Technology Curriculum Development

FINDING: Curriculum Development

Evidence

Obtaining Technology Resources

FINDING: Monitor Technology Trends

Evidence

FINDING: Strategic Planning

Evidence

FINDING: Facilitating Awareness

Evidence

FINDING: Proactive Negotiation

Evidence

FINDING: Creative Budget Management

Evidence

FINDING: Create Alliances

Evidence

FINDING: Capitalize on Opportunities

Evidence

Faculty Considerations

FINDING: Faculty Governance

Evidence

FINDING: Faculty Training Needs Assessment

Evidence

FINDING: Professional Development for Faculty

Evidence

FINDING: Stimulating Faculty Involvement

Evidence

FINDING: Leadership Support

Evidence

REFLECTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Conceptual Underpinnings

Justifying Technology Instruction

Technology Curriculum Development

Obtaining Technology Resources

Faculty Considerations

Concluding Observation

References

Credits and Disclaimers