The impact of field experience in technology-integrated classrooms on preservice teachers’ development of TPACK Shu-Ju Diana Tai Denise Schmidt-Crawford Iowa State University United States Abstract: The purpose of the study is to investigate the impact field experiences, that are specifically targeted on using technology in PreK-12 educational contexts, have on preservice teachers in relation to their development of TPACK and as a result how prepared they are to integrate technology into their future classrooms. Participants are 9 preservice teachers enrolled in a 1-credit class offered for a Learning Technologies Minor at a large Midwestern university. Participants are required to complete a minimum of 24 hours in classrooms or educational contexts to observe how PreK-12 educators interact with and teach using technology. Data are collected from surveys completed before and after the field experiences, participants’ documentation of two observations framed in TPACK, their written reflections after each visit, and a focus group interview that is conducted at the end of the semester. Participants’ survey responses showed that they perceived themselves with higher TPACK after completing the field experiences in the PreK-12 educational contexts. Moreover, the field experiences helped them develop a more reflective stance about their teaching and future instructional goals, which was not solely limited to technology. As technologies have become more and more accessible in various learning environments, teacher education programs in the United States have realized that more and more it is their responsibility to prepare teachers who are equipped with the skills and knowledge to infuse technology into their teaching while impacting student learning. Little is known about what impact PreK-12 field experiences and practicums have on preservice teachers’ development of their content, pedagogical and technology knowledge. Research indicates that it is central to preservice teachers’ experiences that we actively engage them with inservice teachers and students in PreK-12 settings (Broda, Wereley, & Schmidt, 2009). Field experiences provide “opportunities for teachers to gain valuable classroom experience and learn how to implement new instructional strategies in authentic classroom environments” (Frey, 2008, p. 181). As also noted in the seminal Office of Technology Assessment’s report (U. S. Congress, 1995), “K-12 and university educators must work together to integrate technology into curriculum and classroom practice” (p. 165). Teachers often report specific gaps in their preparation to use technology, while several teachers have commented about being unprepared to cope with the challenges of integrating technology effectively in classrooms (Kay, 2006; Samuel & Bakar, 2005; Yildirim, 2000). Thus, teacher education programs are faced with the challenge of not only providing preservice teachers with the knowledge, resources, and expertise needed to teach in classrooms today, but more importantly to help future teachers understand the importance of developing their Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Research findings strongly support the benefit of having field experiences as part of a teacher preparation program because the field experiences provide pre-service teachers with the opportunity to see technology being integrated in authentic educational contexts, while attempting to make connections between theory (what they have learned from courses in the preparation programs) and practice (the actual teaching in classrooms). For example, field experiences help preservice teachers decide if teaching is the right career choice; provide an opportunity to practice teaching prior to student teaching; and provide an opportunity to understand the conceptual and theoretical knowledge being presented (Hixon & So, 2009). Other recent literature draws attention to the role that field experiences may play in helping preservice teachers learn how to effectively integrate technology into their teaching (e.g., Bahr, Shaha, Farnsworth, Lewis, & Benson, 2004; Dawson & Dana, 2007; Evans, 2004; Wentworth, Graham, & Tripp, 2008). As one researcher noted, preservice teachers’ active participation in authentic classroom experiences is central to the process of preparing them to develop deep thinking and reflection about their learning and teaching (Broda, Wereley, & Schmidt, 2009), especially when thinking about the interplay between content, pedagogy and technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the impact field experiences that are specifically targeted on using technology in PreK-12 educational contexts can have on preservice teachers in relation to their development of TPACK and as a result how prepared they are to integrate technology into their future classrooms. Methodology Field experiences serve as a foundational component in teacher preparation programs. Cruickshank and Armaline (1986) noted that the “learning by doing” approach was found to be of value for early teacher educators. In other words, field experiences focus on providing examples of best practices by pairing preservice teachers with inservice teachers who are not only excellent teachers, but also excellent role models who are willing to engage in reflective practice with novices in the profession (Frieberg, 1995; Posner, 2005). The field experience course that is targeted for this study is a 1-credit class that is offered for preservice teachers who are enrolled in a 16-credit Learning Technologies Minor offered by a large Midwestern university. This technology-rich field experience provides preservice teachers with opportunities to observe how PreK-12 educators interact and teach with technology. Preservice teachers complete the field experience within the timeframe of one semester or 16 weeks. Participants were placed with a variety of PreK-12 educators, such as a 1:1 classroom teacher, an instructional technology coach, a technology integrationist, or a technology coordinator to complete 24 hours of contact time with teachers and students in the school(s) (see Table 1). Requirements for the field experience course include: 1) observe technology being used in educational settings (i.e., classrooms, teacher inservices, etc.), 2) assist cooperating teachers, instructional technology coaches or technology directors/coordinators with using technology, 3) teach curriculum topics using technology, and/or 4) facilitate technology inservices/workshops. Classroom/school visits are scheduled by negotiation between the preservice teachers and the PreK-12 educators, and vary due to individual schedules. Typically, preservice students spend 2 hours per week for 12 weeks, but some may spend up to 3 or 4 hours at a time with fewer visits to their placement locations. The preservice teachers are required to spend a minimum of 24 hours at their placement location. Participants Participants for this study are nine preservice teachers enrolled in a PreK-12 technology field experience course (see Table 1). Pseudonyms have been used to protect the identity of the participants. The participants are typically in their junior or senior year of study, with the majority majoring in elementary education. Two of the nine participants majored in early childhood education and one in secondary education. As also shown in Table 1, five participants were placed in a 1:1 classroom learning environment, where each preservice teacher went through the field experience with one particular classroom teacher. Two participants were placed with technology teachers and observed the technology teacher working with students from different grade levels. The other two participants were placed with technology coaches/integrationist, where they observed their cooperating educator working in different contexts, such as K-12 classrooms and/or professional development sessions. Table 1 Placements and Participants Placement Participants 1:1 Access/Classrooms (iPad) 1st grade Connie Heather ECE, Junior El Ed, Senior 2nd grade Jill ECE, Junior 5th grade Brenda El Ed, Junior 7-12th grade Rachel Secondary, Senior 1:1 Technology Teacher (laptop) Kelley El Ed, Senior Technology Teacher Hillary El Ed, Senior District Technology Coach/Integrationist Carol Kate El Ed, Senior El Ed, Senior Data Collection and Analysis A case study approach was adopted to guide the investigation to gain an in-depth understanding of the impact that a K-12 field experience has on preservice teachers (Esterberg, 2002; Merriam & Associates, 2002). Research documents that effective field experiences should include components of observation, participation, and meaningful reflection (Broda et al., 2009), so the primary data sources used for the study include students’ observations, students’ reflections, and focus group interviews. In addition, the Schmidt et al. (2009) TPACK survey was administered before and after the PreK-12 field experiences to understand how participants perceived their development of TPACK during the semester. The pre-survey collected information on participants' background information, their self-perceived TPACK, and their expectation of how the field experience would help them integrate technology into their teaching. The post-survey focused on their self-perceived TPACK development and the impact that the field experience had on them in relationship to how the experience helped them develop TPACK. Participants were asked to respond to a 5point Likert scale indicating to what degree they agreed with the statement, with (1) being Strongly Disagree and (5) Strongly Agree. In addition, participants were asked to document two observations of their school visits using an observation instrument that was used to help guide them through the experience with their cooperating PreK-12 educator. Moreover, after each school visit, participants wrote a blog entry to reflect upon what they had learned during the school visit. They were also asked to read through peers’ blog posts and provided comments and feedback, which allowed them to have the opportunity to learn from their peers’ experiences as well. At the end of the semester, participants were required to compose a final, 1-page reflection paper summarizing their learning journey. After that, two focus groups were conducted with students who volunteered from two different semesters. During the interviews, pre-determined questions were asked. The issues and questions that were identified based on the preliminary analysis of the observation and reflection data were also addressed to allow the participants to further illustrate and clarify their experiences. Participants’ documentation of the two observations and final reflections were collected for data analysis. In addition, the focus group interviews were recorded and transcribed for data analysis. In sum, the data analysis was based on 18 observation records, 9 final reflections, and 2 focus group interview transcripts. Findings Based on the descriptive statistical analysis of participants’ survey responses, it was found that preservice teachers perceived themselves with higher TPACK after participating in the technology-rich field experiences. Moreover, the analysis of the observations, reflections, and interviews indicated that the technology-rich field experience prepared them well for their future teaching with technology from a variety of aspects. Participants’ self-perceived development of TPACK Participants were found to perceive themselves with higher development in the technology related TPACK domains, including Technology Knowledge (TK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) after spending at least 24 hours in their the PreK-12 field experiences (see Table 2). These descriptive results indicate that these technologyrich field experiences had a positive impact on preservice teachers’ self-perceived development of TPACK. The largest increase in mean scores was found in participants’ development of TCK and TPACK, indicating that participants found the field experiences helped them see beyond just isolated technology knowledge (TK) and began to discover and realize the unique interplay between technology and content knowledge (TCK) and among technology, pedagogy, and content (TPACK). These findings were also supported by data collected from interviews and the participants’ written reflections. For example, while observing in a 7-12 English classroom, Rachel stated that seeing technology integrated into that classroom helped her understand how the same piece of technology (i.e., Google Docs) could contribute to different content objectives with a tweak in pedagogy. In a similar manner, Kelley stated that she had learned much about the “techy stuff” from various courses she had been taking. However, seeing one familiar piece of technology being integrated in different ways for teaching is beneficial. As stated in one of her reflections, “Like podcast, it’s great to see how it can be used in different ways. It gives me new ideas in terms of incorporating technology. So, it might be the same technology, but the ideas are new.” After having an opportunity to participate in a professional development workshop exploring the educational use of VoiceThread, Kate learned a piece of the pedagogical value of this Table 2 Participants’ mean response related to TPACK development TPACK Domains Mean (STD) TK TCK TPK TPACK pre post pre post pre post pre post 3.85 (0.55) 4.07 (0.46) 3.78 (0.67) 4.44 (0.53) 4.09 (0.45) 4.43 (0.51) 3.64 (0.66) 4.10 (0.32) technology and saw teachers demonstrate actual examples of content specific uses for VoiceThread. She stated, “Seeing these examples got my mind thinking of different ways I could use VoiceThread to further my instruction in my future classroom.” In all, findings of this study support other research findings (Broda, Wereley, & Schmidt, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) where it was documented that field experiences, in general, help preservice teachers develop deep thinking in the aspect of the interplay of technology, pedagogy, and content. Participants’ field experiences were not exactly trouble free. Aside from the positive aspects that participants commonly reported, Connie and Brenda also observed a few challenges that occur in the classrooms when technology was used. These challenges included such things as a slow Internet connection and the batteries on iPads going dead in the middle of a lesson. Fortunately, challenges like these did not discourage the preservice teachers, but instead, they acknowledged the value of witnessing such events, which reinforced the importance of having a backup plan for every lesson. Connie stated, My placement turned out to be even better than I could imagine. I was placed with a teacher who was absolutely fabulous at her job. Every activity was student-centered, hands-on, and engaging. I honestly hope that I am even half the teacher that she is someday. I learned so much about teaching and walked away with pages of resources thanks to her [cooperating teacher].1 Impact of the technology-rich field experience Though nine participants were placed in different contexts for their field experiences, they all reported having a positive experience throughout the field experience and the experience impacted how they thought about teaching with technology and teaching in general. A number of recurring themes were found to have emerged from data collected from participants’ observation notes, final reflections and interviews. These themes included seeing technology in action, technology integration should start from content goals, the importance of professional development for teachers, the importance of motivating and engaging students, learning how to set up technology and troubleshoot, learning of resources available, classroom management skills, the potential of collaborating with peer teachers, the big picture, and self discovery. The top three themes participants noted are reported here and include seeing technology in action, the importance of professional development for teachers, and technology integration should start from content goals. Seeing technology in action All nine participants mentioned that seeing technology integration in authentic classrooms was one of the most important things they learned from participating in the field experience. Learning about technology integration in courses and seeing it happening in classrooms are typically two different things. Participants acknowledged the fact that seeing is believing. In other words, they were convinced that it was extremely beneficial to see teachers and/or students using technology in the context of the classroom. Moreover, the experience helped them to understand that technology integration is beyond the simple idea of just bringing technology into the classroom. Heather noted, I was unsure of what to expect, since I had never observed there [the school] before. When I walked in, I immediately noticed the amount of technology that was present in the 1st grade classroom. …Through the eight weeks, I observed both of these pieces of technology being used in various ways for teaching. … It is very beneficial and I believe it is possible. Carol came to the same conclusion even though she was placed with a technology coach. She wrote this statement in her final reflection, Currently, I am driven to use technology. No matter what grade level I work with, I now know that it is possible to integrate technology. …I want to make sure that I push myself to move beyond substitution when I begin to use technology. 1 All quotes in this paper are verbatim. The importance of professional development for teachers Another important aspect of the impact of the field experiences was related to teacher professional development. Six out of the nine participants addressed the importance of professional development for teachers in helping teachers integrate technology. The field experience allowed some participants to take part in professional development workshops, technology team meetings, and technology conferences, which expanded their perceptions toward technology integration. Although Jill was placed in a 1:1 2nd grade classroom, she had one very unique experience where she accompanied her cooperating teacher while participating in a professional development workshop. In fact, Jill ended up showing teachers how to upload and document the curriculum on a new website. Hillary had a similar professional development opportunity as she attended an “area” technology integration meeting with her cooperating teacher and found it beneficial as it made her more aware of what teachers are doing in their classrooms and gave her new ideas to integrate technology in her future classroom. Hillary indicated that she planned to continue going to those meetings to help keep herself connected and up to date. Working along side the technology coaches, Carol and Kate had a number of opportunities to participate in professional development workshops and frequently witnessed how technology coaches work with teachers (from different grades and content areas), which gave them a different perspective on technology integration and professional development. Kate expressed that she was inspired by her cooperating teacher’s continuous efforts to learn. That has motivated Kate to continue to learn new things and she intends to extend and apply that attitude of “lifelong learning” as she begins her first student teaching placement. Carol identified a new career goal by participating in this field experience and remarked, “I would love to educate my fellow teachers and share new resources with them to help them integrate technology more effectively. I could see myself doing what she [my cooperating teacher] is doing.” Thus, the field experience did appear to have a significant impact on Kate and Carol on a personal level, which reiterates Hixon and So’s (2009) finding where field experience helped preservice teachers decide their career choice and provided an opportunity to practice teaching prior to student teaching. Technology integration starts with content goals Five participants expressed that this particular technology-rich field experience helped them to clearly understand that content teaching is the most important goal and that technology integration should serve to enhance learning. Spending 24 hours in different classrooms at various grade levels, Hillary learned many new ideas to incorporate technology into her teaching. She wrote in her final reflection, Technology cannot be forced into the classroom and be used for everything. … I want to teach my students to the best of my ability. Teaching the students the content is the most important goal. If I can do that with technology, that is great. But if it is not best for my students, then, I will not use it. Jill had the opportunity to actually teach with technology during her field experience in a 1:1 2nd grade classroom and found it extremely valuable even though her first try turned out to be a bit of a disaster. As a result of this “failure”, it gave Jill the opportunity to reflect and revisit her lesson plan. So, she divided the lesson into a number of units based on specific content goals and successfully taught it again in a different 2nd grade classroom. Jill reflected, I completely revamped the lesson after teaching it once. … I was able to teach it again and it worked much better. Although the lesson itself wasn’t the best, I learned how to make it a better lesson, which helped me in the long run. Implications The findings of the study indicate that preservice teachers benefited from participating in technology-rich field experiences involving different educational contexts (working in 1:1 classrooms, working with technology teachers, and/or technology coaches, etc.). Field experiences play an important role in helping to fill the gap between knowledge and practice in the process of preparing teachers to integrate technology (Grable et al., 2008; Kay, 2006; Samuel & Bakar, 2005). Such findings should assist teacher educators as they assess what opportunities are present in current programs that develop preservice teachers’ TPACK. Providing additional opportunities for preservice participation in field experiences targeted for developing TPACK appears highly promising and one that teacher preparation programs might consider. One thing worth noting, the researchers did found it challenging to locate and secure the number of technology-rich placements that were needed each semester. Thus, further study should look into the investigation of establishing potential partnerships between K-12 schools and universities that will generate and facilitate such learning opportunities for future teachers who are motivated to use technology in their future classrooms. Conclusion This 1-credit field experience course is specifically targeted to provide opportunities for preservice teachers to work with PreK-12 educators in technology-rich, educational contexts. The findings indicate that this field experience had a positive impact on preservice teachers’ development of TPACK and as a result has better prepared them to integrate technology in their future classrooms. In addition, it appears that these field experiences actually helped them to better understand what it means to be a teacher, and this was not limited to solely understanding what it means to be a technology-using teacher. In sum, a technology-rich field experience like this may serve a valuable role in teacher preparation programs for preparing preservice teachers to develop a deeper understanding of the interplay between content, pedagogy and technology, while also learning about innovative ways to integrate technology into their future classrooms. References Bahr,, D. L., Shaha, S. H., Farnsworth, B. J., Lewis, V. K., & Benson, L. F. (2004). Preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology: Attitudinal impacts of technology-supported field experience on pre-service teacher candidates. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(2), 88–97. Broda, M., Wereley, M. & Schmidt, A. (2009). Making meaning from field: Using weblogs, wikis, and digital stories to debrief field placements. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 2754-2759). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/31056. Cruickshank, D. R., & Armaline, W. D. (1986). Field experiences in teacher education: Considerations and recommendations. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 34–40. Dawson, K., & Dana, N. F. (2007). When curriculum-based, technology-enhanced field experiences and teacher inquiry coalesce: An opportunity for conceptual change? British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 656–667. Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative Methods in Social Research. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Evans, B. P. (2004). A catalyst for change: Influencing preservice teacher technology proficiency. Journal of Educational Media and Library Sciences, 41(3), 325–336. Frey, T. (2008). Determining the impact of online practicum facilitation for inservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 181-210. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Frieberg, H. J. (1995). Promoting reflective practices. In G. A. Slick (Ed.), Emerging trends in teacher preparation: The future of field experiences, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 25–42. Grable, C., Hunt, A. & Unrue, E. (2008). Comparing digital to traditional field experience in pre-service teacher education. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 400-405). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Hixon, E., & So, H.-J. (2009). Technology's role in field experiences for preservice teacher training. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 294–304. Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into pre-service education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 383-408. Merriam, S. B., & Associates (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teachers' knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Posner, G. J. (2005). Field experience: A guide to reflective teaching (6th Ed.), White Plains, NY: Allyn and Bacon. Samuel, R. J., & Abu Bakar, Z. (2005). The utilization and integration of ICT tools in promoting English language teaching and learning: Reflections from English option teachers in Kuala Langat District, Malaysia. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 2(2), 4-14. Schmidt, D. A., Baran Sahin, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J. & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149. U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995, April). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. OTAEHR-616. Washington D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015034883846;view=1up;seq=3. Wentworth, N., Graham, C. R., & Tripp, T. (2008). Development of teaching and technology integration: Focus on pedagogy. Computers in the Schools, 25(1/2), 64–80. Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an educational computing course on preservice and inservice teachers: A discussion and analysis of attitudes and use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 479 – 495.