Contributing to the Greater Good

The direction my research study is taking me keeps returning to pre-service teacher preparation. The practice literature review paragraphs I wrote this week helped me to see that it has been identified teachers are leaving their teacher preparation programs ill-prepared for technology-rich education environments. It is clear from the research that teacher preparation programs are not making changes to support pre-service teachers before they leave the programs. What I propose is to use the Technology Proficiency Survey for Educators (TPSE) to evaluate educators enrolled in the LTEC 2600 course offered to education majors at the University of North Texas (UNT). While this course is an 8-week course offering, it is the only digital tools course currently offered. There are two potential outcomes I predict happening in an ideal world: 

1. The survey will show that one digital tools course is not enough to adequately prepare pre-service teachers for technology-rich education environments. The response will be to add more digital tools courses to the course requirements for education majors or offer a minor in learning technology to education majors. 

2. The survey will show the benefit of the tools course and lengthen the course from 8 weeks to a full 16-week offering. This prediction does not include the introduction of a minor in learning technologies or any additional digital tools course offerings. 

Both of these offerings would extend pre-service teachers’ learning opportunities and better prepare them to effectively use technology in the classroom. 

I would like to expand, or maybe narrow, my focus to assistive technology training. I was a special education teacher before moving into my role as a librarian. While I was still in the classroom we experienced the global shutdown due to the pandemic. It was painfully obvious that my district was ill-prepared to transition to online learning, especially to transition to procuring special education services online. We faced difficulties due to not being rostered classroom teachers, there was a lack of knowledge about available accessible technology like speech-to-text features. I use the term accessible technology because it is different from assistive technology; accessible technology is native features on devices like iPads, that provide assistive technology accommodations to anyone (Shaheen & Watulak, 2019). This is a much more focused deficit among in-service teachers due to a lack of training available in the form of professional development opportunities and pre-service education. For example, my district recently hosted a district-wide technology training; none of the sessions featured how to use digital tools to accommodate special education or ELL students. There is a gap to be addressed. 

The feasibility of completing this study within a calendar year is dependent on gaining IRB approval and approval from the dean of the College of Education at UNT. The course is offered each semester, which allows me two semesters to collect pre and post-test data to evaluate the course for effectiveness. If everything moves at a prompt pace, I could get IRB approval to begin the study in the upcoming fall semester. The pre-test would be administered within the first week of the semester to gain a baseline of the student’s knowledge of technology tools. Throughout the course, I would observe coursework submissions and discussion post activities. After the course, the post-test would be administered to determine if there were any gains during the course. I would plan to repeat this during the spring semester, as long as it does not conflict with graduation deadlines.

Shaheen, N. L., & Watulak, S.L. (2019). Bringing disability into the discussion: Examining technology accessibility as an equity concern in the field of instructional technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(2), 187–201.