Technology Use in Pre-Service Teacher Education and Future Research

Directions

Guliz Turgut
Lynch School of Education
Boston College
United States
turgutg@bc.edu

Abstract: This paper is a review of twenty-three empirical studies conducted in the U.S.
published after the O.T.A. (1995) report, which provided useful insights on technology
and teacher education, up until 2007. The studies are organized under the emerging
themes of technology use in pre-service teacher education and future research. The use of
technology section includes Hands-on Integration, which consists of electronic portfolios,
content area, and collaborative learning and Modeling. The second section, future
research, provides what future research should focus on to be more informative for the
discipline. From the review, it is clear that teacher education programs have come a long
way since 1995 in terms of generating awareness of technology’s importance, different
ways of preparing pre-service teachers to a digital century, and focusing on a variety of
research questions that would enlighten the field.

Introduction

Despite technologies available in schools, a substantial number of teachers

report little or no use of computers for instruction. Their use of other
technologies also varies considerably. To use these tools well, teachers need
visions of the technologies’ potential, opportunities to apply them, training and
just-in-time support, and time to experiment. Most teachers have not had
adequate training to prepare them to use technology effectively in teaching …
and to integrate technology into the curriculum. Helping teachers use
technology effectively may be the most important step to assuring that current
and future investments in technology are realized. (OTA, 1995 p.1-2)

The quotation above refers to the availability of technology and its use in the U.S. schools reported by the
Office of Technology Assessment (O.T.A.) of the United States Congress in 1995. After the publication of the
illuminating O.T.A. (1995) report- which can be considered as a milestone in Educational Technology (ET) history-
The Milken Exchange on Education Technology conducted a research study in 1999 that focused on technology use
in teacher education (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999). The results revealed, similar to what the O.T.A. reported earlier,
that teacher-education programs did not provide adequate experiences to prepare pre-service teachers to use
technology in their classrooms.
What happened after the O.T.A. and ISTE reports? Has there been substantial change in technology use in
teacher education? If so, what is different and how is it different? I examined what research reported about teacher
education and educational technology between 1995 and 2007. In order to find research articles that would answer
to my questions, I used two databases: Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC) and EBSCO. For article
search, I used “teacher education”, “pre-service teacher education”, and “teacher training” interchangeably as
descriptors. In addition to these descriptors, I used “educational technology” and “higher education”. I limited the
search to peer-reviewed articles that were published between 1995 and 2007, which included seventy-three articles
in total. After eliminating those that were not empirical or related to my research question, seventeen articles were
used for further examination. An example to articles that, I did not include would be studies of pre-service teachers’
attitudes towards technology as this is related to attitudes and beliefs, not the direct use of technology. Another
restriction that I used during article selection was about the origin of the studies. I excluded the studies conducted
outside the U.S. as my primary focus was on use of technology in pre-service education in the U.S.. In addition to
using the ERIC and EBSCO databases to find articles, I also did a hand-search investigation of the bibliographies
used in the articles of interest. Through this hand-search, six more articles were further examined. In total, twenty-
three peer-reviewed articles were categorized according to the emerging themes based on grounded theory. The
main themes that emerged were the Use of technology in pre-service teacher education and Future research. The Use
of technology has two sub-themes; Hands-on integration and Modeling. Some of the articles fit under more than one
theme and sub-themes.

1. Use of Technology in Pre-service Teacher Education

Ever since the emergence of technology in society and the workplace, educational institutions have been
struggling with the question of how to enhance human potential and improve teaching (Yildirim, 2000). Similarly,
teacher education programs have also been struggling with how to prepare prospective teachers for the digital
century and they still do not have a “clear path” to answer this question (Pellegrino & Altman, 1997) as it depends
on different factors, such as teaching methods that are implemented by teacher education programs and individual
faculty, educational philosophies that are embraced or available technology or staff. After suggestions by Willis
(1999), Pellegrino and Altman (1997), Brownell (1997), and the O.T.A. (1995), to focus more on the ways of
integrating technology into teacher education programs, many researchers started working on finding the “clear
path” (Pellegrino & Altman, 1997) and two suggestions have emerged: Hands-on-integration and Modeling. Hands-
on integration includes electronic portfolios, offering technology in content area courses and collaborative learning
projects.

1.1. Hands-On Integration

Surveys on pre-service teacher curricula teaching technology through separate computer classes indicate
inadequate preparation (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999). Therefore, hands-on integration suggest that technology
should be integrated into pre-service teacher preparation courses and prospective teachers should be provided with
hands-on experience as they struggle not in technical knowledge of technology but in integrating it meaningfully
into their teaching (Hansen & Nalder-Godfrey, 2004). Hansen and Nalder-Godfrey (2004) state that most students
who complete a separate computer class felt one element missing; making a real connection to what they will need
in their classroom. As Rizza (2000) states, “Teaching teachers to use software programs is quite different from
allowing them to integrate technology in their teaching. Pre-service teachers, therefore, must be prepared to design
and implement curricula that incorporate technology for all learners.” (pg 134) Deyrich and Dyson (2006) and Rizza
(2000) state that for this to be achieved the issue should be considered from a pedagogical angle, such as joining
epistemological issues both from the field of technology and from the subject being studied. According to Deyrich
and Dyson (2006), this collaborative approach, linking curricular development and use of technology, can prove
constructive for teachers and learners alike. Although Ashton and Newman (2006) agree with Deyrich and Dyson
(2006), they also consider the issue from a different standpoint where the ultimate goal should be helping pre-
service teachers become collaborative, life-long learners. Being a life-long learner means using technology as a tool
for reaching to various resources and collaborating with colleagues. Through hands-on learning and collaboration, it
is hoped that pre-service teachers will learn not only technology applications but also how to keep learning by
themselves in collaborative environment (Ashton & Newman, 2006). Hands-on integration will be examined further
through three subheadings: Electronic portfolios, Technology embedded into content area courses and Online life-
long learning.

1.1.1 Electronic portfolios: e-folios

One way that pre-service teachers integrate technology into courses is through using electronic portfolios.
Helen Barrett (2001) (as cited in Lynch & Purnawarman, 2004, p.50) describes a portfolio as a purposeful collection
of student work exhibiting students’ effort, progress and achievements in one or more areas. An electronic portfolio
is one collected, saved, and stored in a digital format. Portfolios are considered beneficial in making connections
between theory and practice and as a step toward developing a professional portfolio for career purposes (Lynch and
Purnawarman, 2004). Bartlett and Sherry (2006) consider e-folios as an ideal vehicle to teach technology during
teacher education, since they provide the benefits of traditional teaching portfolios, plus they incorporate learning
educational technologies that can be used in future teaching. Bartlett and Sherry (2006), McManus et al (2002), and
Bird and Rosaen (2005) used e-folios as a tool to help pre-service teachers become familiar with different types of
technology through meaningful integration. Bartlett and Sherry’s (2006) study, which provides insights into pre-
service teachers’ perceptions of electronic portfolios, shows that no matter their technology background, or whether
they were graduate or undergraduate students, getting clear directions, support and time has the biggest impact in e-
folio preparation (Bartlett & Sherry, 2006). Furthermore, McManus et al (2002) piloted a certificate program that
certified pre-service teachers who submitted a digital portfolio demonstrating their use of technology to enhance
student learning. At the end of their first year pilot study, they found that successful applicants came from a wide
range of different technological environments, in contrary to common belief that successful applicants would mostly
come from rich technological environments.
Despite its promising benefits in terms of promoting the use of a variety of technologies for pre-service
teachers, e-folios raise additional questions. How appropriately are they being used? How are rubrics created? How
are students supported throughout this process? And how truly helpful are they in familiarizing pre-service teachers
with the technologies they will use in their teaching? Despite e-folios’ effectiveness in helping pre-service teachers
become familiar with different technologies, McManus et al (2002) state that during their first year pilot program the
number of applicants was well below their expectations, casting doubt on the generalizibility of their study’s
findings. These results also bring the following question to mind: were e-folios implemented appropriately?
Answers to this question come from the results of Lynch and Purnawarman’s (2004) study which points out the
shocking fact that while up to ninety percent of teacher education programs attempt to use portfolio assessment, a
mere two percent of ET/IT programs are employing it appropriately. They add that “nationwide only an approximate
thirty-five percent are using portfolios at all, and they are missing critical elements” (p. 54).One of the critical
elements that was absent were the rubrics that provide accurate evaluation portfolio assessment.
From the literature, it appears that before using e-portfolios as part of a teacher education program and
trying to provide pre-service teachers with as many hands-on applications as possible, the effectiveness and quality
of implementations should be considered first. A strong base should be created which will provide students with
enough time, support, and evaluation criteria before arguing whether e-portfolios are a valuable way of integrating
technology into teacher education programs.

1.1.2. Technology embedded into content area courses

Besides using e-folios to integrate technology into tasks that pre-service students already do as part of their
program, technology is also tried to be integrated into their courses. This way it is aimed to provide pre-service
teachers with the knowledge of using technology for the specific content area they are majoring in. Bird and Rosaen
(2005) describe this type of integration in their study. In their teacher preparation program, they decided not to offer
a separate course, but infuse technology requirements into the professional courses (Bird & Rosaen, 2005). During
this process, Bird and Rosaen (2005) describe the biggest challenge not as teaching prospective teachers to use
information technology, but doing it so well that they will be authentic in school teaching. At the end of the semester,
teacher candidates gave favorable ratings to the utility of the course activities as assignments.
Considering Bird’s and Rosaen’s (2005) results, it can be assumed that prospective teachers can
successfully learn how to use information technology in a limited time by taking a course wherein technology is
integrated. However, can we also assume that this type of integration improves content knowledge while improving
technology knowledge? In search for an answer to how they can help prospective teachers effectively apply
principles learned in educational psychology courses to classroom experiences, Monero and Valdez (2007) designed
a research study to examine whether presentation of a classroom case exemplar in either text or video format would
affect students’ learning perceptions and their ability to transfer educational psychology principles to novel
classroom situations. They compared the learning outcomes and perceptions of three groups: a video group who
watched a video case exemplar during instruction, a text group who read a corresponding narrative during
instruction, and a control group who spent the same amount of time reviewing the topic without the presentation of
the case exemplar. Results showed that students who learned about the educational psychology topic with the
presentation of a video exemplar outperformed the others. Moreover, watching classroom video cases also produced
a positive effect on students’ perceptions about learning. The results suggest that video cases may have specific
characteristics that help students feel that learning is easier, more motivating, or more helpful to their goals.
Through integrating technology into content courses, faculties not only provide hands-on use of technology
but also increase content area knowledge. However, Fleming et al (2007) warn teacher-educators that “just because
individuals are competent with technology doesn’t necessarily mean that they are able to employ technology in their
classroom in ways that enhances learning of their students” (p. 218). Dutt-Doner et al (2005) make a similar
warning: “Pre-service teachers have ‘grown up digital,’ but being comfortable with technology is not adequate
preparation for understanding how to meaningfully integrate technology” (p. 65). Monero and Valdez (2007)
suggest that illustrating how knowledge about teaching and learning can be applied to real classroom situations can
help prospective teachers build a bridge between theory, practice and technology as well as meaningfully using it.
Dutt-Doner et al’s (2005) case study on a pre-service graduate teacher education program at a private university
illustrates how technical literacy, Web resources, meaningful technology teaching experiences, and a culture of
collaboration were integrated into a curriculum. The case study focused on technology integration that took place in
an interdisciplinary math, science, and social studies methods course. Their integration was based on debriefing
which provided teacher candidates the opportunity to better understand the complex decision making process that
took place before, during, and after instruction. Teacher candidates indicated that they learned best from these
modeling and debriefing experiences because they provide a critical context for helping them make pedagogical
decisions.

1.1.3. Collaborative, life-long learning

In addition to integrating technology into teacher education programs by using e-folios and content-based
courses, another way of offering hands-on integration is through using technology as a tool to create collaborative
learning environments where pre-service students construct knowledge by communicating with other students and
faculty through Internet-based technologies. The goal is creating not only technology competent future-teachers, but
also teachers who can continuously improve themselves in their field after graduation by making use of their
resources and technology. Hansen and Nalder-Godfrey (2004) consider teachers as the source of change and suggest
that teachers should create “a learning community where learners learn from their own practices where improvement
occurs because of their own experiences” (Hansen & Nalder-Godfrey, 2004 p.45). According to Hansen and Nalder-
Godfrey (2004), by becoming active life-long learners, they will become responsible for their own professional
growth. This can be achieved by creating constructivist learning environments with other teachers and faculty that
will connect with each other through web-based technology. According to Delfino and Persico (2007), the concept
of online learning communities may encourage future participation in communities of practice, which is
acknowledged to be one of the most promising means of teacher development.
Garcia and Rose (2004) also think collaboration among pre-service students to construct knowledge as a
key feature for authentic instruction and professional improvement. In their study they used a curriculum design tool
called WebSTAR that aimed to promote intercampus collaboration among teacher education faculty and their
classes. It was developed in response to the increasing demand on teacher education faculty to use and model the use
of the Web with their students (Garcia & Rose, 2004). They investigated perceptions of faculty and pre-service
teachers on how their participation in WebSTAR projects facilitated powerful learning and teaching. The results
show that students valued the opportunity to move beyond their own classroom and interact with other students at
other institutions through technology. Students also envisioned cooperating with teacher colleagues through the Web
when they became practicing teachers. In addition to using technology to collaborate with other people, they also
improved their content knowledge. As a result of this experiment, students recognized “the added value of
collaborative telecommunication projects to be extending the walls of the classroom, exposure to different cultures
and values, quickness of response, and motivating to students” (Garcia & Rose, 2004 p. 261).
In sum, through using e-portfolios, integrating technology into content areas and using technology as a tool
to create online collaborative learning environments, hands-on integration aims to train pre-service teachers in using
technology by providing them with as many hands-on opportunities as possible with various technologies.

1.2 Modeling

A second suggestion focusing on the ways of integrating technology successfully into teacher education
programs is modeling. Different from the hands-on integration, modeling argues that technology should be
integrated into teacher education programs through demonstration and modeling by faculty. In this part of the review,
I will explain modeling and criticism of it.
It is argued that faculty’s modeling technology is effective and there is an increasing demand on teacher
educators to use and model technology integration strategies throughout students’ programs of study (Garcia & Rose,
2007). Some researchers state that modeling can overcome the limited resources of teacher education programs in
terms of technology and staff availability for students to have hands-on experience. Fleming et al (2007)
investigated whether modeling by university professors, practicum and cooperating teachers was related to pre-
service teachers’ perceptions of their computer technology skills. Their study suggests that the more extensively pre-
service teachers observe computer technology being used and the more they use computer technology in and out of
the student teaching classroom, the more likely pre-service teachers were to report competence in computer
technology skills (Fleming et al, 2007). Although modeling computer technology in the classroom may result in
stronger beliefs about the value of technology for teaching (Russell et al, 2003 as cited in Fleming et al, 2007), pre-
service teachers are rarely provided with exemplary faculty role models or cooperating teacher role models who
demonstrate computer technology in the classroom, (Dexter et al, 2006)
Using Modeling as the only tool for teaching pre-service teachers how to use technology has been criticized
as the transfer of theoretical knowledge into action-oriented knowledge depends on opportunities for practice and
reflection (Pellegrino & Altman, 1997). Pellegrino and Altman (1997) argue that telling students what is possible is
not enough; they must see technology used by their instructors, observe uses of technological tools in classrooms,
and practice teaching with technologies themselves if they are to use these tools effectively in their own teaching.
Pellegrino & Altman (1997) and Dexter et al (2006) suggest that besides faculty modeling how to use technology
meaningfully in teaching, the active implementation, hands-on technology use in classrooms by student teachers
appears to be an important area for ensuring student teachers’ competence in computer technology. Therefore, it is
essential that university personnel who are responsible for student teacher placements consider the technology
available in the primary and secondary school settings in order to increase pre-service teachers’ observations of
cooperating teachers and engage in active use of technologies in their practicum in addition to their courses in
teacher education programs.

2. Future Research

In addition to reviewing research on the use of technology in pre-service teacher training, I also want to
highlight some topics for future research based on the readings in this present research.
Firstly, personality features of teachers and the impact of their use of technology might be investigated. 21st
century technologies require more collaboration and cooperation among users. However, if a person cannot work
collaboratively with others, which might be due to cultural, social, and personal reasons, his or her effectiveness in
using technology may not be constructive. For instance, Dexter et al. (2006) investigated faculties’ prior knowledge
on technology and found that the fellow’s own collaboration skills, views and knowledge of technology, and their
insights about course and technology connections had a significant influence on how the faculty members learned
and consequently integrated technology. Dexter et al’s (2006) study shows that some methods course instructors
who were willing to learn technology but did not collaborate well with other fellows appeared unable to learn or
add new aides or assignments to their courses as much as ones who collaborated. This means that without
collaborative working skills, being competent in technology, having positive attitudes towards it and being
knowledgeable in subject area does not secure success in using 21st century technologies which are collaborative in
nature.
Secondly, future studies may also explore collaborative interaction among faculty, pre-service teachers,
teachers at schools, technology experts, and trainers. Wepner et al (2007) highlight this aspect: “For technology to
be used effectively in teacher education, collaborative professional development opportunities for university faculty,
teacher candidates, and cooperating teachers need to exit” (p.81). According to Eifler et al (2004), we should not just
focus on equipping 21st century teachers with necessary information that they will need in their classroom but we
should also focus on the staff that trains the teachers. Furthermore, for advances in technology to be effectively
utilized in tomorrow’s classrooms, faculties in teacher education programs must design learning environments and
experiences for pre-service teachers so that they are fully prepared for new technologies and other realities of
classrooms and schools. However, in order for teacher education programs and faculties to achieve this, both
university faculty and teachers working with pre-service teachers should work collaboratively and provide support,
modeling, and mentoring about effective uses of technology (Wepner et al, 2007).
Finally, future research should employ different data collection methods. It is not only important to
understand the degree to which pre-service or beginning teachers use technology, but, as suggested by Bebell et al
(2004) (as cited in Fleming, 2007), it is important to understand how technology is being used. For example,
Pellegrino and Altman (1997) complain that most of the literature on diffusion in IT comes from proponents of the
technological innovation. He states that more reports, in the form of case studies, or in other formats, such as
summaries of journals, from the teachers who were involved in integrating the innovation into their classrooms are
needed. These types of reports may help us better understand how technology is handled and how technology
integration occurs. How do these and other innovations work? How were they created? What steps were taken to
encourage participation and use? And, perhaps most importantly, how will they be disseminated so that other
teacher-education programs can use them if they wish? He suggests that if the control-experimental aspect is de-
emphasized, although really needed, current studies needs to provide a grounded, rich, and thick description of the
development of cognitive tools for teacher education.

Conclusion

Returning to the questions which served as the basis of this review, it is clear that teacher education
programs have come a long way since 1995 in terms of generating awareness of technology’s importance, providing
different ways of preparing pre-service teachers for a digital century, and focusing on a variety of research questions
that would enlighten the field.
One of the differences is realizing the importance of technology integration during the pre-service teacher
education After the O.T.A. (1995) and Moursund and Bielefeldt (1999) results indicated that many teacher
candidates are not successfully prepared to carry out the necessary task of technology-enriched classroom practice
and imposing change on experienced teachers can be a challenge, and is often unsuccessful, teacher education
programs realized the importance of facilitating technological change through pre-service teacher education. The
second improvement has been in teacher education programs ceasing to assume that pre-service teachers are
competent in use of technology in teaching just because they are “digital natives”. Teacher education programs
realized that despite today’s pre-service teachers having “grown up digital,” they are not adequately prepared for
understanding how to meaningfully integrate technology to transform learning. Relatedly, the third change in
teacher education involves the awareness of how important it is to prepare pre-service teachers to meaningfully
integrate technology into their content areas in such a way that they will apply their knowledge into their teaching in
classrooms. Upon gaining this awareness, teacher education programs started training future teachers with methods
and tools that are similar to those they are supposed to use with their own students and schools. One of these widely
used tools is the Internet and learning through online resources. As student teachers are more likely to use similar
methods with their students, it became important to invest in providing first-hand experiences of technologies that
their students will use. One final improvement is the importance of teacher education faculty’s role in preparing pre-
service teachers to teach in the digital age. Through questionnaires Ashton and Newman (2006) administered to
faculty, it was shown that a few academics were confident with using technology in teaching. Additionally, in his
study Wepner et al (2007) showed that faculty’s increased skills, abilities, and experience with technology have
enabled them to more actively model and encourage its use by their students. Prior to Wepner at al’s study, Rowley
et al’s (2005) study found that students who reported positively about use of technology tended to be in classes
where the professor used module content and technological tools on a more regular basis. However, students who
sensed their professor was not fully invested or totally comfortable with the technology tended to have less positive,
and in some cases, negative observations.
As teacher education programs have been looking for a “clear path” to prepare pre-service teachers for the
21st century where technology is incessantly improving and updating itself each year, they have discovered that they
have been asking the wrong question. Maybe the clearest way is educating teachers who are constant learners and
who will have necessary skills and knowledge to keep improving themselves based on the changes happening
around them and in the world upon their graduation from teacher education programs. Pellegrino and Altman (1997)
define the goal that should be achieved by teacher educators as preparing future-teachers as “guide”, not “teacher”
and teaching them to become risk-takers. In the 21st-century classrooms and learning environments, students are
working independently and collaboratively on projects that demand access to a wide range of information which
comes over high-speed digital networks, allowing access of information at any place, any time (Pellegrino & Altman,
1997). In order to adapt to these changing roles and fulfill the needs their new roles brings, taking risks to learn new
technology and experiment with them is important (Pellegrino & Altman, 1997) because Lisowski et al (2006) found
that risk taking was an attribute that successful technology integration participants shared. Since 1995, teacher
education programs have come a long way and they have a long way to go.
References
Ashton, J., & Newman, L. (2006). An unfinished symphony: 21st century teacher education using knowledge creating
heutagogies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 825-840.

Bartlett, A., & Sherry, A. C. (2006). Two views of electronic portfolios in teacher education: Non-technology undergraduates and
technology graduate students. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(3), 245-253.

Bird, T., & Rosaen, C. L. (2005). Providing authentic contexts for learning information technology in teacher preparation.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 211-231.

Brownell, K. (1997). Technology in teacher education: Where are we and where do we go from here? Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 5(2-3), 117-138.

Delfino, M., & Persico, D. (2007, October). Online or face-to-face? Experimenting with different techniques in teacher training.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 351-365. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from Education Research Complete
database.

Deyrich, M., & Dyson, L. (2006). Integrating Cultural and Language Development with Technology in Curricular Design.
International Journal of Learning, 13(2), 103-112. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from Education Research Complete database.

Dexter, S., Doering, A. H. & Riedel, E. (2006). Content Area Specific Technology Integration: A Model for Educating Teachers
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education; 14(2), 325-345.

Dutt-Doner, K., Allen, S., & Corcoran, D. (2005). Transforming Student Learning by Preparing the Next Generation of Teachers
for Type II Technology Integration. Computers in the Schools, 22(3/4), 63-75. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from Education
Research Complete database.

Eifler, K. E., Potthoff, D. & Dinsmore, J. (2004). A Bucket of Eels: A tripartite approach to renewing a teacher education
program. Journal of Teacher Education, 55 (1), 91-101.

Fleming, L., Motamedi, V., & May, L. (2007). Predicting preservice teacher competence in computer technology: Modeling and
application in training environments. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 207-231.

Garcia, P., & Rose, S. (2007). The influence of technocentric collaboration on preservice teachers’ attitudes about technology’s
role in powerful learning and teaching. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 247-266.

Hansen, J. M., & Nalder-Godfrey, N. (2004). The power of action research, technology and teacher education. Computers in the
Schools, 21(1-2), 43-57.

Lisowski, L., Lisowski, J., & Nicolia, S. (2006). Infusing Technology into Teacher Education: Doing More with Less. Computers
in the Schools, 23(3/4), 71-92. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from Education Research Complete database.

Lynch, L. L., & Purnawarman, P. (2004). Electronic portfolio assessments in the U. S. educational and instructional technology
programs: Are they supporting teacher education? TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 48(1), 50-56.

McManus, T. F., Charles, M. T., Rubio, R. A., Hoffman, E. S., & Lenze, J. S. (2002). COATT: A state-wide Initiative to evaluate
and improve teacher technology education. Computers in the Schools, 18(4), 165-183.

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. Retrieved November 29, 2007,
from Education Research Complete database.

Pellegrino, J. W., & Altman, J. E. (1997). Information technology and teacher preparation: some critical issues and illustrative
solutions. Peabody Journal of Education, 32(1), 89-121.

Rizza, M. G. (2000). Perspectives on pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward technology. The Teacher Educator, 36(2), 132-147.

Rowley, J., Dysard, G., & Arnold, J. (2005). Developing a new technology infusion program for preparing tomorrow'
s teachers.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 105-123.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection, OTAHER- 616
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1995).

Wepner, S. B., Bowes, K. A., & Serotkin, R. S. (2007). Technology in teacher education: Creating a climate of change and
collaboration. Action in Teacher Education, 29(1), 81-93.

Willis, J., Thompson, A., & Sadera, W. (1999). Research on technology and teacher education: Current status and future
directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 29-45.

Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an educational computing course on pre-service and in-service teachers: A discussion and analysis
of attitudes and use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 479- 495.

Acknowledgements

I would like to give special thanks to Dr. Yildiz Turgut for her support, guidance, and time.