Home PublicationsJRTEPast IssuesVolume 33 Number 5

	Edited by Dr. David J. Ayersman, Mary Washington College, and Dr. W. Michael Reed, New York University
formerly Journal of Research on Computing in Education

Volume 33 Number 5 Summer 2001

Technology and Multiculturalism in the Classroom
Case Studies in Attitudes and Motivations, Part III

Ines Marquez Chisholm and Keith Wetzel
Arizona State University West

Discussion and Implications

Teaching Methods Matched Smart Classroom Capabilities

The participants chose to use these Smart Classrooms because the classrooms matched their teaching methods and instructional goals. They valued collaborative student work groups, and the eight computer stations made it easy to arrange projects for their students. They valued group sharing, and the ClassWorks system made it easy for students to share their work. Although the participants were not formally aware of the six elements of multicultural technology integration, our analysis showed that the faculty designed some activities and made some choices that reflected them.

Technology Skill Level Matched Smart Classroom Capabilities

Four of the participants thought they were not technology experts, but their expertise was sufficient to give them the confidence to try a new teaching environment. For example, one teacher educator commented that her level of technology skill was sufficient to enable her “…to do what I want to do.” Another said, “I learn to do what I need to do.” It should also be noted that four participants had previously designed their own Web pages; although their Web pages varied in content and complexity, they often included two or more of the following: course syllabi and links to electronic mailing lists, online journals, and Internet sites related to course content and classroom activities. The participants did not need to use valuable class time teaching step-by-step use of computer applications. A critical mass of the students had sufficient skills to allow the group work to focus on meaningful course outcomes. For example, three of the five participants assigned a self-described competent user to each student group with the expectation that the Internet search, PowerPoint (1987–2000) presentation, school budget spreadsheet simulation, or Kid Pix (1989–2001) field trip slide show would be successful and model appropriate uses of technology in their academic areas. This technique also encouraged peer-centered learning, rather than relying on a “sage on the stage.”

Smart Classroom Support Matched Faculty Needs

An analysis of the interview transcripts revealed no mention of the issue of technology support by central campus computing. This is important because adequate technology support is a key to inducing faculty to use technology in the classroom (Strudler & Wetzel, 1999). It is our contention that faculty members take for granted just-in-time support for technology use in their classrooms. For example, a technology assistant starts each computer and makes sure it is working prior to each class period. Instructors have access to on-call support personnel during class time. If a problem arises (e.g., a network or printing question), a support person usually reports within 10 minutes. Problems that are not taken care of immediately are noted on a whiteboard in the classroom and are usually corrected by support technicians prior to the start of the next day’s session. As a result of this level of outside support, instructors using the Smart Classroom are essentially free from any direct involvement in technical support issues.

Faculty Vision of Teaching, Learning, and Technology Match Smart Classroom

We did not teach faculty to use technology for this study. Each participant developed a variety of meaningful technology uses for their students prior to our research. In an earlier survey (Wetzel, 1993), a faculty member wrote, “I’d be happy to use technology in my classroom, but I can’t think of any appropriate uses. I don’t lecture a lot.” By contrast, participants in our study knew what to do, addressed many aspects of the six elements of multicultural integration, and had the technological expertise to create a successful learning environment.

For Further Study

Only five teacher educators out of a total education faculty of 40 chose to use the Smart Classrooms. Further research is needed to determine why the remaining 35 teacher educators elected not to use this facility. In the meantime, based on our current research, and our involvement with the five teachers educators who participated in this study, we arrived at the following conclusions:

1. Faculty chose not to use the Smart Classrooms because their teaching methods may not match the Smart Classroom design (e.g., they may not emphasize student collaboration).
2. Faculty may not feel sufficiently confident in their technology skills.
3. Faculty may not have a vision of meaningful and compelling use of technology in their areas.
4. Smart Classroom layout does not accommodate classes larger than 30.

We recommend further study of faculty who choose not to use technology in their teaching to better understand the factors that influence their decisions. If the obstacle is technology expertise, what level of technology expertise is required to make reluctant faculty feel comfortable using technology in teaching? If the obstacle is vision, what instructional goals might correlate with appropriate and compelling use of technology for faculty in their specific content areas? What experiences will help them develop personally compelling uses of technology in teaching? Developing culturally appropriate uses of technology in teaching is perhaps the most difficult hurdle needed to be overcome. How do we model the six multicultural technology integration elements in faculty training?

Next Steps

Following this study and through a Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) Implementation Project (“Preparing,” 2000), this College of Education offered faculty members a series of eight half-day to two-day summer technology workshops. Five of the eight workshops were offered in the Smart Classrooms to model the use of technology in these facilities. More than half of the faculty enrolled in one or more of the workshops. The workshops included such topics as Building Your Web Page, Using the Internet to Support ESL/BLE Classes, Using the Internet to Prepare Students for the State Teaching Exam, PowerPoint and the Smart Classroom, and Using Inspiration across the Curriculum. This research has helped us consider the training needs of faculty so they can develop ideas about compelling uses of technology in their areas, particularly with regard to multicultural learning environments. As a result, we can look to forward to new teachers beginning their inservice careers with the competence, and confidence, to use technology in meaningful ways.

Contributors

Dr. Ines Marquez Chisholm teaches bilingual and English as a second language methods courses and has conducted research on multicultural technology integration in preservice and inservice education. Dr. Keith Wetzel teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in educational technology. He is the director of a Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) Implementation Project, and his research focuses on the integration of technology in teacher education. Together, they have a long-term interest in issues raised in this research. Through Dr. Chisholm’s research into multicultural technology integration into preservice and inservice education, six culturally supportive teaching elements have been identified (Chisholm, 1998). Dr. Wetzel’s recent research has focused on factors common to teacher education programs exemplary in their integration of technology throughout their programs (Strudler & Wetzel, 1999). Together, the authors have evaluated K–12 staff development programs for technology integration in multicultural schools (Chisholm & Wetzel, 1997) and team planned their preservice courses in educational applications of technology and ESL and BLE language arts respectively (Wetzel & Chisholm, 1998).

Download the full article (PDF, 214 KB, 34 seconds PDF Instructions)

Back to page 1

Back to page 2

Contact

Dr. Ines Marquez Chisholm
College of Education (MC 3151)
4701 W. Thunderbird Rd.
Glendale, AZ 85306-4900
ines@asu.edu

References

Barr, B. (1999). Should computer labs be phased out? NEA Today, 18(1), 11.

Chisholm, I. M. (1998). Six elements for technology integration in multicultural classrooms. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 7(2), 247–268.

Chisholm, I. M., & Wetzel, K. (1997). Lessons learned from a technology integrated curriculum for multicultural classrooms. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 5(4), 293–317.

Huang, S. (1994). Prospective teachers’ use and perception of the value of technology. In J. Willis, B. Robin, D. Willis (Eds.), Technology and Teacher Education Annual (pp. 61–66). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Kid Pix [Computer software]. (1989–2001). Novato, CA: The Learning Company.

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

Norton, S., McRobbie, C., & Cooper, T. (2000). Exploring secondary mathematics teachers’ reasons for not using computers in their teaching: Five case studies. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(1) 87–109.

Nothing but ’net (2000). Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers, 75(3), 13.

November, A. (1997). Magic links. Learning & Leading with Technology, 24(8), 54–56.

Parker, D. (1997). Increasing faculty use of technology in teaching and teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2–3) 105–115.

Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology: Grant showcase. [Online document] (2000) Available: http://pt3.org/pd3_grants/grantee_showcase.php3.

Quick, J. (1997). Computer lab in the classroom. Media & Methods, 33(5), 16.

Robin, B., & Harris, J. (1998). Correlates among computer-using teacher educators’ beliefs, teaching, and learning preferences, and demographics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(1)15–35.

Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer. (1996). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Stafford-Levy, M. & Wiburg, K. (2000). Multicultural technology integration: The winds of change amid the sands of time. Computers in the Schools Quarterly, 16 (3–4), 121–134.

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (1999). Lessons from exemplary colleges of education: Factors affecting technology integration in preservice education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4) 63–81.

Turroff, M. (1999, January–March). Education, commerce, communications: The era of competition. WebNet Journal, 22–31.

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

Wetzel, K. (1993). Teacher educator’s uses of computers in teaching. Journal of Technology in Teacher Education, 1(4), 335–352.

Wetzel, K., & Chisholm, I. (1998). An evaluation of technology integration in teacher education for bilingual and English as a second language majors. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(4) 379–397.

Woolfolk, A. (1995). Educational psychology (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Word [Computer software] (1983–2000). Redmond, WA: Microsoft.

Copyright © 2001, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved.