The Use of Wireless Technology to Augment Problem-Based Learning in Special Education Preservice Teacher Training

J. M. Blackboum, JentiiferG. Fllngm, Susan McCelland, G. Franklin Elrod, Meagan B. Medley, Mary Alice Kritsonis, and Jan Ray , ' This study examines the use of wireless laptop technology to support the application of problem-based learning (PBL) in a special education methods course. This field based course used a progressive disclosure process in weekly seminars to address issues posed in a ease study. Eight scenarios, all related to the case, were presented to upper level undergraduates in the methods course seminars. These preserviee teachers were divided into groups of five for scenario analysis and surveyed, following course completion, regarding the use of wireless laptop technology in support ofthe PBL process. The survey results showed that the students used the laptops immediately to research those leaming issues associated with each case scenarios. In addition, the students modified and improved the existing framework for the PBL process to eliminate the need for a scribe to transcribe group discussion comments. The survey further indicated that the use of wireless technology in the class enhanced student participation and satisfaction.

As the nation continues to advance through the first decade of the twenty-first century,thcrc is agrowing need for its teachers to not only be expert in content knowledge, but to also possess the critical thinking skills necessary to make in-field decisions that are vital to the education of individual students and entire classrooms. It has been recommended that to prepare students to succeed in today's post-college work environment, undergraduate education must foster highlevel skills in communication, computation, technological literacy, and information retrieval; in the ability to arrive at informed judgments; in the ability to function in a global community; in technical competence

in a given field; and in the ability to deploy all of tbe above to address specific problems (Wingspread Conference. 1994). Indeed, with regard to preservice teacher education, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) (1993) established standards that focus on assessment and analysis of the instructional setting, the implementation of teaching approaches appropriate forthat setting, and theevaluation of the effectiveness of these methods to support decision making in conjunction with lesson planning and implementation. Teacher education must evolve, therefore, to maintain its relevance in preparing the teachers ofthe new century. Instructional methods in higher education that worked ten or twenty years ago may no longer be sufficient to provide preservice teachers with these needed analytical skills. Those innovations necessary for significant instructional improvement will tend to be disruptive to the standard operating procedures of most educational institutions as they are currently structured. Christenson (1997), Moore (1999), Christensen, Raynor, and 169

J. M. Blackboum, Jennifer G. Fillingim, Susan McCelland. Univrersity of Mississippi. G. Franklin Elrod. Meagan B. Medley. Mississippi State University. Mary Alice Kritsonis, Prairicview A&M University. Jan Ray, West Texas A&M University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to J.M. Blackboum at jmb@olemiss.edu

170/ Joumal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 2

Anthony (2003),and Christensen and Raynor (2003) all speak to the nature of improved technology and its impact on organizations, their structure, and their operation. Such innovations become significant when they are an improvement over existing practices and thereby change individual behavior(Prewitt, 2001). For example, while the traditional lecture-based approach is an efficient method of transferring knowledge to large numbers of undergraduates, it does little to promote the development of process skills to compliment content knowledge (Duch, Groh, & Allen, 2001). One pedagogical approach that has shown evidence of fostering analytical and critical thinking skills in undergraduates is problem-based learning (PBL). PBL is a pedagogical approach that encourages students to apply critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and content knowledge to real-world problems (Levin, 2001). Based on a constructivist foundation, PBL promotes active, integrated, and cumulative leaming. It is a teaching approach based on the principle of using problems as the starting point for the acquisition of new knowledge (Lambros, 2004). Pedagogical innovations such as this are potentially disruptive to the status quo, yet possess the inherent opportunity for organizational growth via systematic, continuous improvement (Blackboum, Papasan, Vinson, & Blackboum, 2000). In using PBL, relevant and complex problems serve as the bases in motivating learners to identify and research the concepts and principles needed to solve those problems (Duch, et ai.,2001 ). Rather than telling students what they need to know, in a PBL environment, the students must take responsibility and be held accountable for their own leaming (Lambros, 2004). Regarding special education preservice teacher training, PBL is an excellent means through which students develop analytical skills involved in clinical appraisal and planning for individualized instruction (Elrod, Coleman, Shumpert, & Medley, 2005).

Students who have learned concepts in the context in which they will be used are more apt to retain that knowledge and apply it appropriately in the field (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993). They will also realize that leamingand knowledge transcends traditional subject area boundaries since, through PBL, interconnections between disciplines and the integration of concepts arc highlighted (Duch, et al., 2001). In the current application, the PBL approach was used in conjunction with a field-based course in secondary special education methods. This sixteen-week course included two weeks of initial, intensive, on campus training in assessment and teaching methodologies, followed by fourteen weeks of field-based practica. Students were placed in a local high school and career center (seven weeks in each placement) for two hours per day, Monday through Thursday, On Friday, the students spent two hours in seminar on campus. It was during this seminar that the PBL method was used. The PBL Case The case that was used in the Friday seminar sessions was called. Cara E. Cara was an eighth grade student who exhibited problems in reading comprehension despite her above average decoding skills. Scenario #1 of this case is presented in Figure 1. Information was progressively disclosed to the students in eight scenarios, one per week. These scenarios depicted Cara's performance in school, from the initial concems and interventions of her social studies teacher, to eventual referral, assessment, ruling, and individual education plan development. PBL Procedures The class of fifteen students was divided into three groups offivc students each. While Johnson, Johnson, and Smith ( 1991 ) recommended that cooperative student groups be kept at a size of four, PBL practitioners sug-

Wireless Technology..

/171

CARAE.
Scenario MI

Mr. I. M. Hipp is a second-year social studies teacher at Utopia Middle School. As a recent graduate of the local, state university, Mr. Hipp is well versed in current pedagogical styles such as constructivism and experiential learning, along with traditional approaches such as lecture and discussion. For the most part, the beginning of the school year had gone well, with some of the usual "ups" and "downs" of teaching 7* and S"* grade students. A problem, however, began to surface in Mr. Hipp's third period U. S. History class. This class was a heterogeneous mixture of S* graders, some high achievers, a "" lot of "average" students, and a few students who consistently struggle with the course content. Of this latter group, a new student who had just moved into the sehool district. Cara E., presented particular problems. On those rare instances when called upon to read selections from historically relevant speeches. Cara E. would accomplish the task without error. She would read with expression, even correctly pronouncing proper names of places and various historical figures. Cara E. also showed fine ability in class discussions, regularly contributing her own perspective, but rarely drawing from printed material that was required reading for the class. Yet, what troubled Mr. Hipp was that when quizzed or tested over the very same material that Cara E. had read and discussed so well, she consistently scored lower than any of the other students in her class, even lower than some of the identified students with learning disabilities. This consistently low performance seemed so inconsistent given Cara E.'s excellent oral reading skills (probably as good as, or better than, the higher achievers in the class). After about three weeks of school, Mr. Hipp decided to implement some instructional interventions to assist Cara E. in performing better, h was his hope that one of these interventions (or maybe a combination of them) would help get Cara E. on track in the U.S. History class. Figure /. Scenario #1 of the Cara E. case. gest no more than seven students per group (Dean, 2001), and some have noted that the ideal group size is between five and seven (Kelson, & Distlehorst, 2000). Each group was assigned the role of being a team of educational consultants charged with analyzing Cara's situation and making appropriate recommendations. Eight scenarios regarding Cara's case were given to the students, one distributed at eacb Friday seminar. Each succeeding scenario gave the students more information on Cara in a progressive format. For each scenario,the students (in their respective groups) would complete the following tasks: identify relevant facts from the scenario; generate questions they would pose to elieit more information regarding Cara's ease; form multiple hypotheses as possible answers to the questions from the previous step; identify specific plans or actions that need to be undertaken to determine which hypotheses are current; note any learning issues: that is, any terms or concepts from the seenario that need to be clarified for a better understanding of the case; and

172/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 2

list specifieresources (e .g. texts, web damalia, 2000; Koschmann, et al., 1996). sites) where the learning issues can By the second seminar session, all of the be resolved. three preservice teacher groups were using the available technology in two ways. First, In a typical PBL session, before mov- within their respective groups, they were ing on to the current scenario, the previous entering discussion items on pre-designed week's scenario would be reviewed, includ- document pages that contained the headings: ing the clarification ofthat week's learning Facts, Questions, Hypotheses, Plans, Learnissues and the identification and evaluation ing Issues, and Resources. of the sources used in their resolution. iVior Table 1 displays student-generated PBL to each session, each of the student groups panels for Cara E., Scenario* 1. As the respecwould select a reader who would orally read tive groups decided on, for example,arelevant the scenario as the others followed along on fact, that item was entered on the document their copies. The groups would also select page under the appropriate category heada scribe who would record the group's re- ing (e.g. "Facts"). The same procedure was sponses to the six tasks noted above. Both implemented for question development, hythe reader and the scribe would participate in pothesis formation,identification of planned group discussions, in addition to performing activities, determination of learning issues, and the evaluation of resources used to their duties. resolve the learning issues. In essence, the Application of Technology to PBL Sessions preservice teachers developed, on their own, During the Spring Semester, 2004, sec- a scribeless process for implementing PBL. ondary special education methods course, Because each preservice teacher entered each of the fifteen preservice teachers was scenario discussion items on his or her own assigned a laptop computer with wireless laptop (each item had been agreed upon by connectability. This capability allowed the group consensus), the need for a single group preservice teachers to link to the internet and scribe evaporated. to communicate with each other throughout the course (note: for such connectability, the preservice teachers had to be in a location with wireless capacity). For the PBL sessions, the preservice teachers were encouraged to bring their laptops, but no specific technological applications were provided to them. It should be noted, however, that all of the preservice teachers had completed two technological application courses, one on general use of microcomputers, and the other on aspects of assistive technology in teaching students with disabilities. Research literature reveals that technology has been previously applied to PBL settings. It has been found that, like with the seminar setting in this application, technology has been used in a process support role rather than in traditional forms such as computerized presentations (Bereiter &ScarThe second way in which the preservice teachers applied the laptop technology was in researching and resolving learning issues. Access to the internet made this research activity immediate rather than delayed (i.e. waiting until class had adjourned to go to the library oruse one of the university'scomputer labs). The preservice teachers immediately conducted searches on line to clarify terms or concepts that comprised the learning issues for a given scenario. All groups used a multiple sourcing technique with different preservice teachers exploring different web sites on the same learning issue and comparing the results. - Survey of Preservice Teachers Following the eight weeks of analysis of the Cara E. ease, the preservice teachers were surveyed regarding their perceptions

wireiess tecnnoiogy..

a.
CL

2 "^
r1-

c
G

L.
u

z Q
Q Q Si

o G

c
=tfc Cl

^1
G 3 Q. J

^ _; o. =
a. .s
V

5 S

* .5
UJ
u n is u U u n

u - -^ _^
'S >

Si O o u s -o 'S

-J

5 o a.

-3
^
G >

o u g 5 5b

I
i : 'S J
i ^ -3 ^^

J .2 J .2

g 3i
" G

i ll

VU

II

AU

174/ Journal of Instmctional Psychology. Vol. 35, No. 2

of the use of laptop technology in support of the PBL process. Since all students had prior experience with non-technology support PBL in introductory special education courses, they had a comparative framework with which lo evaluate the use ofthe laptop in a support role. The results of the survey are presented in Table 2. Fourteen ofthe fifteen preservice teachers participated in the survey, with one student being absent for a period of three weeks on a university sponsored activity. The survey seale offered a continuum from I (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The survey results indicated that the greatest concurrence among the preservice teachers was reached on the first item to which they disagreed, / would participate more in PBL iff did not use a laptop (M=2.18, s= 1.08), and on the second item to which they agreed, The laptop helps us address learning issues immediately, rather than waiting for the next seminar (M=4.73, s=0.47). Of the other seven survey items, there was some disagreement with the statement. Use ofthe

laptop hinders team discussions as we are toofocused on the computer screen (M=2.45, s=l .37), and also some disagreement with / prefer not using the laptop in PBL activities (M=2.92,s=1.41). The remaining five items seemed to elicit "neutral" responses from the students with means from 3.13 to 3.48. Discussion The results of this study indicate that the incorporation of wireless teehnology enhanced both instruction and student satisfaction in the course in question. The students in the class responded positively regarding the use of wireless technology in fourof nine instances. Of the other five items, neutral responses were elicited. There were no items in the survey to whieh students responded negatively to the use of wireless technology in the PBL setting. As the students in this course had been exposed to traditional (non-technological) PBL procedures in previous courses, the clustering of their survey responses in only positive and neutral categories is notable. In

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Fach Survey Item Survey Item I would participate more in PBL if I did not use a laptop. The laptop helps us address leaming issues immediately, rather than waiting for the next seminar. Use ofthe laptop hinders team discussions as we are too focused on the computer screens. Not having a single scribe to record data helps facilitate the PBL process. Use ofthe laptop helps me participate with my PBL team. With the laptop, I am too focused on entering data rather than discussing the ease with my team members. Technological "glitches" with my laptop hindered my participation. I prefer not using the laptop in PBL activities. I prefer using the laptop in PBL activities. Survey scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree

Mean 2.18 4.73 2.45 3.18 3.48 3.20 3.13 2.92 3.13

s 1.08 0.47 1.37 1.50 1.35 1.42 1.39 1.41 1.44

Wireless Technology.. / 175

essence, from the perspective of those students surveyed, the wireless technology used to .support the PBL approach was viewed as an improvement over prior applications. While the sample in this study was limited, the results are supportive of the technology employed. The study is indicative of the positive impact of technology to augment instruction. In addition it provides substantive support forthe use of technology as a critical component of relevant activities and student satisfaction. The application of PBL in preservice teacher training can promote the development of analytical skills which teachers need in contemporary public school classrooms. Augmenting PBL with technological applications adds a further dimension to the process. As indicted by the responses of those preservice teachers surveyed in this study, the use of laptop computers provided them with an improved scribless PBL process where leaming issues could be addressed and resolved immediately. This more rapid, in-depth examination of each scenarios learning Issues and associated research findings, resulted in new data being immediately available for consideration and discussion by group members. The lack of "lag time" to go to the computer lab or a home computer was eliminated and the research, discussion, and response process became seamless. In addition, the use of the wireless laptop technology resulted in an improvement in the PBL process used by the students. Group members who had previously been responsible for transcribing discussion comments, were now freed to participate more fully in the collaborative, decision-making process. By modifying the established process, the students were able to make critical information accessible to all group members and their work more efficient. By making the process "seribeless", the students employed that initiative to "try something different" (Gold, 1980). It is this creative use ofthe existing tools, knowledge, and skills to improve processes which lies at

the heart of our ongoing work with individuals who possess disabilities. It further seemed that the use of this technology had the potential to promote increased participation among those more reserved students who might be reticent to offer oral input to the group, but might contribute through the connectable capability of computers. Future research should focus on controlled studies of the application of technology in support of PBL. For example, an experimental group (with technology) can be compared to a control group (without technology) regarding their perspectives in using the PBL process in analyzing a case. Inaddition,products generated by each group (e.g. PBL panels) can be evaluated for their thoroughness and accuracy. Using the PBL process as a foundation in preservice teacher training appears to be a fundamentally sound approach to facilitating the development and refinement of critical thinking skills. Augmenting the process with technological applications or customized material enhances the relevance and power of PBL. As factors such as increasing student diversity, accountability standards, speed of communication, obsolescence of existing technology, and pace of advancement present growing challenges to teachers and those who train them, a premium will be placed on those individuals who can think critically and creatively while they provide innovative instruction in the classroom. As a pedagological tool, PBL provides a process to underpin the development of these skills. The augmentation of the process with technology, is simply one of a range of possible altemativesto the successful development of those necessary skills that will serve future teachers well.
References Bereiter. C . & Scardamalia. M. (2000). Commentary on Part 1: Process and product in problem-based learning (PBL) research. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based

176/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 2

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1993). Model standards for beginning teacher licensing, assessment and development: A resourcefor state dialogue. Washington, D . C : National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Johnson,D.W..Johnson.R.T,&Smith.K.A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC higher education reportjio. 4. Washington, D. C: George Washington University. Kelson,A.C.M.,&DisIlehorst,L.H.(2000). Groups in problem based learning (PBL): Essential elements in theory and practice. In D. H. Evensen Christensen.C.M.(I997). The innovator's & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.). Problem-based learning: dilemma: When new technologies cause great A research perspective on learning interaction firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Graduate School (pp. 167-184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. of Business Press. Christensen.C.M.&Raynor,M.E.(2003). Koschmann,T.D..KeIson,A.C.,Feltovich,P. The innovator's solution: Creating and sustaining J., & Barrows, H. S. (1996). Computer supported successfiil growth. Boston: Harvard Graduate problem-based learning: A principled approach to School of Business Press. the use of computers in collaborative learning. In Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & An- T.D. Koschmann (Ed.),C5CL; Theory and practice thony, S. D. (2003). Six keys to creating new of an emerging paradigm {pp.Si'\24). HUlsdale, markets by unleashing disruptive innovations. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Harvard Management Update, July, 16-19. Lmbios,A.i2Q04). Problem-based learning DeanX.D. (2001). They expect teachers to in middle and high school classrooms: A teacher's do that? Helping teachers explore and take own- guide to implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: ership of their profession. In B. B. Levin (Ed.), Corwin Press. Energizing teacher education and professional Levin, B.B. (2001). Introduction. InB.B. development with problem-based learning (pp. Levin (Ed.), Energizing teacher education and 8-23). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi- professional development with problem-based sion and Curriculum Development. earning (1-7). Alexiindda. VA: Association for Duch. B. J.. Groh, S. E., & Allen. D. E. Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2001). Why problem-based learning? In B. J. Moore, G. A. (1999). Inside the tornado: Duch.S.E.Groh,&D. E.Allen (Eds.),r/ie power Marketing strategies from Silicon Valley's cutting of problem-based learning (pp. 3-11). Sterling, edge. New York: Harper Collins VA: Stylus Publishing. Prewitt,E.(2001). Disruption is good. IgnorElrod. G. E., Coleman, A. M.. Shumpert. ing it is bad-very bad: An Interview with Clayton K. D.. & Medley. M. B. (2005). The use of Christensen. CIO Magazine. (April), 26-28. problem-based learning in rural special educaWingspreadConference( 1994.June). Quality tion preservice training programs. Rural Special assurance in undergraduate education: What the Education Quarterly, 24 (2). 28-32. public expects. Denver, CO: Education CommisGold. M. W. ( I980J. Did I say that? Articles sion of the States. and commentary on the Try Another Way System. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

learning: A research perspective on learning interactions ipp 185-195). Mahwah.NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Blackbourn,J.M.,Fillingim.J.G.,Kritsonis. M.A.,RaderD..Schillinger,D.,& Ray. J. (2007). The road ahead: 10 trends that will impact education in thscentury.Nflrio/fl//orHmo/'Mcafon/ Administration and Supervision, 24 (3), 4-22.. Blackbourn. J.M., Papasan, B., Vinson, TR. & Biackboum, R.L. (2000). Leadership for the coming millennium: Lessons from Dcming, Glasser, and Graves. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision-Electronic, 1IE{4), 57-63.