Enlist micros: Training science teachers to use microcomputers

Abstract

A National Science Foundation grant to the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) at The Colorado College supported the design and production of training materials to encourage literacy of science teachers in the use of microcomputers. ENLIST Micros is based on results of a national needs assessment that identified 22 compentencies needed by K–12 science teachers to use microcomputers for instruction. A writing team developed the 16‐hour training program in the summer of 1985, and field‐test coordinators tested it with 18 preservice or in‐service groups during the 1985–86 academic year at 15 sites within the United States. The training materials consist of video programs, interactive computer disks for the Apple II series microcomputer, a training manual for participants, and a guide for the group leader. The experimental materials address major areas of educational computing: awareness, applications, implementation, evaluation, and resources. Each chapter contains activities developed for this program, such as viewing video segments of science teachers who are using computers effectively and running commercial science and training courseware. Role playing and small‐group interaction help the teachers overcome their reluctance to use computers and plan for effective implementation of microcomputers in the school. This study examines the implementation of educational computing among 47 science teachers who completed the ENLIST Micros training at a southern university. We present results of formative evaluation for that site. Results indicate that both elementary and secondary teachers benefit from the training program and demonstrate gains in attitudes toward computer use. Participating teachers said that the program met its stated objectives and helped them obtain needed skills. Only 33 percent of these teachers, however, reported using computers one year after the training. In June 1986, the BSCS initiated a follow up to the ENLIST Micros curriculum to develop, evaluate, and disseminate a complete model of teacher enhancement for educational computing in the sciences. In that project, we use the ENLIST Micros curriculum as the first step in a training process. The project includes seminars that introduce additional skills: It contains provisions for sharing among participants, monitors use of computers in participants' classrooms, provides structured coaching of participants' use of computers in their classrooms, and offers planned observations of peers using computers in their science teaching.

A Curriculum for Preparing Science Teachers to Use Microcomputers

“…Furthermore, a follow-up survey at Auburn University to measure the implementation of computers in science teaching byparticipants ofhis inservice workshops was conducted (Baird, Ellis, & Kuerbis, 1989).…”

“…An implementation study at the Auburn University site was conducted using the participants in two workshops to determine how the participants were using microcomputers during the year following the workshop (Baird, Ellis, & Kuerbis, 1989). A configuration-of-use instrument was developed to measure implementation at the Auburn site.…”

“…Support from peers and technical support did not seem to be major barriers. Baird, Ellis, and Kuerbis (1989) During 1986-1988, the results from the initial field test and from two years of implementing the materials with more than 100 science teachers in EM2 were used to revise the text, video, and software for the curriculum. The curriculum was expanded into three levels.…”

A Longitudinal Assessment of Teacher Education Students' Confidence toward Using Technology

“…Studies have found that typical preservice teachers are somewhat anxious about computers, feel unprepared to use them, but want to learn about them (Blythe & Nuttall, 1992;Lichtman, 1979;Mueller, Husband, Christou, & Sun, 1991). Willis and Mehlinger (1996) also noted studies that found completion of a course on educational computing improves attitudes toward technology in the classroom of inservice teachers (Baird, Ellis, & Kuerbis, 1989;Berger & Carlson, 1988;Madsen & Subastiani, 1987) and preservice teachers (Anderson, 1991;Huppert & Lazarowitz, 1991;Savenye, Davidson, & Orr, 1992). Other more recent studies support these findings as well (Albion, 2001;Brinkeroff, 2006;Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, & Woods, 1999;Gunter, Gunter, & Wiens, 1998;Jung, Rhodes, & Vogt, 2006;Kumar & Kumar, 2003;Milbrath & Kinzie, 2000;Nanjappa & Lowther, 2004;Okinaka, 1992;Richardson-Kemp & Yan, 2003;Stuve & Cassady, 2005;Wang, Ertmer, & Newby, 2004;Watson, 2006;Yildirim, 2000).…”