Learning Computers

      University faculty have been trained to redesign future teacher courses in ways that will integrate technology as a model of effective teaching, while supporting and increasing students’ learning.

     External nationally recognized consultants with expertise in instructional design as it relates to learning theory will channel the integration of technology to support increased student learning. These instructional design consultants work with individual faculty to redesign their course and as needed with the faculty as a group. These consultants spend, on the average, a semester working with each faculty member through the analysis, redesign, implementation, and the evaluation of their course.

     MSU programs for future teachers are rigorous, there is good student documentation, and new teachers are well accepted by area K-12 schools. However, a major weakness is the lack of infusion of technology into all facets of the pre-service curriculum. Thanks to the GOALS 2000 efforts of CSRE, a program is already in place that calls for technology to be used in all future teacher courses. Step one of that plan takes advantage of a new university-wide general education requirement in computer literacy.

     For future teachers to take advantage of technology, a basic understanding of computers must exist. In 1997, MSU began requiring Computers For Learning for all entering freshmen (or demonstrate the equivalent knowledge through an exam). This basic computer literacy course covers E-mail use, the Internet, all Office 97 (professional version) components except Access, and basic web page construction. With basic computer literacy skills like these in place for all freshmen, faculty members are using more technology in their teaching to take advantage of this student background.

     Numerous faculty development activities were sponsored in the '90s to upgrade their general understanding and use of computers. All faculty now have computers on their desktops, all use the campus E-mail system, at least 50% use some form of computer presentation program, and at least 40% have incorporated internet search activities into their courses. While faculty have good computer skills, and use those skills for increasing personal productivity, what has not been addressed is how computers, and technology in general, can effect the content and context of learning. Where is it appropriate to use technology? How does technology better allow the instructor to accomplish what they have always done? How does technology allow the instructor to do things they have not been able to do? How can technology be used to increase student understanding? Investigating answers to these questions requires someone well versed in learning theory, instructional design, and expertise in integrating technology into diverse learning processes.

     The major expenditure of this proposal has allowed selected faculty to move from group technology training to in-depth individual training. This training is accomplished by the use of outside consultants who have the expertise to effectively integrate technology in ways that will enhance student understanding and learning. Ten faculty members in the University’s PERU will receive this special training each year. They will be expected to infuse technology into and teach one course during the time they are working with the consultant(s). The following semester, they will either revise a second course in a similar manner or will further revise and teach the first course.

     Each faculty member will generally begin working with their consultant(s) the semester before they are to teach their revised course. Working from an instructional design analysis of the course, the instructor and consultant team will redesign the learning activities in that course. In teaching the revised course, faculty, still using expert help, will be promoting best-practice use of technology, and thus will become models to future teachers of the ways in which technology can be used to help all students learn to critically examine issues, synthesize results, and use systems modeling.

     For planning purposes, a consulting team for the Fall 1999 semester was chosen and worked with the first group of 5 faculty for 22 weeks, rather than the 16 weeks that were budgeted for later groups. This was the most costly semester for this activity, but ensured that the project got started successfully.