Technology applications in social studies teacher Education: 

A survey of social studies methods faculty. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher

Education, 3(3), 300-309.

Technology Applications in Social Studies

Teacher Education: A Survey of Social

Studies Methods Faculty.

Cheryl Mason Bolick1, Michael Berson2, Christopher Coutts, and Walter Heinecke3

1University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2University of South Florida, 3University of

Virginia

Preparing preservice teachers to be proficient in technology is a key issue for the field of

education. While many states will scramble to fill as many as two million teaching

positions in the next few years, the public expects teachers to be able to integrate

technology into their curriculum.

New technologies are disseminated into our nation's schools at a rapid rate. To utilize

these technologies effectively, teachers need not only to be proficient in technology but

also well versed in the effective integration of technology into their instruction. The key in

meeting this expectation is the teacher preparation methods class. In the methods class,

students see their teachers modeling the use (or lack of use) of technology, and these

students are likely to go on to do likewise in their future teaching (Cooper & Bull, 1997;

Handler, 1993).

To this end, the College and University Faculty Assembly (CUFA) Guidelines for Using

Technology in Social Studies Teacher Education (Mason et al., 2000) offers five

principles to guide the integration of technology into teacher education.

· Extend learning beyond what could be done without technology.

· Introduce technology in context.

· Include opportunities for students to study relationships among science,

technology, and society.

· Foster the development of the skills, knowledge, and participation as good

citizens in a democratic society.

· Contribute to the research and evaluation of social studies and technology .

These guidelines encourage social studies teacher educators to recognize the potential of

technology in reconceptualizing the social studies discipline and reforming schools.

The purpose of this study was to determine if social studies teacher educators are using

technology to reform teacher education by investigating how social studies teacher

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3)

301

educators are using technology in their methods courses. However, before assessing how

technology is being used in social studies teacher education and whether the investments in

technology result in significant improvements in education, the frame of reference must be

considered.

Bull, Bell, Mason, & Garofalo (2002) developed a structure that serves as the frame of reference

when considering how technology is used in education (Table 1). This structure provides

distinguishing markers that delineate between the use and purpose of educational technology.

According to this framework, technology can be used to improve efficiency, or it can be used to

reconceptualize the classroom curriculum with technology in either the foreground or

background. The following discussion defines and provides examples for each of the quadrants.

Table 1: Technology in Schools

Use of Technology Improve Efficiency Reconceptualize Curriculum

Foreground Computer Literacy School Reform

Background Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) Discipline-based Reforms

Using Technology to Increase Efficiency in the Classroom

The term computer literacy, coined by Arthur Luehrman in 1971, refers to the study of computer

science as a discipline or to technology proficiency (Bull et al., 2002). The goal of computer

literacy programs is to improve efficiency by using technology in the forefront. An example of

computer literacy is the North Carolina Competencies for Educators. (Editors' note: The URL for

this website and others are located in the Resources section at the end of this article.) These

competencies call for teachers to be able to conduct basic technology skills, such as the following:

1. Connect a computer to a modem and telephone line for dial-in access.

2. Install and configure telecommunications software.

3. Upload a text file and send as electronic mail.

The objective of computer-assisted instruction is to improve efficiency; however, technology is

either integrated into the curriculum or functions in the background. Tutorials, simulations, and

drill-and-practice software are all examples of computer-assisted instruction. Owl and Mouse

Educational Software's U.S. Map Puzzle is an example of a social studies tutorial that assists

students in learning the U.S. states and capitals.

The use of technology in teacher education to improve efficiency is best understood by

categorizing the use of technology on the basis of the primary user or controller of technology (see

Figure 1).

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3)

302

Figure 1. Levels of technology users

Teacher educators (Level 3), as the primary users of technology, might use technology to help

preservice teachers analyze teaching and learning, present information, or demonstrate model

lessons. The preservice teacher (Level 2), as primary user, might use productivity tools for word

processing, grade and record keeping, web page production, and presentations, as well as using

subject-specific software and websites to create presentations, lectures, lessons, and assessments.

Finally, teacher education programs prepare preservice teachers to facilitate use of technology by

their future K-12 students (Level 1) to investigate concepts and solve problems.

This framework of technology use in social studies methods courses helps delineate where the

focus of use lies. The framework does not necessarily imply a hierarchy, but rather helps

educators ascertain where agency exists. It is helpful, therefore, in understanding where social

studies faculty members focus their technology use.

Using Technology to Reconceptualize the Curriculum

Technology applications that fall under the category of school reform seek to restructure schools

through inquiry-based learning driven by technology. Hence, technology is at the forefront. The

Learning in Hand: Handhelds in the Classroom website describes an example of technology -

driven school reform. This fifth-grade classroom uses handheld computers to reform teaching and

learning across the curriculum.

In the category discipline -based reforms, technology is used to reconceptualize the academic

discipline. A digital resource center such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's

Documenting the American South is one example of scholars and researchers using technology to

rethink the nature of their discipline, which can then be translated to K-12 education.

The CUFA Guidelines (Mason et al., 2000) asserted that technology should be used both in the

background and the foreground to promote discipline-based and school-based reform. However,

more knowledge is needed about how technology is used in social studies teacher education

practice.

Technology and Social Studies Education

There has been a precarious relationship between the social studies and technology. While some

educators have been fascinated by the potential of technology to enhance teaching and learning,

many schools have lagged behind in assimilating technology into instruction (Berson, 1996).

Shaver (1999) expressed doubt that technology will ever incite instructional reform in the social

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3)

303

studies, and Pahl (1996) noted that social studies educators have been apprehensive about

modifying instruction to incorporate technology. This lingering apprehension has led some

researchers to conclude that the social studies has not appreciably changed as a result of

technology (Martorella, 1997; White, 1997).

Instructional decision making in the social studies has been based on a limited knowledge base,

and as a result, computer use among students in social studies education has often relied on basic

applications of technology as a tool for word processing or accessing factual information. Yet,

there is the potential for technology to be fostered as a tool that overcomes the traditional

isolation of the classroom setting (Braun, 1997), provides access to expansive resources (Becke r,

1999), and improves overall productivity (Saye, 1998).

To achieve the desired gains with technology, social studies methods courses must not focus only

on making preservice teachers proficient at using technology, but must promote strategies to

integrate technology to enhance teaching and learning (Cantu, 2000). Technology rich instruction

models effective use, explores the barriers and benefits of technology integration (Keiper,

Harwood, & Larson, 2000), and thereby surmounts the traditional absence of technology in

methods courses (Rose & Winterfeldt, 1998).

Efforts to assist universities in modeling effective technology use include the creation of the CUFA

Guidelines for integrating technology into teacher preparation programs (Mason et al., 2000).

The CUFA Guidelines are organized by five principles, which enhance the infusion of technology

into preservice education and support the continued focus on research and evaluation of social

studies and technology.

Rationale for This Study

Little empirical data is available about the extent of preparation of social studies teachers to use

technology. Most conclusions about social studies teachers' technology training must be inferred

from the general literature about preservice and in-service preparation (Ehman & Glenn, 1991).

There has been no systematic research investigating social studies methods faculty use of

technology integration. We need to know more about the use of technology in social studies

methods courses.

Research Design

This study used a longitudinal survey design with both cohort and panel components. CUFA

members are being surveyed annually using the same instrument in order to establish baseline

information and then obtain time series information across a 5-year period. The results

highlighted in this paper focus on the baseline survey, which describes the technology practices of

social studies faculty members in the methods classroom, as well as establishing agency in

technology use. The annual follow-up will indicate if and how these practices are changing.

Objectives of the Research

In order to understand the relationship between technology innovation and social studies teacher

education, this article presents baseline information on social studies faculty use of technology in

instruc tion. This survey research addresses the following questions:

1. What is known about the use of technology in social studies faculty members' methods

courses?

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3)

304

2. To what extent do social studies faculty members currently integrate technology into their

instruc tion, especially in methods courses?

3. How is the use of technology aimed at different levels of teacher preparation (teacher

educator, preservice teacher, and K-12 student)?

4. How does social studies faculty usage of technology change over time? What influences

these changes?

The survey results have implications for future policy regarding technology training of faculty and

the development of strategic plans aimed at encouraging technology -based innovation in teacher

education programs.

METHOD

The survey (see Appendix ) was sent to the membership of CUFA, and the response rate was 59%.

Participants completed 101 items, including Likert scales, short-answer items, and open-ended

questions. The survey was divided into four parts, with the first component focusing on

demographics (17 items), the second addressing the use of technology in social studies methods

courses, the third assessing personal use of technology and confidence in technology, and the

fourth examining organizational support and barriers to technology integration and further

information on the organizations of the respondents.

Procedure

The survey was mailed to CUFA members in March 1999. Respondents anonymously filled out a

Scantron bubble sheet for most of the survey, with the data uploaded in a statistical software

program. Open-ended answers were then typed into this program.

Data Analysis

Data from Likert scales and short-item responses were analyzed using desc riptive statistics. A

content analysis was conducted on open-ended questions. A factor analysis (using orthogonal

rotation) was used to elicit components across items describing use of technology and confidence.

This analysis revealed a single component that described confidence with using technology,

producing a scale of confidence for each participant. The confidence and use scales were used to

perform correlation and regression analyses against other variables.

RESULTS

How Is Technology Used in SS Methods Courses?

Regular use of technology is infrequent among most social studies faculty members. A little more

than 2 in 5 (42%) respondents to the CUFA survey claimed to use computers occasionally in

instruction, whereas only 1 in 5 (19.8%) used computers throughout the semester, and only 1 in 17

(6.2%) used computers every class session. This is consistent with Clark's (1992) and Parker's

(1997) findings. Social studies faculty members, as a whole, use technology occasionally in

instruction.

Based on our data analysis, the use of technology in social studies is appropriately thought to

consist of two factors: digital communications and instructional technologies. A factor analysis of

all the items on the survey (using Varimax rotation) revealed the following:

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3)

305

1. Communication via newsgroups, accessing information and lesson plans on the web, use

of email, and the use of word processors, are strongly related and load strongly on one

factor. We call this factor "digital communications"(this factor explains so me 5% of the

total variance in the sample).

2. Preparation using presentation and social studies software, use of display systems, use of

spreadsheets and databases, multimedia presentations, and videoconferencing, among

others, all load together to describe what we call "instructional technologies" (this factor

explains some 12% of the total variance).

Use is, therefore, not a singular concept, but consists of two factors, digital communications and

instructional technologies.

Digital communications are used in social studies methods courses far more often than are

instructional technologies. For example, word processors were used "often" by 68.9% of the

sample, and faculty often used e -mail (54.3% of the sample) to communicate with others.

Conversely, instructional technologies were seldom used. Videoconferencing was used often by

3.7%, spreadsheets and databases by 5.6%, and multimedia presentations by just 2.9%. Table 2

shows which technologies are used in social studies methods courses, and how often they are

used.

Table 2: Use of Various Technologies by the Course Instructor (in Percent)

Frequency of Use

Oftena Averageb Seldomc

Digital communications:

Preparing word processed lesson plans 68.5 8.6 21.0

Email 54.3 16.7 26.6

Accessing information from the Web 41.3 21.0 35.8

Accessing lesson plans from the Web 19.1 19.1 59.9

Instructional technologies:

Multi-media presentations 17.9 13.6 66.6

News groups 16.7 12.3 68.5

Lesson plans using SS software 14.2 11.1 73.5

Display system 13.6 7.4 76.5

Creating web-pages 8.6 9.3 80.0

Accessing info rmation from CD-ROM 8.0 12.3 77.8

Lesson plans using spreadsheets/ databases 5.6 8.0 58.6

Lesson plans using digital camera and scanner 5.6 8.0 84.6

Videoconferencing 3.7 4.9 88.9

Developing individual or group presentations 2.9 22.2 53.1

Note: Examples of each technology are hyperlinked from the text.

aRepresents a summation of "throughout the semester, but not every class session" and "nearly

every class sessio n."

bRepresents "intensively."

cRepresents a summation of "rarely" and "occasionally."

There has been a shift in the pattern of use over time, especially in the last 4 years. We have made

a comparison of the percentages of those faculty members who used technology often (for most or

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3)

306

all of their classes) from Parker (1997) and these results in 2000 illustrate a great increase in use

of Internet and email. Table 3 contrasts Parker's (1997) findings with ours.

Table 3: Comparison Between Frequent uses of Technologies (Parker, 1997) and This Study

Parker (1997) Current Study (2000)

Word Processing 87% 68.5%

On-line searches 61% 41.3%

Spreadsheets 39% 5.6%

Databases 19% 5.6%

Internet or email 19% 54.3%

It should be noted that these two studies might not be reporting exactly the same thing (questions

were worded differently, for example, and should not be directly compared), but the results are

illustrative, at least, of a major shift toward the use of the Internet or email in instruction.

In fac t, almost all use of technology in social studies methods instruction is accounted for by word

processors, email, and the Internet. Besides the rise in use of email and the Internet, use is not

much different from that reported by Wetzel (in Parker, 1997) 8 years ago. Parker (1997) put it

this way: "Although many use computers for word processing, much smaller percentages indicate

required usage of technology by students or the development of technological applications for

their courses." The next section looks at how faculty members use technology. Do they get their

students to use it, do they use it themselves, and is it getting through to K-12 students?

The Levels of Technology in Teacher Education

Technology use is not equivalent at the three levels of use described earlier. We analyzed

responses according to the three levels, such that responses that were involved in each level were

summed and averaged. Table 4 shows the averages from this analysis. The possible range of

responses went from 1 (rarely) to 5 (nearly every class session). Higher means, therefore,

represent more frequent use.

Table 4: Results of Level Analysis

Mean N Minimum Maximum SD

Level 3 2.41 158 1.00 4.57 .75161

Level 2 1.78 141 .76 3.10 .49336

Level 1 1.80 147 1.00 4.25 .71591

Table 4 indicates that teacher educators use technology more frequently at Level 3 than levels 2 or

1. So, for example, faculty members use technology in their classes, or in preparation for their

classes rather than getting their students to use technology in those classes. The mean of 2.41 for

Level 3 still represents "occasional" use, so although use at Level 3 is more frequent, it is,

nevertheless, relatively low. The means of 1.78 and 1.8 for Level 2 and Level 1, respectively,

represent a combination of "rare" and "occasional" use. Technology is used infrequently overall,

but relatively more often for Level 3 than for levels 1 and 2.

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3)

307

One caveat regarding the data: In all cases, faculty members reported this data. Their responses

to how often teachers and students used technology comes from their frame of reference (Level

3). In effect, Level 3 players reported on the use of technology at their own level and down

through the other two levels. There were no significant findings when we looked at how use at the

three levels related to experience as a teacher or whether faculty taught elementary, middle, or

secondary methods courses. The courses faculty members taught or the teaching experience they

had did not seem to make a difference. Technology integration is focused at the level of the

teacher educator. Teacher educators are not yet using technology in their courses in such a way

that their students are integrating it and experiencing it in class.

Part of they are not yet using technology can be explained by looking at the different philosophies

faculty members hold with regard to teaching with technology. Faculty members were asked

whether their primary teaching role related to technology was (a) providing students with

technology-integrated instruc tion, (b) providing students with technology skills, or (c) neither.

When it comes to philosophy of education, a higher percentage (36.4%) of faculty focused on

providing students with technology skills rather than with technology -integrated instruction

(30.2%). Almost as many faculty members (28%) felt that neither of these categories reflected

their philosophy. Most participants thought providing students with technology -related

instruction was the more important philosophy. Slightly fewer thought providing students with

integrated instruction was important. Slightly fewer are unsure, or unwilling to commit to a

particular philosophy.

DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

It is apparent that faculty members are not convinced that technology use to reconceptualize the

curriculum is better. They use technology far more often at Level 3, the teacher educator level,

than at the student level. Perhaps this is simply a sign of the times that will change as the

education climate evolves and new technologies emerge. Or perhaps teacher educator faculty

members will become more comfortable with the integration of technology into their teaching and

will naturally seek to use it to reform their teaching. Perhaps the students, both K-12 and methods

students, will begin to expect and demand applications of educational technologies in their

coursework. Perhaps emerging technologies will become so entrenched in our society that teacher

educators will find it impossible to teach without technology.

Each of these conjectures is a possibility. We believe that the future holds not one of these

outcomes, but a combination of them. We believe that as faculty members become more

comfortable with using technology, they will naturally begin to integrate it in their instruction. We

believe that students at all levels will begin expecting that technology be used for instruction and

will encourage their teachers to use it. We also believe that as new technologies emerge and

develop, they will become more entrenched in everyday teaching and learning.

We suggest that to promote the use of technology in social studies methods courses, a more frank

and open discussion about integration be held. Practical examples of what integration looks like

at the three levels of technology use in teacher education must be provided for teacher educators

and research must be conducted to inform the implementation of technology in teacher

education.

REFERENCES

Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. L. (1999). The influence of computer and Internet use of teachers'

pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4),

356-384.

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3)

308

Berson, M. J. (1996). Effectiveness of computer technology in the social studies: A review of the

literature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28 (4), 486-499.

Berson, M. J. (2000). Rethinking research and pedagogy in the social studies: The creation of

caring connections through technology and advocacy. Theory and Research in Social Education,

28(1), 121 -131.

Braun, J. (1997). Past, possibilities, and potholes on the information superhighway. Social

Education, 61(3), 49-153.

Bull, G., Bell, R., Mason, C. L., & Garofalo, J. (2002). Information Technology and

Elementary/Secondary Education. Handbook on information technologies for education and

training (pp. 543-556). In H.H. Adelsberger, B. Collis, & J.M. Pawlowski (Ed.). Heidelberg,

Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Cantu, D.A. (2000). Technology integration in pre-service history teacher education. Journal of

the Association for History & Computing, 3(2).

Clark, D. (1992). Effective use of computers in the social studies: A review of the literature with

implications for educators. Long Beach, CA: California State University at Long Beach. (ERIC

Reproduction Service No. ED 370 828).

Cooper, J.M., & Bull, G.L. (1997). Technology and teacher education: Past practice and

recommended directions. Action in Teacher Education, 19(2), 97 -106.

Ehman, L. H., & Glenn, A. D. (1991). Interactive technology in the social studies. In J. P. Shaver

(Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 513-522). New York:

Macmillan Publishing.

Handler, M.G. (1993). Preparing new teachers to use computer technology: Perceptions and

suggestions for teacher educators. Computers in Education, 20(2), 147 -156.

Keiper, T., Harwood, A., & Larson, B.E. (2000, Fall). Preservice teachers' perceptions of infusing

computer technology onto social studies instruction. Theory and Research in Social Education,

28(4), 566-579.

Martorella, P. H. (1997). Technology and social studies or: Which way to the sleeping giant?

Theory and Research in Social Education, 25(4), 511-514.

Mason, C., Berson, M., Diem, R., Hicks, D., Lee, J., & Dralle, T. (2000). Guidelines for using

technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contempo rary issues in technology and teacher

education, 1 (1), Retrieved May 3, 2003, from

http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/socialstudies/article1.htm

Pahl, R.H. (1996). Tech talk—for social studies teachers. The Social Studies, 87(4), 186-187.

Parker, D.R. (1997). Increasing faculty use of technology in teaching and teacher education.

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2-3), 105-115.

Rose, S.A., & Winterfeldt, H.F. (1998). Waking the sleeping giant: A learning community in social

studies methods and technology. Social Education, 62(3), 151-152.

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3)

309

Saye, J.W. (1998). Creating time to develop student thinking: Team-teaching with technology.

Social Education, 62(6), 356-362.

Shaver, J.P. (1999). Electronic technology and the future of social studies in elementary and

secondary schools. Journal of Education, 181(3), 13-41.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999) Preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology.

Retrieved May 12, 1999, from http://www.ed.gov/teachtech

White, C.S. (1997). Citizen participation and the Internet: Prospects for civic deliberation in the

information age. The Social Studies, 88(1), 23-28.

Willis, E. M. (1997). Technology: Integrated into, not added onto, the curriculum experiences in

preservice teacher education. Computers in the Schools, 13(1-2), 141 -153.

Resources

Documenting the American South - http://docsouth.unc.edu

Learning in Hand: Handhelds in the Classroom -

http://www.mpsomaha.org/willow/p5/handhelds/index.html

North Carolina Competencies for Educators -http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/tap/techcomp.htm

U.S. Map Puzzle - http://www.yourchildlearns.com/puzzle_us.htm

Contact Information:

Cheryl Mason Bolick

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

cbolick@unc.edu

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education is an online journal. All text, tables, and figures in the print version of this

article are exact representations of the original. However, the original article may also include video and audio files, which can be

accessed on the World Wide Web at http://www.citejournal.org