Document View

Studies of the effectiveness of lecture as a method of instructional delivery in higher education date back to the 1920s (Bane, 1925; Kulik & Kulik, 1979; McKeachie,1990). Despite concerns about its effectiveness in influencing student learning, the efficiency of lecture-based instruction has caused this method to continue to be a mainstay within most institutions of higher education (Feldman & Paulsen, 1994). The literature reflects the limited advances in using technology to make lecture-based instruction more effective. Although dramatic predictions have been made about the impact of technology to reform lecture (Eisner & Carter,1989; Lennon & Maurer, 1994), few of these ideas have been implemented.

A substantial portion of the literature on technology in lecture-based instruction addresses electronic means of presenting material (e.g., Barker,1997; Reid,1998). Our interest, however, was in the use of technology to more directly influence instructional processes. Groupware (Ellis, Gibbs, & Rein, 1991; Marca & Bock, 1992; Saka & Shigi, 1996) represents one alternative for enhancing the effectiveness of lecture-- based instruction. Fraase (1991) defined groupware as a "group of technologies, techniques and services designed to help people collaborate more effectively, productively, and creatively" (p. 32). Technologies often described as forms of groupware include email, electronic discussion groups (Karayan & Crowe, 1997), computer mediated communication systems (Van Gorp, 1998), and computer conferencing (Harrington & Quinn-Leering, 1996). Computer-supported group work packages (Jessup, Egbert, & Connolly, 1995-96) and group decision software (Jessup & Tansik, 1991) are two additional forms of groupware found typically in corporate, rather than educational settings. Although a comprehensive review of the groupware literature is beyond the scope of this paper, interested readers are referred to Davenport and McKim (1995) for a more thorough treatment of this topic.

As we examined the literature about technology and large group instruction, we found descriptions of means by which technology use can supplement lecture-based instruction, such as Bellman's (1992) computer conferencing or Harrigan's (1995) compressed audio playback system; or evidence that existing technological enhancements offer no dramatic increases in student learning (Crain, 1994; Tjaden & Martin, 1995). Allen, Duch, and Groh (1996) used technology-supported, problem-based learning to actively engage college students in introductory science courses. Although the technology-supported alternatives to traditional lecture (such as Allen et al.'s strategy) represent promising approaches to increasing active student participation, these alternatives cannot, in their current forms, be applied to large lecture courses without dramatic changes to class organization and levels of faculty instructional support.

Group response technology (GRT) represents one form of groupware that has potential to enhance the effectiveness of lecture-based instruction without requiring decreases in class size, increases in instructor time commitments, or the addition of out of class activities for students. GRT facilitates communication within a group by enabling each member of the group to respond simultaneously; moreover, GRT allows the responses to be gathered and analyzed by a single user. Examples of GRT include audience response systems used in the marketing and entertainment industries. In special education, GRT systems have been used to support more effective instruction of elementary and middle students with disabilities. Woodward, Carnine, Gersten, Moore, and Golden (1987) used a keypad GRT system to monitor students' responses during small group mathematics instruction. They found that while use of the system did not result in achievement increases for familiar, rote learning tasks (e.g., math facts), it did inform teacher decision making during instruction on unfamiliar, complex material. General education teachers in inclusive classrooms used a similar system to monitor student learning of mathematics (Hayden, Gersten, & Carnine, 1992). The results of the study indicated that while merely using the system did not produce achievement differences, teachers who were coached in their use of the system altered their teaching styles to include increased levels of teacher-student interaction, questioning, and feedback.

GRT systems also have been used in higher education (Dufresne, Gerace, Leonard, Mestre, & Wenk, 1996). In college science courses, Dufresne et al., (1996) used palm-top computers to gather student input during instruction. Dufresne et al.'s Classroom Communication System (CCS) allowed the instructor to pose previously prepared questions to students via the technology. Students responded to the multiple choice questions via the palm-top terminals. The CCS collected and summarized the student inputs and displayed the data in the form of a histogram. The system allowed the instructor to project the histogram for group viewing which served as the catalyst for class discussion. In our review of the literature on technological methods for enhancing lecture, Dufresne et al.'s CCS provided the only example in which technology was used to increase levels of active student participation without major modifications to the existing lecture format. This system was easily adaptable to large groups, could be managed by a single instructor, and provided a means by which students more actively participated in instructional activities. Furthermore, the instructor had a means by which to gauge student learning of course content as the content was presented.

The GRT used in this study, known as Discourse(R) (1995), was similar to the technology used by Dufresne et al., (1996). This system consisted of individual student terminals networked to a teacher's workstation. It enabled the instructor to obtain feedback during instruction from each student in the class about course content (see Foegen & Hargrave, 1997; Robinson, 1994). In contrast to Dufresne et al's system, which limited student responses to a multiple choice format, the GRT used in this study was text-based and allowed students to respond in phrases, complete sentences or even paragraphs. In the following sections, we describe an exploratory investigation of this GRT system. First, we describe the general parameters of the study: the context, the course and students, and the response conditions. Next, we describe the procedures used in the study and present the data analyses and findings. Finally, we discuss the potential of GRT use for increasing the effectiveness of instruction in higher education and modeling effective instructional practices for preservice teachers.

AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF GRT ON STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE

The need for students to be actively engaged in their learning is well established (Brophy, 1992; Brophy & Good, 1986; Resnick, 1987). In large classes, it is often difficult to cultivate active student participation and engagement; means of doing so in an efficient manner warrant investigation. To better understand the potential of GRT in preservice teacher education, we conducted an exploratory study in an undergraduate special education course to investigate the effects of group response technology on student responding, achievement, and student and instructor perceptions of the technology. The data reported here represent one portion of this larger study. Our intent in the portion of the study reported here was to examine the use of GRT for facilitating student engagement in a lecture-based course and to investigate the instructor's reactions to her use of the GRT technology in a higher education setting.

Context

Technology is integral to the mission of the large, midwestern university in which the study was conducted. The most prominent programs within the university focus on the physical sciences, engineering and technology. A high level of institutional support for the development and use of advanced technologies exists within the university. This support is evidenced by the existence of a strong computing infrastructure that permeates most aspects of university life. Moreover, instructional development resources and equipment grants regularly are made available on a competitive basis to further facilitate the integration of technology into instructional programs. Within this context, the university's College of Education is a national leader in technology in teacher education. In the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, which is responsible for the professional preparation of teachers, a three-year program was implemented to infuse technology throughout the teacher education program (Thompson, Schmidt, & Hadjiyianni, 1995). Part of a larger ten-year initiative, the three-year technology infusion program established three new curricular components: a course in computer-related technology for all teacher education students; integration of technology across the teacher education curriculum; and a minor in educational computing. It was within this environment that the special education course was offered.

The Course and the Students

A junior-level course for students seeking an endorsement in special education, Analyzing Learning Problems was offered the spring semester of 1997. It was a three credit-hour course that met twice weekly for 80 minutes each session. The instructor, an assistant professor, had taught this course once previously and had prior experience using the group response technology for teaching in higher education. Twenty-six undergraduates (25 female, 1 male) were enrolled in the course; twenty-four of the students were majoring in elementary education. The content of the course included basic measurement principles, formal and informal assessment strategies, and techniques for monitoring individual student progress. Class sessions were held in a room equipped with a GRT system (Figure 1). Located in the front of the room was the teacher workstation, an overhead projector, and two large screen video monitors; student terminals were located on the tables at which students sat. Typical class sessions began with a brief period of course-related "housekeeping," followed by approximately 50 minutes devoted to course content. The remainder of the allocated time was used to complete inclass activities, brief quizzes on assigned readings, and discuss upcoming or completed assignments. The teaching style used in the class was primarily lecture interspersed with questions, brief periods of discussion and application exercises.

Student Response Conditions

The response conditions compared in the study were hand-written student response journals and GRT. Our selection of student journals as a contrast to the GRT condition was based on our judgment that journals represent a commonly used, though time intensive, means of increasing student engagement with course content (Emig, 1977; Hargrave, 1993; Odell, 1980). In addition, we questioned whether the act of developing written responses to instructor queries, regardless of whether they would be viewed immediately by the instructor, would influence students' engagement in class activities. If both conditions produced similar results, GRT might represent a more feasible and time efficient means of increasing student engagement; moreover, the GRT system would provide the instructor with on-going, real-time feedback about each student's learning of course content during instruction, the existence of which may have instructional implications.

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

Low Tech Means: Student Journals.

Journals have been used in higher education, and in teacher education in particular, to provide students with opportunities to develop their understanding of concepts and reflect on course content (Barnett & Brill, 1989; Fulwiler, 1987; Kottkamp, 1990). Although reports in the professional literature are generally positive, the decision to use student journals holds serious implications for instructors who choose to use them in their classes, particularly instructors of large classes (Anson & Beach, 1995). Hirt's (1994) use of journals in a large lecture-based science course provided important feedback to the instructor and students, but these benefits came at the cost of tremendous demands on faculty time.

For the present study, the student response journals were packets of thirty sheets of college-- ruled paper stapled to a cardstock cover. They were distributed and collected each class period; students recorded their responses to instructor inquiries in their journals. These paper-based journals did not limit the length or format of student responses. Furthermore, the instructor did not review the student response journals during the study; students were informed that their journals were exclusively for the research project and would not be reviewed by the instructor until the end of the semester.

High Tech Alternative: GRT. As previously stated, the GRT used in this study was a text-- based system that networked student terminals to a teacher workstation. Each student terminal comprised a standard QWERTY keyboard and an eight-line, 40 characters per line display (Figure 2). Each time the instructor posed a question, students typed their responses on the terminals and the instructor was able to view each student's response (next to his or her name) in real time. The system also provided the instructor with the capability to select an individual student's response and display it (with or without the student's name) on a large video monitor for group viewing. In contrast to the response journal condition, students using the GRT were limited in the length and format of their responses. Moreover, the instructor was able to view each student's response as it was entered.

Procedures

An alternating treatments design was used to explore the effects of journals and GRT on student engagement during lecture-based instruction. We used the master class list to randomly assign the twenty-six students in the class to one of two groups. The groups alternated between the two conditions on consecutive class sessions for 12 weeks of the 16 week semester (approximately 24 class sessions). As an example, students in Group A would use GRT to respond to instructor questions during the first course session of the week, while Group B students would write their responses in the paper journals. During the subsequent course session, the groups would switch to the alternate condition.

Approximately 50 minutes of each 80 minute class session were used for lecture and discussion of course material. As the lectures were presented, the instructor would periodically pause to ask a question. Records of student responses indicate that a mean of 5.85 questions were asked per class session (range 2 -15), an average of 1 question every 8.5 minutes. Students in the paper journal condition wrote their responses in the standard journals provided by the instructor. Students in the GRT condition responded by typing their answers into the individual terminals at their desks. Student engagement was measured through the use of direct observation.

The procedures used to gather the instructor's reactions to the use of GRT in her class involved e-mail journaling. Each week of the 12 week study, a graduate research assistant e-- mailed three questions to the instructor. The content of the questions varied each week; examples of typical questions include: Does Discourse provide you with more discussion time? How is classroom management different with the infusion of Discourse? Do you teach differently using Discourse? Do you know your students better when using Discourse? Responding via the e-mail system, the instructor used the questions as a means to reflect on and react to the use of GRT in her course. The instructor's responses were maintained by the graduate assistant who compiled the questions and responses for analysis.

Data Analysis and Findings

Throughout the semester, a variety of data were collected for the larger study: student response journal entries and GRT responses, classroom observation data, technology experience and attitude surveys, focus group interviews, and instructor reactions gathered weekly via e-mail. The data sources most relevant to this investigation were classroom observation data and instructor reactions. Following a description of each data source, the results of the analyses are presented.

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

Classroom Observation Data. A momentary time sampling procedure was designed by adapting an observation system developed for previous research with the GRT system (Foegen, Marston, Robinson, & Deno, 1993). A research assistant, trained to use the observation system, conducted observations during sixteen class periods. Mean interrater agreement rates exceeding 80% were established in training sessions where the first author served as the criterion observer. During each observation session, the assistant observed students using the technology and those responding in traditional journals. Four types of student behavior were coded: active academic, competing behavior, passive academic, and off task. Definitions of each category are presented in Table 1. In addition to student behavior, the observer also coded teacher behavior (academic talk, academic monitoring, task management, other) and task format (Discourse, lecture/discussion, application, other). Definitions for these categories also appear in Table 1.

To gather the data, the observer first selected a student using the GRT and watched that student for one minute. A portable cassette player with headphones playing a tape with tones at 10-second intervals was worn by the observer to cue the timing intervals. At the first cue, the observer noted the student's behavior and circled the abbreviation corresponding to the behavior on the recording sheet. At the next cue, the observer noted the teacher's behavior and the task type and recorded these on the form. This process was repeated twice to complete the minute of observation on the first student. For the next minute, the observer shifted her attention to a student using a response journal. The observer alternated between students in the two conditions, eventually observing all students in the classroom. She would then begin again with the first two students observed and continue this process throughout the lecture portion of the class. The average duration of the observations was 50.3 minutes; the observer took a five minute break after each twenty minute period of observing.

The observation data revealed that students in both conditions displayed comparable levels of engagement (Table 2). Across all observation intervals, students were engaged in academic tasks 28% of class time; passive academic engagement comprised 61% of class time, and competing and off task behaviors accounted for 11% of class time. As expected, the data on teacher behavior were consistent with typical lecture-based instruction; seventy-seven percent of the instructor's behavior was coded as academic talk, while only 12% was devoted to monitoring students' responses and work in class. The data on instructional task format revealed that the use of GRT was relatively infrequent, accounting for only 18% of the instructional intervals. Because there were no significant differences in observed behavior in the two conditions, we further examined student engagement within the subset of class periods during which GRT was used. The data indicated that when GRT was used, the behavior of students in both conditions mirrored that observed across all instructional task formats; thus, in comparison to the low tech response journal alternative, the use of GRT did not hinder or significantly improve the level of student engagement.

Instructor Reactions. Narrative data (in the form of journal entries) generated by the instructor served as the second data source for this study. The purpose for gathering these data was to determine the pedagogical implications of GRT use from the perspective of the instructor. Preliminary analysis of the instructor's reactions resulted in the identification of four issues: instructional planning and management, knowledge of students and student reactions, general reactions, and other issues (i.e. procedural concerns). Content analysis (Krippendorff, 1980) was used to refine the definitions of these four categories and code the instructor's comments accordingly. The two categories most pertinent to the present discussion were instructional planning and management, and knowledge of students and student reactions. Analysis of the instructor's responses from these categories indicated that pedagogical issues, in addition to student engagement, must be addressed when using GRT to enhance lecture-based instruction. In the following section, the results of the analysis are summarized and excerpts from the instructor's written reactions are used to illustrate these results.

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

Analysis of the narrative data revealed that GRT provided the instructor with more information about her students' understanding of the concepts than would have been available without the technology. In contrast to response journals, GRT provided the instructor immediate access to individual students' responses and allowed her to make more accurate assessments of their understanding than was possible through the use of hand-written journals or by calling on selected students. The availability of this information had significant effects on the instructor's pedagogy. The use of GRT challenged the instructor's conceptions of lecture-based instruction, causing increased attention to and heightened knowledge of student learning, which in turn resulted in changes in instructional practices.

In traditional lecture classes, instructors often focus primarily on content delivery because they have little or no access to efficient means of monitoring student learning during instruction. Access to student responses via the GRT often presented the instructor with a critical instructional decision: continue with the delivery of new content or address students' misconceptions.

*"My biggest concern about using Discourse is that my `teaching routine' doesn't include Discourse as a natural component....l hope to incorporate Discourse more naturally into my teaching so that it becomes an integral element of my instruction rather than something I can skip if pressed for time. Part of this relates to my personal struggle with `covering content' us. teaching fewer concepts and having students apply them."

* "Often times, ... I am confronted with the fact that my students aren't `with me' to the degree that I assume they are when I don't use Discourse."

* "I think Discourse forces me to confront more regularly the fact that much of my teaching is less effective than I had hoped it would be!"

As indicated by these excerpts, the instructor's assumptions about her teaching were challenged. The technology provided the instructor with real-time data about student learning (otherwise not immediately available) and reduced her level of comfort for proceeding as she normally would. One result of this discomfort was a change in instructional practices.

The technology appeared to expand the range of instructional possibilities available in what was predominantly a lecture course. Small group activities were more manageable because the instructor could monitor the progress of each group. In addition, the capability of the system to provide immediate feedback to each student made it was possible to individualize instruction.

* "Students worked in small groups on an activity, answering three questions. One member of each group recorded the group's response by typing their answer into the terminal. I was able to monitor the work of the groups by watching what they were typing from the teacher's station. I was VERY satisfied with this method and will use it again in the future. It gave me a much better impression of the progress the groups were making and the accuracy of their responses. A hundred times better than roaming around as the groups work!!!"

* "I used feedback as students were doing a practice exercise reinforcing their understanding of two terms I'd just taught. ...I was able to turn on the lights on individual [terminals] so they knew if they had the right or wrong answer immediately."

In addition to monitoring student progress and individualizing instruction, instructor reactions suggested changes in pacing and questioning practices.

* "I also feel like Discourse causes me to slow down."

* "Without the system, I tend to pose questions and then not call on students to answer, or call on those students who I think are most likely to answer 'correctly' so the discussion doesn't go off track. "

* "With Discourse I ask more questions of students and expect to get responses."

A consequence exemplified by these pedagogical changes was the two-way flow of information within the classroom. Students in large lecture classes often are apprehensive to ask questions. GRT efficiently made information from the students accessible to the instructor, who then was able to address misconceptions, provide feedback, and reteach concepts.

* "My impression is that I do more clarification and reteaching when I use Discourse. For example, last week I asked a question related to different types of validity. I realized as I read the responses that students had misinterpreted (or more likely, I had been ineffective in conveying) the concept of internal consistency. This gave me a chance to correct their understanding of the concept. Without Discourse I wouldn't have realized this until the exam."

GRT allowed the instructor to focus more attention on student learning without compromising the efficiency that has made the lecture format a standard of instruction in higher education.

Instructors in higher education are responsible not only for the delivery of content but also for ensuring that students understand the content that is delivered. The narrative data revealed that through the use of GRT, the instructor was more aware of (and thus, able to address) student learning issues.

* "Discourse gives me a better handle on the general level of achievement/understanding in the group as well as drawing my attention to the specific students who are strong or weak in their understanding of a particular topic or concept."

* "... I am more knowledgeable about their academic performance and understandings because of Discourse. "

* "I feel I have a much better handle on the level of comprehension of those students who are using Discourse. I think the responses are better than those obtained verbally."

* "I think [Discourse] helped me to get a general sense of the degree to which the class as a whole was understanding a particular topic."

The narrative data generated by the instructor throughout the study give rise to teacher-student interaction issues (not fully investigated here) that warrant further study. These issues include: What types of questions generate the most useful data about student learning? What are the effects on teacher-student interaction when GRT is scaled up for use with much larger groups of students? What is the optimal balance between content presentation and GRT use within a typical college course period (i.e. 50 - 90 minutes)? How much and what types of feedback are most beneficial and efficient in promoting student learning?

Summary

Our purpose in this exploratory investigation was to examine the effects of GRT in a lecture-based teacher education course. Observation data were gathered to compare the level of engagement of students using hand-written response journals and those using GRT. Narrative data were used to examine the instructor's perceptions of the GRT and its effects on instruction. The data indicated that both methods of responding resulted in equivalent levels of student engagement; however, the real-time feedback capability of GRT effected changes in the instructor's teaching style and instructional decision making. Analysis of the instructor's reactions indicated that she developed new conceptions about and practices for lecture-based instruction, and increased her awareness of student understanding of course content.

DISCUSSION

The study reported here represents one component of a larger study examining the effects of GRT in lecture-based higher education classes. In this exploratory investigation, we examined the effects of GRT on active student engagement and instructor perceptions of technology in an undergraduate special education course. We gathered observation data using a momentary time sampling procedure to compare the level of engagement of students using handwritten response journals and those using GRT. Narrative data, gathered via e-mail in weekly reactions to prompting questions, were used to examine the instructor's perceptions of the GRT and its effects on instruction.

Analyses of the observation data indicated that both methods of responding resulted in equivalent levels of engagement. Students who responded to instructor questions via the GRT exhibited levels of active academic responding, "other appropriate" (passive) responding, and off task behavior similar to those of students who responded in paper journals. These findings were maintained when the analyses were limited to intervals in which the GRT was in use. Our initial hypothesis that students using the GRT would be more engaged in class activities, perhaps because they knew the instructor may ask a question and would be able to immediately view their responses, was not supported by these results. Our data indicated that the use of simple response journals, even when students were aware that the instructor would not read them, produced levels of student engagement comparable to those obtained when GRT was used.

Our analyses of the instructor's weekly reflections was generative in nature. As we examined the issues and concerns articulated by the instructor as she used the technology to deliver her course, we found that use of GRT provided her with immediate feedback on students' understanding of the concepts she was teaching. While the instructor found this information to be valuable, it also caused her to reconsider her instructional decision making when faced with data suggesting students were not understanding the material she was teaching. The instructor also found the technology offered increased flexibility in the types of class activities that could be used in her predominantly lecture course; small group activities were managed with increased efficiency and student performance in these activities could be monitored more closely. In general, our analyses suggested that, when using GRT, the instructor developed new conceptions about and practices for lecture-based instruction, and increased her awareness of student understanding of course content.

If our study had been based entirely on the student engagement data, we might have concluded that the technology offered no benefits over handwritten journals and abandoned our use of GRT. However, in light of our analyses of the instructor's reactions, we are led to conclude the technology, in comparison to traditional journals, may offer benefits other than comparable levels of student engagement. These benefits include increasing the volume and immediacy of student performance data available to the instructor and shortening the length of time needed for the instructor to provide feedback to students about their understanding of course content. Our conclusion suggests two hypotheses regarding GRT: (a) the use of GRT enables the delivery of more effective instruction, even within lecture-based formats; and (b) GRT provides a forum for modeling effective instructional practices for preservice teachers. While these hypotheses have yet to be empirically verified, their implications warrant further consideration.

Facilitating Effective Instruction

An extensive body of literature in the process-- product paradigm has identified teaching processes associated with increased student achievement (Brophy & Good, 1986; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). These processes include active student responding, careful teacher monitoring of student progress, and immediate feedback to students. While the limits of the process-product paradigm have been acknowledged (Brandt, 1992; Brophy, 1992), the identified teaching processes may represent necessary, though not sufficient, components of effective instruction. Moreover, the usefulness of these variables for the instruction of students with disabilities is well established (Christenson, Ysseldyke, & Thurlow, 1989; Rieth & Evertson, 1988). More than a decade of research (Greenwood, 1996; Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1984; Greenwood, Delquadri, Stanley, Sasso, Whorton, & Shulte, 1981) has documented the relation between student engaged time and academic achievement.

Small group instruction, common in many resource rooms and pull-out programs, provides a context in which these processes can be used to effect student achievement. Trends toward inclusion have result in growing numbers of students with disabilities spending the majority of their academic time in general education settings. As a result, special educators are faced with the difficulties of facilitating active student participation, carefully monitoring student work, and providing individual feedback in large group settings. GRT provides a feasible means by which these goals can be accomplished. Using networking technology, GRT makes it possible for every student in a class to answer every question posed by the teacher. Furthermore, the collection and display of all students' responses on the teacher's computer permits detailed monitoring of students' understanding of course content. Finally, feedback to students can be provided verbally by the teacher or nonverbally via the GRT system. Preliminary findings from a federally funded project investigating the effects of GRT on students with and without disabilities (in inclusive general education) indicated that GRT use resulted in increased active responding by students, increased teacher monitoring of student work, and decreased off-task and disruptive student behavior (S. Robinson, personal communication, 9/29/97).

While the majority of the process-product research was conducted in K-12 settings, the extension of the instructional processes to higher education has shown promise in initial studies (Dunkin, 1986). Major implications of the use of GRT in higher education include the potential to provide more effective instruction and the ability to experimentally manipulate and test critical instructional variables in a systematic manner. Students in higher education, like those in K-12 settings, are likely to benefit from the use of the technology. Increasing active learning at the college level has been a common concern in the professional literature (Bonwell, 1996; Frederick, 1987; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; Meyers & Jones, 1993). Unfortunately, many of the strategies suggested as means of enhancing student learning require dramatic changes to typical instructional formats and make considerable demands on faculty time. With GRT, college students can respond frequently during class activities, and their responses can be monitored by the instructor. The immediacy of this monitoring is a unique aspect of GRT. While "low tech" methods (such as the hand-written response journals in this study or other methods, such as color coded response cards) can be used to increase student responding during instruction, these strategies place limitations on the instructor. With journals, it is difficult to efficiently monitor what students are writing. Response cards or other multiple choice forms of responding, place a burden on the instructor to carefully configure questions (often in advance) that are suitable for multiple choice responses (Foegen, Howe, Deno, & Robinson, 1998). In addition, students are not allowed to articulate their answers, therefore limiting the instructor's ability to identify misconceptions. With GRT, responses can be gathered in the natural language of the classroom and students' misconceptions can be identified immediately so corrective instruction can be provided without delay. The advantage of immediacy also extends to providing students with feedback. Because the instructor receives feedback about the effects of his/her instruction during class activities, feedback to students about the accuracy and depth of their understanding can be provided in a timely manner. GRT features make possible the efficient incorporation of effective teaching practices in a variety of instructional contexts including lecture.

MODELING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES AND POWERFUL USES OF TECHNOLOGY FOR PRESERVICE TEACHERS

The use of GRT in teacher education courses can also create a context in which preservice special education teachers reflect on the importance of active responding, teacher monitoring, and feedback for their own learning and teaching. As teacher educators, we can envision a class environment in which students learn about elements of effective teaching and then consider, in a reflective manner, how the GRT system enables these elements within their class and, in turn, influences their learning. This activity could also lead to an important discussion of how to simulate the effects of the technology if it is not available for their own instruction. (e.g., use of hand-written journals). The preparation of preservice teachers who are skilled in engaging students in meaningful learning activities, monitoring students' learning, and continually adjusting their instruction based on student learning feedback represents an important challenge to the field of special education (Englert, Tarrant, & Mariage, 1992).

The use of GRT in teacher education courses also provides preservice teachers with explicit examples of powerful uses of technology that directly influence teaching and learning. The need for the technology preparation of preservice teachers to go beyond the single technology course is well documented (Brownell & Brownell, 1991; International Society for Technology and Education, 1996). If the educational potential of technology is to be realized, teacher educators must help preservice teachers develop visions for the use of computers in education (Dupagne & Krendl, 1992; Goldman & Barron, 1990; Office of Technology Assessment, 1995). This vision is developed, in part, through the modeling of technology use in teaching (Office of Technology Assessment, 1995). The use of GRT provides preservice teachers with personal experiences of actively responding to teacher inquiries thus developing their understanding of how active and monitored engagement impacts their learning in a group setting. As preservice teachers experience learning with GRT and are presented with regular modeling of GRT-integrated instruction, they are likely to expand their conceptions about the role of technology in teaching and learning. Moreover, this modeling of technology use in teacher education may provide a foundation for more complex paradigms of technology use in teaching and learning.

CONCLUSION

The investigation described in this article examined the effects of GRT use on students' academic engaged time and the instructor's reactions to use of the system in a lecture-based teacher education course. The results of the observation data indicated that GRT use and hand-written response journals generated similar levels of student academic engagement. However, unlike the hand-written journals, GRT use efficiently provided the instructor with immediate access to student responses. Instructor reaction data suggested that the availability of student responses during class activities influenced the instructor's teaching style and decision making. The use of GRT challenged the instructor's conceptions of lecture-based instruction, causing increased attention to and heightened knowledge of student learning, which in turn resulted in changes in instructional practices. The potential of technology to bring about effective teaching in a variety of instructional contexts warrants further investigation; moreover, the potential of GRT use to provide meaningful learning experiences to preservice teachers and model effective teaching should be addressed by teacher education and technology researchers.