Paraprofessionals have a wide range of responsibilities in the educational system to support students' academic, behavioral, and social needs. The law does not specifically define how paraprofessionals will receive training for these tasks, but many districts require teachers to fill this role. While some educators may receive adequate training, literature shows that the majority of preservice and in-service teachers feel unprepared to train, manage, and supervise paraprofessionals. In this exploratory study, grounded qualitative methods were used to analyze data from course materials and semi-structured interviews regarding faculty perspectives of current practices used in teacher preparation programs. Themes which emerged from the data included: (1) Informal or ad hoc training; (2) Recognition of the need to support conceptual awareness; and (3) Infrastructural issues. Participants in this study used their knowledge, background, and experiences to create meaningful and relevant activities with concepts that preservice teachers need to work with paraprofessionals. However, instruction tended to be informal or ad hoc due to a number of infrastructural issues and constraints surrounding current practices. The findings of the study were congruent with previous literature regarding course materials, activities, and types of training. Additionally, this study revealed some issues at the national, state, and local levels that have influenced the extent of information provided to preservice teachers regarding working with paraprofessionals.

The goal of this study was to explore technology experiences from a preservice teacher preparation program that requires every preservice teachers and instructors to own a laptop. The participants were a) preservice teachers who were in the program and b) novice teachers who are the program graduates. The setting of this study was a preservice teacher preparation program that involves one-to-one computing throughout in a college of education in a large southwestern university. The research conducted a cross sectional case study. Two preservice teachers across the first, second, and third semesters of the program and two novice teachers in the first year of teaching participated in this research. Various data sources were collected with: a) technological skills and attitude survey, b) related documents such as lesson plans, assignments and school documents, c) observation, and d) interviews. Results of this study showed each participant’s learning environment, technology experiences and technology skills, attitudes and knowledge. All preservice teachers mutually had media cart, instructors’ laptops, students’ laptops, and wireless internet in university classes, and had innovation station, teachers’ computers, printer, telephone, students’ computers, headsets and wireless internet in PK-6 school classes. Throughout the program, university instructors mutually required Email, word processing and electronic submission of assignments to the preservice teachers. The instructors mutually modeled using PowerPoint and Learning Management System (LMS). Preservice teachers in the first semester mutually used video creation, preservice teachers in the second semester used Email and LMS, and preservice teachers in the third semester mutually used search engine, PowerPoint and innovation station. All participants’ technology attitudes were overall positive. Most of the preservice teachers’ technology knowledge was rated accepting level, except Neal, one of the preservice teachers in the third semester, who was rated adapting level. Novice teachers mutually had innovation station, web conferencing devices and students’ laptops in their school. Both of the novice teachers experienced barrier of technology integration due to the necessary devices were already checked out. The novice teachers mutually used innovation station, had overall positive technology attitudes and had technology knowledge at the accepting level. The results led six discussion issues, including a) alignment of technological infrastructure, b) accessibility of technologies, c) limited exposure to technological activities, d) preservice teachers’ technology skills, e) technology experiences from the program and preservice teachers’ technology attitudes, and f) programmatic impact on novice teachers. / text