




































Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

41 
 

Incorporating Global Projects into Teacher Education: A Look at 
Practices and Perceptions of Preservice and Mentor Teachers 

 
Terry K. Smith 

 
Western Illinois University, USA 

 
Abstract 

 
Global projects can be a significant training ground for teacher education 
students by providing authentic professional experiences that cannot be 
duplicated in the college classroom. In global projects, teacher education 
students are situated to learn and use new technologies, to interact with 
veteran teachers in distant locations, and to practice a global perspective. 
This qualitative study examined the perceptions of teacher education 
students and their clinical mentor teachers while working together in a 
multi-school global project. The study’s purpose was to uncover beneficial 
practices and experiences that could improve teacher education in light of 
the challenges of teaching in today’s global environment. This study 
supports prior research showing that technology used with project-based 
learning enhances engagement and promotes deliberate practice in areas 
such as global awareness, technology use, communication, and 
collaboration. Data and results suggest a number of benefits from 
incorporating global projects into teacher education programs. Preservice 
teachers in the study showed active participation beyond the physical 
classroom as they communicated with global partners using a variety of 
digital media. Mentor teachers reported effective learning experiences, 
new professional contacts in other countries, and the desire to engage in 
global projects again.  

 
Introduction 

 
Global Expectations of New Teachers 
 
Expectations for content knowledge mastery, effective pedagogy, and improved 
technology skills have become a major focus for teacher education programs in recent 
years and is well documented (Carroll & Resta, 2010; Chen, 2010; Dilworth, Donaldson, 
George, Knezek, Searson, Starkweather & Robinson, 2012; Longview Foundation, 
2008; US Department of Education, 2010; Zhao, 2010). These expectations have led to 
teacher education programs across the United States being subject to the same kinds 
of standards-based scrutiny that drives K-12 education today. Assessments of teacher 
candidates, such as Stanford University’s testing instrument called the edTPA, are used 
increasingly in colleges and universities as a rigorous examination of teacher 
competencies linked directly to professional licensing (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Mehta 
& Doctor, 2013; National Launch of edTPA, 2013). 
 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

42 
 

But while competencies in content knowledge and pedagogy are a major focus, another 
dimension of expectations is being placed on new teachers: the idea of global 
competence in a connected world (Jensen, Searson & Yildiz, 2011; O'Connor & 
Zeichner, 2011; Suleiman, 2013; Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Zhao, 2010; Zeichner, 2010).  
A global perspective implies a responsibility for teachers to have a broader level of 
knowledge, a world view beyond their own classrooms and cultures. Today’s teachers 
need to create learning experiences for an ever changing diverse society. This is a call 
for teacher candidates to be able to differentiate their teaching across cultures and 
different ways of thinking. It means not only understanding that people across the globe 
have views that can be quite different than those in the United States, but also being 
prepared to teach with this global perspective.  Suleiman (2013) wrote that teachers 
should be able to “undertake their instructional roles effectively as they lead students to 
become empowered citizens who interact meaningfully and successfully in various 
global contexts. This can be done through providing multiple learning opportunities to all 
students in a culturally responsive way” (p. 36). But since “teacher training programs are 
often among the least internationalized programs on American college and university 
campuses” (Longview Foundation, 2008, p. 5), a change in teacher education is 
needed. We need teachers who are globally competent, teachers who can model global 
citizenship, and can create educational activities designed to engage students beyond 
the classroom to connect with other parts of the world (Longview Foundation, 2008; 
Zhao, 2009; Zhao, 2010).  
 
Having a non-stereotypical, meaningful understanding of the world is at the base of 
what has been termed global competence. This competence is illustrated by curiosity 
and awareness of how other people and nations function.  In Educating for Global 
Competence: Preparing Our Youth to Engage the World, Mansilla and Jackson (2011) 
argue that globally competent individuals should be able to do the following: 
 

1. Investigate the world beyond their immediate environment, framing significant 
problems and conducting well-crafted and age-appropriate research. 

2. Recognize perspectives, others’ and their own, articulating and explaining 
such perspectives thoughtfully and respectfully. 

3. Communicate ideas effectively with diverse audiences, bridging geographic, 
linguistic, ideological, and cultural barriers. 

4. Take action to improve conditions, viewing themselves as players in the world 
and participating reflectively. (p. 11). 

 
A global approach to teaching necessarily requires that teachers are knowledgeable 
with technology (Jacobs, 2010; Zhao, 2010). The challenge extended to institutions of 
teacher education, then, is how to go about structuring contextual experiences with 
technology that lead to global practices for our newest teachers. 
                                       
University Experiences Compared to School Classrooms 
 
In typical university teacher education programs, students are required to take course 
work in educational technologies and may have used or been exposed to collaborative 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

43 
 

technology such as video conferences, Google docs, blogs, wikis, or social network 
applications. Teacher education students are likely to have used or to have been 
exposed to interactive white boards, clickers for polling, and mobile devices such as 
tablets and smart phones with specific educational applications. Some universities 
blend the technology into coursework showing how to apply technology with specific 
content, while others have stand-alone technology classes leaving the classroom 
application up to the teacher education student – an inconsistency across schools of 
education that researchers say needs to be improved and geared toward explicit 
technology use in academic content areas (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Russell, 
Bebell, O'Dwyer, & O' Connor, 2003; Liu, 2011). 
 
The situation can be as equally inconsistent in public school settings (Aldunate & 
Nussbaum, 2013), that is, the level of technology, projects, and hands-on learning 
varies widely based on many factors including the skill level of the classroom clinical 
teacher, the guide and mentor for the student teacher. Student teachers, placed with 
competent, technology-using mentors, show more success in using technology in their 
placement classroom (Doering, Hughes, & Huffman, 2003; Liu, 2011), but finding an 
adequate number of technology-savvy mentors to meet the needs of teacher education 
programs is an ongoing challenge (Radinsky, Lawless, Smolin & Newman, 2005;  
Strudler, Archambault, Bendixen, Anderson & Weiss, 2003). 
 
Integrating Content Leads to Project Based Learning 
 
When teacher education students enter their clinical classrooms, they are expected to 
use a variety of active, hands-on techniques learned in their methods courses. 
Additionally they are taught and encouraged to integrate content when possible. For 
example, a teacher might create a context for teaching reading using science texts or 
web sites about plants, or might teach math using social studies resources for latitude, 
longitude and world time zones. 
 
As teachers integrate and create active ways to teach across content areas, they find 
themselves in a natural position to introduce project-based learning, which is also an 
effective approach to global learning (Bonk, Whiting, Jung, Kim, Altuwaijri, Tan, & 
Wang, 2012; Pastor, Villen, Val, & Sancho, 2012). Generally defined, project-based 
learning is an active, multi-faceted approach that supports academic content and blends 
with other research-based approaches such as cooperative learning and constructivism. 
Various descriptions and models exist for what defines a project. Typically students 
work collaboratively in an integrated content area on a project that has a defining 
endpoint, event, or outcome. They use various tools and technology, and have flexible, 
working time less constrained than in typical classroom scheduling (Fosnot, 1996; 
Harris & Katz, 2001; Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, Bass, Fredricks & Soloway, 1998; 
Markham, Mergendooler, Learmer & Ravitz, 2003). Benefits cited from project-based 
learning are numerous and include increases in engagement, motivation, collaborative 
skills, problem-solving skills, creativity, critical thinking, technology skills, and academic 
achievement (Brush & Saye, 2008; Blumenfeld, Soloway, Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial & 
Palincsar, 1991; Moursund, 1995). Project-based learning allows for multiple 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

44 
 

participants to contribute to the project in varied and substantial ways (Kauchak & 
Eggen,1993), a process that can be facilitated by the teacher to individualize instruction 
for the needs of all students (Tomlinson, 1999). In essence then, a teacher has the 
power to amplify and enhance student involvement and attention by understanding the 
connection between activity and learning, or as Joseph and Nacu (2003) described in 
their work with technology and media as an “alignment of learning activities with 
interest-based activities” (p. 91).   
 
Connecting Project-based Learning to K-12 Global Projects 
 
Educational Internet projects for classrooms became prevalent in the early 1990’s, all 
based in one way or another on communicating with remote classrooms and cultures 
and sharing information.  This approach changed how teachers could use technology in 
the local curriculum to extending and sharing what students were learning with others 
beyond the classroom walls, across the United States, and around the world (Bonk, 
2009; Hicks, 2003). Free video applications suddenly increased the ease and attraction 
of connecting beyond the classroom. Elementary students were developing speaking 
and listening skills as they were sharing stories, singing songs, giving classroom tours, 
offering riddles and math puzzles, and playing geographic I-Spy, all of which brought a 
new level of engagement and active learning to the classroom. Interested educators can 
search the Internet and quickly discover an abundance of global educational projects 
such as Kidlink.org, Flat Classroom, Global School Net, iEARN, Journey North, Skype 
in the Classroom, Monster Project, ePals and many more. Most of these are free and 
available to classrooms around the world simply by signing up for participation. 
 
This study examines a teacher education field work situation which included 
participation in a multi-school global project.  Data were gathered with surveys and 
lesson plans to address the following research questions: Is global awareness enabled 
by using technology in the global project? Are standards used in the global project? 
Does the global project enhance professional growth? Are participants likely to 
participate in global projects again based on this experience? Are teachers supported 
by administration and parents in using global projects? 
 
                                                                     Method  
 
Participants   
 
This qualitative study was conducted over a 30-day period in public schools in the 
Midwestern United States during the month of October. The term preservice is typically 
used for teacher education students training in schools as part of university course 
work. Classroom teachers responsible for supervising the preservice teachers and who 
provide expert guidance are typically referred to as mentor teachers. Twenty-four total 
participants were in the study and included 16 university students in the first semester of 
their senior year in the teacher education program, and 8 elementary teachers in public 
schools located near the university.  Students in the study were 14 females and 2 
males, ranging in age from 21to 22.  All mentor teachers were females and had worked 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

45 
 

in schools 10 or more years. Of the 24 participants in the study, 8 preservice teachers 
and 8 mentor teachers participated in the Monster Project. Another 8 preservice 
teachers supplied lesson plans during this same time period, but did not participate in 
the Monster Project. The field experience occurred in grades 3 and 4 in which all 
preservice teachers were in schools for approximately 4 hours per day during the 
semester. During the field experience, all 16 preservice teachers taught lessons based 
in literacy, math, social studies, science, and health. Lesson plans were written 
according to requirements of the university’s teacher education program. 
 
The global Internet project was introduced as a voluntary activity to preservice teachers 
during a seminar prior to entering the placement classroom. All mentor teachers were 
also invited to join the project as a learning option they might want to try in their 
classrooms. They were informed that elementary teachers from around the world 
communicated with each other and shared learning using technology tools. The project 
was described as entry level for those teachers who might perceive the requirements as 
beyond their range of experiences or who might not feel comfortable with technology. 
They were informed that a step by step timeline was provided on the project web site to 
guide progress. Eight mentor teachers and their assigned preservice teachers chose to 
participate in the project. An additional 8 preservice teachers who were not participating 
in the Monster Project were selected randomly for purposes of examining their lesson 
plans over the same period as the preservice teachers participating in the Monster 
Project. Joining the project was entirely voluntary on the part of all participants, none of 
whom had participated in a global project before. 
 
Materials 
 
Two Likert-style surveys were used, each with 16 prompts. (see Appendix A). One 
survey was for preservice teachers and the other was for mentor teachers. One open-
ended question was included in both surveys: “What other benefits do you see from 
participating in the Monster project?” Survey item choices were: Strongly Agree, Agree, 
Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, and Disagree Strongly.  A neutral response was 
included so as not to force respondents to have an opinion (Suskie, 1996). The Likert-
style surveys used for this study were constructed according to recommendations by 
Fink (2003): using content reflecting research questions, addressing attitude and 
behavior, and using questions specific to participants’ context. The surveys were 
administered at the conclusion of the Monster Project using an online Qualtrics tool. 
See Tables 1 and 2 for the responses by preservice and mentor teachers to the open-
ended survey question. 
 
Prompts in the survey were associated with specific areas of examination (listed at the 
top of Appendix). For example, on the survey, prompts 1, 6, and 14 targeted the first 
area of examination: Use standards-based content in a global project.  Prompts in the 
survey were formulated based on content and attributes previously identified in the 
project-based learning and global education literature such as global awareness (Zhao, 
2010), standards in projects (Markham, 2003), collaborating with technology (Markham 
& Belkasim, 2011), and professional development via Internet projects (Beetham & 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

46 
 

Sharpe, 2013).  Prior research has shown that project-based learning can enhance 
student engagement, collaboration skills, and problem solving (Brush & Saye, 2008; 
Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Gultekin, 2005; Moursund, 1995; Sahin, Arturk, & Schmidt, 
2009).  
 
Project Description  
 
The scenario for this study was a yearly multi-school Internet event called the Monster 
Project (http://www.smithclass.org/proj/Monsters). For over ten years, the Monster 
Project has attracted K-6 participants from across the United States as well as from 
England, Canada, Taiwan, South Africa, Uganda, Australia, Japan, and Myanmar to 
name a partial list.  The project runs for about a month each October and has activities 
that include global collaboration, teamwork, communication, using technology skills, 
sharing lesson ideas, posting student-created media, and evaluating the final project. 
 
Building a monster is the grounding component of the project – and not just any random 
monster, but instead a specific creation based on the input of all participants. Each 
classroom was given ownership of a single part such as the nose, the mouth, the ears, 
the tail, the wings, and so forth. The number of parts matched the number of 
participating classrooms. Once a classroom was assigned a monster part, for example 
the mouth, they brainstormed a 12-word description of that part using shapes, colors, 
measurements, patterns, and other descriptive language. This mouth description was 
added to descriptions of all the other parts on a master chart on the project web site. 
When all of the parts had been described, teachers began the process of building the 
monster in their classrooms. The full chart of participants and 41 descriptions can be 
seen at www.smithclass.org/proj/Monsters. 
 
Classes followed a posted timeline which also included activities such as reading 
related literature like Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are or a young reader’s 
version of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Teachers created their own reading lists and 
shared the book lists with others during the project. The flexible design of the project 
allowed each teacher to conduct the project based on his or her preferences and 
curriculum. 
 
To a traditional, non-project oriented teacher, the scope of a project like this one can be 
seen as a very consuming set of activities and challenges. All learning is not neatly laid 
out in a lesson guide book.  Because much of the project is done in workshop fashion 
with students out of their seats, off task behavior is likely. And parts of the project can 
require technology use with which the teacher may not be familiar. The classroom 
becomes a place of energy. Students are moving about working with all types of 
materials such as construction paper, cardboard, ribbon, foil, yarn, craft sticks, glitter, 
and paints. A typically well-ordered classroom quickly becomes a noisy work space with 
students discussing and negotiating how parts come together, while cutting, measuring, 
and gluing and generally being involved in the messy work of project-based learning. 
 
The minimum participation in the project is building a classroom monster, but teachers 

http://www.gpejournal.org/
http://www.smithclass.org/proj/Monsters
http://www.smithclass.org/proj/Monsters


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

47 
 

are encouraged to leverage the experience and take advantage of the group 
connections and communication with each other. Therefore, different levels of 
participation were observed with some teachers functioning as novices and some 
contributing and sharing at very high levels. Overall, technology use was significant 
during the project with examples of students working in computer labs, using classroom 
laptops, interactive white boards, and iPads. Students made slideshows, animations, 
videos, audio presentations (one in French using Voicethread). They communicated 
using email, Twitter, and Skype video conferencing. Some teachers with classroom 
blogs set up areas in which students could post comments on each other’s blog pages. 
With the availability of easy communication and the attraction of posted artifacts, 
students and teachers used the project web site frequently during the month.  
 
Student-created media from past Monster projects displayed on the project web site 
provided examples and motivation for current participants to create their own media. In 
the posted examples, media tools such as Animoto, SmileBox, GoAnimate, 
VoiceThread, Padlet, and Edmodo are used. This sharing serves to spread ideas to all 
participants, and is especially useful for the preservice teachers’ experiences in 
observing the variety of technology tools used by practicing teachers around the world.  
Biographies of each participating classroom provided latitude and longitude, city and 
country locations, weather descriptions, and details about individual schools. Each 
classroom was also asked to submit a statement about the difference between learning 
in a local way and learning in a global way. 
 
As classes finished building their monsters, photos were submitted and published on 
the project site. Once all monster photos had been posted, each student in the project 
was given the opportunity to evaluate the monsters based on the original criteria in the 
master chart. A project-wide voting concluded the project in which all students analyzed 
and voted for the monster best fitting the specifications. Finally, the Monster of the Year 
was selected as a function of the whole group’s criteria analysis. 
 
To add some qualitative data to the survey data, lesson plans were compared for 
preservice teachers who did versus did not participate in the Monster project. 
Preservice teachers normally submitted their lesson plans to the supervising college 
professor each week. Plans were checked for basic requirements such as learning 
objectives, standards, guided practice, closure, and assessment. Preservice teachers 
from both groups were asked to identify their most effective plans during October (the 
time frame of the Monster project). 
 

Results 
 
Surveys 
 
This section shows the results of the six survey examination areas using comparative 
bar graphs for preservice teachers and mentor teachers. Survey items responses that 
corresponded to each of the areas of examination were averaged for the bar graphs. 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

48 
 

The final bar graph shows the survey results of mentor teachers regarding 
administrative and parental support for global projects. 
 
In Figure 1, preservice teachers responded to Use Standards-based Content in a Global 
Project items with 100% agreement. Mentor teachers, however, indicated 84% 
agreement. Mentors and preservice teachers indicated that standards-based content is 
well represented in the experiences of the project. The 16% indication of Neither could 
be related to the fact that teachers are often concerned that projects will not fit well with 
expectations of meeting state standards (Shepard, 2000). Lesson plans were guided by 
Common Core standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices 
and the Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), state standards, learning 
objectives, and associated assessments. Lessons were shared with the community on 
the project web site.  
 

 

Figure 1: Uses Standards-based Content in a Global Project 
 
Figure 2 shows that responses to Use Technology for Collaboration items were 100% 
agreement for preservice teachers. Mentor teachers indicated 87% agreement. 
Evidence of extended technology use was shown in Skype sessions, blogging 
collaborations, wikis, video sharing, digital photos, and email pals. The indication of 
Neither at 13% might be attributed to the fact that some teachers view technology for 
presentation purposes, but not necessarily as a collaboration tool (Brush, Glazewski, 
Rutowski, Berg, Stromfors, Van-Nest & Sutton, 2003).  
 

Strongly
Agree

Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
Disagree

58%

42%

0% 0% 0%

51%

33%

16%

0% 0%

Preservice Teachers Mentor Teachers

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

49 
 

 

Figure 2: Technology for Collaboration 
 
In Figure 3, preservice teachers responded to Effective Education Practices for 
Professional Growth items with 93% agreement. Mentor teachers indicated 83% 
agreement, 7% Neither, and 3% Disagree. Through project contact with a variety of 
teachers around the world, preservice teachers gained additional role models, lesson 
ideas, and advice in extending their personal learning networks in addition to everyday 
interactions at clinical schools. Non agreement with this topic by mentors fits with some 
perceptions that professional growth is a function of formal training rather than the self-
learning that occurs experientially (Opfer, & Pedder, 2011). 
 

 

Figure 3: Effective Education Practices for Professional Growth 
 

Strongly
Agree

Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
Disagree

76%

24%

0%
0% 0%

53%

34%

13%

0% 0%

Preservice Teachers Mentor Teachers

Strongly
Agree

Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
Disagree

64%

29%

7%

0% 0%

52%

41%

4%
3% 0%

Preservice Teachers Mentor Teachers

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

50 
 

In Figure 4, preservice teachers responded to Technology-enabled Global Awareness 
items with100% agreement. Mentor teachers indicated 82% agreement and 18% 
Neither. Examples of global awareness can be seen in the sample lesson plans 
described below. Similar to the mentor response on using technology for collaboration 
(Figure 2), some teachers do not perceive technology as a conduit to the world. (Levin 
& Wadmany, 2008). Most teachers, however, indicated that technology was an enabler 
of their global awareness. 
 

 

Figure 4: Technology-enabled Global Awareness 
 
In Figure 5, preservice teachers responded to Likely to Participate in Global Projects 
Again items with 100% agreement. Mentor teachers also indicated 100% agreement. 
Unanimously, all participants indicated they would pursue global projects again. 
 

 

Figure 5: Likely to Participate in Global Projects Again 

Strongly
Agree

Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
Disagree

94%

6%
0% 0% 0%

57%

25%
18%

0% 0%

Preservice Teachers Mentor Teachers

Strongly
Agree

Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
Disagree

88%

12%

0% 0% 0%

75%

25%

0% 0% 0%

Preservice Teachers Mentor Teachers

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

51 
 

 
In Figure 6, mentor teachers responded to Administrative and Parental Support items 
with 64% agreement, Neither 12%, Disagree 12%, and Strongly Disagree 12%. This 
survey area produced the most disagreement of any in the study. More than half of the 
mentor teachers indicated they felt supported by parents and administration, but 24% 
otherwise.  In a time of increased documented accountability for student achievement, 
project learning can be difficult to justify which could help explain teachers not feeling 
supported (Black, 1998; Cizek, 2001; Hadley, 2010; Kohn, 2001).  
 

 

Figure 6: Administrative and Parental Support 
 
 
Open-Ended Responses by Preservice Teachers 
 
Responses by preservice teachers to the open-ended question were positive and 
indicated improved cooperative behaviors, global curiosity, creativity, academic skills 
practice, engagement, and enthusiasm about working with students from around the 
world. Participants often used the term kids to refer to their students. Strong indications 
of collaboration as well as high engagement are clear in teacher remarks. Teachers not 
only observed student curiosity, but also noted their own realization that the project 
provided them authentic ways to integrate content in “a natural avenue to teach 
curriculum about the world.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Strongly
Agree

Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
Disagree

38%

26%

12% 12% 12%
Mentor Teachers

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

52 
 

Table 1 
Preservice Teacher Open-ended Responses  
 

Question: What other benefits do you see from participating in the Monster Project? 

I think the students really came together as a cooperating group with this project. They 
actually learned how to work together and were clearly better at group work after we 
finished the project. The global connections were strong and the students were all able 
to find the other participants on the map. 

I believe this project also helped students practice language arts skills with various 
activities including writing monster poems and stories. Kids had to use math skills a lot 
in measuring parts to fit the descriptions, creating some of the geometric shapes, and 
measuring distances to other countries. 

Integration between content areas was huge in my class. Math fit perfectly in the 
distances, and literacy comprehension blended with social studies. Mainly the kids were 
so curious about the other kids around the world. Really helped me feel connected to 
my class experience.  

This survey addressed the benefits but I don't feel it adequately addressed the absolute 
Best Practices approach.  There was much more I could have answered about Best 
Practices. This was an awesome project that was totally engaging for the students and 
served as a natural avenue to teach curriculum about the world that was meaningful for 
students.  Super, super!!!  :)  

The kids were so excited and curious that I think it made a great energy level for 
learning. They were asking about doing the project everyday so that made it easy for 
me to say things like “Today we have another Monster project lesson!”  

My mentor got so involved in the social studies of the project. I’m sure she will do it 
again next year.  

 
Open-Ended Responses by Mentor Teachers 
 
Only half of the mentor teachers responded to the open-ended question, but the 
indications were all positive. One mentor pointed out how the younger preservice 
teacher contributed technology skills and that she was impressed with how the 
preservice teacher connected the class with students in other parts of world, something 
that her students had never experienced before. This helps illustrate that learning in the 
clinical classroom is composed of the current knowledge new teachers bring as well as 
what the veteran teacher knows from years of experience. Another teacher remarked 
how using map skills in the project context helped create stronger global connections. 
Collaboration improvements emerged in one teacher’s observation as students 
negotiated and sometimes disagreed on exactly how to assemble Monster parts. The 
same teacher also remarked on classroom management practice and in finding a new 
professional friend in New Jersey, something that she states would not have happened 
to her without the project. The final comment focused on participation of shy students 
who might not typically become involved in classroom work. Observations of 
participation across ability levels are common in project-based learning environments. 
 
 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

53 
 

Table 2 
Mentor Teacher Open-ended Responses  
 

Question: What other benefits do you see from participating in the Monster Project? 

The project was not only valuable for my preservice teacher, but also for me. She 
helped me with the technology part and I helped her with the academic part. I see the 
benefits of projects like this because the kids are so engaged. I think my student 
teacher felt very important and connected as she worked with the kids from around the 
world. I had never done anything like this before. Awesome! 

map skills,   tolerance of cultural and world differences,   communication through 
children's e-mail 

My students became much better at collaborating because they had to work together 
extensively and compromise in making the Monster components. The head was a 
particular challenge with some disagreements about placement of the eyes and the 
mouth. It was very noisy and I think this helped my student teacher to practice 
classroom management - there were many times when she had to have the kids' 
attention and she was able to get it.  The kids became used to noisy work and staying 
on task although there was a good amount of socializing going on. I heard from parents 
that they preferred their children doing interesting projects rather than only paper and 
pencil work. And I now have a new Internet partner teacher in New Jersey which is so 
cool! The partnership would not have happened without this project. 

The project wasn’t just great for a teacher education experience, but was exciting and 
memorable for my whole class. It was interesting to see my shy students participating 
so much more with their peers.  

 
Lesson Plans Based on Global Project-based Learning  
 
Lesson plans of preservice teachers who did versus did not participate in the Monster 
project were checked for basic content: learning objectives, standards, guided practice, 
closure, and assessment methods. This was not an exhaustive examination, but one 
looking for basic differences in planning between the two groups. Differences were 
noted in technology use, standards, collaboration, and content explored beyond the 
classroom in literacy, math, science and social studies. While all preservice teachers 
were encouraged to create active learning experiences incorporating technology and 
collaborative learning, certain features distinguished those written in the global project-
based context.  Table 3 shows differences in lessons between the two groups. 
 
Table 3 
Planning Differences between Project and Non-project Preservice Teachers 
 

Project-related Plans Non-project Plans 

Technology: 
Smart board/Internet - viewed web sites of 
project partners, shared project media, 
viewed videos from project partners. 
Created videos of skits and presentations. 

Technology: 
Smart board/Internet – viewed web sites 
related to lesson topics, used Notebook 
files, showed videos. 
 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

54 
 

Classroom photos done with iPads, cell 
phones. Web tools used: Animoto, 
Voicethread, Weebly, Wikispaces, and 
KidBlogs. 

Collaboration:  
Used Skype, Twitter, email pals, blogs, 
photo sharing, and gift package 
exchanges. Compromising during to 
designing, building, and assembling 
Monster parts. 

Collaboration:  
Done among students in the room, 
cooperative learning, group work in math 
and science. Tasks based on curriculum 
materials. 

Standards: 
Listed for all plans. No difference. 

Standards: 
Listed for all plans. No difference. 

Content:  
Social studies lessons integrated with 
science and writing, focused on project-
related topics; map studies/distances 
between project partners, GMT time zones 
compared, latitude-longitude used to 
locate partners, weather comparisons of 
world locations; land forms related to 
project partners.  
 
Literacy/Language: reading with text and 
digital media from the Monster site in 
French; reading blogs and web sites of 
project partners, writing/reading/posting 
biographies, interpreting descriptive writing 
for Monster part construction. 

Content:  
Literacy, math, social studies, and science 
were represented using traditional 
textbook resources with focus on local 
curriculum.  
 
 

 
The Monster Project web site provided project participants with easily accessible 
communication opportunities such as email addresses, regular mail addresses, blogs, 
class web sites, Twitter and Skype addresses. Class photos and biographies including 
geographic and weather information supplied real world topics of interest for generating 
questions and discussion. Preservice teachers took advantage of the ready-made 
global network to incorporate authentic situations using standards-based content in their 
lesson plans. While all preservice teachers would normally be creating literacy 
experiences in the classroom, the project-based preservice teachers had the advantage 
of communicating with others in parts of the world beyond the classroom.  
 
To further illustrate how projects can be incorporated into lesson planning, this section 
shows the work of three sample preservice teachers chosen for their exemplary 
contributions (fictional names are used). They communicated with classrooms in 
Russia, Canada, and Myanmar: Beth in 4th grade, Ryan in 4th grade, and Katy in 3rd 
grade. Mentor teachers mainly served as helpers and learners as the preservice 
teachers experimented and learned the technologies necessary for communicating with 
project partners. 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

55 
 

 
Beth wrote a five-lesson project-based learning unit integrating math, social studies, 
science, and literacy with the Monster Project. She used Skype to connect her students 
with an elementary classroom in a small town in Siberia. Beth’s elementary students 
had deliberate practice using video technology for speaking, and listening to students 
on the other side of the world – an arrangement that necessitated the Russian students 
to be at school at 9 o’clock in the evening due to the 13-hour time zone difference. To 
name a few of Beth’s approaches, she used a variety of maps to teach latitude and 
longitude skills referencing the Russian school location, created a science rocket project 
that was designed to “fly off and visit our friends in Russia,” and guided her students in 
an informative language skit which was videoed and embedded on the project site. The 
relationship continues as the classrooms have since exchanged gift packages, and Beth 
plans to join a future Toy Project sponsored by the Russian teacher.  
 
Ryan wrote three lesson plans in his 4th grade class specifically related to the Monster 
Project. Weather, distances, local culture, sports teams, and favorite subjects were 
among his topics, all of which were represented by learning objectives and 
assessments in his lesson plans. Ryan’s lesson plans included video conferencing with 
two other project schools, one in New Hampshire and the other in Winnipeg, Canada. 
He blended the video conference experience into a Common Core language arts event 
on informational text. Ryan’s students took turns asking questions of the students in 
other parts of the North American continent, a technology opportunity the students had 
not experienced before in their classroom, and a highly interesting way to meet other 
participants in the global project. Ryan’s students tracked answers of the conversation 
and were responsible for recording on paper what happened during the conference. 
Ryan said that getting to know new friends in far off places provided enhanced student 
attention to the writing and interviewing tasks.  
 
Katy wrote six lesson plans based on the Monster Project. From the project biography 
page, she selected a class in Myanmar, emailed the teacher and asked if her 3rd 
graders could begin communications with the students in Myanmar. Katy set up a blog 
where the American students posted questions and shared writing from current 
classroom lessons. The Myanmar students responded in the comment section of the 
blog. They began by defining culture, then compared and contrasted cultural traits of the 
two countries. Although Katy had never taught in a computer lab before, she scheduled 
lab space for her 3rd grade so that students could do their blog writing all at once. 
Topics of the blogs included social studies, technology, music, arts, holidays, and 
reading. The Myanmar teacher supplied student photos for the blog to make it easier for 
Katy’s students to know their new friends by seeing their faces. Postings from Myanmar 
students helped the Americans understand some of the cultural differences. For 
example, one Myanmar student wrote: “We clean the house before the Chinese New 
Year because if we clean the house it means good luck.” Another student shared a 
tradition called Thadingyut, the lighting festival, at which time the students pray to 
Buddha. Katy’s students shared creative writing on Halloween themes and posted 
pictures of pumpkins. Katy also created a video of her students to show the building 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

56 
 

phases of the Monster and embedded it on her own blog as well as on the Monster 
Project site. 
 
Overall, from examining the lesson plans, preservice teachers in the global project 
showed use of technology in ways that were directly connected to the lives and 
experiences of their students and other students in the project. There were marked 
differences between the global project lesson plans and the non-project based plans. In 
all cases the global project plans illustrated multiple ways of leveraging real world 
content and examples that were relevant to the participating students and teachers, 
while non-project plans, while meeting university requirements, employed more 
traditional, less connected resources. As illustrated previously with the three preservice 
project teachers, their lesson plans described active communication experiences and 
activities with email, blogs, and Skype. Lesson plans referenced specific attributes and 
real world contexts of project partners such as latitude and longitude, time zones, 
weather, language, food, traditions, and holidays. All teachers in the project were 
encouraged to contribute ideas and lessons integrating content, to share their 
techniques and ways of staging the project in their classrooms. The preservice teachers 
submitted lesson plans which were posted on the project site to share with other 
teachers showing how standards, objectives, and assessments can be applied to 
project-based learning. The project web site itself served as a community reference 
resource in that it was frequently visited by participants and used to attain or review 
project information. From the perspective of the possibilities for learning in a teacher 
education program, clearly a wider range of examples and teaching ideas were 
available to the Monster Project teachers than would have been experienced in a non-
connected classroom or in a typical university classroom. 
 

Discussion 
 
Yong Zhao (2010) and others (Mansilla & Jackson, 2011; Suleiman, 2013) have made 
the case that students in schools in the United States are not developing the global 
perspective they will need to live, work and interact with others in this age of rapidly 
expanding globalization.  He has argued the following: “For our children to live 
successfully and peacefully in this globalized world, we need to help them develop the 
appropriate skills, knowledge, attitudes, and perspectives. This requires a new 
generation of teachers who are able to act as global citizens, understand the global 
system, and deliver a globally oriented education” (p.8).  
 
The perceptions of the preservice and mentor teachers on their global experiences were 
significantly positive. Both were immersed in an outside-of-school setting that was 
educational as well as social. Not only was the setting effective for the teachers, but the 
overall experience placed their elementary students in situations with faraway project 
friends. From their own learning standpoint, preservice teachers had first-hand 
observations of how elementary students can share, converse, and learn about the 
world in ways not typically done in traditional teaching. For the elementary students, as 
well as for the preservice and mentor teachers, the learning was active, sometimes 
unpredictable, and always intriguing by the nature of the connections to others in the 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

57 
 

world. Preservice teachers had easy access to classrooms and teachers around the 
world via resources provided on the project web site. The use of technology was 
authentic and natural to the circumstance. Various applications were needed to 
communicate and share in the project and the use of these technologies (blogs, video 
conferencing, email, etc.) created an enabling environment for global awareness for the 
teachers and their elementary students. Lesson plans written by project preservice 
teachers reflected standards-based objectives and were shared with the project 
community. Preservice teachers and mentors expressed that the experience provided 
significant professional growth especially in establishing relationships with teachers in 
other states and countries. Mentor teachers mostly agreed that they were supported by 
their administrations and parents in the global project, however, 24% disagreed. The 
indication of nonsupport may have been based on testing pressures to use time 
differently, or a lack of clear understanding of project learning (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; 
Grant, 2002; Thomas, 2000).   
 
Clearly, this project provided rich opportunities and experiences that could not be 
duplicated in a college classroom. Preservice teachers observed the use of technology 
and collaboration skills by veteran teachers, and in many cases communicated instantly 
with these new role models and their elementary students. The learning that was 
happening at these moments was not only exciting, but also significantly enhanced the 
expertise of the preservice teacher. Regarding the future, many veteran teachers in the 
Monster Project have formed their own smaller networks with each other and continue 
to interact. It remains to be seen if the preservice teachers will have an ongoing 
relationship with their new project colleagues. 
 
Although this study was done with a small group, its implications and message about 
learning is important. Teacher educators know that isolated practice in classrooms does 
not produce the best results for learners. They also know that content-rich, active 
learning experiences are the most engaging – especially when experienced in a real 
context.  It is the context of working and learning in the real world with real teachers and 
real students that gives support to this study’s recommendations. The findings offer 
possibilities and ideas for enhancing the practice field of teacher education programs, 
many of which have been described as out of touch with real world needs. 
 
Arguments, data, and literature in this paper have suggested that using global projects 
in teacher education coursework can be a step toward developing the “new generation 
of teachers” described by Zhao (2010). Data and results suggest that students in 
teacher education programs could benefit if global projects were formally incorporated 
into clinical classroom field work situations. The study also suggests that mentor 
teachers benefit by expanding their own pedagogy, and the elementary students benefit 
by being in a new kind of school – a 21st century classroom connecting with others 
around the world. This study provides one possible structure for scaffolding global 
learning opportunities into teacher education. More research on project-based global 
learning may help to show additional potential for improving teacher education 
programs.  
 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

58 
 

Limitations of the Study  
 
There are several limitations to this study. The use of self report measures is limited by 
the manner in which participants respond to the survey based on their personal 
perceptions. Participants may feel they are being evaluated for their technical skills, or 
could feel they might be expected to respond in a certain fashion. The researcher 
cannot control for those who may respond in a way they think they are expected to as 
opposed to responding without bias. Next, when mentor teachers were surveyed on 
their feelings of support by the school administration and the parents, the question was 
blended, and therefore did not allow a distinction. Teachers did not have a way of 
stating, for example, that they felt supported by parents, but not by the administration, or 
vice versa.  Also, the open-ended question: What other benefits do you see from 
participating in the Monster Project? may have skewed participants’ responses. An 
improvement could have been asking what advantages and disadvantages were seen 
in the project. Next, lesson plans were generally compared for content in a few key 
areas. Examining a broader range of lesson plans in a more systematic manner might 
bring out other technology issues for discussion. Finally, casual observations revealed 
that participants were generally proficient with interactive whiteboards, using the 
Internet to acquire educational resources, and using social networking. Future studies in 
global project learning could be strengthened with a more detailed analysis of 
technology use in specific content areas as well as examining participants’ levels of 
technology expertise.  
 
 

References 
 
Aldunate, R., & Nussbaum, M. (2013). Teacher adoption of technology. Computers in 

Human Behavior, 29, 519-524. 
Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (Eds.). (2013). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: 

Designing for 21st century learning. London, England: Routledge.  
Black, P. (1998). Assessment by teachers and the improvement of students' learning. In 

B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 2), 
811-822. New York, NY: Springer. 

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). 
Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. 
Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398. 

Bonk. C. J. (2009). The world is open: How Web technology is revolutionizing 
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Bonk, C., Whiting, J., Jung, E., Kim, M., Altuwaijri, A., Tan, V., & Wang, Y. (2012). The 
adventure of extreme learning: Documenting impactful online learning tools, 
projects, and resources. Society for Information Technology & Teacher 
Education International Conference, 2012, 154-160. 

Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Van-Nest, M. H., … & 
Sutton, J. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training 
program: The PT3@ ASU project. Educational Technology Research and 
Development, 51, 57-72 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

59 
 

Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2008). The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based 
inquiry on student engagement, empathy, and assumptions about history. The 
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 2, 21-56. 

Carroll, T., & Resta, P. (Eds.). (2010). Redefining teacher education for digital-age 
learners. Summary report of the Invitational Summit on Redefining Teacher 
Education for Digital-Age Learners. Retrieved from 
http://redefineteachered.org/sites/default/files/SummitReport.pdf?q=summitreport 

 
Chen, M. (2010). Education nation: Six leading edges of innovation in our schools. San 
            Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 
Cizek, G. J. (2001). More unintended consequences of high‐stakes testing. Educational 

Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20, 19-27. 
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Recognizing and enhancing teacher effectiveness: A 

policy maker’s guide. Washington, DC: Council for Chief State School Officers 
Dilworth, P., Donaldson, A., George, M., Knezek, D., Searson, M., Starkweather, K., & 

... Robinson, S. (2012). Preparing teachers for tomorrow's technologies. 
TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 56, 11-14.  
doi:10.1007/s11528-012-0581-5. 

Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking 
with technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 342-361. 

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How 
knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on 
Technology in Education, 42, 255-284. 

Fink, A. (2003). How to ask survey questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New 

York, NY: Teachers College Press. 
Grant, M. M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases and 

recommendations. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 5, 
83. 

Gultekin, M. (2005). The effects of project-based learning on learning outcomes in the 
5th grade social studies course in primary education. Educational Sciences: 
Theory and Practice, 5, 548–556. 

Hadley, R. J. (2010). Principals’ opinions on the impact of high-stakes testing on 
teaching and learning in the public elementary schools in the state of Utah 
(Doctoral dissertation). Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 

Harris, J. H., & Katz, L. G. (2001). Young investigators: The project approach in the 
early years. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 

Hicks, D. (2003). Thirty years of global education: A reminder of key principles and  
precedents. Educational Review, 55, 265-275. 

Jacobs, H. J. (2010) Curriculum 21: Essential Education for a Changing World. 
Alexandria, Va.: ASCD. 

Jensen, J., Searson, M., & Yildiz, M. (2011). PBL[g]: Project-based learning [global], 
learning technologies and teacher preparation. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), 
Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education 
International Conference 2011 (pp. 961-965). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. 

Joseph, D., & Nacu, D. C. (2003). Designing interesting learning environments when the 

http://www.gpejournal.org/
http://redefineteachered.org/sites/default/files/SummitReport.pdf?q=summitreport


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

60 
 

           medium isn’t enough. Convergence: The Journal of Research into New Media 
           Technologies, 9, 84-115. 
Kauchak, D. P., & Eggen, P. D. (1993). Learning and teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn & 

Bacon. 
Kohn, A. (2001). Fighting the tests: A practical guide to rescuing our schools. Phi Delta 

Kappan, 82, 348-357. 
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. 

(1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle 
school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350. 

Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective 
integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. 
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16, 233-263. 

Liu, S. (2011). A multivariate model of factors influencing technology use by preservice 
teachers during practice teaching. Educational Technology & Society, 15, 137–
149. 

Longview Foundation. (2008). Teacher preparation for the global age: The imperative 
for change. Retrieved from http://www.longviewfdn.org/122/teacher-preparation-
for-the-global-age.html 

Mansilla, V. B., & Jackson, A. (2011). Educating for global competence: Preparing our 
youth to engage the world. New York, NY: Asia Society. 

Markham, T. (2003). Project based learning handbook: A guide to standards-focused 
project based learning for middle and high school teachers. Novato, CA: Buck 
Institute for Education. 

Markham, S. A., & Belkasim, S. (2011, June). Collaborating across international 
boundaries: using twitter as a tool in the classroom. Proceedings of the 16th 
annual joint conference on Innovation and technology in computer science 
education (pp. 382-382). New York: NY: ACM Press. 

Markham, T., Mergendooler, J., Learmer, J., & Ravitz, J. (2003). Project based learning 
handbook. Hong Kong: Quinn Essentials Books and Printing, Inc. 

Mehta, J., & Doctor, J. (2013). Raising the bar for teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94, 8-13. 
 
Moursund, D. G. (1995). Increasing your expertise as a problem solver: Some roles of 

computers. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. 
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State 

School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington DC: 
Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/ 

National Launch of edTPA. (2013). Education Digest, 78, 50-52. 
O'Connor, K., & Zeichner, K. (2011). Preparing US teachers for critical global education. 

Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9, 521-536. 
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. 

Review of Educational Research, 81, 376-407. 
Pastor, J., Villen, D., Val, S., & Sancho, J. (2012). Learning and motivation based: 

Cooperation projects and education in values.  International Journal of Global 
Education, 1(3), 1-8. 

Radinsky, J., Lawless, K., Smolin, L. I., & Newman, M. (2005). Developing technology-
integrated field experience sites in urban schools: Approaches, assumptions, and 

http://www.gpejournal.org/
http://www.longviewfdn.org/122/teacher-preparation-for-the-global-age.html
http://www.longviewfdn.org/122/teacher-preparation-for-the-global-age.html
http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

61 
 

lessons learned. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. 5, 
169-176 

Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., & O'Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher 
technology use implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation.  
Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 297-310. 

Sahin, I., Akturk, A. O., & Schmidt, D. (2009). Relationship of preservice teachers’ 
technological pedagogical content knowledge with their vocational self-efficacy 
beliefs. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information 
Technology & Teacher Education Conference 2009 (pp. 4137-4144). 
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.  

Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning (CSE 
Technical Report 517). Retrieved from AACC DataUse website: 
http://datause.cse.ucla.edu/docs/las_rol_2000.pdf 

Strudler, N., Archambault, L., Bendixen, L., Anderson, D., & Weiss, R. (2003). Project 
THREAD: Technology helping restructure educational access and delivery. 
Educational Technology Research and Development, 51, 41-56 

Suskie, L. A. (1996.) Questionnaire survey research: What works. (2nd ed.). 
Tallahassee, FL: The Association for Institutional Research.  

Suleiman, M. (2013). A global context for instructional leadership: Implications for 
teaching and teacher preparation. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 
1, 31-44. 

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational 
Leadership, 57, 12-17. 

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved from 
http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf 

US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming 
American education: Learning powered by technology. National education 
technology plan 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 

Villegas, A.M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking 
the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 20-32. 

Zeichner, K. (2010). Preparing globally competent teachers: A US perspective. 2010 
Colloquium on the Internationalization of Teacher Education. NAFSA: 
Association of International Educators. Retrieved from 
http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/zeichner_colloquium_paper.pdf 

Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of 
globalization. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 

Zhao, Y. (2010). Preparing globally competent teachers: A new imperative for teacher 
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 422-431. 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

http://www.gpejournal.org/
http://datause.cse.ucla.edu/docs/las_rol_2000.pdf
http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf
http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/zeichner_colloquium_paper.pdf


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

62 
 

Appendix: Survey Questions 
 

Numbers on each prompt indicate how the prompt is associated with an area of 
examination. 
 
Areas of Examination:  
1. Use standards-based content in a global project  
2. Use technology for collaboration 
3. Perceive the experience as effective practice for professional growth 
4.Technology enabled global awareness 
5. Likely to use global projects again 
6. Level of administrative and parental support (mentors only) 
 
Prompts for Pre-service Teachers 
My project lesson plans were guided by state standards. 1 
1. I observed my students engaged in collaboration with technology.  2 
2. The project is a good way to integrate my regular class curriculum. 5 
3. I observed my students interested in cultural content from other countries. 4 
4. Technology made it possible to connect my students with the world. 4 
5. I learned how to integrate content and standards into a project. 1 
6. The project allowed my students to collaborate with technology. 2 
7. I learned new skills from project teachers outside of my clinical classroom. 3 
8. I have new technology skills after doing this project. 3 
9. I intend to use global projects again in my future classroom. 5 
10. I am comfortable with the energy and noise of the project. 5 
11. The project provided me with a new group of future education contacts and 

resources. 3 
12. The project provided me communication opportunities with technology. 2 
13. I observed the connections between learning standards and activities in the project. 

1 
14. The project made my students more aware of the world. 4 
15. What other benefits do you see from participating in the Monster project? 
 
Prompts for Mentor Teachers 
I received positive feedback from parents and principal about participating in the project.  
6 
1. The preservice teacher became more confident with classroom management during 

the project. 3 
2. The project contributed to a positive atmosphere for learning. 5 
3. I observed that students were excited and learning in the Monster project. 5 
4. I observed standards in my preservice teacher’s lesson plans. 1 
5. The project connected the preservice teacher professionally with teachers in other 

schools. 3 
6. I observed my students attaining a sense of global awareness in this project. 4 
7. My students collaborated on the Monster with technology. 2 
8. I intend to use a global projects approach again in my future classroom. 5 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal   April 2014, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 41-63 
www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

63 
 

9. Technology connected our classroom with elementary students and teachers in 
other countries. 4 

10. The project provided the preservice teacher with Skype opportunities to another 
country. 4 

11. I observed my students sharing information with technology. 2 
12. The project provided the preservice teacher with a new education contacts and 

resources. 3 
13. The project is a valuable addition to training a preservice teacher for today’s world. 3 
14. The project activities were covered by state standards. 1 
15. What other benefits do you see from participating in the Monster project? 
 
 
About the Author 
 

Dr. Terry K. Smith earned his EdD in Learning Technologies from Pepperdine 
University. He is an assistant professor in Curriculum & Instruction at Western 
Illinois University where he teaches social studies methods in elementary education. 
He has been active in global projects for over 10 years, and currently manages the 
Kidlink Landmark Project, and a yearly multi-school project called Monsters. He has 
consulted on technology projects with Northern Illinois University, Indiana University, 
and Arizona State University. He is on the National Geographic Geo-Educators 
Steering Committee. Research interests include global education, project-based 
learning with technology, and virtual learning environments. Dr. Smith can be 
reached at TK-Smith2@wiu.edu.  
 
 
 
 

http://www.gpejournal.org/
mailto:TK-Smith2@wiu.edu

