I From Camp Apple to Classroom Practice: A New Model for Staff Development

Recent studies have indicated that the best predictor of the skills that teacher education graduates have in infusing information technology (IT) into instruction is IT use in coursework throughout their preservice program. As a result, these studies have included strong recommendations to ensure that technology is a key part of methods classes so that future teachers understand and are able to integrate technology within the disciplines that they will teach (Cooper & Bull, 1997; International Society for Technology in Educa-tion, 1999; National Center for Education Statistics, 1999; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 1997; Willis & Mehlinger, 1996). Meeting this challenge requires new models of faculty devel-opment that deal with the barriers which have been identified as inhibiting past efforts in changing practice through training: motivation, resource access, and time.

Recognizing that changing teacher education is a key requirement for changing K-12 teacher practices, Apple Computer developed the Apple Summer Institute for Teacher Education, more commonly referred to as "Camp Apple." In July 1999 Apple Computer conducted a one week, residential professional develop-ment institute for teacher educators which attempted to address this challenge. Deans from schools and colleges of education had advised Apple that the professional development of their faculty, particularly of the methods faculty, was a primary concern. "Camp Apple" was designed in conjunction with 17 teachersí colleges in the U.S. and Canada to meet this need. While Apple has provided a camp experience for K-12 teachers, administrators, and technology support professionals in previous years, this was the first camp program that was aimed at higher education faculty.

The goals of Camp Apple were (1) to develop technology skills among faculty who rated themselves as novice computer-users, (2) to provide opportunities for them to consider how technology might enable more constructivist methods for their own courses, and (3) to give them time to reflect, share, and apply their new learning with colleagues from across North America.

Camp Apple was conducted in a rich technology environment. Participants had access to cutting-edge technologies like high speed Internet connections, three full labs of iMacs and G3 computers along with printers, digital cameras, scanners, authoring and educational software, and a wide variety of peripheral de-vices which are used in specialized disciplines for teaching and learning. The staff at Camp Apple were Apple employees and IT directors from Colleges of Education who had previously been recognized as "Apple Distinguished Educators."

Attendance at Camp Apple was "by invitation only." The deans on the Apple Advisory Board were in-vited to send teams of methods faculty from each of the four core curriculum areas (social studies, Eng-lish/ Language Arts, Science, and Math) to Camp. Each institution was responsible for the travel expenses of their participants; Apple paid for the training costs, room, and board. Forty-two methods faculty from 17 different institutions attended. Three deans also attended.

Appleís corporate goals for sponsoring this program were (1) to better understand the elements of suc-cessful professional development for teacher educators, (2) to cultivate a cadre of faculty who would apply the kinds of constructivist methodologies which are best supported by technology in their courses, and (3) to create a professional development model which could be easily replicated by other teachersí colleges at their own sites.

The Camp Apple Model
Several of the professional development strategies implemented at Camp Apple seemed to have com-bined to create a unique experience: a residential program in a scenic and secluded location with "24/7" access to cutting-edge technology; a reliance on collegial teams; and a focus on pedagogy. Finally, the longer-term effect of Camp Apple, as measured by the various dissemination activities of its participants, seems to have come from the "partnership" premise established between Apple and the participating insti-tutions.

Location, Location, Location:
Located in the Marin foothills just north of San Francisco, Camp Apple was conducted at Walker Creek Ranch. The ranch is an outdoor environmental education facility owned by the Marin County Board of Education. Cell phones cannot reach this canyon location and Walker Creek has no television. The residential aspect of the program promotes collegiality amongst participants in a way that "commuter" experiences cannot. Anyone who ever went to summer camp knows how powerful a "24/7" communal environment is on developing new friendships.

Focus on the Pedagogy, Not the Technology: The primary goal (and the greatest challenge) of Camp Apple was to focus on pedagogy, not on technology. While it is necessary for faculty to develop competence in the technology, it is more important for them to investigate the pedagogical relevance of these re-sources for teacher education. With access to expanded technology resources, faculty were free to experiment, explore new possibilities, and reflect on their teaching. Using the "Unit of Practice" (a curriculum development framework created by the ACOT research team), participants spent the week learning new technology skills, discussing teaching issues with colleagues, and developing a new teaching module for their methods courses. Finding the balance between these competing demands­developing the skills, considering the implications (of the technology), and creating a meaningful implementation was challenging and at times frustrating for both participants and staff. Further research will reveal whether these three objectives can be reached simultaneously or whether there is an evolution of thought and practice which is sequential.

The Importance of Teams: Drawing from our professional development research in the ACOT schools, we knew that teams were critical to the success of the program, both in the short and long term. Teams were used in two ways to achieve our goals. First, faculty worked in curriculum-area teams during the week on their curriculum development projects. Consequently, new collegial relationships formed around the common goals of learning and creating new materials for their courses. Participants were able to learn from new friends and share this learning with the team from their own institution. In order to insure participants would apply what they learned when the Camp concluded, individuals met as university teams before they left to plan follow up activities for the fall. Participants were asked to extend their learning to their students, to others at their schools, and to the broader teacher education community through new pub-lications and research based on their Camp Apple experience. Partnership: Appleís explicit goals for sponsoring this program relied heavily on the commitment of the participants to apply what they had learned at Camp to their teaching. It relied on their interest in con-tinuing the conversation with others­in their own institutions and beyond. To achieve this, each partici-pant committed to creating two more Units of Practice for their courses during the Fall semester and pub-lishing them on Appleís online teacher network, the Apple Learning Interchange. They also committed to at least one dissemination activity. This could be new research, a publication, a conference presentation, or other leadership activity which would further the discussion of technology in teacher education. Unlike many professional development experiences which are soon left behind in the wake of every-day demands, the follow up activities of these teams have been extensive. In addition to the individual work by faculty back on their own campuses, local teams have been able to draw on Apple resources for contin-ued support. As a result, the Camp Apple program continues to produce ongoing change. Two of these are explored in the following sections by Joyce Morris of the University of Vermont and Christy Faison of Rowan University.

II. How I Spent My Summer Vacation and Ended Up Changing the World

Journey of a Thousand Miles
To many higher education faculty the prospect of learning new technology is a journey of a thousand miles. They are expected to use and integrate technology to increase their own efficiency and model it for future teachers even though these technologies were non-existent when they were students. Experts in their respected fields, they are often novices when it comes to using new technology, yet government and public mandates are calling for the infusion of technology in all preservice coursework (International Society for Technology in Education, 1999; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 1997; Thomp-son, 1999). In their national survey on information technology in teacher education, The Milken Exchange reported, "...the technology infrastructure of education has increased more quickly than the incorporation of IT tools into teaching and learning," and that "many faculty do not model technology use..." (International Society for Technology in Education, 1999, p. 2). There is a growing consensus that the integration of in-formation technology into the teaching/learning environment can best be addressed through advocating and role modeling (Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, 1995). Advocacy implies showing others how technology can be applied to advantage in their teaching by role modeling the use of technology to achieve this objective as well as demonstrate the personal and professional benefit to be derived from its use (Wright, 1993).

People adapt to innovations in different stages (Hall, Louckes, Rutherford, & Newlove, 1975). Each level is characterized by observably different behaviors related to the userís development in acquiring these new skills and level of using the innovation. Research by ACOT discovered levels of use are also characteristic of adaptation of computer technologies by teachers in their classroom (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1990). The Milken Exchange has aggregated these into five stages­(1) entry, (2) adoption, (3) adaptation, (4) appropriation, and (3) transformation­in a Professional Development Continuum (http://www.milkenexchange.org/pdc/pdcdocs/pdcII.pdf). To model technology fluency one must feel com-fortable with basic computer skills, the focus of the entry stage. At the adoption and adaptation level, tech-nology is somewhat integrated into existing practices. In the final stages, appropriation and transformation, technological tools are used as a catalyst for significant changes in learning practices. At the adaptation level, technology is thoroughly integrated into existing practices. The final stage, transformation, uses technological tools as a catalyst for significant changes in learning practices. One advances to another stage
through practicing skills, using the technology in a supported environment, professional development, andnetworking with colleagues to determine best practices.

To enable faculty to use technology at an adaptive and transformative level requires reallocating re-sources and providing time and support to learn the technology that will enable them to systematically re-design programs, curriculum, and field experiences that capitalize on the power of these tools. We know what to do, the problem lies in how to pragmatically implement a retooling of our faculty while we teach, research, and serve our local communities. We face many of the same problems the K-12 community has been facing­how do you redesign a machine without ever shutting it off?

From Camp Apple to Campus
When the opportunity for four elementary education faculty to attend Camp Apple was extended to our program at the University of Vermont in summer 1999, faculty jumped at the offer. They would give up a week of their summer vacation to learn, explore, and play with technological tools and think about how they could infuse technology into their teaching.

Faculty returned to Vermont energized with visions of ways to infuse technology into their teaching,
assignments, activities, and presentations. Depending on their level of comfort in using technological re-sources, faculty are using their learned skills. One professor who coordinates the elementary education pro-gram and teaches a reading course to preservice teachers was the most insecure about her technological
competence. Since her visit to Camp Apple, she has set up a listserv for our program that she is managing and facilitating, and for the first time, has prepared a presentation for a National Reading Conference using PowerPoint. She is in the process of designing a telecommunication project with her third year preservice
students and Vermont elementary school children as an extension of the WEB project, a preexisting pro-gram connecting public school children with mentors. Next semester her preservice students and a group of elementary students will read selected childrenís stories and use a web board to discuss different issues sur-rounding the stories.

A second professor teaches a literacy course for third year students and a portfolio development course for seniors. In 1995 the State of Vermont implemented a results-oriented program approval process for] teacher certification­evaluation by portfolio to be initiated at institutions of higher education that serve those preservice students (VISMT, 1995). In this professor's literacy and portfolio courses he has introduced Inspiration, a concept mapping program, to his students to help them visually and textually organize their portfolios through themes of practice. At the University of Vermont, professional portfolios must be organized as a text, via themes, with student selected documentation that describe the emerging teacher. State and Program criteria are located in appendices and cross-referenced with their documentation. Students collect, select, and connect their artifacts and caption the pieces to explain the context and relevance of evidence. Preservice students are expected to relate educational theory to practice, drawing upon their coursework, fieldwork, and community experiences to create personal profiles. Students are encouraged to use the power of multimedia to construct electronic portfolios to document this portion of their certification. It is anticipated that with increased resources, all students will establish their portfolios electronically.

The third professor to attend Camp Apple is a partner in the literacy team and had a fairly good level of computer literacy before her summer experience. She previously connected with a fourth grade teacher in one of our field sites and arranged a telecommunication project, where through e-mail, preservice students read and discussed multicultural stories in common with fourth graders. For her camp project she created a model for adapting literacy portfolios that preservice students create in their third year, to an electronic format. Through a local network, students document and critique elementary student work and share feed-back with each other. In our fully networked transformable classroom, laptop computers are delivered to allow students to upload their files, practice file sharing, and create running records of student work that they examine in their field experiences. These are critiqued and shared by groups of students and incorporated into literacy portfolios.

The fourth professor is introducing a HyperStudio assignment for third year students into the Inquiry Block, an integrated science, social studies, and art methodology course in which she teaches. Our pre-service students have previously used HyperStudio in a first year required computer course. In this assignment students develop multimedia hypertext stacks that teach a science concept to accompany a science center that all inquiry block students build and leave in their field placement classrooms for two weeks. Science Centers must be self-sufficient with activities and assessments about science content and processes. Creating a multimedia based resource helps preservice students demonstrate their ability to develop grade-appropriate content, organize information in a logical interesting way, and use technology tools to present this to an elementary audience. Many of our neighborhood schools already use HyperStudio and for those that do not, the stacks will be uploaded to the Internet for viewing.

The Impact
The impact of Camp Apple far exceeds its effect on these four faculty. At the beginning of the semester thirty-two faculty throughout the college attended a set of three conversations about the Camp Apple experience and how we move forward with technology. Two of these meetings were attended by the College Dean and Vice Provost of Information Technology at the University. Faculty voiced their concerns about adequate resources and the lack of a clearly articulated vision and plan. This has resulted in a newly formed technology task force of faculty widely representing the college and being facilitated by a respected K-12 technology educator. The task force is taking a serious look at a number of issues and for the first time we are working together to define what it means to be a teacher of twenty-first century teachers. We are working together to define how this new literacy in technology and learning will help us develop practitioners that know how to use all the tools available to them and will be prepared to teach children brought up in the net generation.

Camp Apple provided the impetus for a number of changes we are already beginning to see in our college classrooms and administrative attention. This experience carved out the time to learn how to use new technology, to explore technology in a richly supported environment, and to think about what and how we teach and how technology could and should change that. There was structure to provide focus with flexibility to accommodate our special needs and interests. Our summer experience encompassed a defini-tion of professional development that goes beyond the term "training" with its implications of learning skills, and incorporates a definition that includes formal and informal means of helping faculty not only learn new skills, but also develop new insights into pedagogy and their own practice. Camp Apple helped faculty see where their thousand mile journey could end and took us a few hundred miles towards our des-tination in a week.

III Replicating Camp Apple Locally: A Professional Development Model
 
 Starting with Camp Apple
Ongoing professional development for faculty in teacher education has been and continues to be an ntegral part of the climate and culture of Rowan Universityís College of Education. In the past five years, efforts have focused mainly on improving technological literacy and more recently, on the integration and modeling of instructional technology in the professional component of our programs. Past activities have included workshops on the use of productivity tools, specific software packages, and presentation pro-grams.

These activities have met with moderate success. However, those workshops/experiences that pro-vided little or no follow-up, were ëdemonstration only,í and/or involved technology that was not accessible or reliable were more frustrating than helpful. In a continued effort to enhance the technological abilities of teacher education faculty and keeping those concerns in mind, the associate dean attended the week-long summer institute for teacher educators known as Camp Apple during the summer of 1999. Using the Campí model as a turnkey, professional development activities were planned that could be replicated for
Back at Rowan University. Many challenges had to be faced in replicating the Camp Apple model. These included: a) finding an appropriate time during the semester that was convenient for the majority of faculty, b) ensuring that facili-ties/hardware were adequate to accommodate the number of attendees and types of activities to be under-taken, c) determining a topic that would be useful across various education departments (elementary, secondary, special education, health & exercise science, reading, and educational leadership), and d) motivating faculty to participate.

We faced two additional challenges in planning an activity. First, an existing computer lab in the College of Education was to be upgraded during the summer of 1999, but as of the start of the semester, no action had been taken. The second was that the College was slated for an upcoming NCATE continuing accreditation review in the fall and all attention and effort was focused on the visit. Given these concerns and circumstances, the associate dean met with the instructional technology specialist several times during the semester to determine an appropriate course of action. Fortunately, the computer lab in the College of Education was renovated and upgraded during the first week in October, and the NCATE visit followed two weeks later. Those two challenges being met, plan-ning for the professional development activity continued. The January intersession was chosen as the time for Camp Apple since no classes would be in session, yet faculty would be returning to campus for regis-tration and to prepare for the spring semester. The Camp Apple theme (i.e., casual attire, bag lunches, tech-nology counselors, and give-aways) would be used as a motivator to attract participation. The focus of the professional development activity would be to introduce education faculty to WebQuests­inquiry-oriented activities in which some or all of the information that learners interact with comes from resources on the nternet (B. Dodge cited in Schrock, 1999). This activity was chosen because it could be used across all education departments by professors, and in turn, incorporated by education candidates for use with K-12 students.

In addition to the overall camp theme, other components of the week-long institute would be incorporated into the campus-based professional development component. One positive aspect of Camp Apple was the ready access to technology specialists during the hands-on workshops. This would be accomplished by
having "technology counselors" available during the workshop to provide assistance as needed. As in the Camp Apple model, faculty members would be encouraged to work in teams on projects using their exist-ing course syllabi. Faculty would be introduced to a modified Unit of Practice (UOP) as a model for incor-porating technology into their education courses. The session would be divided into two components­a "minds-on" session where faculty would be introduced to, and discuss the value of WebQuests, and a hands-on session where faculty would develop WebQuests appropriate for their courses. Follow-up would be an important component to the success of the professional development activity. To that end, the in-structional technology specialist will develop a web site where education faculty can share their We-b Quests, and seek support and/or assistance in the integration of this technology strategy. The site will also be a resource for links to other WebQuest sites. In addition, the technology specialist who authored the text used by all of our teacher education candidates (Orlando & Levy, 1998) will add a new chapter on We-b Quests to the revised text to encourage preservice candidate use with K-12 students.

In order to promote participation, flyers were distributed to all education faculty and announcements were posted on the College of Education web site. The Dean of the College of Education agreed to supply funding for refreshments and give-aways. The college instructional technology specialist, and a university nstructional technology specialist (with an education background) volunteered to be technology counsel-ors. The only perceived obstacle to success was the timing of the workshop. Although classes would not be in session, faculty would be on "holiday," so participation might be limited by those who already had plans for this particular timeframe. The goal of the workshop, which is to be held January 10, 2000, is to explore with faculty meaningful ways to integrate technology into professional education courses using hands-on experiences. The specific objectives include the ability to: a) define and construct WebQuests, and b) evaluate existing WebQuests and Internet sites. The intended outcome is to increase the likelihood that education faculty would incorpo-rate and model the use of technology in their education courses using the WebQuest activity as an instruc-tional strategy. If this particular strategy is successful, participation in future workshops would be expanded to include all university faculty, so that the modeling of technology use would be evident campus-wide.

Another potential strategy would be to replicate the Camp Apple experience for inservice teachers at our partnership and PDS schools. Our education faculty have shown a consistent interest in enhancing their professional skills. Likewise, a culture exists which promotes and supports faculty professional development. Rowan Universityís Camp Apple will be another wonderful opportunity to assist the College of Education in the preparation of excellent teacher candidates, ready for the classrooms of today and tomorrow. Teacher education is touted as a major factor in improving K-12 education. Skilled and talented teacher educators can be the catalysts in meeting this necessary goal.

IV. Evaluation: What did We Learn?

Participants were asked to provide Apple with a written reflection evaluating their experience at Camp at the end of the week. In addition, a follow-up survey was done three months later with plans for continuing evaluation in the future. Remarkably, evaluations were very consistent. Where the program succeeded, participants acclaimed its success. Where the program required more work, participantsí comments were consistently critical.

Technology Integration: Itís Not What You Think It Is:
The most significant learning from the week was the realization that technology integration means different things to different people. It is really two is-sues. When faculty think about "technology integration" in their teaching, they are usually thinking about things like using email to communicate with students, moving their lecture notes to electronic slides with software like PowerPoint, or putting their syllabus on the web. When educators talk about "preparing to-morrowís teachers to integrate technology" for K12 instructional use, they are talking about instructional strategies which use technology to promote critical learning processes in children. We discovered that one has to separate the use of technology for professional productivity by the faculty member and modeling instruction to promote new learning outcomes which employ technology. That a faculty member puts his or her syllabus on the web as a way to "model" technology usage for preservice students will not help those preservice teachers teach more effectively in their future classrooms.

Bringing Effective Practices to Teacher Education:
There is a great opportunity for teacher educators to explore effective practices for their own teaching. Many of these effective practices are constructivist in
nature, and require technology in order to make them most effective. While we erred at Camp Apple by presenting effective practices in the context of K12 instruction, it became immediately clear that faculty were very interested in exploring the potential of strategies like simulation, project-based learning, collabo-rative learning, and group learning within the context of their courses. Professional development for teacher educators should provide participants with the opportunities to explore these possibilities. If preservice teachers have these kind of first-hand learning experiences, they will come to implicitly understand the
power of technology in teaching. This is the kind of "modeling" that needs to take place in teacher educa-tion when we talk about "technology integration."

Follow-Up Survey
A follow-up survey of all participants three months after the program asked them to assess how their Camp Apple experience was making a difference in their current teaching and practice, and what activities they had engaged in to fulfill their commitment to disseminate what they had learned. We received 23 responses to this survey (51% return rate). In their retrospectives, participants uniformly praised several aspects of the Camp Apple model, including the residential, secluded location, the outstanding staff, and the availability of cutting-edge technology. Residential, Secluded Location: In their evaluations of Camp Apple, we learned that the residential aspect of the program was the most powerful strategy employed. Participants also reported that the secludedand scenic location created a wonderfully relaxing environment in which they were able to focus intensely on the subjects at hand. Faculty were unanimous in their evaluation of Camp Apple for giving them the opportunity to spend such a long period of time in the company of colleagues to discuss issues and share ideas.

The Right Staff:
Camp Apple was staffed by Apple employees and instructional technology directors who had previously been designated "Apple Distinguished Educators" from several Colleges of Education. They were all experts in a particular technology or in a particular implementation of a technology for teaching, like simulation, multimedia authoring, or process-learning. Evaluations from participants ranked the staff as the single most significant factor in the success of Camp. We tried to provide both direct in-struction as well as just-in-time learning. The broad technical expertise of each staff member made this possible. Technology Immersion: Participants remarked that the technology-rich environment at Walker Creek made them feel like they were "kids in a candy shop." There were technologies and software products
available to them that they did not know existed. The ability to have round-the-clock access to these re-sources combined with the expertise of the staff was one of the key points of feedback in favor of the pro-gram.

Teams At Work:
Participants who attended in teams of three or more had a significantly different ex-perience than those who came by themselves or even in a pair. Of the 42 participants, 40 reported that they would recommend Camp Apple to a colleague. The two who said they would not have attended came as "solo" participants, without a team. Of the 17 participating campuses, 11 were represented by three or more people. More importantly, responses to this survey indicate that a wide range of activities have been imple-mented on campuses as a result of the Camp program. Three months later, the schools which sent more than two people are exhibiting more activity in preparing for and using technology. Of the 11 schools which sent teams of three or more, six have planned new faculty development activities for the current school year. Two have commissioned new technology planning committees, and three have asked Apple to help them run their own Camp Apples next summer. Two of these eleven schools have not had any kind of significant follow up. Of the 42 attendees, four papers/research/presentations proposals have been prepared in the four months following the experience. Eighteen faculty have indicated that they would like to return to staff Camp Apple 2000. Additional follow-up is planned at the end of the academic year to further ex-amine he ongoing effects. Camp Apple was a model professional development experience for many reasons. But perhaps the most significant one is that it truly represents a partnership. Apple provided the resources and opportunities for learning, and in return, many faculty members have followed up with outstanding activities which have extended their learning to students, other professors, and to other institutions.
 
 

References

Cooper, J. M., & Bull, G. L. (1997). Technology and teacher education: Best practice and recommended directions. Action in Teacher Education, 19(2), 97-106.

Hall, E., Louckes, S. F., Rutherford, W., & Newlove, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education, 1(26), 52-56.

International Society for Technology in Education. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers (NCES 1999-080). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom. NCATE. Available: http://www.ncate.org/projects/tech/TECH.HTML [1999, 5/30].

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Orlando, F., & Levy, L. (1998). Tools for teachers. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1990). Teaching in high-tech environments: Classroom manage-ment revisited. ACOT Report #10. Cupertino, CA: Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Advanced Technology Group, Ap-ple Computer Inc.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Schrock, K. (1999). WebQuests in our future: The teacher's role in cyberspace. Available:

http://school.discovery.com/schrockguide/webquest/webquest.html [1999, 11/28].

Thompson, A. (1999). Technology in teacher education: Our time has come. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 16(1), 2-3.

VISMT. (1995). Vermont's results-orientated program approval process: Evaluation by portfolio : Vermont Institute for Science, Math & Technology.

Willis, J. W., & Mehlinger, H. D. (1996). Information technology and teacher education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Hand-book of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 978-1029). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA/Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Wright, P. (1993). Computer education for teachers: Advocacy is admirable but role modeling rules. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 374-380.