i-manager Publications

i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology (JET)

Current Issue Vol. 20 Issue 4

Most Cited

Volume 9 Issue 2 July - September 2012

Article

Training Teachers to Use and Produce Open Educational Resources: A Win-Win Approach

Pradeep Kumar Misra*

Associate Professor, Faculty of Education & Allied Sciences , M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, India.

Pradeep Kumar Misra (2012). Training Teachers To Use And Produce Open Educational Resources: A Win-Win Approach. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.9.2.1940

Abstract

High-quality teaching occurs when teachers come to the classroom with a certain toolkit of knowledge and skills because they are required to perform different roles in changing times, e.g., they have to be continuous learners, promoters of new learning outcomes, users of ICT in formal learning situations, and developers of new learning tools/materials. Present generation of teachers can not afford to be isolated practitioners working within a single classroom as they are expected to play significant role for the cause of knowledge society and be beneficiary as well contributor in ever changing world of education. The situation demands that institutions must prepare teachers to excel in teaching profession, and Open Educational Resources (OER) can play a very significant role to support this cause. OER can support teachers to develop a number of competencies and practices for benefit of teaching and learning. In other side, teachers have enough potential to support open source movement by producing useful and need based OER. To make this happen, efforts are needed to help teachers to understand and realize the importance of OER and to train them to use and produce OER. In this backdrop, present paper mainly discusses about the need of making teachers competent to use and produce OER, possibilities of making OER training an integral part of the pre-service/ in-service teacher training programmes, and responsibilities of various stakeholders to fufill this promise. As follow-up of this discussion, paper presents an ‘OER Teacher Training Module’ for use of teacher training institutions/organizations.

References

[1]. Albright, P. (2009). Discussion highlights. In S. D'Antoni & C. Savage (Eds.), Open Educational Resources Conversations in Cyberspace. France: UNESCO Publications.

[2]. Atkins, D., Seely B. J., & Hammond, A. (2007). A Review of the Open Educational Resources Movement: Achievements, challenges and new opportunities. Report to the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Retrieved September 08, 2010, from http://www.oerderves.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/a-review-of-the-open-educational-resources-oer-movement_final.pdf

[3]. Daanen, H., & Facer, K. (2007). 2020 and Beyond Future Scenarios for Education in the Age of New Technologies. Retrieved October 05, 2008, from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/openingeducation

[4]. Geser, G. (2007). Open Educational Practices and Resources OLCOS Roadmap. Austria: OLCOS Project. Retrieved September 08, 2010, from http://www.olcos.org/cms/upload/docs/olcos_roadmap.pdf

[5]. Geser, G. (2012). Open Educational Practices and Resources OLCOS Roadmap 2012. Austria: OLCOS Project. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from http://www.olcos.org/cms/upload/docs/olcos_roadmap.pdf

[6]. Gunter, G. A. (2001). Making a difference: Using emerging technologies and teaching strategies to restructure an undergraduate technology course for pre-service teachers. Educational Media International, 38 (1), 13-20.

[7]. Hylén, J. (2009). Mapping producers and users. In S. D'Antoni & C. Savage (Eds.), Open Educational Resources Conversations in Cyberspace (pp. 127-134). France: UNESCO Publications.

[8]. Johnstone, S. M. (2005). Open Educational Resources serve the world. EDUCAUSE Quarterly (EQ), 28 (3). Retrieved July 24, 2011, from http://www.educause.edu/node/157364.

[9]. OECD. (2007). Giving Knowledge for Free-the Emergence of Open Educational Resources. Paris: OECD.

[10]. Park, J. (2009). Back to School: Open Courseware as a Transition to College. Retrieved July 24, 2011, from https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17411

[11]. UNESCO. (2002). Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries. Retrieved September 30, 2012, from http://www.unesdoc.Unesco.org/images/0012/001285/128515e.pdf

[12]. UNESCO. (2012). 2012 Paris OER declartion. Retrived September 30, 2012, from http://www.unesco.org/new/.../CI/.../Paris%20OER%20Declaration_01.pdf

[13]. UNESCO, IIEP, & Albright, P. (2005). Internet Discussion Forum: Open Educational Resources – Open Content for Higher Education (24 October – 2 December 2005), final forum report. Retrieved July 24, 2011, from http://www.Ifap.ru/library/book064.pdf

[14]. White, G. (2008). ICT trends in education. Digital Learning Research. Retrieved July 24, 2011, from http://www.research.acer.edu.au/digital_learning/2

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Student Evaluation in Higher Education: a Comparison Between Computer Assisted Assessment and Traditional Evaluation

Yaron Ghilay* , Ruth Ghilay**

* Lecturer in the Neri Bloomfield School of Design and Education, Haifa.

** Educational Counsellor in Primary Education.

Yaron Ghilay and Ruth Ghilay (2012). Student Evaluation In Higher Education: A Comparison Between Computer Assisted Assessment And Traditional Evaluation. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 8-16. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.9.2.1942

Abstract

The study examined advantages and disadvantages of computerised assessment compared to traditional evaluation. It was based on two samples of college students (n=54) being examined in computerised tests instead of paper-based exams. Students were asked to answer a questionnaire focused on test effectiveness, experience, flexibility and integrity. Concerning each characteristic, responders were asked to relate to both kinds of evaluation (computerised and traditional). Furthermore, students were asked to evaluate home and classroom computerised exams. The research reveals that there is a significant advantage to computerised assessment in comparison to paper-based evaluation. The most powerful advantage of computer-assisted assessment found throughout the research, is a test's flexibility. The research findings point out that there is significant worthiness to adopt computerised assessment technologies in higher education, including home exams. Such a new method of evaluation is about to improve significantly the institutional educational administration.

References

[1]. Ashton H. S., Schofield D. K., & Woodgar S. C. (2003). Piloting summative web assessment in secondary education. In Proceedings of the 7th International Computer–Assisted Assessment Conference (edsChristie J.).Loughborough University.

[2]. Ashton H. S., Beavers C. E., Schofield D. K., & Youngson M.A. (2004). Informative reports-experiences from the Pass-IT project. In Proceedings of the 8th International Computer–Assisted Assessment Conference (eds Ashby M. & Wilson R.).Loughborough University, Loughborough.

[3]. Bennett R. E. (2002a). Inexorable and inevitable: the continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 1, 100-108.

[4]. Bennett R. E. (2002b). Using Electronic Assessment To Measure Student Performance. The State Education Standard, National Association of State Boards of Education.

[5]. Boyle A., Hutchison D., O'Hare D., & Patterson A. (2002) . Item selection and application in higher education. In 6th International CAA Conference(edsDanson M.). Loughborough University, Loughborough.

[6]. Brown G., Bull J., & Pendlebury M. (1997). Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education. Routledge, London.

[7]. Bull J. (1999). Update on the National TLTP3 Project The Implementation and Evaluation of Computer-assisted Assessment. In 3rd International CAA Conference (eds Danson M.).Loughborough University, Loughborough.

[8]. Bull J. (2001). TLTP85 Implementation and Evaluation of Computer-Assisted Assessment: Final Report.

[9]. Bull J. & McKenna C. (2004). Blueprint for Computer-Assisted Assessment. Routledge Falmer, NY.

[10]. Conole, G. (2004). Report on the effectiveness of tools for e-learning, report for the JISC commissioned Research Study on the Effectiveness of Resources, Tools and Support Services used by Practitioners in Designing and Delivering E-Learning Activities.

[11]. Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of Information and communication technologies?, ALT-J, 12(2), 111–123.

[12]. Davies P. (2001). CAA must be more than multiple-choice tests for it to be academically credible? In 5th International CAA. Conference (edsDanson M. & Eabry C.).Loughborough University, Loughborough.

[13]. Davies P. (2002). There's no confidence in multiple-choice testing. In 6th International CAA Conference (eds Danson M.).Loughborough University, Loughborough.

[14]. Duke-Williams E., & King T. (2001). Using computer-aided assessment to test higher level learning outcomes. In 5th International CAA Conference (edsDanson M. & Eabry C.).Loughborough University, Loughborough.

[15]. Farrer S. (2002). End short contract outrage. MPs insist, Times Higher Education Supplement.

[16]. Farthing D., & Mc Phee D. (1999). Multiple choice for honours-level students? In 3rd International CAA Conference (edsDanson M.).Loughborough University, Loughborough.

[17]. Fiddes D.J., Korabinski A. A., McGuire G. R., Youngson M. A. & Mc Millan D. (2002). Are mathematics exam results affected by the mode of delivery? ALT-J, 10(6), 1–9.

[18]. Hambrick K. (2002). Critical issues in online, large-scale assessment: An exploratory study to identify and refine issues. Capella University, Minneapolis.

[19]. Laurillard D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching a conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. RoutledgeFalmer, London.

[20]. Mills C., Potenza M., Fremer J., & Ward C. (2002) . Computer-based testing-building the foundation for future assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York.

[21]. Outtz J. L. (1998). Testing medium, validity and test performance. In Beyond multiple choice evaluating alternative to traditional testing for selection (edsHakel M. D.).Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York.

[22]. Pritchett N. (1999). Effective question design. In Computer-Assisted Assessment in Higher Education(eds Brown S., Race P. & Bull J.).Kogan Page, London).

[23]. Warburton W., & Conole G. (2003). CAA in UK HEIs: the state of the art. In 7th International CAA Conference(eds Christie J.).University of Loughborough, Loughborough.

[24]. Ward W. C., Frederiksen N., & Carlson, S. B. (1980). Construct validity of free response and machine-scorable forms of a test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7(1), 11–29.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Worked Examples Leads to Better Performance in Analyzing and Solving Real-life Decision Cases

Yasemin Demiraslan Cevik* , Thomas Andre**

* Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Hacettepe University, Turkiye.

** Professor, Curriculum and Instruction and of Psychology, Iowa State University.

Yasemin Demiraslan Cevik and Thomas Andre (2012). Worked Examples Leads To Better Performance In Analyzing And Solving Real-Life Decision Cases. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.9.2.1945

Abstract

This study compared the impact of three types of case-based methods (worked example, faded worked example, and case-based reasoning) on preservice teachers’ (n=71) decision making and reasoning related to realistic classroom management situations. Participants in this study received a short-term implementation of one of these three major approaches to case-based learning. Specifically, this study focused on analyzing students’ open-ended responses to classroom management problems presented during instruction using one of these methods. The results showed the worked example group, compared to the case-based reasoning and faded worked example groups, consistently performed better on analyzing cases and solving problem cases related to classroom management.

References

[1]. Abell, S. K, Bryan, L. A., & Anderson, M. (1998). Investigating pre-service elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation. Science Education, 82 (4), 491-510.

[2]. Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. W. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70, 181-214.

[3]. Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774-783.

[4]. Beck, R. J., King, A., & Marshall, S. K. (2002). Effects of Videocase Construction on Pre-service Teachers' Observations of Teaching. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70 (4), 345-361.

[5]. Berliner, D.C. (1994). Expertise: The wonders of exemplary performance. In J. N. Mangieri and C. Collins Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students (pp. 141-186). Ft. Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

[6]. Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 463-482.

[7]. Bowers, J., & Doerr, H. (2003). Designing Multimedia Case Studies for Prospective Mathematics Teachers. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12 (2), 135-161.

[8]. Bowers, J., Kenehan, G., Sale, J., & Doerr, H. M. (2000, February). Designing multimedia case studies for pre-service teachers: Pedagogical questions and technological design solutions. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 444-556).

[9]. Bruning, R., Siwatu, K. O., Liu, X., PytlikZillig, L. M., Horn, C., Sic, S., & Carlson, D. (2008). Introducing teaching cases with face-to-face and computer-mediated discussion: Two multi-classroom quasi-experiments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33 (2), 299-326.

[10]. Cherubini, L. (2009). Exploring prospective teachers' critical thinking: Case-based pedagogy and the standards of professional practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 228-234.

[11]. Choi, I., & Lee, K. (2009). Designing and implementing a case-based learning environment for enhancing ill-structured problem solving: Classroom management problems for prospective teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 99-129.

[12]. Clark, R.E. (2009). How much and what type of guidance is optimal for learning from instruction? In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 158-183). New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.

[13]. Clark, C.M., & Lampert, M. (1986). The study of teacher thinking: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (5), 27-31.

[14]. Demiraslan Çevik, Y. (2011). Examining preservice teachers' reasoning and decision making in three case-based approaches. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI 3486946).

[15]. Doyle, W. (1990). Case methods in the education of teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 17 (1), 7-16.

[16]. Harrington, H.L. (1995). Fostering Reasoned Decisions: A Case-Based Pedagogy and The Professional Development of Teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 203-214.

[17]. Hernandez-Serrano, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). The effects of case libraries on problem solving. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 19, 103-114.

[18]. Holbrook, J., Gray, J., Fasse, B. B., Camp, P. J., & Kolodner, J. L. (2001, April). Managing complexity in classroom curriculum implementation sites: Triangulating Multi-Level Assessment and Evaluation. Presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Retrieved February, 2010 from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/projects/lbd/pubtopic.html#assess.

[19]. Holbrook, J., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Scaffolding the Development of an Inquiry-Based (Science) Classroom, In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 221-227). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

[20]. Housner, L. D., & Griffey, D. C. (1985). Teacher cognition: Differences in planning and interactive decision making between experienced and inexperienced teachers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 45-53.

[21]. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In: Reigeluth CM (Ed.) Instructional-design theories and models (Volume II): A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[22]. Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Typology of case-based learning: The content, form, and function of cases. Educational Technology, 6(4), 11-15.

[23]. Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 439-457.

[24]. Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2009). Web-enhanced case-based activity in teacher education: A case study. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 37(2), 151-170.

[25]. Kolodner, J.L. (1991). Improving human decision making through case-based decision aiding, Artificial Intelligence Magazine, 12(2), 52-68.

[26]. Kolodner, J. L. (2006). Case-based reasoning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 225-242). New York: Cambridge University Press.

[27]. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntembakar, S. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning-by-design into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12(4), 495-548.

[28]. Kolodner, J.L., Gray, J., & Fasse, B. B. (2003). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in learning by design classrooms. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3(2), 183-232.

[29]. Kolodner, J.L., Hmelo, C.E., & Narayanan, N. H. (1996, July). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning. In D. C. Edelson & E. A. Domeshek (Eds.), Proceedings of ICLS '96 (pp. 188-195). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.

[30]. Kolodner, J.L., Owensby, J.N., & Guzdial, M. (2004). Case-based learning aids. In Jonassen, D H, (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 829-861). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[31]. Lee, K., & Choi, I. (2008). Learning classroom management through web-based case instruction: Implications for early childhood teacher education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 495-503.

[32]. Leinhardt, G.,& Greeno, J.G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75-95.

[33]. Merseth, K. (1996). Cases and Case Methods in Teacher Education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 722-744). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

[34]. Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2007). Immediate and Delayed Effects of Using a Classroom Case Exemplar in Teacher Education: The Role of Presentation Format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 194-206.

[35]. Mwangi, W., & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems: The effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 173-199.

[36]. Owensby, J., & Kolodner, J. L. (2002, January). Case Application Suite: Promoting Collaborative Case Application in Learning by Design™ Classrooms. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, CSCL-02, New Media: Boulder, CO.

[37]. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429-434.

[38]. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1-4.

[39]. Reed, S.K., & Bolstad, C.A. (1991). Use of examples and procedures in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 753-766.

[40]. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1-29.

[41]. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Große, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works - a cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59-82.

[42]. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., Maier, U. H., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 293-315.

[43]. Renkl, A. & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). An example order for cognitive skill acquisition. In F. E. Ritter, J. Nerb, E. Lehtinen, & T. M. O?Shea (Eds.), In order to learn: How the sequence of topics influences learning (pp. 95-105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

[44]. Rich, P., & Hannafin, M.J. (2008). Decisions and reasons: Examining preservice teachers' decision making through video self-analysis. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(1), 62-94.

[45]. Rourke, A.J., & Sweller, J. (2009). The worked-example effect using ill-defined problems: Learning to recognize designers' styles. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 185-199.

[46]. Schank, R.C. (1982). Dynamic Memory: A theory of reminding and learning in computers and people. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[47]. Schank, R.C. (1999). Dynamic Memory Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[48]. Schrader, P., Leu, Jr., D., Kinzer, C., Ataya, R., Teale, W., Labbo, L., & Cammack, D. (2003). Using Internet delivered video-cases to support pre-service teachers' understanding of effective early literacy instruction: An exploratory study. Instructional Science, 31, 317-340.

[49]. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Computer-supported example-based learning: When instructional explanations reduce self-explanations. Computers and Education, 46, 426-445.

[50]. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285-296.

[51]. Shulman, L.S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J.H Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1-30). New York: Teachers College Press.

[52]. Spiro, R.J., & De Schryver (2009). Constructivism: When it's the wrong idea and when it's the only idea. In S. Tobias & T. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 106-124). New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.

[53]. Swanson, H.L., O'Connor, J.E., & Cooney, J.B. (1990). An information processing analysis of expert and novices teachers' problem solving. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 533-556.

[54]. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.

[55]. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59-89.

[56]. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176-192.

[57]. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.

[58]. Sykes, G., & Bird, T. (1992). Teacher education and the case idea. Review of Research in Education, 18, 457-521.

[59]. Trafton, J.G., & Reiser, B.J. (1993). The contributions of studying examples and solving problems to skill acquisition. In M. Polson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

[60]. Wang, F. K., Moore, J. L., & Wedman, J. (2003). Developing a case-based reasoning knowledge repository to support a learning community-An example from the technology integration community. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 45-62.

[61]. Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 1-39.

[62]. Westerman, D. A. (1991). Expert and Novice Teacher Decision Making. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 292-305.

[63]. van den Berg, E. (2001). An exploration of the use of multimedia cases as a reflective tool in teacher education. Research in Science Education, 31, 245-265.

[64]. Zhu, X., & Simon, H. (1987). Learning Mathematics from Examples and by Doing. Cognition and Instruction, 4(3), 137-166.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Technology Engineering in Science Education: Where Instructional Challenges Interface Nonconforming Productivity to Increase Retention, Enhance Transfer, and Maximize Student Learning

James Edward Osler II* , Gail Hollowell, Stacy M. Nichols*

-- North Carolina Central University.

James E. Osler, Gail P. Hollowell and Stacy M. Nichols (2012). Technology Engineering In Science Education: Where Instructional Challenges Interface Nonconforming Productivity To Increase Retention, Enhance Transfer, And Maximize Student Learning. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.9.2.1947

Abstract

Technology Engineering is an innovative component of a much larger arena of teaching that effectively uses interactive technology as a method of enhancing learning and the learning environment. Using this method to teach science and math content empowers the teacher and enhances the curriculum as the classroom becomes more efficient and effective. Although the most modern technology—enhanced content is available for classroom deployment, this study suggests that various challenges arise that can delay a fully productive and successful integration of technology in the science classroom. In this study, seven urban school science teachers, incorporated technology—enhanced inquiry—based modules into their lesson plans to determine the overall effectiveness of technology integration in their classrooms. This paper examines how Technology Engineering helps students to understand scientific phenomena, despite hindrances within the instructional environment.

References

[1]. Barab, S.A., and Luehmann, A.L. (2003). Building Sustainable Science Curriculum: Acknowledging and Accomodating Local Adaptation. Special Issue Science Education, 87, 454-467.

[2]. Czerniak, C.M., Lumpe, A.T., Haney, J.J., and Beck, J. (1999). Teachers' beliefs about using educational technology in the science classroom. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1 (2).

[3]. Eib, B., and Cox, S. (2003). Integrating Technology with Teacher Inquiry. Principal Leadership, 3 (5), 54-58.

[4]. Eib, B., and Mehlinger, H. (1998). Technology in Education:From Segregation to Integration. High School Magazine, 6 (1), 10-15.

[5]. Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (4), 25-39.

[6]. Flick, L., and Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for Science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1 (1).

[7]. Groff, J., and Mouza, C. (2008). A Framework for Addressing Challenges to Classroom Technology Use. Association for the Advancement of Computing In Educational Journal, 16 (1), 21-46.

[8]. Linn, M.C., and Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[9]. Linn, M.C., Clark, D.B., and Slotta, J. (2001). WISE Design for Knowledge Integration . (S. Barab, Ed.) Science Education, 87 (Special Issue), 517-538.

[10]. Linn, M.C., Lee, H.S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and Assessing Knowledge Integration in Science. Science, 313, 1049-1050.

[11]. Linn, M.C. (2003). Technology and Science Education: Starting Points, Research Programs, and Trends. International Journal on Science Education, 25 (6), 727-758.

[12]. Mouza, C., and Bell, B. (2001). Assessing the Impact of a Web-Driven, Goal Based Scenario in the Science Classroom. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20 (3), 265-292.

[13]. Newman, D., Bowman, J., Chapin, D., Nadherny, R., and Zhang, X. (2005). Supporting and Creating Technology Integration in K-12 Settings: The Underlying Relationship Among Change Variables and Degree of Integration. Annual Meeting of AERA in Montreal, Canada, University of Albany, 1-12.

[15]. Osler, J. E. (2010). Perceptology™ ©: The science of comprehension that is universal instructional design. Durham, NC: Publishing Division, OSI.

[16]. Osler, J. E. (2010). Trimensional Analysis™ ©: The three dimensional analytics of visualus solution metrics. Durham, NC: Publishing Division, OSI.

[17]. Osler, J.E. (2010). Triometry™ ©: three dimensional organizational measurement using infometrics and perspectology. Durham, NC: Publishing Division, OSI.

[18]. Osler, J.E. (2010). Visualus™ ©: visioneering volumetrically: The mathematics of the innovative problem-solving model of inventive instructional design. Durham, NC: Publishing Division, OSI.

[19]. Osler, J.E., Hollowell, G.P., & Palmer, C.E. (2008). Technology Engineering Science Instruction in the Information Age: Integrating Instructional Technology in K12 Education. i-manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, 4 (1), 12-17.

[20]. QED Incorporated. (2008). State of Digital Content in America's Classrooms, 2007-2008. Denver: National Education Database.

[21]. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., and O'Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for pre-service and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 297–310.

[22]. Salpeter, J. (2004). Shoring Up Your Staff: Timely and Sustained Teacher Support. Technology and Learning, 25 (4), 30-31.

[23]. Songer, N. B., Lee, H.-S., and Kam, R. (2002). Technology Rich Inquiry Science in Urban Classrooms: What are the Barriers to Inquiry Pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (2), 128-150.

[24]. Stevenson, H. (2005). Teachers' Informal Collaboration Regarding Technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37 (2), 129-144.

[25]. Van Driel, J., Beijaard, D., and Verloop, N. (2001). Professional Development and Reform in Science Education: The Role of Teachers' Practical Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (2) 137-158.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Student’s Attitudes towards Craft and Technology in Iceland and Finland

Gisli Thorsteinsson* , Brynjar Olafsson, Ossi Autio*

* Associate Professor, University of Iceland.

Adjunction Design and Craftin, University of Iceland.

* Senior Lecturer, University of Helsinki.

Gisli Thorsteinsson, Brynjar Olafsson and Ossi Autio (2012). Student's Attitudes Towards Craft And Technology In Iceland And Finland. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 40-48. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.9.2.1949

Abstract

Craft education in both Finland and Iceland originated over 140 years ago and was influenced by the Scandinavian Sloyd pedagogy. Since then, the subject has moved away from craft and towards technology, with the aim being to increase students’ technological abilities. In the beginning, the subject largely focused on the students copying artefacts, using a variety of handicraft tools: the purpose of this was to improve pupils’ manual skills, rather than their thinking skills. Today, however, the focus is also on the development of students’ thinking skills, which enables them to work through the various handicraft processes (from initial ideas to the final product). This work is based on the idea generation of students and is thus expected to increase their self-esteem and ingenuity. This paper is based on a comparative study of students’ attitudes towards craft and technology education in Finland and Iceland, which was undertaken by the University of Iceland and Helsinki University in the years 2011 and 2012. A quantitative survey was distributed to 213 school students and it consisted of 14 questions, which aimed to ascertain students’ attitudes towards craft and technology. A literature review was subsequently completed, in order to examine and compare the origins of craft education in Finland and Iceland. The review highlighted that, despite the origins of craft education in Finland and Iceland being similar, the Icelandic national curriculum placed greater emphasis on design and innovation, whereas the Finnish national curriculum focused on the development of students’ personalities and gender issues. The survey also showed differences in students’ attitudes towards craft and technology education in the two countries: these differences may be explained by differences in the national curriculums and the different pedagogical traditions. However, this finding needs to be examined further through research.

References

[1]. Anttila, P. (1983). Työ ja työhön kasvatettavuus. Tutkimus koulun työkasvatuksesta ja siihen vaikuttavista tekijöistä. helsingin yliopiston kasvatustieteen laitos. Tutkimuksia 100.

[2]. Arffman, I. & Brunell, V. (1983). Sukupuolten psykologisista eroavaisuuksista ja niiden syistä. Jyväskylän yliopisto. Kasvatustieteiden tutkimuslaitoksen selosteita ja tiedotteita 283.

[3]. Autio, O. (1997). Oppilaiden teknisten valmiuksien kehittyminen peruskoulussa [Student's development in technical abilities in Finnish comprehensive school]. Research Reports No. 117. Helsinki: The University of Helsinki, Department of Teacher Education.

[4]. Bennett, C. A. (1926). History of Manual and Industrial Education up to 1870, Peoria: The Manual Arts Press.

[5]. Bennett, C.A. (1937). History of Manual and Industrial Education 1870 to 1917. Peoria IL: The Manual Arts Press.

[6]. Bjerrum Nielsen, H. & Rudberg, M. (1989). Historien om jenter og gutter. Kjonnsosialisering i ett utveckling spsykoli gisk perspektiv. Oslo: Universitetslaget

[7]. Borg, K. (2006). What is Sloyd? A Question of Legitimacy and Identity. Journal of Research in Teacher Education. nr. 2-3/2006. Umea

[8]. Chessin, A. S. (2007). Abrahamson, August. Í Jewish Encyclopaedia. Retrieved 5th April 2011 from http://www.Jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=621&letter=A

[9]. de Klerk Wolters, F. (1989). A PATT study among 10-12 year old students in the Netherlands. Journal of Technology Education, 1(1).

[10]. Dyrenfruth, M. J. (1990). Technological Literacy: Characteristics and Competencies, Revealed and Detailed. In H. Szydlowski & R. Stryjski (Eds.) Technology and School: Report of the PATT Conference (pp. 26-50). Zielona Gora, Poland: Pedagogical University Press.

[11]. Eliasson, H. (Ed.) (1944).Log og reglur um skola- og menningarmol a Islandi sem i gildi eru i marzlok 1944. Reykjavik: Fraedslumalastjornin.

[12]. Fensham, P. (1992). Science and Technology. In Jackson, P. (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Curriculum. New York: MacMillan.

[13]. Framework Curriculum Guidelines (2004). Helsinki: Opetushallitus.

[14]. Kananoja (1989). Työ, taito ja teknologia. Yleissivistävän koulun toiminnallisuuteen ja työhön kasvattamisesta. Turun yliopiston julkaisuja 72.

[15]. Kantola (1997). Gygnaeuksen jäljillä käsityöno petuksesta teknologiseen kasvatukseen. Jyväskylän yliopiston julkaisuja 133.

[16]. Kantola, J., Nikkanen, P., Kari, J. & Kananoja, T. (1999). Through Education into the World of Work. Uno Cygnaeus, the Father of Technology Education. Jyvaskyla University, Institute for Educational Research. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Press, pp. 9 -17.

[17]. Lauren, J. (1993). Osaavatko peruskoululaiset luonnontietoa. In Linnankylä, P. & Saari, H. (Eds.). Oppiiko oppilas peruskoulussa? Jyväskylän yliopisto. Kasvatustieteen tutkimuslaitos.

[18]. Lavonen, J. & Autio, O. (2003). Technology education in Finland. In G. Graube, M.J. Dyrenfurt & W.E. Teurkauf (Eds.), Technology education: International Concepts and Perspectives (pp. 177-191). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH.

[19]. Layton, D. (1994). A School Subject in the Making? The Search for Fundamentals. In D.

[20]. Layton (Ed.) Innovations in Science and Technology Education (Vol.5). Paris: Unesco.

[21]. Mottier, I. (1986). Context of research, outcomes of the discussion. Report PATT-1 workshop, What do girls and boys think of technology? J. H. Raat and M. J. de Vries (ed). Eindhoven University of Technology.

[22]. Olafsson, B., Hilmarsson, E. & Svavarsson, K. (2005). Greinargerð vinnuhóps - endurskoðun aðalnámskrár grunnskóla í hönnun og smíði. Unpublished Greinargerð.

[23]. Olafsson, B. & Thorsteinsson, G. (2010). Examining Design and Craft Education in Iceland: Curriculum Development and Present Situation. FORMakadmisk, 3(2), 39-50.

[24]. Raat, J. & de Vries, M. (1986). What do Girls and Boys think about Technology? Eindhoven, University of Technology.

[25]. Raat, J. H., de Klerk Wolters, F., & de Vries, M. J. (1989). Pupils' Attitude Towards Technology, UNESCO-monography.

[26]. The Icelandic Ministry of Education (1977). The Icelandic National Curriculum.. Menntamálaráðuneytið, Reykjavík.

[27]. The Icelandic Ministry of Education (1999). The Icelandic National Curriculum.. Menntamálaráðuneytið, Reykjavík.

[28]. The Icelandic Ministry of Education (2007). The Icelandic National Curriculum.. Menntamálaráðuneytið, Reykjavík.

[29]. Thorarinsson, J. (1891). Um kennslu í skólaiðnaði. Tímarit um uppeldis- ogmenntamál, 4(1), 3–20.

[30]. Thorsteinsson, G. (2002). Innovation and Practical Use of Knowledge. Data International Research Conference 2002, 171-177.

[31]. Thorsteinsson, G. & Denton, H. (2003). The Development of Innovation Education in Iceland: a Pathway to Modern Pedagogy and Potential Value in the UK. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 8(3), 172-179.

[32]. Todd, R. D. (1986). Technology literacy: An international perspective. In Technology Education Symposium No. 8 Proceedings, 63-70. Roanoke VA.

[33]. van der Velde, J. (1992). Technology in Basic Education. In Kananoja, T. (Ed.) Technology Education Conference. Helsinki: The National Board of Education (151-170).

[34]. Vaughn, S. J. & Mays, A. B. (1924). Content and Methods of the Industrial Arts. New York & London: The Century Co.

i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology (JET)

Current Issue Vol. 20 Issue 4

Most Read

Most Cited

Volume 9 Issue 2 July - September 2012

Training Teachers to Use and Produce Open Educational Resources: A Win-Win Approach

Pradeep Kumar Misra*

Associate Professor, Faculty of Education & Allied Sciences , M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, India.

Pradeep Kumar Misra (2012). Training Teachers To Use And Produce Open Educational Resources: A Win-Win Approach. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.9.2.1940

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Student Evaluation in Higher Education: a Comparison Between Computer Assisted Assessment and Traditional Evaluation

Yaron Ghilay* , Ruth Ghilay**

* Lecturer in the Neri Bloomfield School of Design and Education, Haifa. ** Educational Counsellor in Primary Education.

Yaron Ghilay and Ruth Ghilay (2012). Student Evaluation In Higher Education: A Comparison Between Computer Assisted Assessment And Traditional Evaluation. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 8-16. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.9.2.1942

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Worked Examples Leads to Better Performance in Analyzing and Solving Real-life Decision Cases

Yasemin Demiraslan Cevik* , Thomas Andre**

* Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Hacettepe University, Turkiye. ** Professor, Curriculum and Instruction and of Psychology, Iowa State University.

Yasemin Demiraslan Cevik and Thomas Andre (2012). Worked Examples Leads To Better Performance In Analyzing And Solving Real-Life Decision Cases. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.9.2.1945

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Technology Engineering in Science Education: Where Instructional Challenges Interface Nonconforming Productivity to Increase Retention, Enhance Transfer, and Maximize Student Learning

James Edward Osler II* , Gail Hollowell**, Stacy M. Nichols***

*-**-*** North Carolina Central University.

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Student’s Attitudes towards Craft and Technology in Iceland and Finland

Gisli Thorsteinsson* , Brynjar Olafsson**, Ossi Autio***

* Associate Professor, University of Iceland. ** Adjunction Design and Craftin, University of Iceland. *** Senior Lecturer, University of Helsinki.

Gisli Thorsteinsson, Brynjar Olafsson and Ossi Autio (2012). Student's Attitudes Towards Craft And Technology In Iceland And Finland. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 40-48. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.9.2.1949

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

* Lecturer in the Neri Bloomfield School of Design and Education, Haifa.

** Educational Counsellor in Primary Education.

* Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Hacettepe University, Turkiye.

** Professor, Curriculum and Instruction and of Psychology, Iowa State University.

James Edward Osler II* , Gail Hollowell, Stacy M. Nichols*

-- North Carolina Central University.

Gisli Thorsteinsson* , Brynjar Olafsson, Ossi Autio*

* Associate Professor, University of Iceland.

Adjunction Design and Craftin, University of Iceland.

* Senior Lecturer, University of Helsinki.