Objective and Theoretical Background

This multiple-layer, mixed methods research and development study  set to  identify the domains of knowledge that preservice students, their practice teachers and pedagogical advisors  perceived as crucial for online teaching. This based the development and piloting of an evidence-based mentoring model of online teacher learning in practice.

Contemporary professional education (PE) in the digital era carries significant

 implications for rethinking course design and curricula in teacher education. However, there are evident divergences between the content and teaching methods promoted in preservice programs and the demands of actual teaching (Reisoğlu & Çebi, 2020). Hence, the need to develop teacher education curricula with a focus on professional, context-based, contemporary, knowledge construction (Bradbury et al., 2015; Wang & Orland-Barak, 2020), based on relevant practice in virtual spaces (Yuan, 2018).

While the reality is that online teaching and learning has developed into an alternative for face-to-face teaching and learning, there is evidence regarding faculty beliefs, stating that online learning outcomes may be poorer compared to face-to-face settings (Ward & Benson, 2010). This may be due to the lack of balance in content and pedagogical practices, which may create an overload in both teaching and learning (James et al., 2021). Moreover, faculty beliefs are not taken into account, while- according to studies-they are indeed factors that affect utilization of technology in learning in general and in online learning in particular.

When referring to online teaching and learning, technology has a remarkable influence which may have either positive or negative impact on learners’ experiences and outcomes (Panigrahi et al., 2018). These experiences are unique, allowing learning processes that may be impossible to achieve otherwise. Placing technology alongside pedagogy and content reflects the complexities of online learning and creates an effective prism for examining the needs of online teaching (Eichelberger & Leong, 2019).

Due to the increasing usage of online modes of teaching in higher education, implementing them in teacher education programs may be a lever for innovative teaching and learning, especially with the expanding tendencies of online education worldwide, as a result of contemporary events, and despite its complexities (Isaias et al., 2020; Martin et al., 2020). However, while digital competencies are growingly incorporated in preservice teachers’ curricula, there seem to be complexities supporting this tendency (Tømte et al., 2015), either due to a lack of self-efficacy (Ding & Hong, 2023) and digital competencies (Marais, 2023), or the slow process of transforming teacher educators’ curriculum so they themselves integrate technology (Voithofer, 2021), to name a few.

We address the challenge of shifting to blended teaching and teacher education in an attempt to link preservice teacher practice to developing trends in teaching and learning. Moreover, we acknowledge the vagueness and insecurity of teacher educators, who are in fact mediating professional knowledge of the “old world” of teaching, and may not be proficient in training preservice teachers, as experienced in times of emergency remote teaching (Trust & Whalen, 2020). The current study tackles this incongruence by identifying and applying domains of knowledge needed for quality online teaching.

Research question: What domains of knowledge characterize the digital teacher learning space? and how can these be translated into a model for mentoring in the blended teacher learning space?

Methods This mixed-methods study draws on qualitative and quantitative methodologies, applied in a sequencial manner according to which each stage was built on previous stages: 1. We constructed focus groups (N=7) of a total of 14 interviewees, including (separately) preservice teachers, mentor teachers, teacher educators, policymakers, position holders in teacher training programs and researchers in the field of technology in education. Content analysis which combined emic and etic perspectives was applied to the transcribed interviews. This constituted the basis for developing and piloting an evidence-based professional development mentoring model for preservice teachers geared to improving their online teaching skills. 2. Content analyis resulted in the consolidation of five 5 knowledge domains which were translated into 5 operative questions, representing what is required for best online teaching: 1. How to engage students towards learning; 2. How to monitor students’ learning; 3. How to create interactions and communication for learning; 4. How to retool content; 5. How to develop digital literacy of students. These based the construction of an online model for practice of preservice teachers in online settings 3. For each question (representing a domain) we developed a module based on examples from the interviews which assisted in phrasing authentic teaching vignettes. The modules included: an abstract, theoretical perspectives, references, objectives, teaching scenarios, followed by activities and reflective tasks. The modules were constructed in an open, modular manner, to allow flexibility, new ideas and activities gained from participants ‘in-situ’ experiences. These will be presented. 4. Through design-based methodology we conducted a pilot study with teacher educators (N=19). We created a laboratory for examining, applying the modules in their preservice teaching, and refining these modules for online learning. Participants freely registered and gave feedback according to their training experience with preservice teachers. 5. The quantitative component of the research included a pre- (N=19) and post (N=12) questionnaire that was validated and distributed to teacher educators regarding their practical and perceived experience with the bodies of knowledge they were exposed to in the laboratory and as a result of applying the modules. A similar questionaire adapted to preservice teachers was also distributed (n=94 for the research group that were taught by the teacher educators participating in the laboratory, and n=67 for the control group that experienced standard training). Analysis was conducted using descriptive and inferential statistics.

6. Findings and Conclusions 1) Same domains-different concerns The knowledge domains characterizing the digital teaching space were reinforced in our questionnaire results, both by teacher educators and preservice teachers. They could also be associated , to a large extent, with the knowledge domains that characterize face-to-face teaching, except for monitoring and developing digital literacies, which was seen as vital to applying best online practices. Although similar, however, participants reported on different kinds of concerns around these knowledge domains when teaching on-line. These discrepancies will be elaborated and illustrated in the paper presentation. 2) The laboratory as a platform for curriculum and teacher development The laboratory, which focused on participants’ development of the constructed modules was found to enable deep collaborative contemplation into online teaching through theorizing, reconstructing and transforming teaching practices in their online teaching and learning settings. We also learned that its structure should be flexible in terms of time, pre-planning, adaptable to participants’ practical needs. Our study suggests that utilizing the modules impacted teacher educators, their preservice teachers and the students in their practical training, foregrounding major challenges of teacher education practices that had until now been backgrounded. For example, while we assume that preservice teachers are already better accustomed to the digital era, they are not yet skilled in online teaching, and much of the teaching online expertise requires re-evaluation of familiar knowledge domains , e.g., how to communicate using multiple channels or how to monitor student engagement. Furthermore, even when addressing digital literacy, the usual “how to” is of less concern to educators than, for example, emergent ethical issues related to working online.

References Bradbury, H., Kilminster, S., O'Rourke, R., & Zukas, M. (2015). Professionalism and practice: critical understandings of professional learning and education. Studies in Continuing Education, 37(2), 125-130. Ding, L., & Hong, Z. (2023). On the relationship between pre-service teachers’ sense of self-efficacy and emotions in the integration of technology in their teacher developmental programs. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00758-6 Eichelberger, A., & Leong, P. (2019). Using TPACK as a framework to study the influence of college faculty’s beliefs on online teaching. Educational Media International, 56(2), 116-133. Isaias, P., Sampson, D.G., & Ifenthaler, D. (Eds.). (2020). Online teaching and learning in higher education. Springer International Publishing. James, T.L., Zhang, J., Li, H., Ziegelmayer, J.L., & Villacis-Calderon, E.D. (2021). The moderating effect of technology overload on the ability of online learning to meet students' basic psychological needs. Information Technology & People, 35(4), 1364-1382. Marais, E. (2023). The Development of Digital Competencies in Pre-Service Teachers. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 8(3), 134-154. Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & education, 159. Orland-Barak, L., & Wang, J. (2020). Teacher mentoring in service of preservice teachers’ learning to teach: Conceptual bases, characteristics, and challenges for teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 42-55. Panigrahi, R., Srivastava, P.R., & Sharma, D. (2018). Online learning: Adoption, continuance, and learning outcome—A review of literature. International Journal of Information Management, 43. Reisoğlu, İ., & Çebi, A. (2020). How can the digital competences of pre-service teachers be developed? Examining a case study through the lens of DigComp and DigCompEdu. Computers & Education, 156. Tømte, C., Enochsson, A.B., Buskqvist, U., & Kårstein, A. (2015). Educating online student teachers to master professional digital competence: The TPACK-framework goes online. Computers & Education, 84, 26-35. Trust, T., & Whalen, J. (2020). Should Teachers Be Trained in Emergency Remote Teaching? Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 189–199. Voithofer, R., & Nelson, M.J. (2021). Teacher educator technology integration preparation practices around TPACK in the United States. Journal of teacher education, 72(3), 314-328. Ward, C.L., & Benson, S.K. (2010). Developing new schemas for online teaching and learning: TPACK. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 482-490. Yuan, H. (2018). Preparing teachers for diversity: A literature review and implications from community-based teacher education. Higher Education Studies, 8(1), 9-17.