The network classroom- Student teachers’ presuppositions, experiences and expectations

Author(s):

Ingrid Helleve(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2012

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 04 D, Parallel Paper Session

Parallel Paper Session

Time:

2012-09-19

09:00-10:30

Room:

FCEE - Aula 4.3

Chair:

Rose Dolan

Contribution

The Norwegian educational context is characterised by an increasing focus from politicians on goal achievement, accountability and market orientation. Results from tests like PISA and TIMMS have created international educational competitions of which Norway does not come out at the top. There is also a strong belief in ICT as a support for learning. The political program for digital competence (MER, 2003) underlined that within 2008, Norway should be ranked on top when it comes to ICT as a tool for learning. That goal is reached. All Norwegian pupils in upper secondary school were given a computer from the political authorities since 2007. The National Curriculum plan in 2006 (MER, 2006) states that digital competence is one of five basic competences together with reading, oral expression, writing and mathematics. All the schools are connected to the administrative learning management systems. The traditional classroom in Norway is characterized by the pattern of communication known as IRE (initiative, response, evaluation) (Aukrust, 2001). The teacher asks a question. The pupil answers and teachers decide whether the answer is correct or not. As a support for this communication pattern, the computer’s task is to give instructions, to ask for correct answers and to care for as much control as possible. The concept communication has two different meaning references. The first one communicare means transfer or hand over. The other interpretation is communico which means to make something a common property (Erstad, 2010). Communication understood as transfer or hand over is between teacher and the individual pupil. Success is evaluated through exercises and national and international tests where the pupil is supposed to reproduce information. Erstad (2010) also makes a distinction between reproduction and production of knowledge. He claims that what he calls “the driving forces” for school development have pushed in the direction of a production model of knowledge or what can be described as productive interactions. Productive interactions are the combination of the pupils’ willingness to collaboration, assignments that open for creativity and argumentation and the technology. There are no correct answers. Opposite the one question opens new questions in a creative dialogue (Helleve, 2009). The teacher acts as a supervisor and pupils are supposed to take responsibility for developing and sharing knowledge. Evaluation might be to i.e. present common projects or build collective portfolios. Communication is understood as making something a common property. Computers can support different ways of understanding knowledge and communication; productive interactions as well as handover. During practicum student teachers are faced with a classroom that is different from the one they left as pupils. Focus of this paper is computer supported learning activities and communication in some Norwegian classrooms. The research questions are: What are the student teachers’ suppositions concerning communication pattern and use of ICT in practicum? What do they experience? What are their future expectations?

Method

The study is conducted among PGCE students and their mentors in a Norwegian university context. A group of students was selected because they constituted one class. From this class the students were asked to answer questionnaires before and after practicum. They were also asked to participate in a focus-group interview and a follow-up study during practicum. All the 13 students responded positively to the request. Three students were selected for a focus-group interview before practicum, for observation in their class-rooms during practicum and for an in-depth individual interview after they had finished. During practicum their mentors were interviewed. All the interviews were semi-structured with several pre-prepared questions. The interviews were transcribed before the structural phase of the analysis. The two researchers looked for categories within the responses to each question. First, they were categorised according to learning activities and communication pattern. Further, in order to answer the research questions, the following presented categories were chosen. What does the classrooms look like? For what purposes does the teacher use the technology? What characterises student teachers’ future expectations? The observation was done by one of the researchers and verified by the student teachers. Observation-papers are mainly use to describe the classrooms.

Expected Outcomes

Findings show that the IRE pattern is dominant in the classrooms. Communication understood as transfer and learning as reproduction is dominant in the classrooms. Computers are used for four main purposes; administration, tests, collecting information, and as motivation and support for lectures. To a large extent the LMS (Learning management system) is used for administrative purposes like individual messages from teacher to pupils, information about homework, and plans for the next week or the next month. There seems to be a continuing struggle going on in all the three classrooms between teachers and pupils when it comes to open screens and use of SNS. There are few examples of communication understood as making in common or learning as production of knowledge. The findings correspond to the student teachers’ presuppositions. Student teachers’ future expectations are to meet pupils face to face with less technology. Schools should represent an alternative to the rest of the society where Internet is available all the time. The fact that computers used as support for reproduction of knowledge in classrooms characterised by the IRE-pattern may increase the sense of suspicion and mistrust between teachers and pupils is discussed in the paper.

References

Aukrust, V. G. (2001). Klasseromssamtaler, deltakerstrukturer og læring. I O. Dysthe (Ed.). Dialog, samspel og læring. Oslo. Abstract forlag. Erstad, O. (2010). Digital kompetanse i skolen- en innføring. Oslo. Universitetsforlaget. Helleve, I. (2009). Productive Interactions in ICT supported communities of learners. Avhandling for graden Philosophiae Doctor PhD. Universitetet i Bergen. MER (2003).[Undervisings-og forskningsdepartementet] [UFD]. The Program for digital competence 2004-2008[Program for digital kompetanse 2004-2008]. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from: http://odin.dep.no/kd/norsk/satsingsomraade/ikt/045011-990066/dok-bn.html MER (2006). [Undervisings-og forskningsdepartementet] [UFD]. National curriculum plan⌠Kunnskapsløftet⌡ http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kd/tema/grunnopplaring/kunnskapsloeftet.html?id=1411

Author Information

Ingrid Helleve (presenting / submitting)

University of Bergen

Department of Teacher Education

Bergen

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.