It Is Not So Simple To Do Web 2.0: A Study Of Integration Of Technology Into Literacy Methods sourses

Author(s):

Clare Kosnik(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2013

Network:

06. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures

Format:

Paper

Session Information

06 SES 12 JS, Technology and Curriculum

Paper Session
Joint Session with NW 10

Time:

2013-09-13

09:00-10:30

Room:

D-406

Chair:

Mart Laanpere

Contribution

There are repeated calls to integrate digital technology into teacher education programs (Peressini et al. 2005). Yet as Boling (2005) noted: “research has revealed that teacher educators do not always have the knowledge, skills, or dispositions necessary for meaningfully integrating technology into their classes” (p.3).

Research questions/focus of the enquiry

We co-teach two literacy courses in a two-year post-baccalaureate teacher education program. While our courses receive high student evaluations, we felt that we were not fully integrating digital technology into our courses. We conducted a self-study of our efforts over a two-year period. Our four main research questions were:

1. What digital technologies did we use in our literacy courses?

2. How did a greater integration of technology change our practice?

3. Did a greater focus on technology change our identities as instructors?

4. What barriers did we encounter?

Findings:

1. Categorizing our efforts – In the first year we integrated 32 uses of technology into the course yet our efforts were predominately in the categories of information delivery and observations/modeling.

2. Becoming more focused on student learning – In the second year of the self-study we embarked on four initiatives all of which focused on student learning:

a. Framing our courses around the question, What does it mean to be literate in the 21^st century?;

b. Launching a Wiki;

c. Revamping an assignment to integrate digital technology into it;

d. More natural integration of digital technology into our courses (e.g., greater use of high quality videos).

Since we now had a “destination” for our courses (support student learning), we began to build a road-map on how to get there. Some of our efforts were highly successful (e.g., making a movie of students’ views of literacy at the beginning and end of the course) while others were less successful (e.g., use of podcasts). As we built up a repertoire of digital resources we began to match them to the learning goals for each class.

3. Maintaining the status quo – Initially we were simply trying to map technology onto existing courses and often times relied upon the "wow factor" of technology.

Method

This self-study research used a grounded theory approach (Punch, 2009) which Punch (2009) explains, is not a theory, but a strategy used to generate theory that will be grounded in the data (p. 130). The theory is developed inductively from the data using a set of techniques and procedures for collection and analysis (Punch, 2009). Throughout the analysis, we identified key themes, then worked together selecting the themes that we felt captured our work. As Strauss (2003), puts it “The basic question facing us it how to capture the complexity of the reality (phenomena) we study, and how to make convincing sense of it” (p. 16). Our data sources were: 1. After each class we debriefed and wrote notes. 2. We kept a running tally on our efforts to infuse the courses with technology. 3. At the end of the courses we each wrote reflections on our efforts and responded to each other. 4. The student teachers gave us weekly feedback (e.g. ticket out the doors) providing us with their perspective on our work. Analytical framework We used Ottenbreit-Leftwich's framework to analyze our efforts: 1. information delivery, 2. hands-on skill building activities, 3. practice in the field, 4. observations and modeling, 5. authentic experiences, 6. reflections (2010, p. 20).

Expected Outcomes

1.Weaving technology into our courses was extremely difficult on both the practical and conceptual levels. Since we had not experienced learning in a technology-rich environment, it was very difficult to teach in a way that we were not taught. 2. Teacher educators need to become competent in digital technology and link this to their pedagogical skills. This will lead to changes in identity, on-going learning, and pedagogy. Our developing practices and evolving identity (Jenkins, 2008) became mutually supportive and dialogical. We are now at the point where are now drawing on our strengths as academics: for example, we presented our self-study research work to others and are using NVivo9 to analyze data for a large-scale study of literacy teacher educators. Our personal use of digital technology, professional practice (teaching), and research methods (e.g. NVivo9) became mutually supportive. 3. Course goals, instructor identity, pedagogy, and logistics must all be re-examined and re-conceptualized in order to meaningfully and effectively prepare student teachers to become competent teachers of the 21st century. Use of technology should not be the goal; rather, it needs to be use of technology to support student learning, which is a far more challenging task and much more nebulous. It takes time, perseverance, and fortitude.

References

Bullock, S. (2011). Teaching 2.0: (re)learning to teach online. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 8(2), 94-105. Boling, E. (2005). A time for new literacies: Who’s educating the teacher educators? Teachers College Record, http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 11742, Retrieved: 6/18/2012 Butler, D.L., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to adoption technology for teaching and learning. Educause Quarterly, 25(2), 22-28. Cervetti, G., Damico, J., & Pearson, P. D. (2008). Multiple literacies, new literacies, and teacher education. Theory into Practice, 45(4), 378-386. Edwards, A .(2012). New technology and education. New York: Continuum El-Hussein, M. O., & Cronje, J. C. (2010). Defining mobile learning in the higher education Landscape. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 12-21. Kirkwood, A. (2009). E-learning: You don't always get what you hope for. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 107-121. LaBoskey, V. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. Loughran, M.L. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (817-869). Dordrecht: Kluwer Otero, V., Peressini, D., Meymaris, K., Ford, P., Garvin, T., Harlow, D., Reidel, M., Waite, B., & Mears, C., (2005). Integrating technology into teacher education: A critical framework for implementing reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 8-23. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Glazewski, K., & Newby, T. (2010). Preservice technology integration course revision: A conceptual guide. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 5-33. Prensky, M. (2011). Digital wisdom and homo sapiens digital. In M. Thomas (ed.), Deconstructing digital natives (15-29) London: Routledge. Punch, K. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. London: Sage. Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. London, U. K.: Continuum International Publishing Group. Warschauer, M. (2011). Learning in the cloud: How (and why) to transform schools with digital media. New York: Teachers College.

Author Information

Clare Kosnik (presenting / submitting)

University of Toronto, Canada

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.