Teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Yael Kali (1)
  Susan McKenney (1) (2) (3)
  Ornit Sagy (1)
  
  1. University of Haifa ; Haifa ; Israel
  2. Open University of the Netherlands ; Heerlen ; The Netherlands
  3. University of Twente ; Enschede ; The Netherlands
  
• 关键词：Teacher learning ; Professional development ; Technology enhanced learning ; Design ; Co ; design ; Participatory design ; Learning environments ; Customization
• 刊名：Instructional Science
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：March 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：43
• 期：2
• 页码：173-179
• 全文大小：197 KB
• 参考文献：1. Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). / The teacher-curriculum encounter. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  2. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & I. van Merri茅nboer (Eds.), / Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 55鈥?8). Oxford: Pregamon.
  3. Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Understanding decision making in teachers鈥?curriculum design approaches. / Educational Technology Research and Development, / 62, 393鈥?16. CrossRef
  4. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). / Guided discovery in a community of learners (pp. 229鈥?70)., Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice Cambridge: MIT Press.
  5. Carl, A. (2009). / Teacher empowerment through curriculum development: Theory into practice (3rd ed.). Kenwyn, RSA: Juta.
  6. Corcoran, T., & Silander, M. (2009). Instruction in high schools: The evidence and the challenge. / The Future of Children, / 19(1), 157鈥?83. CrossRef
  7. Cross, N. (2011). / Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. New York: Berg.
  8. Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014a). Teachers as co-designers of a technology-rich learning activities for emergent literacy. / Technology, Pedagogy and Education,. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2014.953197 .
  9. Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014b). Teacher roles in designing technology-rich learning activities for early literacy. / Computers & Education, / 72, 68鈥?9. CrossRef
  10. Davis, E. A., Beyer, C., Forbes, C. T., & Stevens, S. (2011). Understanding pedagogical design capacity through teachers鈥?narratives. / Teaching and Teacher Education, / 27(4), 797鈥?10. CrossRef
  11. Davis, E. A., & Varma, K. (2008). Supporting teachers in productive adaptation. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, M. Koppal, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), / Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 94鈥?22). N.Y.: Teachers College Press.
  12. De Koster, S., Kuiper, E., & Volman, M. (2012). Concept-guided development of ICT use in 鈥榯raditional鈥?and 鈥榠nnovative鈥?primary schools: what types of ICT use do schools develop? / Journal of Computer Assisted learning, / 28(5), 454鈥?64. CrossRef
  13. Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. / Behaviour and Information Technology, / 21(1), 1鈥?5.
  14. Engestr枚m, Y. (1987). / Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
  15. Ertmer, P., Stepich, D., Flanagan, F., Kocaman-Karoglu, A., Reiner, C., Reyes, L., et al. (2009). Impact of guidance on the problem-solving efforts of instructional design novices. / Performance Improvement Quarterly, / 21, 117鈥?32. CrossRef
  16. Ertmer, P., Stepich, D., York, C., Stickman, A., Wu, X., Zurek, S., & Goktas, Y. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-structured problems. / Performance Improvement Quarterly, / 21, 17鈥?2. CrossRef
  17. Gerard, L. F., Spitulnik, M., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Teacher use of evidence to customize inquiry science instruction. / Journal of Research in Science Teaching, / 47(9), 1037鈥?063. CrossRef
  18. Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. / Review of Educational Research, / 81(3), 408鈥?48. CrossRef
  19. Greeno, J. G., & Middle School Mathematics through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. / American Psychologist, / 53(1), 5鈥?6. CrossRef
  20. Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teacher learning? / Teaching and Teacher Education, / 24, 2014鈥?026. CrossRef
  21. Harel, I. E., & Papert, S. E. (1991). / Constructionism. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.
  22. Huizinga, T., Handelzalts, A., Nieveen, N., & Voogt, J. (2014). Teacher involvement in curriculum design: Need for support to enhance teachers鈥?design expertise. / Journal of Curriculum Studies, / 46(1), 33鈥?7. CrossRef
  23. Kafyulilo, A. C. (2013). Collaborative design in teams to develop science and mathematics teachers鈥檛echnology integration knowledge and skills. Doctoral Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.
  24. Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., Goodyear, P., & Ward, M-H. (2011). / Bridging multiple expertise in collaborative design for technology- / enhanced learning. / Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) conference (pp. 831鈥?35). New York: ISLS.
  25. Kali, Y., & Ronen-Fuhrmann, T. (2011). Teaching to design educational technologies. / The International Journal of Learning Technology (IJLT), / 6(1), 4鈥?3. CrossRef
  26. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. / Journal of Educational Computing Research, / 32(2), 131鈥?52. CrossRef
  27. Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, P. J., Fasse, D., Gray, B., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. / The journal of the learning sciences, / 12(4), 495鈥?47. CrossRef
  28. K枚nings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merri毛nboer, J. J. G. (2007). Teachers鈥?perspectives on innovations: Implications for educational design. / Teaching and Teacher Education, / 23(6), 985. CrossRef
  29. K枚nings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merri毛nboer, J. J. G. (2011). Participatory instructional redesign by students and teachers in secondary education: Effects on perceptions of instruction. / Instructional Science, / 39, 737鈥?62. CrossRef
  30. Laurillard, D. (2012). / Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. London: Routledge.
  31. McKenney, S. (2005). Technology for curriculum and teacher development: Software to help educators learn while designing teacher guides. / Journal of Research on Technology in Education, / 38(2), 167鈥?90. CrossRef
  32. Nihuka, K. A., & Voogt, J. (2012). Collaborative e-learning course design: Impacts on instructors. / Australiasian Journal of Educational Technology, / 28(2), 232鈥?48.
  33. Penuel, W., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. / Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, / 2(1), 51鈥?4. CrossRef
  34. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers鈥?curriculum development. / Curriculum Inquiry, / 19(3), 315鈥?42. CrossRef
  35. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers use of mathematics curricula. / Review of Educational Research, / 75(2), 211鈥?46. CrossRef
  36. Sagy, O., McKenney, S. & Kali, Y. (2012). / Teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning. Symposium presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. 16鈥?0, April.
  37. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. / Liberal education in a knowledge society, / 97, 67鈥?8.
  38. Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (Eds.). (1993). / Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
  39. Voogt, J., Almekinders, M., van den Akker, J., & Moonen, B. (2005). A blended in-service arrangement for classroom technology integration: impacts on teachers and students. / Computers in Human Behavior, / 21(3), 523鈥?39. CrossRef
  40. Voogt, J., McKenney, S., & Kali, Y., Breleux, A., Cober, R., Eylon, B-S., Itow, R., K枚nings, K., Laferri猫re, T., Linn, M. C., Markauskaite, L., Matuk, C., Reeve, R., Sagy, O., Slotta, J., So, H-J., Svihla, V. & Tan, E., (2014). Teachers as designers. Presentation during an invited session. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O鈥橬eill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O鈥機onnor, T. Lee, & L. D鈥橝mico (Eds.) Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014 (vol 1, p. 14). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  
• 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
• 刊物主题：Education
  Learning and Instruction
  Education
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-1952

文摘

While the benefits of teacher involvement in designing technology enhanced learning are acknowledged in the literature, far less is known about shaping that involvement to yield those benefits. Research is needed to understand how teachers learn through design; how teacher design activities may be supported; and how teacher involvement in design in various ways impacts the quality of the artifacts created, their implementation, and ultimately, student learning. Existing conceptual foundations for teacher design work are urgently in need of bolstering, and will definitely play a critical role in the future of instructional science. This special issue presents the work of a large collaborative group of researchers, which, since 2012, has explored divergence and convergence among multiple research projects involving teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning (TaD of TEL), and has endeavored to extend existing knowledge to strengthen TaD of TEL as a field of research.