Teacher inquiry: A vehicle to merge prospective teachers' experience and reflection during curriculum-based, technology-enhanced field experiences

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 265-292

  Dawson, Kara ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Field experiences; K 12 university partnerships; Teacher inquiry; Teacher preparation

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008758911     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2006.10782460     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Adamy, P. (2000). Using computers to enhance action research. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2000(1), 1672-1676.
2. American Council of Education. (1999). To touch the future, transforming the way teachers are taught: An action agenda for college and university presidents. Washington, DC.
3. Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291-321.
4. Becker, H. J., & Riel, M. M. (1999). Teacher professionalism and the emergence of constructivist-compatible pedagogies. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Assocation. [Online]. Available http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/findings/special_report2/index.htm
5. Bhattacharya, M., & Richards, C. (2001). Innovative course design as action research: Instructional technology for teacher education. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2001(1), 1052-1057.
6. Bondy, E., & Ross, D. D. (2005). Preparing for inclusive teaching: Meeting the challenge of teacher education reform. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
7. Borras, I. (2000). Preparing teachers to investigate the effects of technology-supported instruction in effective partnership with researchers. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2000(1), 587-592.
8. Bowman, Jr., J., Swan, K, Callender, M., Currie, S., Holmes, A., & Richardson, J. (1999). Diffusion, technology planning, professional development for inservice K—12 school teachers. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 1999(1), 617-622.
9. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. B. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind and experience. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Knowing through action research. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
11. Casey, B. M., & Howson, P. (1993). Educating preservice teachers based on a problem-centered approach to teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 361-369.
12. Clark, R. W., Foster, A., & Mantle-Bromley, C. (2005). Hybrid educators and the simultaneous renewal of schools and the education of educators. Seattle, WA: Institution for Educational Inquiry.
13. Conant, J. B. (1963). The education of American teachers. New York McGraw-Hill.
14. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15-25.
15. Cooper, J. M., & Bull, G. L. (1997). Technology and teacher education: Past practice and recommended directions. Action in Teacher Education, 19(2), 97-106.
16. Dana, N. F., & Silva, D. Y. (2003). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
17. Davis, B., & Resta, V (2002). Online collaboration: Supporting novice teachers as researchers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 10(1), 101-117.
18. Dawson, K., & Nonis, A. (2000). Preservice teachers’ experiences in a K—12/university technology-based field initiative: Benefits, facilitators, constraints and implications for teacher educators. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(1), 4-11.
19. Dawson, K., Pringle, R., & Adams, T. (2003). Providing links between technology integration, methods courses and traditional field experiences: Imple-menting a model of curriculum-based and technology-enhanced microteaching. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 20(1), 41-47.
20. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking in the educative process. New York: D.C. Heath and Company.
21. Dexter, S., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers’ views of computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), 221-239.
22. Dexter, S., & Riedel, E. (2003). Why improving preservice teacher educational technology preparation must go beyond the college s walls. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 334-346.
23. Espinoza, S., & Justice, M. (2003). Teachers, action research and technology. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2003(1), 1913-1916.
24. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. The Teachers College Record 103(6), 1013-1055.
25. Fendler, L. (2003). Teacher reflection in a hall of mirrors: Historical influences and politic reverberations. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 16-25.
26. Fouts, J. T. (2000). Research on computers in education: Past, present and future. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
27. Glazewski, K., Brush, T., & Berg, K. (2002). Integrating technology into preservice teacher education: Comparing a field-based model with a traditional approach. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002 (pp. 1968-1972). Norfolk, VA: AACE.
28. Godfrey, N., & Hansen, M. (2003). Technology as a resource for students’ action tesearch Projects. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2003(1), 1840-1843.
29. Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
30. Grove, K., Strudler, N., & Odell, S. (2004). Mentoring toward technology use: Cooperating teacher practice in supporting student teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 85-107.
31. Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalities and distinctive patterns in teachers’ integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101, 281-315.
32. Hansen, M., & Godfrey, N. (2003). Technology and action research. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2003(1), 2932-2933.
33. Hernandez-Ramos, P., & Giancarlo, C. A. (2004). Situating teacher education: From university classroom to the “real” classroom. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 20(3), 121-128.
34. Henry, M. A. (1989). Change in teacher education: Focus on field experiences. In J. A. Braun (Ed.), Reforming teacher education. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
35. Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice, (pp. 154-170). Neeham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
36. Itzkan, S. (1994). Assessing the future of telecomputing environments: Implications for instruction and administration. The Computing Teacher, (22)4, 60-64.
37. Jacobsen, D. M., & Lock, J. V. (2004). Technology and teacher education for a knowledge era: Mentoring for student futures, not our past. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 75-100.
38. Knezek, G. & Christensen, R. (2000). Refining best teaching practices for technology integration key instructional design strategies (KIDS). [Online]. Available: http://www.iittl.unt.edu/KIDS2000/
39. Knight, S. L., Pedersen, S., & Peters, W. (2004). Connecting the university with professional development school: Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward the use of compressed video, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 139-154.
40. Lave, J., Wenger, E., & Pea, R. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Learning in doing: Social, cognitive & computational perspectives). New York: Cambridge University Press.
41. Lundeberg, M., Berglan, M., Klyczek, K., & Hoffman, D. (2003). Using action research to develop preservice teachers’ confidence, knowledge and beliefs about technology. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(4), 1-16.
42. McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D. M., & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of the association of teacher educators (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.
43. McNeil, S., Smith, D., Stringer, E., & Lin, G. (2002). Effecting pedagogical change through an action research process. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002(1), 1761-1765.
44. Moersch, C. (n.d.) The LoTi Connections. [Online]. Available: http://www.loticonnection.com.
45. Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A frame-work for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(4), 40-42.
46. Montgomery, L., & Whiting, D. (2000). Teachers under construction—Incorporating principles of engaged and brain based learning into a constructivist “technology in education” program. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2000(1), 795-800.
47. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom. Washington, DC: Author.
48. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2002). NCATE: The standard of excellence in teacher education. Retrieved March 25, 2002 from http://www.ncate.org.
49. O’Bannon, B., & Nonis, A. (2002). A field-based initiative for integrating technology in the content areas: Using a team approach to preparing preservice teachers to use technology. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002 (pp. 1394-1397). Norfolk, VA: AACE.
50. O’Bannon, B., & Judge, S. (2005). Implementing partnerships across the curriculum with technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(2), 197-216.
51. Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: The false promise of technology in the classroom and how learning can be saved. New York: Random House.
52. Pierson, M., & McNeil, S. (2000). Preservice technology integration through collaborative action communities. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 1(1), 189-199.
53. Pollard, C., & Pollard, R. (2005). Research priorities in educational technology: A Delphi study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(2), 145-160.
54. Posner, G. J. (2005). Field experiences: A guide to reflective teaching (6th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
55. Radigan, J., & Smith, D. (2003). Emerging themes in technology integration. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2003(1), 3816-3821.
56. Ravitz, J. L., Becker, H. J., & Wong, Y-T. (2000). Constructivist compatible beliefs and practices among U.S. teachers. (Teaching, Learning & Computing Report 4.) Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California. [Online]. Available: http://www.crito.uci. edu/TLC/findings/report4/.
57. Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (1998). Learning in the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
58. Ryan, T. (2003). Take afield trip to the K—12 schools: A study of field experiences for instructional technology [Online document]. Available: http://pages.towson.edu/pryan/field/.
59. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
60. Schmidt, D. A. (2001). Simultaneous renewal in teacher education: Strategies for success. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Orlando, FL.
61. Schofield, J. W (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
62. Schrum, L. (2005). Editorial: A proactive approach to a research agenda for educational technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 217-220.
63. Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into classroom practice. New York: Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education.
64. Slick, G. A. (Ed.). (1995). The field experience: Creating successful programs for new teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
65. Strudler, N., & Grove, K. (2002). Integrating technology into teacher candidates’ field experiences: A two-pronged approach. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(2), 33-38.
66. Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (1998). Lessons from exemplary teacher education programs. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Washington, DC.
67. Thomas, L. (1999). National educational technology standards project. Retrieved November 3, 1999 from http://cnets.iste.org.
68. Thompson, A., Schmidt, D., & Stewart, E. (n.d.) Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in K—12 schools and teacher education programs.
69. U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology. Retrieved February 15, 2001 from http://www.ed.gov/teachtech/.
70. Wellman, E. (2002). Towards a discipline based reflective thinking process for K—12 students and teachers through online discourse and action research. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2002(1), 2042-2047.
71. Yendol-Hoppey, D., Dawson, K., Dana, N., League, M., Jacobs, J., & Malik, D. (in press). Professional development communities: Vehicles for reshaping field experiences to support school improvement. Florida Journal of Teacher Education.
72. Zeichner, K. (1996). Teachers as reflective practitioners and the democratization of school reform. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Current reforms in preservice teacher education (pp. 199-214). New York: Teachers College Press.