Creating Electronic Portfolios Using Laptops: A Learning Experience for Preservice Teachers, Elementary School Pupils, and Elementary School Teachers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The preservice teachers in this study were provided computers to use in the course of a yearlong fieldwork experience in an elementary school. Participant observations and indepth interviews were conducted to investigate how the preservice teachers used the laptops and the impact of this use. Each preservice teacher worked together an elementary pupil to develop an electronic portfolio for the pupil. Findings indicate that laptops computers are indeed a viable means of achieving several goals at the same time. These include giving preservice teachers quick access to technology, providing them an opportunity to develop confidence in the integration of technology in teaching, providing elementary pupils an opportunity to become comfortable and effective participants in the information age, and providing classroom teachers an example of how technology can be used. The findings suggest that providing an opportunity to practice using technology elementary pupils in a nonthreatening setting is one solution to the search of what works in preparing teachers who are willing and able to integrate technology in their own classrooms. The study recommends the use of a project-based approach, such as electronic portfolios, when preservice teachers are provided access to technology. ********** Literature indicates that there is a trend by teacher trainers to put more and more effort towards integrating technology in the teacher education curriculum (Aho, 1985; Balli & Diggs, 1996; Holt, 1996; 1997; Kahn, 1996; Schrum & Dehoney, 1998; Thomas, Larson, Clift, & Levin, 1996). The use of computers in the field of education is also on the increase as indicated by several studies (Balli & Diggs, 1996; Creighton, 1997; Freeman, 1996; Hoelscher, 1997; Johnston, Proctor, & Corey 1995; Riggsby, 1998; Robertson, Calder, Fung, & Jones, 1997). These two trends have started to intersect, the result that equipping preservice teachers laptops is providing a different way of integrating technology in the teacher education curriculum. This article presents the results of a research study on the use of computers by preservice teachers. It begins a brief description of the study including the setting, participants, and research design; followed by a summary of the findings, plus a discussion of the contributions of the study to the ongoing quest for the best methods of integrating technology into the teacher preparation curriculum. LITERATURE REVIEW The portability and constant availability of laptops have made them a convenient means of executing various academic-related activities. Teachers, for example, have used laptops for administrative purposes, such as keeping class lists and related data, and for preparing class materials inside as well as outside the classroom (Freeman, 1996; Johnston et al., 1995; Robertson et al., 1997). There are reports indicating that disabled students, (Anderson, 1996; Geraldine, 1994; James & Hammersley, 1993; Johnston et al., 1995; NCIP Profiles, 1994; Todd, 1992;), mainstream students (Gardner, 1994; McMillan & Honey, 1993; Robertson, et al., 1997), and college students have used laptops in a variety of educational purposes. Among the college students, the group of preservice teachers has attracted attention when it comes to equipping students computers (Riggsby, 1997; Schrum & Dehoney, 1998; Thomas et al., 1996) For instructional purposes, laptop computers offer a unique way to package a course so that students will learn academic communication skills using latest technological tool (Bradshow & Massey, 1996, p. 4). As Bradshow and Massey have reported, laptops in the hands of students offer a convenient alternative to a computer lab with its administrative and technical overheads, networking equipment, custodial [and] building costs (p. 4). They also free individuals from the restrictions of the four walls of a classroom and equipment such as overhead projectors. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».