MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2122523635

Teacher education in the networked classroom

2001· article· en· W2122523635 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thérèse Laferrière, Rob Bracewell, Alain Breuleux, Gaalen Erickson, Mary Lamon, Ron Owston

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEducation and Technology Integration
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCurriculumPedagogySociologyMathematics educationComputer sciencePsychology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to delineate the role of teachers/educators in networked classrooms. Firstly, we present how the teachers’ primary workplace is changing, moving from the traditional isolated to the networked classroom. Secondly, we point to how teachers and learners’ roles are shifting: a networked classroom calls upon the teacher’s competence to direct or facilitate learning through both face-to-face and on-line interaction with students. Thirdly, teacher education design experiments in networked classrooms are briefly presented. Fourthly, we suggest a tentative framework of teacher education models supportive of Canada’s innovation agenda. INTRODUCTION The networked classroom describes the workplace of an increasing number of teachers. In Canada, the effort to network schools and classrooms began nearly a decade ago. Hardware and software, capable of handling text, image, sound, and video, were deployed. Improved school technology became associated with the idea of a knowledge society and a global economy. To counterbalance business-type interests, the Canadian Teachers Federation advocated prudence, and stressed the diversity of children’s needs, and the advantage of a better teacher/student ratio. Today, while connecting schools and classrooms (Internet and intranet) is still unfolding many teachers are experimenting with computer-supported pedagogical practices, wireless devices and handheld computers. Innovative settings demonstrate powerful results (McGillis, 1994; Bracewell et al., 1998; etc.), and present educators with issues of implementation, sustainability and scalability. Provincial departments of education are engaged in the process of revising learner expectations regarding thinking, social and technology skills (Alberta Information and Communication Technology Curriculum, 2000; Learner Expectations and Assessment, Ontario Knowledge Network for Learning, 2000; Quebec Education Reform, 2000). In its recent report to the Minister of Education, the Conseil superieur de l’education of Quebec (2000) insists on the pedagogical dimension of ICT integration into the curriculum. Different theoretical perspectives such as constructivism and socioculturalism have also been used to justify the integration of ICT in teaching and learning. The Delors’ Report (1996), that emphasizes work skills, is quoted to justify the integration of information and communication technologies in education. The contribution of information and communication technologies to teaching and learning is increased when the teachers’ pedagogy engages learners in authentic problem solving and deep understanding (Bracewell et al., 1998). Advances in cognitive science provide a theoretical basis for engaging school learners in active and authentic ways (Resnick, 1987; Brown & Campione, 1994; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). Early positive results in the use of online resources and tools for learning and teaching that go beyond gains in basic technology skills point to more complex roles for teachers and learners (Haughey, 2000; Jefferson & Edwards, 2000; Daigle, 2001; McGhee & Kozma, 2001). And so it is imperative that schools’ technology integration plans include new modes of professional development, as well as equipment and technical support. Schools that show an increased awareness of the importance of lifelong-learning skills and deeper understanding of subject matter in primary and secondary schools need the support of their colleagues and of local and provincial educational policy makers (Lieberman & Miller, 2000; Anderson & Dexter, 2000). Teacher preparation programs that encourage thoughtful and effective integration of information and communication technologies are also required. Otherwise, schools’ overt curriculum may change, but its hidden curriculum is likely to keep targeting conformity instead of creativity, individualcompetitive rather than collaborative learning skills, and tradition rather than innovation. Assessment and evaluation procedures developed to meet the public demand tend to narrow the curriculum when most teachers respond by teaching to the test (Knowledge Forum Summer Institute’s participants, 2000, http://kf.oise.utoronto.ca/si2000poster/index.html). 1 Report of the International Commission on Education, UNESCO. 2 McGhee and Kozma report on the U.S. 12 case studies of the Second Information Technology in Education Study (SITES-M2) conducted by the International Evaluation Association (IEA). The Canadian Report on which two of the authors of this paper are working is in progress.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,724
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,357
Écart entre enseignants0,332 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetEducation and Technology IntegrationTravaux en français237 207