MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1525070709

Using Anchored Instruction to Teach Preservice Teachers to Integrate Technology in the Curriculum

2001· article· en· W1525070709 on OpenAlexaff
Mumbi Kariuki, Mesut Duran

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Technology and Teacher Education · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMathematics educationClass (philosophy)RestructuringTeacher educationEducational technologyTeaching methodComputer sciencePedagogyPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case study addresses the use of the to restructure educational computing courses to enhance future teachers' learning of technology applications in the classroom. A cohort group of 22 preservice teachers from a typical teacher education institution in Southeastern Ohio was involved in the study. The preservice teachers were enrolled in both a curriculum development class and an educational computing class in the winter 2000 academic quarter. The instructors for both courses collaborated their teaching efforts whereby the preservice teachers used the educational computing class to research, record, and document their experiences in the curriculum development class. The theme of the curriculum development class was therefore used as an for the educational computing class. Data collection and analysis were conducted on a continuous basis throughout the academic quarter. The findings indicate the effectiveness of anchored for preservice teachers to learn about, and teach with advanced technology tools in their future practice. The authors recommend increased efforts to apply anchored approach in educational computing courses. Preparing technology-proficient teachers to meet the needs of 21st century learners has emerged as a critical challenge facing teacher preparation programs. Although institutions of higher education vary in their specific responses to this challenge, most institutions require at least one educational computing course as a core component of their teacher preparation programs. The goal of such courses includes individual development of both confidence and competency in the use of information technology in various learning environments. Even though the structure and content of educational computing courses vary from one institution to another (Leh, 1998) such courses have usually been taught in a didactic manner where the instructor demonstrates the technology tools and then ask students to replicate a product (Ferguson, 2001). While learning technology skills is necessary, it is crucial to model to preservice teachers the way technology integration can look like. One alternative approach to the design of educational computing courses involves using a theme or anchor around which various learning activities take place. This approach has been referred to as instruction (Bransford, Sherwood, Hasselbring, Kinzer, & Williams, 1990). This model provides learners with an authentic, situated, and social learning environment which encourages problem solving (Shih, 1997). The anchored approach has been used in a variety of disciplines such as language arts, social studies, math, science, and special education. In recent years, there has been a growing interest among educational technology instructors to apply the anchored approach in educational computing courses to more effectively prepare preservice teachers to use advanced-technology tools in their future practice (Bauer, Ellefsen, & Hall, 1994; Bauer & Summerville, 1996; Bauer, 1998; Baumbach, Brewer, & Bird, 1995; Ferguson, 2001; Miller, Morano, Smith, & Mayes, 2002; Williams, 2002). This article reports a case study in which the anchored approach was applied to restructure an existing educational computing course to enhance future teachers' learning of technology applications in the classroom. First, the article discusses the pedagogical foundations of anchored and its application in educational computing courses. Second, the article describes the experiences of a cohort group of 22 preservice teachers who used their curriculum development course activities as an anchor in their educational computing class. Third, the article reflects on the lessons learned by the preservice teachers and their educational computing course instructor from this collaborative experience. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Technology and Teacher EducationSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207