Teacher education in the networked classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".