Conditions to implement collaborative design as a ...

16/11/2014

Conditions to implement collaborative design as a strategy for professional development

Introduction

The case of ICT-integration in teacher education

ICT targets and objectives in basic and secondary education

Heleen Becuwe, Jo Tondeur, Natalie Pareja Roblin, Johan Van Braak Ghent University

(Student) teachers with the necessary entry ICT qualifications

Jeroen Thys, Els Castelein GroepT

Teacher educators with the necessary ICT competences

ECER, Porto, 2014

ICT-integration in teacher education

TPACK

• BUT: a gap between ICT in teacher education and ICT expectations for future teachers (Tondeur, Pareja, van Braak, Fisser, & Voogt, 2013)

• ICT-integration in teacher education institutions occurs when teacher educators develop TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)

TDTs for ICT-integration • Developing TPACK by (re-)designing their own courses in team (cf. Alayyar et al., 2012; Angeli & Valanides, 2005; Polly, 2011) • A Teacher Design Team (TDT) = a group of two or more teachers or teacher educators who (re-)design curriculum materials together (Handelzalts, 2009)

Implementation of TDTs Frankenberger Auer, 1997; Most research&focuses Tondeur, Pareja on: Roblin & Thys, 2012a; Truijen, Sleegers, Meelissen, & Nieuwenhuis, TDTs composed of 2013; Handelzalts, teachers 2009; Hord, 2007; Truijen e.a., 2013; Somech & Drach-Zavachy, 2007; TDTs2013; composed of 2012; Culatta, Agyei, student teachers Petrone & Ortquist-Ahrens, 2004; ...

Less research explores:

TDTs composed of teacher educators

1

16/11/2014

Purpose of the study

Method: Delphi study (Koster, 2003) 1. consulting a mature field of researchers,

Developing a framework of important conditions for the implementation of teacher educator design teams for ICT-integration in teacher education

2. in an anonymous manner, 3. in different rounds, 4. with feedback of the results, and 5. the opportunity for the participants to reconsider their position

Sample

Sample TDT 1: media literacy

3

4

TDT 2: digitalising media education TDT 3: blended trajectory lesson planning

3

TDT 4: blended trajectory earth science

4

Instrument

• Participants of a professional development project in four teacher education institutions: – 14 teacher educators – 4 coaches – 2 project coordinators – 4 coordinators of the teacher education programme – 8 participants of the advisory board

Coordination procedures

Design task Collaboration Design activities

Coach

Structural conditions

Team composition Policy support External support

2

16/11/2014

Results first round: the design task 1. Usefulness

‘It must be a real mission. It must be something they can influence.’ Participant of the advisory board (8)

2. Complexity

‘Just a step further than the comfort zone of the TDT members.’ Coach (3)

Design task

Policy support

3. ICT as a way to a broader end

‘Maybe you can also start from the perspective that technology is the constitutive element. Technology is neither the goal nor the means, it is the context.’ Participant of the advisory group (7)

4. Innovative character

‘The basic condition is that the TDT works on something innovative.’ Coordinator of the teacher education programme (3)

Results first round: the design task

Results first round: policy support

5. Comprehensiveness

‘Technology, pedagogy and content need to be integrated in the design task as much as possible.’ Participant of the advisory group (2)

1. The institutional culture and structure ‘The importance of ICT

6. Research and collaboration oriented

should be endorsed.’ Participant of the advisory group (2)

‘They can learn that

collaboration is worth it.’ Coordinator of the project (2)

2. Ownership ‘Clarify the degree of autonomy versus collaboration.’

7. Professional development ‘Professionalization, both educationally and technologically, of the participants’ Coordinator of the teacher education programme (1)

Coordinator of the teacher education programme (4)

3. Acknowledgment ‘An appreciative approach promotes the well-being of the team members and the team.’ Team member (13)

8. Aligned with institutional goals and participants’ interests ‘I think this depends mainly on the "expertise" of the TDT members, as well as where this team wants to go.’

Results first round: policy support

Conclusion and discussion •

4. Facilitation

‘A possibility is to provide some "free hours per week ' for participants.’ Coach (2)

5. Quality monitoring

‘Quality monitoring with attention to process and products’ Participant of the advisory group (6)

•

Identification of eight important characteristics of a design task, including innovative character (cf. Handelzalts, 2009; Truijen et al., 2013) and complexity (cf. Frankenberger en Auer, 1997); Ehrlenspeil et al., 1997) –

But, are all the identified characteristics of the design task equally important?

–

Who determines the design task? (> ownership)

Policy support appears to be crucial –

But, how committed does the institution need to be?

–

How to balance top-down and bottom-up approaches?

3

16/11/2014

References •

•

• •

•

Alayyar, G. M., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2012). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service science teachers: support from blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (8), 1298-1316. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: an instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of computer assisted learning, 21 (4), 292-302. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00135.x Handelzalts, A. (2009). Collaborative curriculum development in Teacher Design Teams. Doctoral Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede. Knight, S.L, & Lloyd, G.M., & Arbaugh, F., & Gamson, D., & McDonald, S.P., & Nolan Jr., J. (2014). Professional development and practices of teacher educators. Journal of teacher education, 65 (4), 268-270. Koster, B. (2003). Lerarenopleiders stellen eisen aan zichzelf. VELON tijdschrift voor lerarenopleiders, 24 (2), 23-32.

References •

•

•

•

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017–1054. DOI: 10.1111/j.14679620.2006.00684.x Okoli, C., & Pawlowksi, S.D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information and management, 42 (1), 15-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002 Polly, D. (2011). Teachers’ learning while constructing technology-based instructional resources. British journal of educational technology, 42 (6), 950-961. DOI: 10.1111/j.14678535.2010.01161.x Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., van Braak, J., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2013). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in teacher education: in search of a new curriculum. Educational Studies, 39 (2), 239-243. DOI: 10.1080/03055698.2012.713548

4