You are here:

Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Learning in Teacher Education: Addressing the Goals of Transfer
Article

, Elon University, United States

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 10, Number 3, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Teacher educators have a twofold concern regarding transfer because of the dual goals inherent in teacher education. Certainly a primary goal is to have teacher candidates transfer what they learn in teacher preparation courses to their future classrooms and professional lives, but an equally important secondary goal is to enable candidates to facilitate their students' transfer of what they learn in K-12 classrooms to their future lives. The purpose of this article is to describe a project, funded by the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to use Technology (PT3) initiative, that addresses these two goals through the use of technology-enhanced project-based learning in teacher education methods courses. The first section of the article provides a rationale for the selection of project-based learning as a particularly appropriate instructional methodology to address transfer, and the second section describes the project and how technology has been infused to enhance project-based experiences.

Citation

Howard, J. (2002). Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Learning in Teacher Education: Addressing the Goals of Transfer. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 343-364. Norfolk, VA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved September 29, 2023 from .

© 2002 Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anderson, J.R., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H.A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.
  2. Bereiter, C. (1997). Situated cognition and how to overcome it. In D. Kirshner & J.A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 281-300). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  3. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  4. Berliner, D.C. (1992). Redesigning classroom activities for the future. Educational Technology, 32(5), 7-13.
  5. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
  6. Brophy, J., & Alleman, J. (1991). Activities as instructional tools: A framework for analysis and evaluation. Educational Researcher, 20(4), 9-23.
  7. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Bruner , J.S. (1977). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) (1990). Anchored instructionand its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6) , 2-10.
  8. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  9. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan. Eisner , E.W. (2001). What does it mean to say a school is doing well? Ph i Delta Kappan , 82(5) , 367-372 ERIC/OSEP Special Project (1999). Universal design. Research connections in special education (No. 5). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Gallagher, S.A. , Sher, B.T. , Stepien , W.J. , & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95(3) , 136-146. Gick , M.L. , & Holyoak , K.J (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.
  10. Guzdial, M. (1998). Technological support for project-based learning. In ASCD YearBook 1998, Learning withtechnology. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  11. Hannafin, M.J., Hall, C., Land, S., & Hill, J. (1994). Learning in open-ended environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications. Educational Technology, 34(5), 48-55.
  12. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1998). Using situated learning and multimedia to promote higher-order thinking. In Proceedings of ED-MEDIA/EDTELECOM 98: World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia& World Conference on Educational Telecommunications; IR 019 333. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED428672)
  13. Howard, J., & Thurlow, D. (2001). Use of development teams in problem finding. In J.D. Price, D.A. Willis, N. Davis, & J. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE) (pp. 1974-1979). Norfolk , VA: Association for the Advancement
  14. Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  15. Jonassen, D., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research& Development, 47(1), 61-79.
  16. Jost, K.L., Havard, B.C., & Smith, A.J. (1997). A study of problem-based learning in a graduate education classroom. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations a t the 1997 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Albuquerque , NM; IR 018 429.
  17. Judd, C. (1939). Educational psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  18. Kilpatrick, W.H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 364 Howard Lave , J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In D. Kirshner & J.A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 17-35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  20. Lebow, D.G., & Wager, W.W. (1994). Authentic activity as a model of appropriate learning activity: Implications for design of computer-based simulations. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations a t the 1994 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Tallahassee, FL (pp. 381-387).
  21. Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: De-sign principles for student access (ERIC/OS Topical Brief). Reston, VA: ERIC-OSEP Special Project, Council for Exceptional Children.
  22. Perkins, D.N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership 46(1), 22-32. Riel , M. , & Fulton, K. (2001). The role of technology in supporting learning communities. Ph i Delta Kappan , 82(7) , 518-523.
  23. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
  24. Stepien, W.J., & Pyke, S.L. (1997). Designing problem-based learning units. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29 (4), 380-400. Thorndike , E.L. (1913). The psychology of learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
  25. Whitehead, A.N. (1929). The a ims of education. New York: Macmillan. Author Note Project T2 is supported by a grant, PR#342A000266 , from the U.S. Department of Education’s Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to use Technology (PT3) initiative. Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge Deborah Thurlow Long and Ann Wooten , the two teacher educators who team-taught with the author during

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Also Read

Related Collections