You are here:

Teacher Interns Learn New Technological Skills Through Heart, Frog, Cougar, and Robotic Research, Part 1
PROCEEDINGS

, Center for teaching and Learning, United States ; , Northwest Regional Educational Lab, United States ; , Central Washington University/ Physical Education Department, United States ; , Central Washington University/ Math Department, United States ; , Central Washington University/ Biology Department and Science Education Department, United States ; , Central Washington University/ Biology Department, United States ; , Central Washington University/ Department of Education, United States ; , Central Washington University/ Chemistry Department and Science Education, United States ; , Central Washington University/ Math Department, United States ; , Central Washington University/Department of Health Education, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Phoenix, AZ, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-55-6 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

Best practices born out of progressivism, constructivism, schema theory, and contextual teaching and learning have been researched and published since Dewey (1916). These theories have one concept in common, students learn most effectively when actively participating in experiences that have special meaning. Using that premise, this project enlisted four school districts in the Northwest to identify local research problems, create learning communities, integrate content with technology, and write plans with measurable outcomes. Project CAT studied changes in a community as seen through the eyes of a cougar. Project Croak studied frog populations to evaluate community biodiversity. Project PATTHS studied the health of a community, and Project Sumo Robot studied the relationship between writing and micro-processing. An external evaluator will report on efficacy and replication, and a compendium of papers with an accompanying DVD will be shared with session participants.

Citation

DePaepe, J., Ault, P., Mathias, K., Oursland, M., Quitadamo, I., Wagner, S., Sledge, A., Kurtz, M., Englund, T. & Briggs, K. (2005). Teacher Interns Learn New Technological Skills Through Heart, Frog, Cougar, and Robotic Research, Part 1. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2005--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2539-2545). Phoenix, AZ, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Anderson, W. (1980). Analysis of teaching physical education. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby.
  2. Armbruster, B. (1996). Schema theory and the design of content-area textbooks. Educational Psychologist, 21. 253-276.
  3. Brooks, J.G. & Brooks, M.G. (1994). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  4. Confrey, J. (1990). What constructivism implies for teaching. In R.B. Davis, C.A. Maher& N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views of the teaching and learning of mathematics (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph No. 4, pp.107122).
  5. Driscoll, M. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  6. Fosnot, C.T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C.T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  7. Grow, L. (2002, March). PT3 A national success story. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference. Http://www.pt3.org/grantee_center/presentations.html.
  8. Hartman, D.P. (1977). Considerations in the choice of interobserver reliability estimates. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(1), 103-116.
  9. Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-Centered, Technology-Rich Learning Environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing Constructivist Approaches to Teaching and Learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 497-537. [Online]. Available: http://dl.aace.org/10616.
  10. Johnson, K.A. (2000). Do computers in the classroom boost academic achievement? A report of the Heritage Center for Data Analysis. Http://www.heritage.org./Research/Education/CDA00-08.cfm.
  11. Kmitta, D. & Davis, J. (2004). Why PT3? An analysis of the impact of educational technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, [Online serial], 4(3). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol4/iss3/general/article1.cfm. Newby, M. (2003) Getting in Step: accountability, accreditation and the standardization of teacher education in the United States: a comment from England. Journal of Education for Teaching, 29 (1) 53-54.
  12. Kulik, J.A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on compuer-based instruction. In E.L. Baker, and H.F.O’neil, Jr. (Eds.). Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  13. Roberts, P., & Mullally, A. (2000). Constructivist Education: Comparison of Traditional and Media Enhanced Approaches. World Conference on the WWW and Internet 2000. (1), 937-938. [Online]. Available: http://dl.aace.org/253.
  14. Sivin-Kachala, R. (2000). 2000 research report on the effectiveness of technology in schools: Executive summary. Retrieved March 3, 2001, from http://www.siia.net/store/default.asp.
  15. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. MA: Harvard University Press.
  16. Zahorik, J.A. (1992). Good teaching and supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7(4), 393-404.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.