You are here:

Pedagogical Innovation through the Eyes of Teacher Educators
PROCEEDING

, Kibbutzim College of Education, Israel

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-37-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

A qualitative inductive analysis of 110 open-ended questionnaires was performed, as part of a research network aiming at investigating views of pedagogical innovation among teacher educators in seven Israeli colleges of education. Three results emerged: (i) Teacher educators mention technology when describing implementations of pedagogical innovation in their teaching; (ii) the stories that teacher educators associate with pedagogical innovation do not deal with the most up-to-date learning technologies; (iii) Teacher educators tend to use inclusive terms in their descriptions of pedagogical innovation. The discourse of teacher educators on the subject of innovation seems to differ from the discourse in other professional communities, such as the medical, agricultural, high-tech, and business communities. The importance of these findings is heightened in view of the expectation that those who are responsible for the training of the next generation of educators would design innovative approaches to meet the future needs of the education system.

Citation

Levy, D. (2019). Pedagogical Innovation through the Eyes of Teacher Educators. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1922-1930). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 17, 2022 from .

© 2019 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anderson, T. And Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. IRRODL 12(3).
  2. Bamberg, M. And Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text& Talk 28. DOI: .
  3. Baratz, L. And Levy, D. (2016). Pedagogical Innovation between Semantics and Ideology. In Y. Poyas (Ed.), Teacher Education in the Maze of Pedagogical Innovation. Tel Aviv: MOFET Institute, pp 25-44 [Hebrew]
  4. Bonk, C.J. (2009). The World Is Open: How Web Technology Is Revolutionizing Education. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass, a Wiley imprint.
  5. Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
  6. Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology 15(2): 181-195.
  7. Chen, D. And Kurtz, G. (Eds.) (2008). ICT, Learning and Teaching. Or Yehuda: The Academic Learning Center [Hebrew].
  8. Christensen, C.M. And Eyring, H.J. (2011). The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Wiley imprint.
  9. Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning. In: J. Voogt and G. Knezek (Eds) International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. New York: Springer. Pp 43-62.
  10. Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
  11. Guba, E.G. And Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage Publications, London, UK.
  12. Goetz, J.P. And LeCompte, M.D. (1991). Qualitative research in social studies education. In: J.P. Shaver (ed), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning. New York: MacMillan. Pp. 56-66.
  13. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J.M., Golinkoff, R.M., Gray, J.H., Robb, M.B., and Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting education in “educational” apps lessons from the science of learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 16(1): 3-34.
  14. Kamarainen, A., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., and Dede, C. (2015). EcoMOBILE: Designing for contextualized STEM learning using mobile technologies and augmented reality. In H. Crompton& J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile Learning and STEM: Case Studies in Practice (pp. 98-124), New York: Routledge.
  15. Kathriel, T. (1999). Keywords: Culture and Communication Patterns in Israel. Tel Aviv: Zemora-Bitan [Hebrew].
  16. Kop, R. And Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? IRRODL 9(3).
  17. Levy, D. And Schrire, S. (2015). Developing a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) at a College of Education: Narrative of Disruptive Innovation? Current Issues in Emerging eLearning (CIEE), Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 8.
  18. Levy, D. And Schrire, S. (2018). Teaching and Learning in MOOCs. In R. Wadmany (Ed.), Digital Pedagogy: Opportunities for Different Learning. Tel Aviv: MOFET Institute and the Kibbutzim College of Education, pp 217-237 [Hebrew].
  19. Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J. And Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends 53(5): 48-53.
  20. Olive, J.L. (2014). Reflecting on the tensions between emic and etic perspectives in life history research: lessons learned. Forum: Qualitative Social Res 15(2), Art. 6. SITE 2019-Las Vegas, NV, United States, March 18-22, 2019
  21. Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C.E. & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education 26: 863–870.
  22. Rosenberg, J.M. And Koehler, M.J. (2015). Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3): 186-210.
  23. Senor, D. And Singer, P. (2009). Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle. Twelve, New York, NY.
  24. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. IRRODL 2(1): 3-10.
  25. Shafriri, Y. And Levy, D. (2018). What are the Unique Characteristics of Integrating Mobile Applications in Learning? Journal of Interactive Learning Research 29(3): 271-299.
  26. Tawill, E. And Levy, D. (2017). Advances in elementary school learning and teaching using the open source Moodle system: A case study. In R. Wadmany (Ed.), Digital Pedagogy: From Theory to Practice. Tel Aviv: MOFET Institute and the Kibbutzim College of Education, pp 41-72 [Hebrew].
  27. Thomas, D.R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation 27(2): 237-246.
  28. Traxler, J. And Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2016). Contextual challenges for the next generation. In J. Traxler and A. KukulskaHulme (Eds.), Mobile Learning: The Next Generation (pp. 208-226). London: Routledge.
  29. Voogt, J. And McKenney, S. (2017). TPACK in teacher education: are we preparing teachers to use technology for early literacy? Technology, Pedagogy& Education 26(1). .
  30. Webb, N.M. (2013). Information processing approaches to collaborative learning. In C.E. Hmelo-Silver, C.A. Chinn, C.K.K. Chan& A.O’Donnell (Eds), The international handbook of collaborative learning. NY: Routledge. 19-40.
  31. Yin, R.K. (2010). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: The Guilford Press.

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections