Does a structured methodology support pre-service teachers more to reflect critically than an unstructured?
In: Reflective practice, Band 16, Heft 5, S. 609-622
ISSN: 1470-1103
7 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Reflective practice, Band 16, Heft 5, S. 609-622
ISSN: 1470-1103
In: Reflective practice, Band 12, Heft 4, S. 495-506
ISSN: 1470-1103
In: Conference proceedings, Heft 1, S. 60-66
ISSN: 2707-2819
Higher Education is in constant transition. In the Flemish context this is illustrated by a gigantic transformation in teacher education (TE). In the context of this transformation Educational master-level programs (EQF 7 – VKS 7) are designed and will be implemented in 2019-2020. The main factor that has to be taken into account is the a priori choice to offer the master programs at different locations throughout the Flemish region. This demands from the new educational masters in TE a radical focus on multi-campus education. This article stresses the need to establish a strong vision on distance education (DE) in TE. To do so a typology of distance education in teacher education is developed. Elen et al. (2014) can be seen as a prime inspiration for the different approaches (of distance education in teacher education). At the core of this article are the three outlined approaches as a basis for discussion. A methodology is presented to systematically sketch this process and its future aspirations. It has to be noted that this search for prototypes can never be seen as a fixed description but as a constant search and debate.
In: Conference proceedings, Heft 1, S. 174-182
ISSN: 2707-2819
In today's complex world, the acquisition of research skills is considered an important goal in (upper secondary) education. Consequently, there is a growing body of literature that recognises the value of well-designed (online) learning environments for effectively supporting the development of this complex set of skills. However, a clear consensus on how these research skills can be facilitated is currently lacking. Furthermore, interventions aiming to foster these skills are often implemented in specific domains, mostly in physics, biology and chemistry. In addition, current approaches to facilitation often refer to only a few epistemic activities related to research skills. Because of the broad and (mainly) domain-specific character of research skills, the purpose of this paper is to articulate the instructional design considerations for an online learning environment for upper secondary school students' (broad set of) research skills in a(n) (underrepresented) behavioural sciences context.
In: Al Lily , A E , Foland , J , Stoloff , D , Gogus , A , Erguvan , I D , Awshar , M T , Tondeur , J , Hammond , M , Venter , I M , Jerry , P , Vlachopoulos , D , Oni , A , Liu , Y , Badosek , R , Cristina Lopez de la Madrid , M , Mazzoni , E , Lee , H , Kinley , K , Kalz , M , Sambuu , U , Bushnaq , T , Pinkwart , N , Adedokun-Shittu , N A , Zander , M , Oliver , K , Teixeira Pombo , L M , Sali , J B , Gregory , S , Tobgay , S , Joy , M , Elen , J , Jwaifell , M O H , Said , M N H M , Al-Saggaf , Y , Naaji , A , White , J , Jordan , K , Gerstein , J , Yapici , I U , Sanga , C , Nleya , P T , Sbihi , B , Lucas , M R , Mbarika , V , Reiners , T , Schoen , S , Sujo-Montes , L , Santally , M , Hakkinen , P , Al Saif , A , Gegenfurtner , A , Schatz , S , Vigil , V P , Tannahill , C , Partida , S P , Zhang , Z , Charalambous , K , Moreira , A , Coto , M , Laxman , K , Farley , H S , Gumbo , M T , Simsek , A , Ramganesh , E , Birzina , R , Player-Koro , C , Dumbraveanu , R , Ziphorah , M , Mohamudally , N , Thomas , S , Romero , M , Nirmala , M , Cifuentes , L , Osaily , R Z K , Omoogun , A C , Seferoglu , S , Elci , A , Edyburn , D , Moudgalya , K , Ebner , M , Bottino , R , Khoo , E , Pedro , L , Buarki , H , Roman-Odio , C , Qureshi , I A , Khan , M A , Thornthwaite , C , Kerimkulova , S , Downes , T , Malmi , L , Bardakci , S , Itmazi , J , Rogers , J , Rughooputh , S D D V , Akour , M A , Henderson , J B , de Freitas , S & Schrader , P G 2017 , ' Academic domains as political battlegrounds : A global enquiry by 99 academics in the fields of education and technology ' , Information Development , vol. 33 , no. 3 , pp. 270-288 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666916646415
This article theorizes the functional relationship between the human components (i.e., scholars) and non-human components (i.e., structural configurations) of academic domains. It is organized around the following question: in what ways have scholars formed and been formed by the structural configurations of their academic domain? The article uses as a case study the academic domain of education and technology to examine this question. Its authorship approach is innovative, with a worldwide collection of academics (99 authors) collaborating to address the proposed question based on their reflections on daily social and academic practices. This collaboration followed a three-round process of contributions via email. Analysis of these scholars' reflective accounts was carried out, and a theoretical proposition was established from this analysis. The proposition is of a mutual (yet not necessarily balanced) power (and therefore political) relationship between the human and non-human constituents of an academic realm, with the two shaping one another. One implication of this proposition is that these non-human elements exist as political actors', just like their human counterparts, having agency' - which they exercise over humans. This turns academic domains into political (functional or dysfunctional) battlefields' wherein both humans and non-humans engage in political activities and actions that form the identity of the academic domain. For more information about the authorship approach, please see Al Lily AEA (2015) A crowd-authoring project on the scholarship of educational technology. Information Development. doi:10.1177/0266666915622044.
BASE
Academic cognition and intelligence are 'socially distributed'; instead of dwelling inside the single mind of an individual academic or a few academics, they are spread throughout the different minds of all academics. In this article, some mechanisms have been developed that systematically bring together these fragmented pieces of cognition and intelligence. These mechanisms jointly form a new authoring method called 'crowd-authoring', enabling an international crowd of academics to co-author a manuscript in an organized way. The article discusses this method, addressing the following question: What are the main mechanisms needed for a large collection of academics to collaborate on the authorship of an article? This question is addressed through a developmental endeavour wherein 101 academics of educational technology from around the world worked together in three rounds by email to compose a short article. Based on this endeavour, four mechanisms have been developed: a) a mechanism for finding a crowd of scholars; b) a mechanism for managing this crowd; c) a mechanism for analyzing the input of this crowd; and d) a scenario for software that helps automate the process of crowd-authoring. The recommendation is that crowd-authoring ought to win the attention of academic communities and funding agencies, because, given the well-connected nature of the contemporary age, the widely and commonly distributed status of academic intelligence and the increasing value of collective and democratic participation, large-scale multi-authored publications are the way forward for academic fields and wider academia in the 21st century. ; peerReviewed
BASE
This article theorizes the functional relationship between the human components (i.e., scholars) and non-human components (i.e., structural configurations) of academic domains. It is organized around the following question: in what ways have scholars formed and been formed by the structural configurations of their academic domain? The article uses as a case study the academic domain of education and technology to examine this question. Its authorship approach is innovative, with a worldwide collection of academics (99 authors) collaborating to address the proposed question based on their reflections on daily social and academic practices. This collaboration followed a three-round process of contributions via email. Analysis of these scholars' reflective accounts was carried out, and a theoretical proposition was established from this analysis. The proposition is of a mutual (yet not necessarily balanced) power (and therefore political) relationship between the human and non-human constituents of an academic realm, with the two shaping one another. One implication of this proposition is that these non-human elements exist as political actors', just like their human counterparts, having agency' - which they exercise over humans. This turns academic domains into political (functional or dysfunctional) battlefields' wherein both humans and non-humans engage in political activities and actions that form the identity of the academic domain. For more information about the authorship approach, please see Al Lily AEA (2015) A crowd-authoring project on the scholarship of educational technology. Information Development. doi:10.1177/0266666915622044.
BASE