[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
article

How different are ICT-supported pedagogical practices from extensive and non-extensive ICT-using science teachers?

Published: 01 December 2009 Publication History

Abstract

This paper aims to understand the differences between characteristics of ICT-supported pedagogical practices of grade 8 science teachers of extensive and non-extensive ICT-using science teachers. The differences of the pedagogical practices are described in terms of innovative and traditionally important practice orientations. The innovative practice orientation reflects a demand for education in an information society (e.g. communication skills; ability to learn at own pace), while the traditionally important practice orientation (e.g. subject-matter knowledge) reflects teaching and learning in an industrial society. The purpose of this study was to explore differences between the ICT-supported pedagogical practices of extensive and non-extensive ICT-using science teachers. As part of the SITES 2006 study extensive ICT-using science teachers nominated their most satisfying pedagogical practice. Perceived student outcomes and teaching practices have been analyzed using the SITES 2006 database. In addition, the regular pedagogical practices of these science teachers were, using the SITES 2006 database, compared with the regular pedagogical practices of non-extensive ICT-using science teachers. The results show that although traditionally important practices within the context of ICT are still dominant in science education, changes in the equilibrium between traditionally important and innovative practice orientations are taking place across educational systems.

References

[1]
Anderson, R. (2008). Implications of the information and knowledge society for education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. New York: Springer.
[2]
Becker, H. J., Rawitz, J. L., & Wong, Y. T. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software. Irvine, CA: University of California.
[3]
Carstens, R., & Pelgrum, W.J. (2009). Second information technology in education study. SITES 2006 technical report. Amsterdam: IEA.
[4]
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic.
[5]
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.).(2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
[6]
European Commission. (2002). eEurope 2005: An information society for all. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
[7]
Kozma, R. B. (ed). (2003). Technology, innovation and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
[8]
Law, N., & Chow, A. (2008). In N. Law, W.J. Pelgrum & T. Plomp (Eds.), Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world. Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study (pp 121-179). CERC Studies in comparative education. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong, and Dordrecht: Springer.
[9]
Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J., & Plomp, T. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world. Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. CERC Studies in comparative education. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong, and Dordrecht: Springer.
[10]
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2004). Lifelong learning. Observer, February, 1-8. Retrieved June 30, 2005, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/11/29478789.pdf
[11]
Pelgrum, W. J., & Anderson, R. A. (eds). (1999). ICT and the emerging paradigm for lifelong learning: A worldwide educational assessment of infrastructure, goals and practices. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
[12]
Voogt, J. (1999). Most satisfying experiences with ICT. In W. J. Pelgrum & R. E. Anderson (Eds.), ICT and the emerging paradigm for life long learning: A worldwide educational assessment of infrastructure, goals and practices (pp. 199-216). Amsterdam: IEA.
[13]
Voogt, J. (2003). Consequences of ICT for aims, contents, processes and environments of learning. In J. van den Akker, W. Kuiper & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 217-236). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
[14]
Voogt, J. (2008). Satisfying Pedagogical Practices Using ICT. In N. Law, W.J. Pelgrum & T. Plomp. Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world. Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study (pp 221-250). CERC Studies in comparative education. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong, and Dordrecht: Springer.
[15]
Voogt, J., & Pelgrum, W. J. (2005). ICT and curriculum change. Human technology: an Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 1(2), 157-175.
  1. How different are ICT-supported pedagogical practices from extensive and non-extensive ICT-using science teachers?

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image Education and Information Technologies
      Education and Information Technologies  Volume 14, Issue 4
      December 2009
      108 pages

      Publisher

      Kluwer Academic Publishers

      United States

      Publication History

      Published: 01 December 2009

      Author Tags

      1. International comparative research
      2. Science education
      3. Science teacher
      4. Secondary education
      5. Student outcomes
      6. Teaching practice

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • 0
        Total Citations
      • 0
        Total Downloads
      • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
      Reflects downloads up to 01 Jan 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      View Options

      View options

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media