Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
CMC Teacher Education SIG Presentation; Lomicka
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

CMC Teacher Education SIG Presentation; Lomicka

523
views

Published on

PowerPoint Presentation, Lomicka, Eurocall CMC Teacher Education SIGs, 2011, Barcelona

PowerPoint Presentation, Lomicka, Eurocall CMC Teacher Education SIGs, 2011, Barcelona

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
523
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Thank you.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Reflections on cross-institutional and cross-collaborative research and pedagogy in teacher education
      “Cross –institutional research is an important and often undervalued and overlooked means of extending the reach and capacities of any given institution” (wikia.com)
      Lara Lomicka, The University of South Carolina
      lomicka@sc.edu
    • 2. Goals for the Talk
      Discuss and reflect on cross-institutional research
      Background
      Definitions
      Research
      Gains
      Tools
      Challenges
      Implementation
      Next step
    • 3. Background
      American Educational Research Association (AERA) Panel on Research and Teacher Education
      recommendation for more cross-institutional studies (Cochran-Smith, 2005)
    • 4. Background
      Standards for Teacher Educators from the Association of Teacher Educators
      Standard 5 - Collaboration
      Collaborate regularly and in significant ways with representatives of schools, universities, state education agencies, professional associations, and communities to improve teaching, learning, and teacher education.
      http://www.ate1.org/pubs/Standard_5.cfm
    • 5. Cross-Institutional Research
      • “Cross –institutional research is an important and often undervalued and overlooked means of extending the reach and capacities of any given institution” (wikia.com)
    • Cross-Institutional Research
      “relationship building” is critical
      multiple institutional representatives to work together toward common goals in education
      replace “me” with “we”
      establish mutual trust and respect
      (ADR news report, 2(1), January 2008)
    • 6. Research
      Cross-institutional and cross-collaborative projects
      In language learning contexts
      In language teacher education
    • 7. Cross-Institutional Research
      Add chart
    • 8. Arnold et al., 2005
      Goal: examine how CMC facilitates positive social interactions and the formation of communities for professional growth among FL teachers
      Cross-institutional set up: graduate students from 3 US institutions enrolled in methods courses (new teachers) participated in regular exchange via discussion forums
      Results: benefits for FL teacher ed programs, connections to peers and community development, successful modeling encouraged them to incorporate technology in own teaching
    • 9. Müller-Hartmann (2005)
      Goal: to look at the development of both intercultural communicative competence and critical media literacy in foreign language teachers
      Cross-institutional set up: pre- and in-service student-teachers in two upper-level courses in Germany and in the US, both novice and experienced; collaboration on tasks and regular exchange
      Results: development of ICC; wanted to develop more technical skills
    • 10. Arnold et al., 2009
      Goal: to examine the nature of online group interaction and cooperation in the process of developing a collaborative product
      Cross-institutional set up: New teachers from three large US universities worked together to develop a wiki during semester
      Results: successful interaction depends on group members; differing levels of participation point to unequal levels of involvement, which affected the level of collaboration, the group dynamics, and the final product. In addition, the leader in each group influenced the degree of collaboration taking place in the group.
    • 11. Fuchs, 2010
      Goal: Exploratory case study of teachers in US and in Germany and their evaluation of a blended learning course using task based language teaching (TBLT)
      Cross-institutional set up: ESL teachers in the US and in Germany; shared perspectives about teaching contexts and practices in chat, wikis, forums
      Results: more technology in teacher education; learned about TSLT
    • 12. What did students gain?
      Involvement in a “community” of learners and/or teachers/experts
      Learning from and teaching one another
      Sharing ideas and experiences
      Mentoring opportunities
      Motivation to complete work/projects
      Technology
    • 13. What technological tools used?
    • 14. Tool Trends
      Variety of tools
      Use of model teaching (Fuchs,2010; Hubbard & Levy, 2006; Muller-Hartmann, 2005; Willis, 2001)
      Importance of innovative uses of technology
      Future?
    • 15. Challenges
      Technology can be a hindrance
      A suitable partner to work with
      Careful planning, sometimes a great deal of time in advance
      Frequent and regular communication between teachers involved
      Resolving issues that relate to a colleague’s students or your own students
      Preparing for and dealing with cultural misunderstanding, miscommunication, frustrations
      Keeping up to date on the best tools for each project
    • 16. Implementation
      Locate possible partners
      Project development (what and how it might be achieved) and possible tools
      Clear and realistic expectations for each partner
      Realistic timeframe for communication/ feedback
    • 17. The next step?
      Think big, think collaborative
      Experiment with new technologies – microblogging, social networking, social media, iPads, etc.
      Involve different groups
      Use collaboration to lead to another project, if possible
    • 18. Selected References
      Arnold, N., Ducate, L., Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2005). Using Computer-mediated Communication to Establish Social and Supportive Environments in Teacher Education. CALICO Journal, 22(3): 537-566.
      Arnold, N., Ducate, L., Lomicka, L., Lord, G. (2009). Assessing online collaboration among language teachers: A cross-institutional case study. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2): 121-139.
      Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2006). Connecting universities, constructing meaning: An analysis of beginning and future FL teachers ‘meeting’ online. Language Learning and Technology, 10(1), 42-66.
      Arnold, N., Ducate, L., and Lomicka, L. (2007). Virtual communities of practice in teacher education. In M. Kassen, R. Lavine, K. Murphy-Judy, & M. Peters (Eds.). Preparing and Developing Technology-proficient L2 Teachers (pp. 103-132). San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium.
      Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Studying teacher education: What we know and need to know. The Journal of Teacher Education 56: 301. DOI: 10.1177/0022487105280116.
      Egbert, J., Paulus, T., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108-126. Available: http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/egbert.default.html
      Hubbard, P. & Levy, M. (Eds.). (2006). Teacher education in CALL. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
      Fuchs, C. (2003). Negotiating over a distance: The challenges of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in foreign language teacher education. In M.K. Legutke, & D. Rsler (Eds.), Fremdsprachenlernen mit digitalen Medien.  Beitrge des Giessener Forschungskolloquiums. [Foreign language learning with computer technologies. Articles by the Giessen research colloquium.] (pp. 179-208). Tbingen: Narr. 
      Fuchs, C. (2006a). Exploring German pre-service teachers' electronic and professional literacies. ReCALL, 18(2), 174-192.
    • 19. Selected References
      Fuchs, C. (2006b). Computer-mediated negotiation across borders: German-American collaboration in language teacher education. Frankfurt: Peter Lang EuropischerVerlagderWissenschaften.
      Fuchs, C. (2009). Computer-mediated task design: Language student teachers' expectations and realizations. Letras & Letras. 37-64.
      Fuchs, C. (2010). Cross-institutional blended learning in teacher education: A case study. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 2(2), 30-49
      Fuchs, C. (2011). Methodological Implications of Using Google Applications (Google Sites and Google Wave) for Cross-Institutional Collaboration in Language Teacher Education. Paper presented at American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, Chicago.
      Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2008). Blended learning in teacher education: An investigation of classroom community across media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2).
      Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2007a). Social presence in virtual communities of FL teachers. System 35: 208-228.
      Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2007b). Foreign Language Teacher Preparation and Asynchronous CMC: Promoting Reflective Teaching. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 15 (4): 513-532. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
      Muller-Hartmann, A. (2005). Learning how to teach intercultural communicative competence via telecollaboration: A model for language teacher education. In J. A. Belz & S. L. Thorne (eds.), Internet-Mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education (p. 63-83). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
      Willis, J. (2001). Foundational assumptions for information technology and teacher education.  Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(3), 305-320.