reflecting on pedagogical practices with electronic portfolios
TRANSCRIPT
Reflecting on pedagogical practices with electronic portfolios.
Ann-Louise DavidsonNadia NaffiConcordia University
Research context
Adoption of Internet technology in society
New knowledge economy -> new logic of education?
Competency based education
Québec context: le renouveau pédagogigue
Evolution of pedagogical approaches
Paradigm of the reflective practitioner (Shön)
Review of literaturePedagogy: Empirical studies and theoretical research based on empirical studies Reganick (1994); Bélair (1995); Gayet (1995); Gauthier (1997); Laplante (1997); Basque, Rocheleau et Winer (1998); Trigwell, Prosser et Waterhouse (1999); Crawford (1999); D’eon, Overgaard et Rutledge (2000); Kember et Kwan (2000); Keyser (2000); Carpenter et Tait (2001); Woods (2001); Yang (2001); Durand et Morin (2002); Gardye, Favreau et Malo (2002); Hébert, Barbeau et Dupuis (2002); Kim et Branch (2002); Landry (2002); Perrenoud (2002); Ghaith, (2003); Hewett (2003); Kulinna et Cothran. (2003); Martel (2003); Roberts (2003); Conole, Dyke, Oliver et Seale. (2004); Gore, Griffiths et Ladwig. (2004); Trigwell et Prosser (2004, 2006); Lindblom- Ylänne, Trigwell, Nevgi, & Ashwin (2006).
Typologies centered around the act of teaching and learning Dans les typologies centrées sur l’acte d’enseignement/apprentissage, certaines typologies sont classées selon le rôle joué par l’ordinateur au sein de la relation pédagogique (Bork, 1985; Jonassen, 1995; Means, 1994; Sauvé, 1984; Taylor, 1980), selon le degré d’autonomie de l’apprenant (Plante, 1984), selon le type de stratégies pédagogiques ou de connaissances visées (Baumgartner & Payr, 1998; de Vries, 2001; Denis, 2003; Paquette, 1993; Séguin, 1997) et selon les étapes du processus d’enseignement (Alessi & Trollip, 1991).
Typologies centered on schoolsDans les typologies centrées sur l’école, certaines typologies sont classées selon les types d’activités d’une école (Aylwin, 1984; Basque et al., 1998; Knezek, Rachlin & Scannell, 1988; Schultz & Hart,1983; Roecks, 1981; Watts, 1981), et une selon les acteurs d’une école (Dubuc, 1982).
Typologies centered on the learnerDans les typologies centrées sur l’apprenant, une typologie est classée selon les impulsions de l’individu à apprendre (Bruce & Levin, 1997), d’autres sont classées selon les fonctions cognitives que l’ordinateur permet d’étendre ou de restructurer (Chacon, 1992; Jonassen, 1996) et selon les étapes du processus d’apprentissage ou de traitement de l’information (Thomas & Boyson, 1984; Iioshi & Hannafin, 1988).
Other sections of the literature review
E-Portfolios
Self-regulation (Zimmerman)
Motivation (Deci Ryan)
Self-efficacy (Bandura)
Research question
How can the use of an electronic portfolio engage teachers in a reflection about their pedagogical practices and their perception of student learning?
Can this reflective process help inform teacher education programs?
*
Recruitment
Done through RÉCIT
Five teachers responded
Three participated for the whole year.
Design
One-on-one interviews
Training session
Focus group at the end of the year
Interview results
Teacher 1(elementary female)
Teacher 2(secondary male)
Teacher 3(secondary female)
Teaching Socio-constructivistproject based
learning
Transmission of knowledge (guide)
Structuredmastery learning
Technology Personal use mostly Non user Proficient
Reflections on usefulness of training
The elementary school teacher received the training alone.Intimidated by the technology.
Frequently called the researcher as she started using ePearl
Received the local RÉCIT’s assistance while she implemented the project.
The secondary school teachers received the training together.One was very critical of the interface and wanted to find the flaws before she started using it.
The other expected ePearl to be a portal.
Didn’t ask for help.
*Ideally, training should coincide with the beginning of a project.
*
Focus group questions
What pedagogical activities did you do with ePearl this year?
How frequently did you do these activities?
How difficult/easy were these activities?
Do you think they had an impact on learning?
Do you think they had an impact on your pedagogical approach?
*
Focus-groups results
Discovery activity
Activity frequency
0 1 2 10
How did the students use PERLE?
Demonstration to other children
Parent access
Project
Knowledge of other programs _
_
_
_
~Grammar correctionTeac
her 1
_
Objectives
Guiding questions
Help
Readers’ journal
Forgot
~
+
+
+
Teac
her 3
_
_
(Planning) Doing (Reflecting)
Journal
Search
~
+
Teac
her 2
Level of difficulty for students
Impact on the learning level_Impact on the pedagogical method
~ +
Original construct analysis divided by teacher
Teacher 1
What is the focus of this slide?
Teacher 2
What is the focus of this slide?
Teacher 3
What is the focus of this slide?
Next steps
For teachers:
Teacher 1: Wants to involve parents more and use more advanced feedback functions
Teacher 2: Needs to formulate objectives and guiding questions for and with learners
Teacher 3: Needs to figure out how to make students more autonomous and start formulating objectives.
Conclusion
Directions for future research and practiceSystemic analysis of classroom dynamic with technology is highly desiredTeacher education programs should focus on developing generic technological competenciesTeachers need accompaniment to teach through self-regulation processes
LimitsNumber of participants One single school boardTransferabilityGeneralizability
Thank you!
•Beaucoup d’impact sur l’approche pédagogique•Peu d’impact sur l’apprentissage•Très difficile
•Correction grammaire
•Fréquemment
•Rarement
•Projets
•Accès parental•Démonstration à d’autres enfants
•Connaissance de nouveaux logiciels
20%
80%
•Beaucoup d’impact sur l’apprentissage•Peu d’impact sur l’approche pédagogique•Facile
Enseignant 1
40%
40%
Enseignant 2
•Beaucoup d’impact sur l’apprentissage
•Fréquemment
•Rarement
•Peu d’impact sur l’approche pédagogique
•Peu d’impact sur l’apprentissage
•Objectifs
•Journal de lecture
•Oublier
•Beaucoup d’impact sur l’approche pédagogique•Questions guide
•Aide
20%
80%
Enseignant 3
•Beaucoup d’impact sur l’apprentissage
•Fréquemment•Peu d’impact sur l’approche pédagogique
•Peu d’impact sur l’apprentissage
•Découverte guidée
•Journal
•Réflections, planifications
•Rarement•Beaucoup d’impact sur l’approche pédagogique
•Recherche
Framework
Social System
Educational System
Representations of the use of ICT
Représentations of Pedagogy
Relationships?
Group
Individual
Framework
Technical Social
Epistemological
Informational
Social System
Educational System
Teacher Centered
Learner Centered
Process Oriented
Product Oriented
Ann-Louise Davidson Ph.D.
Teacher Centered
LearnerCentered
Process Oriented
Product Oriented
Social
Epistemological
Technical
Informational
Representations of the object
Categorisation of the object
Discrimination of object
propertiesSelection
of propertiesChoiceHarmonization
of propertiesChoice
Which use of technology?
For which technological interaction?
Which pedagogical approach? For which pedagogical
objective?
In sum... One participant was very satisfied
Two participants were frustrated and felt powerless...
Assistance given to teachers
Class size
Work habits
Individual differences
Student autonomy
Students’ prior knowledge
Students’ motivation
Students’ collaboration
Proper scheduling of the activities
Frequency of meeting
Coaching, teachers’ technical skills
School facilities
Technical constraints
School culture
Parents’ role
*