EXAMINING THE INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN=
OF A
TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED COURSE FOR NEW
Rebecca M. Sc=
hneider,
To be ef= fective, teacher education programs need to engage teachers in learning as professionals. This includes learning experiences grounded in classroom practice and guidance to develop as professionals so teachers can take on r= oles of leaders and mentors in their classrooms and in partnerships with universities. New web-based communication tools such as real-time video conferencing and blogs have the potential to improve the connection between universities and classrooms in ways not possible previously. An innovative course for new mentor teachers was designed to guide teacher learning, encourage collaboration, and support partnerships. A total of 25 teachers participated across 2 semesters. Analysis examined instructional design bas= ed on constructs for teacher learning and features of web-based tools. Analysis indicates tools were used in ways that would give teachers control of timin= g, content, and audience and teachers needed transitional structure and guidan= ce to fully and thoughtfully participate in these types of tasks.
Introduction
At the same time, in an effort to broaden impact, many education colleges are exploring online or distance learning courses (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006). Practicing teachers are= one group for whom online formats maybe particularly attractive. Teachers are s= ituated in schools that may be at some distance from a university and their schedul= es often do not align with university course schedules. Faculty, however, are challenged to ensure that technology mediated courses engage teachers in meaningful inquiries into important ideas in ways that address teachersR= 17; learning needs. New technologies such as real-time video conferencing, blog= s, and other web-based communication tools may be important tools to improve t= he connection between universities and classrooms. In this way, learning experiences can be guided by professionals and grounded in real classrooms. What is needed, however, are specific ideas to guide the design of such technology enhanced learning environments.
In this pa= per, I describe the design of an innovative, technology enhanced course for new me= ntor teachers. Based on ideas about how teacher learn, this course for teachers hosting a preservice candidate in their classroom was developed to support teachers in learning about reform-based practices and how to mentor a novic= e in their classroom (Schneider, Templin, & Manzey, 2006). The intent is to ensure educational classroom experiences for preservice and mentor teachers= by explicitly defining the role of cooperating teachers as mentors, learners, = and partners in teacher education. To address these goals, forms of communicati= on made possible by new technologies were integral to the design of learning experiences. I describe design considerations for web-based communication t= ools to guide teacher learning, encourage collaboration, and support partnership= s in teacher education.
Theoretical Framework
Reformers interested in promoting student learning have focused attention on teacher education (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Borko, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Levi= ne, 2006). Teaching excellence can have a substantial impact on student learning (Darling-Hammond, 1999; National Commission on Teaching and America's Futur= e, 1996). However, to ensure excellence, teachers need support in learning abo= ut teaching in ways that match their learning needs at each stage of their professional career (Putnam & Borko, 2000). In science, teachers need continuing support to develop expertise in guiding student inquiry, support= ing collaboration, and incorporating learning technologies. In addition, teache= rs need guidance to develop as professionals so they can take on roles of lead= ers and mentors in their classrooms and in partnerships with universities in preservice teacher education. Excellence in teacher education depends on thoughtful instructional design to meet the learning needs of both preservi= ce candidates and practicing teachers. And thoughtful designs include thoughtf= ul integration of technology tools in ways that enhance and reshape the learni= ng environment.
Teacher Learning
Teachers, =
like
other learners, benefit from learning environments that include inquiry into
real problems, collaboration with experts and peers, and the use of embedded
technology tools. To study teaching means to study classrooms. Indeed, rese=
arch
suggests that some of the most powerful and motivating learning opportuniti=
es
for teachers are grounded in classroom experiences (Brown, Collins, &
Duguid, 1989; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Shulman, 1986). One example that
supports this claim comes from a study of reform initiatives in
Providing = access to classrooms, however, is not sufficient to guarantee teachers will develop appropriate knowledge and skills. Teachers need opportunities to think about and reflect on students’ thinking (Putnam & Borko, 2000; Wilson &= amp; Berne, 1999). Moreover, teachers need experiences that are consistent with current ideas about how students learn science. Neither of these features is assured in most K-12 or even college classrooms (Cuban, 1984; Wang & Od= ell, 2002). It is essential for courses to include professional guidance for both preservice and practicing teachers so that both benefit fully from these opportunities to learn about science teaching. Teachers, like other learner= s, need scaffolded tasks and feedback to focus their attention on important aspects and give direction to improve their work. By providing professional guidance for participating practicing teachers in connection with preservice field experiences in area classrooms, we can offer experiences with students that are consistent with current standards for teaching science and promote learning for all teachers.
Teacher Collaboration
Teachers a=
lso
benefit from opportunities to interact and share ideas with other teachers
(Putnam & Borko, 2000; Wilson & Berne, 1999). Lesson study is one
approach to bring teachers together in thoughtful collaboration to learn ab=
out
teaching. This approach is highlighted in reports from the Third Internatio=
nal
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) describing teachers’ profession=
al
work in
Teachers h= osting a preservice candidate will also benefit from efforts to explicitly include t= hem as partners in teacher education. Although preservice programs depend on practicing teachers to provide educational classroom experiences for candidates, rarely are teachers supported in learning how to do so. The assumption is that preservice teachers will learn about teaching by observi= ng an expert teacher, watching students engaged in learning, and practicing teach= ing while guided by the experienced teacher. Yet, the link between the universi= ty and the classroom is relatively weak. Teachers do not necessarily have experience with reform-based practices in science such as inquiry or are familiar with candidates’ assignments and thus may not be able to gui= de candidates or give supportive feedback. Experienced teachers participating = in a university-based course focused on inquiry science and development as mento= rs can be learners along side their student teachers in their classrooms. Collaboration inherent in learning about teaching with other teachers and university faculty can support teachers in becoming part of the teacher education community (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This will develop capacity in the schools to offer rich learning experiences for pre-service teachers and include teachers as authentic partners in teacher education. The remaining challenge is how to provide guidance to teachers in their classrooms and facilitate collaboration among teachers and with the university.
Web-based Communication =
Tools
New techno= logies such as real-time video conferencing, blogs, and other web-based communicat= ion tools have the potential to improve the connection between universities and classrooms in ways not possible previously. Real-time video can make it possible for university faculty to interact with and support teachers in th= eir classrooms. Blogs or discussion boards can give teachers additional opportu= nities to participate in discussions when time and location is flexible. However, putting existing course content online is not the answer; course designs ne= ed to be updated to match this new format (Kuriloff, 2005). Teacher educators = need to consider the features of web-based tools to design interactive learning environments for teachers.
Features of web-based communication purported to be beneficial to learners include the asynchronous nature of messages, remote communication, and multimedia compo= nents. For instance, asynchronous discussions allow learners the wait time necessa= ry to form a thoughtful response to instructor prompts or peer comments (Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2000; Tolmie & Boyle, 2000). Video conferencing can enable experts to over come physical and geographical obstacles in order to share insights with learners (Luck & Laurence, 2005). For teachers this means communicating with university faculty who otherwise may not be able to make site visits to multiple and distant schools. In addition, teachers themselves will be able to make virtual site visits otherwise not possible during the school day to consult with other mentor teachers and observe the= ir candidates.
Rethinking instructional design also includes thinking about the roles of instructors = and learners. As the opportunity and nature of communication is modified by onl= ine formats, instructors need to take on new roles (Headley, 2005). Instructors need to carefully scaffold learners’ transition to using web-based communication tools. In addition, for teachers building community and partnerships, features such as whether participation is voluntary, writing = is formal or informal, and the audience for communications are important varia= bles to consider in instructional designs. For instance, the goal of developing a community of mentor teachers implies the use of informal questions and answ= ers by and for teachers known to the group such as limited access blogs. Likewi= se, video conferencing can enable mentor teachers to share classroom events with more than one candidate when the camera is situated in the classroom and controlled by the teacher. Thoughtful designs that consider how teachers le= arn can integrate the use of technology tools in ways that enhance and reshape = the learning environment for teachers.
Methods
Instructional Design
To guide t= eacher learning, encourage collaboration, and support partnerships in teacher education a university course for new mentor teachers was developed. The go= als were to support teachers in learning about inquiry teaching, supporting candidate learning, and to develop teachers as professionals and partners in teacher education. Tasks for mentor teachers were designed to focus on classroom practice including planning, enactment, and reflection and to giv= e teachers an explicit role in guiding candidate learning. The function of web-based communication tools was considered in the design of tasks for teachers to create an active learning environment for teachers. The goals were to promo= te voluntary communication intended for peers and university faculty as partne= rs. This includes informal writing, in addition to more formal writing, and classroom video (prepared and real-time).
The course= was designed to reduce, but not eliminate, class meetings by adding instruction= al support via web-based communications. Teacher participants met face-to-face approximately once every other week across a 15-week semester. Use of technology to support communication was integrated into tasks designed to m= eet teachers’ learning needs. Live video conferencing facilitated instruc= tor visits to the classroom during candidate teaching and post teaching confere= nces between the instructor, teacher, and preservice teacher. Online asynchronous discussions were based on a common reading of a case story posing a teaching dilemma and initiated by high level instructor prompts. Personal webpages w= ere used as a communication tool for teachers allowing them to share information about their school and classes but also their personal interests to launch initial conversations.
Participants
Two semest= er cohorts participated in the course, Mentoring a Preservice Teacher, and hosted a preservice teacher. Thirteen mentor teachers, grades 6-10, participated in the first semester and 8 mentor teachers, grades 8- 12, participated in the second semester. In addition, 2 mentor teachers participated in a second mentorship course, Advanced Mentorship, each semester= . The advanced mentor teachers participated in online discussions with the level = one mentors each semester. Thus, a total of 25 teachers participated across 2 semesters.
The course= , Mentoring a Preservice Teacher, was initially piloted with little technology enhancement (Schneider et al., 200= 6). The pilot version was enacted with 11 mentor teachers, grades 6-8. Lessons learned from the pilot were used to design the technology enhanced version reported here. The instructional designer and author was also the course instructor for each semester including the pilot semester.
Throughout= the semester long experience mentors’ evaluations of candidates’ un= it plans and teaching, written case story of a mentoring experience, and weekly reflections were collected. Each mentor was interviewed individually mid-te= rm, and as a focus group at the end of the term, and written questionnaire responses were collected.
Analysis of Design
Tasks were designed to address four specific goals for mentor teachers: (a) engage teachers in building community, (b) learning about inquiry, (c) learning ab= out mentoring, and (d) becoming a partner in teacher education. Specific tasks examined in this report include: sharing personal and school information, evaluating candidate plans, sharing stories of mentoring, examining teachin= g, and evaluating and giving feedback on candidate learning. These tasks utili= zed webpages, electronic journaling, discussion boards, document sharing, teach= ing video, and video conferencing. Although listed individually here for clarit= y, tasks were connected, had multiple goals, and may have utilized more than o= ne tool.
The design= of tasks was examined based on three constructs for teacher learning and the features of web-based communication tools. The three constructs for teacher learning used for analysis were: (a) active engagement in authentic problems grounded in classroom practice and focused on learning, (b) professional guidance including instructional supports, scaffolding, and feedback, and (= c) collaboration among teachers to share ideas and develop shared understandin= g. The variables used to analyze the use of tools to support teacher learning include: timing (synchronous or asynchronous), participation (voluntary or required), type of interaction (instructor to teacher and teacher to instru= ctor or teacher to teacher), contributor (individual or group), audience (indivi= dual or group), and content (informal writing, formal writing, or video). Finall= y, mentor teachers’ work and feedback were examined to determine results= of and recommendations for task design in light of the instructional goals for men= tor teachers.
Outcomes
A summary of design analysi= s, outcomes, and recommendations is presented in Table 1. This analysis illustrates how technology enhanced tasks can be designed with learners in mind. In this project, web-based communication tools were used in ways that would give teachers control of timing, content, and audience. It is importa= nt to note, however, that teachers needed transitional structure and guidance = to fully and thoughtfully participate in these types of tasks. For instance, teachers first wrote individual responses to the instructor and received feedback before they began posting responses to instructor prompts on a gro= up discussion board. The fact that tasks were authentic, in that they focused = on real practices of mentors and supported teachers’ work with their candidate, encouraged teachers’ interest and collaboration. Teachers = were particularly interested in sharing stories and getting ideas from other teachers. Carefully designed tasks, over time, supported teacher-to-teacher communication. Interestingly, synchronous interactions such as chats were n= ot instructionally useful for this group. Scheduling common time was problemat= ic, but also, teachers were uncomfortable with spontaneous online course related dialogue.
Table 1
Design analysis, outcome=
s, and
recommendations for technology supported tasks
|
Goal, task, tool |
Design analysis |
Outcome and recommendation |
|
Goal: Bu= ild community Task: sh= are personal and school information Tool: te= acher constructed web page |
Active and a= uthentic: specific to teacher and their classroom, voluntary content Guidance= : web page structured for reduced complexity, text and pictures Collaboratio= n: asynchronous, teacher to teacher, one to group |
Teachers post family photos, want to know more about= each other First step in teacher controlled collaboration Recommendati= on: Need to balance structure and user choice |
|
Goal: le= arn about inquiry Task: ev= aluate candidate plans Tool: el= ectronic journaling to discussion board |
Active and a= uthentic: specific to classroom and their candidate required journal then voluntary discussion board Guidance: scaffold one-to-one to group, initial private feedback, instructor prompts for journal and board Collaboratio= n: asynchronous, one to instructor then group |
Initial hesitation to present ideas publicly, very thoughtful comments posted to the group; not all post to board Feedback, prompts, and staging support group posting= Recommendati= on: Open subgroups to whole group, teacher control of audience |
|
Goal: le= arn about mentoring Task: sh= are mentor stories Tool: do=
cument
sharing |
Active and a= uthentic: teachers’ experiences presented for learning, voluntary content of personal interest Guidance: structured sharing and advice seeking, moderated exchanges Collaboratio= n: asynchronous, teacher to teacher, formal writing, seeking advice from pee= rs |
Topic and audience promote high interest and thoughtfulness Support to direct attention to focus on deeper issue= s Recommendati= on: Limited access document sharing followed by open to group, group construc= ted set of stories and responses |
(table contin= ues)
Table 1 (continued)
Design analysis, outcome=
s, and
recommendations for technology supported tasks
|
Goal, task, tool |
Design analysis |
Outcome and recommendation |
|
Goal: bu= ild community Task: ex= amine teaching Tool: te= aching video with discussion board |
Active and a= uthentic: teaching video illustrates probable candidate issue, discuss productive feedback Guidance= : hints to focus attention, selection of video, public feedback on feedback Collaboratio= n: view common video to comment on to group, compare types of feedback, ideas from peers |
Viewing and commenting on own time, can revisit vide= o and comments Need to learn informal writing to an audience Recommendati= on: Link posts to personal webpage or photo |
|
Goal: Pa= rtner in teacher education Task: ev= aluate, give feedback on candidate learning Tool: te=
aching
video to video conferencing |
Active and a= uthentic: evaluation and feedback will be used by program and candidate Guidance: selection of learning candidate learning goals, emotional and responsibil= ity support for critiquing teaching Collaboratio= n: input from peers, synchronous video conferencing to observe candidate |
Focus on candidate opens teachers’ classrooms = and ideas Want to read previous mentors’ recommendations= , more continuity in candidate preparation Need to learn how to prepare and voice feedback to candidates and university Recommendati= on: Teacher prepared video for next candidate and new mentors |
The face-t= o-face meetings were essential. In spite of tight schedules and teachers’ initial interest in online courses, all the teachers described the value of knowing the people they were interacting with online and requested more explicit structure for getting to know each other. In addition, personal webpages were intriguing. Teachers wanted expand on this feature in order to better know each other. It is important to note that the “ramp upR= 21; period for teachers to become comfortable with technology supported interac= tions was likely longer and more anxiety filled than most instructors are accusto= med. Many teachers were willing to give up the web-based features after initial attempts. However, with consistent and structured support, all teachers were successful and pleased with the technology use. The nature of the instructor prompts for discussion was important. In addition, due to the increase communication capabilities, teachers from previous semesters were able to participate with the current group. These “advanced” teachers w= ere given a role of discussion leader for the topics on the online discussion board. They also were able to join the class meetings through video conferencing.
Recommenda= tions based on design analysis tend to be suggestions for additional built in sca= ffolding for tool use and teacher control of content and audience. For instance, it would be useful if online tools allowed teachers to easily send their individual journal entries to a group discussion board without manually cop= ying and pasting. Teachers also suggested additional or improved uses for the to= ols. One example is to facilitate teachers virtually visiting other classrooms to observe multiple candidates while teachers were learning what to expect fro= m a candidate and how to respond.
Looking at= tasks and use of tools across a semester illustrates how sequencing should also be considered in instructional design (Table 2). Not only are tasks and tool u= se more structured and instructor-lead early on but there is a clear trajectory toward learner-centered environments. Following this trajectory leads unmistakably to using similar but more open too= ls to enable the communication necessary for teachers to participate in professional partnerships in teacher education.
Table 2
Overview of task sequenc=
e
|
Early |
Middle |
Later |
Post course |
|
Teachers constructed web page Private electronic journals to instructor Private feedback |
Instructor selected teaching video Moderated small group discussion boards Video conferencing instructor and teacher Private feedback then public posting |
Less moderated larger group discussion boards Video conferencing teacher to teacher Public feedback |
Mentor webpage for potential candidates, new mentors= Continuing blog for all mentors Document sharing for mentors, candidates, university= Teacher prepared video cases |
Discussion
This work illustrates how important it is to consider exactly how and why tasks and t= ools can encourage participation and thoughtfulness. Purposeful instructional design, the careful matching goals, learner needs, and tool function is nee= ded to develop effective tasks (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). In this case, how teachers learn and the learning needs of new mentor teachers, guided select= ion and use of tools. If teachers are to learn how to become professional partn= ers in teacher education they will need to control when and how they communicate with each other and universities. Outcomes also illustrate that instruction= al guidance, such as the types of prompts or feedback provided, is indispensab= le to enable teachers to take advantage of potential learning opportunities. Teachers need support to develop and learn how to share their ideas about teaching and teacher learning, particular in online environments (Clegg &am= p; Heap, 2006). Developing and facilitating teachers’ collaboration with other teachers and university faculty can empower teachers to become active participants in the teacher education community (Lave & Wenger, 1991)
This work = also illustrates how important it is to rethink how technology tools can aid instruction. In many cases the technology tools were repurposed to become powerful tools to enhance the learning environment for teachers. For instan= ce, video conferencing was used to connect to individual teacher’s classr= ooms to share teaching events with the instructor or other teachers rather than = to broadcast instructor-centered instruction to a remote group. These web-based communication tools, by and large, have not been designed with learners in mind. Thus, it is necessary to examine the unique affordances or features of the tool when thinking about how the tool can support learning. This, in tu= rn, makes it necessary to examine what aspects of the learning environment are = in need of support that can be provided by tools. Purposeful integration of to= ols is needed to reshape the learning environment for teachers (Kuriloff, 2005; Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006).
Finally, t= his work illustrates the need for purposefully scaffolding transitions (Hogan & Pressley, 1997). Many tools that are intended to support adult instruction = are largely based on a traditional instructional paradigm. They do not, necessarily, lend themselves well to interactive student-centered, collaborative, and inquiry environments. Likewise, teachers themselves may = be more accustom to traditional instruction. Thus, it is important to plan for= the transition from traditional to learner-centered practices and tools. A stra= tegy for guiding teachers in this transition is to begin with more instructor created structure and reduced complexity in tool use then phase into more teacher lead participation and open tool use. Likewise, initially private feedback is needed before more public feedback is offered. Because new form= s of instruction can be unsettling, it is important for instructors need to take= an explicitly supportive role in online environments (Headley, 2005; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). This path toward teacher-lead and controlled participation has the potential to lead to truly collaborative partnerships in teacher education.
Conclusion
Teacher ed= ucation has never been the focus of more attention (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Levine, 2006). And nearly all teacher education programs depend on local teachers to provide classroom learning experiences for preservice candidates as a key component of their preparation. Yet, rarely do we consider the learning nee= ds of practicing teachers when we ask for their participation in hosting a candidate. Moreover, the link between the university and the classroom is relatively weak. In this paper, I describe an innovative model for supporti= ng new mentor teachers facilitated by new uses of web-based communication. Designing this novel approach to improving teacher education has provided t= he opportunity to explore interesting, but untested ideas for enhancing instruction with the use of technology tools.
Learner-ce= ntered design is an interesting idea that can be applied to both tools and courses= for teachers (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Soloway, Guzdial, & Ha= y, 1994; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Tools designed for teacher learning wou= ld provide a balance of reduced complexity without limiting choice and control. These tools would also be designed such that their use would be easily consistent with learner-centered, inquiry environments. Courses designed for teacher learning would provide a balance of motivation without limiting academic press for thoughtfulness and change. These courses would consist of new tasks now possible with new tools for teacher learning (Kuriloff, 2005; Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006). Thoughtful instructional designs= can integrate the use of technology tools in ways that enhance and reshape the learning environment for teachers.
References
Ball, D. L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reforms: What we think we know and what we need to learn. Phi= Delta Kappan, 77(7), 500-508.
Ball,
D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing
practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In=
G.
Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching
as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice (pp. 3-32).=
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terra= in. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-1= 5.
Bransford,
J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washingt=
on,
D. C.:
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the cul= ture of learning. Educational Researcher= , 18(1 (Jan-Feb)), 32-42.
Chokshi, S., & Fernandez, C. (2004). Challenges to importing Japanese lesson stu= dy: Concerns, Misconceptions, and nuances. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(7), 520-525.
Clegg, P., & Heap, J. (2006). Facing the challenge of e-learning: Reflections = on teaching evidence-based practice through online discussion groups [Electron= ic Version]. Innovate, 2. Retrieved January 2, 2007 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=3Darticle&id=3D290.
Corcoran,
T. B. (1995). Helping teachers teach
well: Transforming professional development.
Cuban,
L. (1984). How teachers taught: Con=
stancy
and change in American classrooms, 1890-1980. 1st Edition. Research on Teac=
hing
Monograph Series.
Darling-Hammond,
L. (1999). Teacher quality and stud=
ent
achievement: A review of state policy evidence: Center for the study of
teaching and policy,
Darling-Hammond,
L. (2006). Powerful Teacher Educati=
on:
Lessons from Exemplary Programs.
Fenstermacher,
G. D. (1994). The knower and the known:&nb=
sp;
The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. In L. Darling-
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discus= sion in an applied educational psychology course. iInstructional Science 28(2), 115-152.
Headley, S. (2005). Five roles I play in online courses [Electronic Version]. Innovate, 2. Retrieved November 25, 2005 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?wiew=3Darticle&id=3D78.
Hogan,
K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaf=
folding
student learning.
Kuriloff, P. (2005). Breaking the barriers of time and space: More effective teaching using e-pedagogy [Electronic Version]. Innovate, 2. Retrieved November 25, 2005 = from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=3Darticle&id=3D64.
Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76= (4), 567-605.
Lave,
J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situat=
ed
learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Levine,
A. (2006). Educating School Teacher=
s.
Luck, M., & Laurence, G. M. (2005). Innovative teaching: Sharing expertise through videoconferencing [Electronic Version]. Innovate, 2. Retrie= ved November 25, 2005 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=3Darti= cle&id=3D59.
National
Commission on Teaching and
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking = have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Schneider,
R. M., Templin, M., & Manzey, C. (2006). Studying lessons: The role mentors take in preparing candidates to
teach science. Paper presented at the Association for Science Teacher
Education annual meeting,
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.<= /p>
Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1, 36-48.
Stigler,
J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The
teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education =
in
the classroom.
Tolmie, A., & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: a review and case study. Computers and Education, 34, 119-140.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Rese= arch, 68(2), 202-248.
Wang, J., & Odell, S. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 481-546.
Wiggins,
G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Under=
standing
by design.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded in part by the US
Department of Education Teacher Quality Enhancement as part of the
UToledo.Uteach.UTouch the Future award P336B040031. Any opinions, findings,=
and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Department of
Education.