Pedagogy * technology: A two‐dimensional model for teachers' ICT integration

Abstract

This paper presents a two-dimensional model for measuring individual teachers' progression in ICT integration and for guiding them toward higher integration levels. There are four levels in the pedagogy dimension: direct teaching, cognitively active learning, constructive learning, and social learning. These levels are defined based on four factors: teacher pedagogical beliefs, instructional strategies used, teacher-student interactions, and the types of tasks students are expected to carry out. The technology dimension contains eight levels, ranging from Level 0 (nonuse) to Level 7 (implementing sophisticated instructional applications). The eight levels are defined based on three factors: whether a teacher is a passive consumer or an active producer of the ICT-based resources, sophistication of the ICT tools that a teacher uses, and richness of functionality of an ICT-based product developed by a teacher. To validate the proposed model in terms of its applicability and practicability, three case studies were conducted. The results showed that this model was able to adapt to individual preferences of the three participating teachers as well as guide their progressions in ICT integration.

Empowering online teachers through predictive learning analytics

“…Among the roles particularly emphasized in the literature is the provision of pedagogical and personal support to students (Lin et al, 2012;Muñoz Carril, González Sanmamed, & Hernández Sellés, 2013;Rienties, Herodotou, Olney, Schencks, & Boroowa, 2018;Starčič & Vukan, 2019). Recent research among 72 000 students engaged in 74 courses indicated that 69% of weekly engagement by students were primarily determined by how online teachers designed online courses and how they supported their students (Nguyen, Rienties, Toetenel, Ferguson, & Whitelock, 2017).…”

Professional Learning Community (PLC)

“…In fact, there are unintended consequences of technology in the classroom (Coughlan, 2015;Harper & Milman, 2016). The ways teachers use technology make the difference between merely substituting traditional practices with digital forms and using technology to transform teaching by facilitating students' active construction of new understandings (Dolan, 2016;Groff & Mouza, 2008;Gundy & Berger, 2016;Lin, Wang, & Lin, 2012;Staples, Pugach & Himes, 2005;Tarling & Ng'ambi, 2016;Zhao et al, 2002).…”

“…Still other models of teacher learning and implementation progressions involve teachers in examining several factors simultaneously to self-asses as a part of their professional development. Lin, Wang, & Lin (2012) propose a two-dimensional model of ICT implementation which plots technical practices on one axis and pedagogical practices on the other. The pedagogical competencies ranged from direct teaching to constructivist learning.…”

Intención y práctica con TIC en formadores de profesores: Congruencias, colisiones y autoeficacia

“…Se distinguen básicamente dos, una vinculada a un enfoque directivo que se manifiesta en prácticas de aula con un rol protagónico del docente y una actuación más bien pasiva del estudiante; mientras que la otra responde a un enfoque constructivista manifestada en prácticas de aula con un papel protagónico de los estudiantes y un rol mediador del docente (Ertmer et al, 2015;Lim & Chai, 2008). A esta clasificación, otros autores han agregado dos enfoques adicionales, el de aprendizaje activo y el de aprendizaje social (Lin, Wang & Lin, 2012).…”

“…Las respuestas al cuestionario fueron analizadas a partir de una adaptación al modelo bidimensional pedagógico-tecnológico de integración curricular de las tecnologías digitales, propuesto por Lin, Wang & Lin (2012). De esta manera, los docentes fueron clasificados de acuerdo a la intencionalidad pedagógica con la cual orientan sus clases, ubicándolos en una de cuatro creencias pedagógicas utilizadas como marco de análisis (tabla 2).…”