You are here:

A Framework for Implementing OER-Based Lesson Design Activities for Pre-Service Teachers ARTICLE

, University of Florida

IRRODL Volume 19, Number 4, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press

Abstract

The demand for qualified teachers with sufficient pedagogical knowledge and skills is high. However, existing teacher education programs do not provide adequate experiences through which to develop pre-service teachers’ professional foundations. This study recognized Open Educational Resources (OER) as a means by which to address the issue of enhancing teacher education. The purpose of this study was to propose a framework to be used to integrate OER into lesson design activities for pre-service teachers. In this study, a focused literature review investigated the frameworks of distributed cognition and example-based learning. This review process resulted in a unified framework that provides a description of how pre-service teachers learn with OER at both the individual and cognitive system levels. Four principles and 10 guidelines are provided to guide the implementation of OER-based lesson design activities in real settings. The new framework has the potential to enhance pre-service teachers’ Web resource-based professional development.

Citation

Kim, D. (2018). A Framework for Implementing OER-Based Lesson Design Activities for Pre-Service Teachers. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved October 19, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Angeli, C. (2005). Transforming a teacher education method course through technology: Effects on preservice teachers’ technology competency. Computers& Education, 45(4), 383–398.
  2. Atkinson, R.K., Derry, S.J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181–214.
  3. Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years.
  4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  5. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299.
  6. Belland, B.R. (2011). Distributed cognition as a lens to understand the effects of scaffolds: The role of transfer of responsibility. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 577–600.
  7. Blandford, A., & Furniss, D. (2006). DiCoT: A methodology for applying distributed cognition to the design of teamworking systems. In S.W. Gilroy & M.D. Harrison (Eds.), Interactive systems. Design, specification, and verification (pp. 26–38). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
  8. Blomberg, G., Stürmer, K., & Seidel, T. (2011). How pre-service teachers observe teaching on video:
  9. Brent, I., Gibbs, G., & Gruszczynska, A. (2012). Obstacles to creating and finding open educational
  10. Cannell, P., Macintyre, R., & Hewitt, L. (2015). Widening access and OER: Developing new practice.
  11. Chen, Y., Chen, N.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). The use of online synchronous discussion for-based professional development for teachers. Computers& Education, 53(4), 1155–1166.
  12. Clements, K.I., & Pawlowski, J.M. (2012). User-oriented quality for OER: Understanding teachers’ views on re-use, quality, and trust. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(1), 4–14.
  13. Crippen, K.J., & Earl, B.L. (2007). The impact of Web-based worked examples and self-explanation on performance, problem solving, and self-efficacy. Computers& Education, 49(3), 809–821.
  14. Davies, J., & Michaelian, K. (2016). Identifying and individuating cognitive systems: A task-based distributed cognition alternative to agent-based extended cognition. Cognitive Processing, 17(3), 307–319.
  15. Dede, C., Jass Ketelhut, D., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E.M. (2008). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8–19.
  16. Dyer, J.-O., Hudon, A., Montpetit-Tourangeau, K., Charlin, B., Mamede, S., & Van Gog, T. (2015).
  17. Ertmer, P. (2003). Transforming teacher education: Visions and strategies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 124–128.
  18. Fortus, D., Dershimer, R.C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R.W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081–1110.
  19. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Schuh, J. (2008). Information comparisons in example-based hypermedia
  20. Große, C.S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 122–138.
  21. Hassler, B., Hennessy, S., Knight, S., & Connolly, T. (2014). Developing an open resource bank for
  22. Holyoak, K.J. (2012). Analogy and relational reasoning. The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, 234–259.
  23. Hong, Y.-C., & Choi, I. (2011). Three dimensions of reflective thinking in solving design problems: a conceptual model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 687–710.
  24. Hoogerheide, V., Loyens, S.M., & Van Gog, T. (2014). Effects of creating video-based modeling examples on learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 33, 108-119.
  25. Jang, S.-J., & Chen, K.-C. (2010). From PCK to TPACK: Developing a transformative model for preservice science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 553–564.
  26. Jenkins, J.M., Garn, A., & Jenkins, P. (2005). Preservice teacher observations in peer coaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24(1), 2-23.
  27. Kitsantas, A., Zimmerman, B.J., & Cleary, T. (2000). The role of observation and emulation in the development of athletic self-regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 811–817.
  28. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102.
  29. Landry, S.H., Smith, K.E., & Swank, P.R. (2009). New directions in evaluating social problem solving in
  30. Littlejohn, A., & Hood, N. (2017). How educators build knowledge and expand their practice: The case of open education resources. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 499–510.
  31. Milner, H.R. (2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for diversity studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 118–131.
  32. Morgan, M., Brickell, G., & Harper, B. (2008). Applying distributed cognition theory to the redesign of the
  33. Ovens, A. (2004). Using peer coaching and action research to structure the practicum: An analysis of student teacher perceptions. New Zealand Physical Educator, 37(1), 45–60.
  34. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P.W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.
  35. Perkins, D.N. (1997). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.),
  36. Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Science, 38(1), 1–37.
  37. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J.R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and
  38. Rubinstein, J.S., Meyer, D.E., & Evans, J.E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763–797.
  39. Ryalls, B.O., Gul, R.E., & Ryalls, K.R. (2000). Infant imitation of peer and adult models: Evidence for a peer model advantage. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(1), 188–202.
  40. Sapire, I., & Reed, Y. (2011). Collaborative design and use of open educational resources: A case study of a mathematics teacher education project in South Africa. Distance Education, 32(2), 195–211.
  41. Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading& Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 7–25.
  42. Thakrar, J., Wolfenden, F., & Zinn, D. (2009). Harnessing open educational resources to the challenges of
  43. Ulvik, M., Smith, K., & Helleve, I. (2009). Novice in secondary school– the coin has two sides. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 835–842.
  44. Van Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: Integrating cognitive and social-cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 155–174.
  45. Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2010). How effective are instructional explanations in example-based learning? A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4), 393–409.
  46. Xu, L., & Clarke, D. (2012). What does distributed cognition tell us about student learning of science? Research in Science Education, 42(3), 491–510.
  47. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179–217.
  48. Zhang, J., & Norman, D.A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 87–122.
  49. Zhang, J., & Patel, V.L. (2006). Distributed cognition, representation, and affordance. Pragmatics& Cognition, 14(2), 333–341.
  50. Zhang, S., Liu, Q., & Wang, Q. (2016). A study of peer coaching in teachers’ online professional learning communities. Universal Access in the Information Society, 15(58), 1–11.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.