You are here:

Reflection Through Discomfort: What Resistance Reveals When Communication Technologies Mediate Authentic Writing Mentorships ARTICLE

, Columbia College, United States ; , University of Florida, United States

CITE Journal Volume 10, Number 4, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

Students entering teacher preparation programs often exhibit a desire to be shown the magic bullet of teaching practice. When they fail to be presented with recipes for success, or when the instruction they receive in methods classes does not match their own understanding of instructional methods and what they believe methods should be, they can feel a heightened level of discomfort. This paper describes the study of an Online Writing Partnership and examines participants’ discomfort regarding the use of online communication technologies to facilitate mentor relationships with high school students in writing. Findings indicated that this discomfort can provide opportunities for reflection on and examination of beliefs about writing instruction, as well as on the nature of writing itself as a recursive process. Further, using online communication technologies to facilitate practicum experiences can enrich preservice teachers’ understandings of and approaches to the complexities and challenges of teaching writing.

Citation

Nail, A. & Townsend, J. (2010). Reflection Through Discomfort: What Resistance Reveals When Communication Technologies Mediate Authentic Writing Mentorships. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 366-382. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved October 17, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Anson, C.M. (1989). Response styles and ways of knowing. In C.M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 332-366). Urbana, IL: National
  2. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press.
  3. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166-173.
  4. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286-302.
  5. Emig, J. (1994). The composing process: Review of the literature. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark essays on writing process (pp. 1-22). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
  6. Gallego, M.A. (2001). Is experience the best teacher? The potential of coupling of classroom and community-based field experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 312-325.
  7. Graham, S., & Thornley, C. (2000). Connecting classrooms in pre-service education: Conversations for learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher-Education, 28(2), 235-245.
  8. Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432-448.
  9. Lindfors, J.W. (1999). Children's inquiry: Using language to make sense of the world. Urbana, IL: Teachers College Press.
  10. Miller, S.M., & Fox, D.L. (2006). Reconstructing English education for the 21st century: A report on the CEE summit. English Education, 38(4), 265-277.
  11. Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experience of preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 31-42.
  12. Murray, P.Y. (1989). Teachers as readers, readers as teachers. In B. Lawson, S.S. Ryan& W.R. Winterowd (Eds.), Encountering student texts: Interpretive issues in reading student writing (pp. 73-85). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
  13. Nail, D.A. (2008). An exploration of preservice teachers' experiences in an online writing partnership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
  14. Phelps, L.W. (1989). Images of student writing: The deep structure of teacher response. In C.M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 37-67).
  15. Reither, J. (1994). Writing and knowing: Toward redefining the writing process. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark essays on writing process (pp. 141-148). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
  16. Richardson, J.C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 21.
  17. Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
  18. Samaras, A.P., & Gismondi, S. (1998). Scaffolds in the field: Vygotskian interpretation in a teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(7), 715-733.
  19. Scott, P., & Mouza, C. (2007). The impact of professional development on teacher learning, practice and leadership skills: A study on the integration of technology in the teaching of writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(3), 229-266.
  20. Swenson, J., Young, C.A., McGrail, E., Rozema, R., & Whitin, P. (2006). Extending the conversation: New technologies, new literacies, and English education. English Education, 38(4), 351-369.
  21. Volman, M., van Eck, E., Heemskerk, I., & Kuiper, E. (2005). New technologies, new differences. Gender and ethnic differences in pupils' use of ICT in primary and secondary education. Computers and Education, 45, 35-55.
  22. Wilson, S.M., Floden, R.E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research: An insider's view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 190-204.

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.