You are here:

Challenging Preservice Teachers’ Deficit-Based Views Through Authentic Asset-Based Technology Lessons
PROCEEDING

, , University of Florida, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Savannah, GA, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

Research has demonstrated that when teachers take an assets-based approach, rather than focusing on deficits, student success increases significantly (Bishop, Berryman, Tiakiwai, & Richards, 2003). However, this approach has not gained nearly as much attention as addressing students’ deficits. Technology provides an ideal platform for teachers to provide authentic learning opportunities that take into account students’ assets. This presentation and corresponding discussion will focus on the development of a preservice teacher’s beliefs resulting from her participation in an asset-based technology-focused practitioner inquiry.

Citation

Orey, J. & Ruggles, K. (2016). Challenging Preservice Teachers’ Deficit-Based Views Through Authentic Asset-Based Technology Lessons. In G. Chamblee & L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 490-494). Savannah, GA, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Tiakiwai, S., & Richardson, C. (2003). Te Kotahitanga: Phase 1-The experiences of year 9 and 10 Maori students in mainstream classrooms. Report to the Ministry of Education, Wellington, NZ.
  2. Dana, N.F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2014). The reflective educator's guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Corwin Press.
  3. Debruin-Parecki, A. & Teel, K. (2001). Making school count promoting urban student motivation and success. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
  4. Duncan-Andrade, J. (2012). “A Glass Half-Full” in Bank Street Occasional Papers.
  5. Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Suny Press.
  6. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  7. Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.
  8. Niess, M.L. (2001). A Model for Integrating Technology in Preservice Science and Mathematics Content‐Specific Teacher Preparation. School Science and Mathematics, 101(2), 102-109.
  9. Ohler, J. (2005). The world of digital storytelling. Learning in the Digital Age, 63(4), 44-47.
  10. Roby, T. (2010). Opus in the classroom: Striking CoRDS with content-related digital storytelling. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 133-144.
  11. Sleeter, C.E. (2004). Context-conscious portraits and context-blind policy. Anthropology& Education Quarterly, 35(1), 132-136.
  12. Yosso, T.J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community and cultural wealth. Race and Ethnicity Education, 8(1), 69-91.

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.