You are here:

A Technological Systematic Analysis of Intern Teaching Performance
PROCEEDINGS

, , Central Washington University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Phoenix, AZ, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-55-6 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Abstract: A primary focus of the PT3 funding was to enhance the proficiency of new teachers' abilities to use new technologies. Most PT3 projects evaluated the types of technologies taught, how much training was received, and how much technology was integrated into lessons during clinical experiences. The supposition seemed to have been, if candidates learned new technologies in rich technological environments than K-12 students would positively benefit. Therefore in addition to the typical evaluation variables, this project designed a computerized teaching performance assessment to evaluate whether or not there was a relationship between teaching behaviors and student behaviors. This paper discusses the Center for Teaching and Learning Assessment of Teaching Performance (CTL-ATP) instrument, how the supervision triad changed, the relevant findings of intern teaching behavior, and the impact on K-12 students learning behavior.

Citation

DePaepe, J. & Mathias, K. (2005). A Technological Systematic Analysis of Intern Teaching Performance. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2005--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2553-2559). Phoenix, AZ, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved January 22, 2021 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anderson, W. (1980). Analysis of teaching physical education. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby.
  2. Armbruster, B. (1996). Schema theory and the design of content-area textbooks. Educational Psychologist, 21. 253-276.
  3. Brooks, J.G. & Brooks, M.G. (1994). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  4. Confrey, J. (1990). What constructivism implies for teaching. In R.B. Davis, C.A. Maher& N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views of the teaching and learning of mathematics (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph No. 4, pp.107122).
  5. Driscoll, M. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  6. Fosnot, C.T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C.T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  7. Grow, L. (2002, March). PT3 A national success story. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference. Http://www.pt3.org/grantee_center/presentations.html.
  8. Hartman, D.P. (1977). Considerations in the choice of interobserver reliability estimates. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(1), 103-116.
  9. Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-Centered, Technology-Rich Learning Environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing Constructivist Approaches to Teaching and Learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 497-537. [Online]. Available: http://dl.aace.org/10616.
  10. Johnson, K.A. (2000). Do computers in the classroom boost academic achievement? A report of the Heritage Center for Data Analysis. Http://www.heritage.org./Research/Education/CDA00-08.cfm.
  11. Kmitta, D. & Davis, J. (2004). Why PT3? An analysis of the impact of educational technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, [Online serial], 4(3). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol4/iss3/general/article1.cfm. Newby, M. (2003) Getting in Step: accountability, accreditation and the standardization of teacher education in the United States: a comment from England. Journal of Education for Teaching, 29 (1) 53-54.
  12. Kulik, J.A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on compuer-based instruction. In E.L. Baker, and H.F.O’neil, Jr. (Eds.). Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  13. Roberts, P., & Mullally, A. (2000). Constructivist Education: Comparison of Traditional and Media Enhanced Approaches. World Conference on the WWW and Internet 2000. (1), 937-938. [Online]. Available: http://dl.aace.org/253.
  14. Sivin-Kachala, R. (2000). 2000 research report on the effectiveness of technology in schools: Executive summary. Retrieved March 3, 2001, from http://www.siia.net/store/default.asp.
  15. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. MA: Harvard University Press.
  16. Zahorik, J.A. (1992). Good teaching and supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7(4), 393-404.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References