You are here:

A Framework for Deep Learning for Teacher Education
PROCEEDINGS

, , Mississippi State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Atlanta, GA, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-52-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

A framework for deep learning in distance education is illustrated in this paper. This framework emphasizes teaching and learning online for teacher education and addresses the transfer of surface to deep learning. The foundation of the framework is based on three general processes: methods, information, and cognition. Deeper learning is encouraged through innovative and ill-structured problems students solve in a technology rich learning environment. As students explore and interpret these problems based on their surface understanding, a deeper understanding evolves. The surface understanding is described as adoptive in nature. Deep learning, developed through a deeper understanding, is adaptive and may be applied to a variety of novel situations and complex problems. The framework was applied to a distance education graduate level course in educational technology for teacher education. Learning technologies employed were mapped onto learning processes within the framework.

Citation

Havard, B. & Du, J. (2004). A Framework for Deep Learning for Teacher Education. In R. Ferdig, C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2004--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 463-469). Atlanta, GA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved June 16, 2021 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bennett, N., Dunne, E., & Carre, C. (1999). Patterns of core and generic skill provision in higher education. Higher Education, 37(1), 71-93.
  2. Dyrud, M.A. (2001). Group projects and peer review. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 106-111.
  3. Fenwick, T.J. (2002). Problem-based learning, group process and the mid-career professional: Implications for graduate education. Higher Education Research& Development, 21 (1), 5-21.
  4. Garrison, J. (1997). Dewey and Eros: Wisdom and desire in the art of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press
  5. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  6. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conference and content analysis. In Anthony Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117-136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  7. Hinds, P., & Weisband, S. (2003). Knowledge sharing and shared understanding in virtual teams. In C.B. Gibson& S.G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 21-36). San
  8. Moore, M (1989). Three types of interactions, The American Journal of Distance Education, 3 , 1-6.
  9. Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (1996). An investigation of the nature and form of interactions in live interactive television. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Society for Educational Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED396738).
  10. Thayer-Bacon, B.J. (2000). Transforming critical thinking: Thinking constructively. New York: Teachers College Press.
  11. Tiene, D. (2002). Exploring current issues in educational technology using a problem-based approach to instruction. Educational Technology, 42(1), 14-22.

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

Suggest Corrections to References