Meeting the Demands of the 21st Learner - Delivering Elementary Science and Math Methods Courses Online an Auto-ethnographic Approach

Cleveland Hayes, Andy K. Steck, David R. Perry

2014

Abstract

In the last two decades, online enrollment in higher education has increased substantially. As more students enroll in courses, Universities may find that the demand within the institution will grow beyond current offerings. Within the field of teacher education, hundreds of online course offerings in teacher preparation programs worldwide are offered. The advantages to online versus face-to-face courses are numerous. Despite the marked increase in online course offerings and enrollment, however, some obstacles do exist in online classes. A review of recent literature indicated a need to study the challenges faced by faculty who teach hybrid courses and the need to better understand what constitutes quality online education. So, the importance of this research is how do teacher preparation programs meet the demands and charges of institutions while maintaining quality of instruction. Using autoethographic methods, two professors who teach elementary science methods and elementary math methods chronicle how they begin to address the challenges in online teaching and how they overcame those challenges to meet the needs of the 21st century learner. The participants in this study describe how they apply constructivist concepts solely online. These outcomes are what we call the call the good, the bad and the ugly.

References

  1. Allen, E., Seaman, J., Lederman, D., and Jaschik, S. 2012. Conflicted: Faculty and Online Education, 2012. A Joint Project of The Babson Survey Research Group and Inside Higher Ed.
  2. Asbell-Clarke, J., & Rowe, E. 2007. Learning science online: a descriptive study of online science courses for teachers. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(3), 95-121.
  3. Barker, B. O., & Dickson, M. W. 1993. Aspects of successful practice for working with college faculty in distance learning programs. Education Journal, 8(2), J-6.
  4. Boerema, C., Stanley, M., & Westhorp, P. 2000. Educators' perspective of online course design and delivery. Medical Teacher, 29(8), 758-765.
  5. Brown, W., & Corkill, P. 2007. Mastering online education. American School Board Journal, 40-42.
  6. Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of Meaning Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  7. Chen, G., F. Wei, C. Wang and J. Lee. 2007. Extending ebook with contextual knowledge recommender for reading support on a web-based learning system. International Journal on E-learning 6 (4): 605-622.
  8. Douglas, K. and Carless, D. 2013. A history of.
  9. du Preez, J. 2008. Locating the researcher in the research: personal narrative and.
  10. reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 9(4), 509-519.
  11. Dziuban, C., Shea, P., and Arbaugh, J. B. 2005. Faculty rolesand satisfaction in asynchronous learning networks. In Learning Together Online: Research on Asynchronous Learning Networks, edited by S. R. Hiltz and R. Goldman,pp. 169-190. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Harmer, A. J., & Cates, W. 2007. Designing for Learner Engagement in Middle School Science: Technology, Inquiry, and the Hierarchies of Engagement. Computers In The Schools, 24(1/2), 105-124.
  13. Hayes, C., Juarez, B.G., & Cross, P.T. 2011. What can we learn from Big Mama? Critical Education, 2(14).
  14. Hilgenberg, C., & Tolone, W. 2000. Student perceptions of satisfaction and opportunities for critical thinking in distance education by interactive video. The American Journal of Distance Education,14(3).
  15. Hughes, G. 2007. Using blended learning to increase learner support and improve retention. Teaching in Higher Education 12 (3): 349-363.
  16. Jonassen, D. H. and L. Rohrer-Murphy. 1999. Activity theory as a framework for.
  17. designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology, Research and Development 47 (1): 61-80.
  18. Kirby, D. M., & Chugh, U. 1993. Two views from the bridge: A comparison of the perceptions of students and instructors of elements in the audioteleconferencing environment. Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 1-17.
  19. Miller, K. W. (2008). Teaching Science Methods Online: Myths about Inquiry-based Online Learning. Science Educator, 17(2), 80-86.
  20. National Center for Education Statistics. 2008. Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006-07. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
  21. Norton, P. and Hathaway, D. 2008. Exploring Two Teacher Education Online Learning Designs: A Classroom of One or Many? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 475-495.
  22. O'Malley, J., & McCraw, H. 1999, Winter. Students perceptions of distance learning, online learning and the traditional classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(4). State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center. Retrieved July 11, 2012, from http://www.westga.edu/ distance/omalley24.html.
  23. Owen, H. 2010. The Trials and Triumphs of.
  24. Adapting a Tertiary face-to-face Course to Online Distance Mode. Practice and Evidence of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 5(2), 137-155.
  25. Pais, J. 1998. Constructivism: Communicating mathematics using heterogeneous language and reasoning. Retrieved from Drexel University July 10, 2012 from http://interactivmathvision.com/ PaisPortfolio/CKMPer spective/Constructivism.
  26. Prineas, M. & Cini, M. 2011. Assessing Learning in Online Education: The Role of Technology in Improving Student Outcomes. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment October 2011. Occasional Paper # 12.
  27. Quicke, J. 2010. Narrative strategies in educational research: reflections on a critical.
  28. autoethnography. Educational Action Research, 18(2), 239-254.
  29. Reed-Danahy, D. E. 1997. Auto/Ethnography: Rewriting the self and the social. New.
  30. Shelton, K. & Saltsman, G. (2005). An.
  31. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2011. The Condition of Education 2011(NCES 2011-033), Indicator 43.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Hayes C., K. Steck A. and R. Perry D. (2014). Meeting the Demands of the 21st Learner - Delivering Elementary Science and Math Methods Courses Online an Auto-ethnographic Approach . In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 3: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-758-022-2, pages 130-134. DOI: 10.5220/0004961801300134


in Bibtex Style

@conference{csedu14,
author={Cleveland Hayes and Andy K. Steck and David R. Perry},
title={Meeting the Demands of the 21st Learner - Delivering Elementary Science and Math Methods Courses Online an Auto-ethnographic Approach},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 3: CSEDU,},
year={2014},
pages={130-134},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004961801300134},
isbn={978-989-758-022-2},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 3: CSEDU,
TI - Meeting the Demands of the 21st Learner - Delivering Elementary Science and Math Methods Courses Online an Auto-ethnographic Approach
SN - 978-989-758-022-2
AU - Hayes C.
AU - K. Steck A.
AU - R. Perry D.
PY - 2014
SP - 130
EP - 134
DO - 10.5220/0004961801300134