Pedagogy 2.0 in Pre-Service Teacher Education

Tami Seifert*
Senior Lecturer, Kibbutzim College of Education, Tel-Aviv.
Periodicity:October - December'2017
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.14.3.13856

Abstract

The article reviews the use of Web 2.0 environment in teacher education, emphasizing the constructivist social pedagogy approach. Pedagogical abilities of Web 2.0 tools are discussed, demonstrating their applications in teaching various subjects, especially to assist collaborative and creative learner-oriented teaching. Contributions of these tools to teaching-learning are described in three collaborative environments-based courses. The tools included: forums, collaborative synchronous lectures, Wiki environment, a closed Facebook group, blog writing, collaborative documents writing, using smartphones in lessons and location-based activities, class YouTube channel for studentteachers' clips and debates, structuring collaborative knowledge and online anonymous peer assessment regarding discussion on digital citizenship, group data collection through surveys etc. Intertwining various environments to assist course teaching increased student-teachers' awareness of effective exploitation of these environments for teaching objectives. Pedagogical considerations for choice of tools, environments, and applications are discussed. Conclusions relate to the contributions of ICT, contents, and pedagogy integration to teacher education.

Keywords

Web 2.0, Web 2.0 Tools, Pedagogy 2.0, Collaborative Tools, 21 Century Skills, Pre-service Teacher Education, Learning Design, Constructivist Pedagogy

How to Cite this Article?

Seifert, T. (2017). Pedagogy 2.0 in Pre-Service Teacher Education. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 14(3), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.14.3.13856

References

[1]. Berners-Lee, T. (2000). Weaving the Web. New York: HarperCollins
[2]. Boettcher, J. V. (2006). The rise of student performance content. Campus Technology (February 28). http://campustechnology.com/articles/40747/ (accessed October 3, 2012).
[3]. Bruns, A. ( 2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
[4]. CDW-G (2011). 21st-Century Classroom Report. Retrieved, December 26, 2011 from: http://www.nitle.org/live/files/40-2011-nitle-summit-report
[5]. Conole, G., & Culver, J. (2010). The design of Cloudworks: Applying social networking practice to foster the exchange of learning and teaching ideas and designs. Computers and Education, 54(3) ,679–692.
[6]. Conole, G., Oliver, M., Falconer, I., Littlejohn, A., & Harvey, J. (2007). Designing for learning. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Ed.), Contemporary Perspectives in E-learning Research: Themes, Methods and Impact on Practice (Open and Distance Learning Series). RoutledgeFalmer
[7]. Crook, C., Fisher, T., Graber, R., Harrison, C., &Lewin , C. (2008). Implementing Web 2.0 in secondary schools: Impacts, barriers and issues. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from Becta website: http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/web2_benefits_barriers.pdf
[8]. Daggett, W.R. (2005). Preparing Students for their Future . Retrieved December 1, 2011 from: http://www.leadered.com/pdf/Preparing%20Students%20for%20Tech%20Future%20white%20paper.pdf
[9]. Gibson, J. J. (1977). Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology. The Theory of Affordances, 67-82.
[10]. Goktas, Y., Gedik, N., & Baydas, O. (2013). Enablers and barriers to the use of ICT in primary schools in Turkey: A comparative study of 2005-2011. Computers & Education, 68, 211–222.
[11]. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
[12]. Kear, K. (2011). Online and Social Networking Communities: A Best Practice Guide for Educators. Routledge.
[13]. Keeves, J. P. (Ed.). (1988). Educational Research, Methodology and Measurement: An International Handbook. Pergamon.
[14]. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). (Lee Shulman - 1987) What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
[16]. McLuhan, M., & Barrington N, (1972). Take Today: The Executive as Dropout. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
[17]. Nikolopoulou, K., & Gialamas, V. (2016). Barriers to ICT use in high schools: Greek teachers' perceptions. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(1), 59-75.
[18]. Odom, L. (2010). Mapping Web 2.0 Benefits to Known Best Practices in Distance Education. An Online Learning Magazine for UMUC Faculty Center for Support of Instruction . Retrieved January 27, 2011. http://deoracle.org/online-pedagogy/emergingtechnologies/mapping-newly-identified–web2-benefits.html
[19]. Palfrey, J. G., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives.
[20]. Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37(2), 163–178.
[21]. Prensky, M. (2009). H. Sapiens digital: From digital natives and digital immigrants to digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(3), Retrieved, December 26, 2011 from: http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705
[24]. Rogers, P. C., Liddle, S. W., Chan, P., Doxey, A., & Isom, B. (2007). A Web 2.0 learning platform: Harnessing collective intelligence. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education , 8(3), 16-33. Retrieved from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde27/articles/article_1.htm (accessed October 3, 2012).
[25]. Salomon, G. (2009). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: Some issues to be concerned with. Research Dialogue, 1(1), 1-12.
[26]. Seifert, T. (2015). Pedagogical applications of smartphone integration in teaching: Lecturers, pre-service teachers and pupils' perspectives. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 7(2), 1-16.
[27]. Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Lulu Press.
[28]. Sheely, S. (2006). Persistent technologies: Why can't we stop lecturing online? In Who's learning? Whose rd technology? Proceedings of the 23 ASCILITE Conference, eds. L. Markauskaite, P. Goodyear, and P. Reimann, 769-774 . Sydney : CoCo , University of Sydney. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p167.pdf (accessed October 3, 2012).
[29]. Tammets, K., Väljataga, T., & Pata, K. (2008). Selfdirecting at social spaces: conceptual framework for course design. Proceedings of Ed-Media 2008. Vienna: AACE, 2008.
[30]. Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
[31]. Van Melle, E., Cimellaro, L., & Shulha, L. (2003). A dynamic framework to guide the implementation and evaluation of educational technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 8(3), 267–285.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.