More than 20 years have passed since the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University first conceptualized and began to explore how to effectively operationalize cognitive learning theory in applied instructional settings, innovatively infusing their model with emerging technologies. Yet, to date a comprehensive review of findings on the multimedia anchored instruction (MAI) model has not been conducted. This synthesis of the literature isolates a small segment of that literature: intervention studies in which MAI was implemented with preservice teachers to increase knowledge, support revisions of beliefs discordant with effective teaching practice, develop skills, and foster transfer. Findings revealed that MAI is an effective service delivery model for meeting these preservice teacher education goals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the literature analysis.
2.
*AbellS. K.BryanL. A.AndersonM. A. (1998). Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation. Science Teacher Education, 82, 491–510.
3.
*AndersonD. H. (2002). Effects of a CD-ROM training program to teach elementary education teachers to conduct descriptive analyses of problem behavior in their classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utah State University, Logan.
4.
*AndersonL. M.BirdT. (1995). How three prospective teachers constructed three cases of teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11, 479–499.
5.
BaguiS. (1998). Reasons for increased learning using multimedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(3), 3–18.
6.
*BarnettM. (2006). Using a web-based professional development system to support preservice teachers in examining authentic classroom practice. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 701–729.
7.
BarronL.GoldmanE. (1994). Integrating technology with teacher preparation. In MeansB. (Ed.), Technology and education reform (pp. 81–110). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8.
*BeckR. J.KingA.MarshallS. K. (2002). Effects of videocase construction on preservice teachers' observations of teaching. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 345–361.
9.
BlackhurstA. E.MorseT. E. (1996). Using AI to teach about assistive technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 11, 131–141.
10.
*BolingE. C. (2007). Linking technology, learning, and stories: Implications from research on hypermedia video-cases. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 189–200.
11.
BooteD. N.BeileP. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15.
12.
BransfordJ. D.BrophyS.WilliamsS. (2000). When computer technologies meet the learning sciences: Issues and opportunities. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 59–84.
13.
BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L.CockingR. R. (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
14.
BransfordJ. D.SherwoodR. D.HasselbringT. S.KinzerC. K.WilliamsS. (1990). AI: Why we need it and how technology can help. In NixD.SpiroR. (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115–141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
BrophyJ. (Ed.). (2003). Using video in teacher education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
16.
BrownJ. S.CollinsA.DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.
17.
*BrunvandS.FishmanB. (2006). Investigating the impact of the availability of scaffolds on preservice teachers noticing and learning from video. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35, 151–174.
18.
ClarkR. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459.
19.
ClarkR. E. (1994). Media and method. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 7–10.
20.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University. (1990). AI and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19 (5), 2–10.
21.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University. (1991). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 31(5), 34–40.
22.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University. (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Design, 40, 65–80.
23.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University. (1993). AI and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33, 52–70.
24.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University. (1994). From visual word problems to learning communities: Changing conceptions of cognitive research. In McGillyK. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 157–200). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
25.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
CondermanG.MorinJ.StephensJ. T. (2005). Special education student teaching practices. Preventing School Failure, 49(3), 5–10.
27.
*DanielP. (1996). Helping beginning teachers link theory to practice: An interactive multimedia environment for mathematics and science teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 197–204.
28.
DeweyJ. (1998). Experience and education. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi. (Original work published 1938.)
29.
DoveM. K. (2004). Teacher attrition: A critical American and international education issue. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 71(1), 8–30.
30.
*FitzgeraldG.SemrauL. P. (1998). The effects of learner differences on usage patterns and learning outcomes with hypermedia case studies. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7, 309–331.
31.
FooteC. J.Cook-CottoneC. P. (2004). Field experiences in high-need, urban settings: Analysis of current practice and insights for change. The Urban Review, 36, 189–210.
32.
GerstenR.VaughnS.DeschlerD. D.SchillerE. (1997). What we know about using research findings. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 466–476.
33.
GoorM. B.SantosK. S. (2002). To think like a teacher: Cases for special education interns and novice teachers. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
34.
GreenwoodC. R.MaheadyL. (1997). Measurable change in student performance: Forgotten standard in teacher preparation?Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 265–275.
35.
GrossmanP. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In Cochran-SmithM.ZeichnerK. M. (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 425–476). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
*HerringtonJ.OliverR. (1999). Using situated learning and multimedia to investigate higher-order thinking. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10, 3–24.
37.
*HewittJ.PedrettiE.BenczeL.VaillancourtD.YoonS. (2003). New applications for multimedia cases: Promoting reflective practice in preservice teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11, 483–500.
38.
HollinsE.GuzmanM. T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In SmithM. C.ZeichnerK. (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 477–548). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39.
HollingsworthH. (2005, August). Learning about teaching and teaching about learning: Using video data for research and professional development. Paper presented at the meeting of the Australian Council for Educational Research, Using Data to Support Learning, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/research_conferences/2005.html.
40.
*HorvathJ. K.LehrerR. (2000). The design of a case-based hypermedia teaching tool. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 5, 115–141.
41.
HurwitzN.HurwitzS. (2005). The challenge of teacher quality: High standards and expectations must apply to teachers as well as students. American School Board Journal, 194(4), 38–41.
42.
ImigD.ImigS. (2005). The learned report on teacher education. Change, 37(5), 58–65.
43.
JonassenD. H.CampbellJ. P.DavidsonM. E. (1994). Learning with media: Restructuring the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 31–39.
44.
*KoehlerM. J. (2002). Designing case-based hypermedia for developing understanding of children's mathematical reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 151–195.
45.
KoehlerM. J.YadavA.PhillipsM.Cavazos-KottkeS. (2005). What is video good for? Examining how media and story genre interact. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14, 249–272.
46.
KozmaR. B. (1994). A reply: Media and methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 11–14.
47.
KumarD.SherwoodR. (1997). Hypermedia in science and mathematics: Applications in teacher education, problem solving, and student testing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17, 249–262.
48.
*KurzT. L.BatareloI. (2004). Using AI to evaluate mathematical growth and understanding. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33, 421–436.
49.
*LambdinD. V.DuffyT. M.MooreJ. A. (1997). Using an interactive information system to expand preservice teachers' visions of effective mathematics teaching. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 5, 171–202.
50.
LangoneJ.MaloneD. M.SteckerP. M.GreeneE. (1998). A comparison of traditional classroom instruction and AI with university general education students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(4), 99–109.
51.
McLeskyJ.TylerN. C.FlippinS. S. (2004). The supply of and demand for special education teachers: A review of the research regarding the chronic shortage of special education teachers. Journal of Special Education, 38(1) 5–21.
52.
McLeskyJ.WaldronN. L. (2004). Three conceptions of teacher learning: Exploring the relationship between knowledge and the practice of teaching. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 3–14.
53.
National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
54.
*OchoaT. A.KellyM. L.StuartS.Rogers-AdkinsonD. (2004). The impact of PBL technology on the preparation of teachers of English language learners. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(3), 35–46.
55.
OrwinR. G. (1994). Evaluating coding decisions. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 139–162). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
56.
PajaresM. F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
57.
*PengH.FitzgeraldG. E. (2006). Relationships between teacher education students' epistemological beliefs and their learning outcomes in a case-based hypermedia learning environment. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 255–285.
58.
*PT3 Group at Vanderbilt. (2003). Three amigos: Using “anchored modular inquiry” to help prepare future teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51, 105–123.
59.
PraterM. A.SileoT. W. (1998). School-university partnerships in special education field experiences. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 323–337.
60.
PutnamR. T.BorkoH. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 29, 4–15.
61.
ReedJ. C.BaxterP. M. (1994). Using reference databases. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 57–66). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
62.
RichardsonV. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105, 1623–1640.
63.
RussellT.McPhersonS.MartinA. K. (2001). Coherence and collaboration in teacher education reform. Canadian Journal of Education, 26(1), 37–55.
64.
*SchraderP. G.LeuD. J.Jr.KinzerC. K.AtayaR.TealeW. H.LabboL. D.CammackD. (2003). Using Internet delivered video cases to support pre-service teachers' understanding of effective early literacy instruction: An exploratory study. Instructional Science, 31, 317–340.
65.
SchwartzD. L.BrophyS.LinX.BransfordJ. D. (1999). Software for managing complex learning: Examples from an educational psychology course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 39–59.
66.
SharpD. M.BransfordJ. D.GoldmanS. R.RiskoV. J.KinzerC. K.VyeN. J. (1995). Dynamic visual support for story comprehension and mental model building by young, at-risk children. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 25–42.
67.
SherinM. G.van EsE. A. (2002, March). Using video to support teachers' ability to interpret classroom interactions. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Orlando, FL. Retrieved from http://www.aace.org/conf/site/pt3/paper_3008_1031.pdf.
68.
SherwoodR. D.KinzerC. K.HasselbringT. S.BransfordJ. D. (1987). Macro-contexts for learning: Initial findings and issues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 93–108.
69.
ShulmanL. S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of teacher-written cases with commentaries: A teacher–researcher collaboration. In ShulmanJ. H. (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1–33). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
70.
SpiroR. J.CollinsB. P.ThotaJ. J.FeltovichP. J. (2003). Cognitive flexibility theory: Hypermedia for complex learning, adaptive knowledge application, and experience acceleration. Educational Technology, 43(5), 5–10.
71.
SternbergR. J. (2001). Giftedness as developing expertise: A theory of the interface between high abilities and achieved excellence. High Ability Studies, 12, 159–171.
72.
StockW. A. (1994). Systematic coding for research synthesis. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 125–138). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
73.
U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (OTA-HER-616). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
74.
*WangC.-H. (1995). The phenomenon of knowledge transference from a constructive and cognitive-flexible hypermedia learning environment to a real world situation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley.
75.
WangJ.HartleyK. (2003). Video technology as a support for teacher education reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11, 105–138.
76.
WelchM.BrownellK. (2002). Are professionals ready for educational partnerships? The evaluation of a technology-enhanced course to prepare educators for collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 133–144.
77.
WhitakerS. D. (2001). Supporting beginning special education teachers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(4), 1–18.
78.
WhiteH. D. (1994). Scientific communication and literature retrieval. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 41–56). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
79.
WhiteheadA. N. (1929). Aims of education. New York, NY: The Free Press.
80.
WillisJ. (1994). Information technology in teacher education: Surveys of the current status (No. 95–170999). Houston, TX: National Technical Information Service.
81.
WillisJ.ThompsonA.SaderaW. (1999). Research on technology and teacher education: Current status and future directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 29–45.
82.
ZimpherN. L.HoweyK. R. (2005). The politics of partnerships for teacher education redesign and school renewal. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 266–271.
