INCREASINGLY, EDUCATORS AND PRE-SERVICE teachers studying to become educators are called to present evidence of their teaching practice and the development of their pedagogic skills. Traditionally this evidence was likely to be printed, with pen and paper notes or typed examples. However, technology such as mobile and tablet devices and cloud storage is enabling new forms of evidence. This study was designed to examine how pre-service teachers develop a digital teaching portfolio incorporating multi-modal evidence linked to accreditation standards. This paper examines survey data, focus group responses and work samples to explore how 213 pre-service teachers use technology to document their work and pedagogic engagement. In examining the nature of ‘evidence’ we have adapted Bronfenbrenner's ecological framework (1979, 1993) to investigate pre-service teachers' perceptions of evidence of learning and explore their concerns with using technology to document learning and facilitate teacher accreditation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AubreyC., & DahlS. (2014). The confidence and competence in information and communication technologies of practitioners, parents and young children in the early years Foundation stage. Early Years, 34(1), 94–108.
BennettS., MatonK., & KervinL. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.
5.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The ecology of human development. Experiments by nature and design.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BronfenbrennerU. (1993). Ecological models of human development. In GauvainM. & ColeM. (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp. 37–43). New York, NY: Freeman.
7.
ClintonK., PurushotmaR., RobisonA. J., & WeigelM. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st Century.Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
8.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches.Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
9.
CrockettC. (2010). Collaborating for education: The dynamic citizenry. Education Digest, 76(4), 34–37.
10.
DietzeB., & KashinD. (2013). Shifting views: Exploring potential for technology integration in early childhood education programs. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(4), 1–12.
11.
EdwardsS. (2015). Digital technologies in early childhood education. In HendersonM. & RomeoG. (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 282–292). Melbourne, Vic.: Cambridge University Press.
12.
EdwardsS., HendersonM., GronnD., ScottA., & MirkhilM. (2016). Digital disconnect or digital difference? A socio-ecological perspective on young children's technology use in the home and the early childhood centre. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 1–17.
13.
HastingsR. (2010). A year with Google apps. Computers in Libraries, 30(4), 12–16.
14.
IsaacsE., KonradA., WalendowskiA., LennigT., HollisV., & WhittakerS. (2013). Echoes from the past: How technology mediated reflection improves well-being. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1071–1080). New York, NY: ACM. Retrieved, from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2466137.
15.
JohnsonL., Adams BeckerS., EstradaV., & FreemanA. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition.Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
16.
JonassenD., HowlandJ., MooreJ., & MarraR. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
17.
LinX., HmeloC., KinzerC. K., & SeculesT. J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43–62.
18.
LongS. A. (2005). Digital natives: If you aren't one, get to know one. New Library World, 106(3/4), 187–189.
19.
PlumbM., & KautzK. (2015). Innovation determinants and barriers: A tri-perspective analysis of IT appropriation within an early childhood education and care organisation. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 19, 1–22.
20.
PrenskyM. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
21.
Project Tomorrow. (2012). From chalkboards to tablets: The emergence of the K–12 digital learner. Speak Up 2012 National Findings K–12 Students.Irvine, CA: Project Tomorrow. Retrieved from www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU12-Students.pdf.
22.
SaitoT. (2014). Fostering collaboration via Google apps. PowerPoint presented at the 19th Annual Technology, Colleges, and Community Worldwide Online Conference. Retrieved, from http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/32934.
23.
SchönD. A. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 27–34.
