Vol. 31 No. 1 (2016)
Research Articles

Educational Technology in a French Teacher Training University: Teacher Educators 'Voice'

PDF HTML ePub
Author name
  • Maria Antonietta Impedovo
Maria Antonietta Impedovo
Aix-Marseille Université, ENS Lyon, ADEF EA4671, 13248, Marseille, France
Bio

Published 2016-07-22

Keywords

  • Educational technology,
  • instructional technology,
  • ICT integration

How to Cite

Impedovo, M. A. (2016). Educational Technology in a French Teacher Training University: Teacher Educators ’Voice’. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 31(1). Retrieved from https://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/966
Copyright Notice

Abstract

This research examined the use of educational technology in a teaching training university in France and identified useful dynamics related to designing formative activities for the use of educational technology for teacher educators and student-teachers.  The data was gathered by way of a semi-structured interview with four teacher educators, each with different responsibilities and skills.  The transcripts were analysed qualitatively through grounded theory methodology.  We proposed a first data exploration, where main elements in the data were outlined and then critically discussed contrastive categories that emerged.  The findings of our study allowed us to identify elements that support the process of teachers’ appropriation of technological tools and open further spaces to investigate the role of new technologies in the teacher training university.

Cette recherche a examiné l'utilisation de la technologie éducative dans une université de formation des enseignants en France et a identifié des dynamiques utiles liées à la conception d'activités formatives pour l'utilisation de la technologie éducative pour les formateurs d'enseignants et les étudiants-enseignants. Les données ont été recueillies au moyen d'une entrevue semi-structurée avec quatre formateurs d'enseignants, chacun ayant des responsabilités et des compétences différentes. Les transcriptions ont été analysées qualitativement grâce à la méthodologie de la théorie ancrée. Nous avons proposé une première exploration des données, où les éléments principaux dans les données ont été présentés et ensuite, nous avons discuté de façon critique les catégories contrastives qui ont émergé. Les résultats de notre étude nous ont permis d'identifier les éléments qui soutiennent le processus de l'appropriation par les enseignants des outils technologiques et d’ouvrir d'autres espaces pour étudier le rôle des nouvelles technologies dans l'université de formation des enseignants.

PDF HTML ePub
Author name

References

  1. Baylora, A., & Ritchieb, D. (2002). What Factors Facilitate Teacher Skill, Teacher Morale, and Perceived Student Learning in Technology-Using Classrooms? Computers & Education, 39, 395-414.
  2. Bennett, S. J., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the 'Digital Natives' Debate: Towards a More Nuanced Understanding of Students' Technology Experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321-331.
  3. Béziat, J. (2012). Former aux TICE : entre compétences techniques et modèles pédagogiques. International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 9(1- 2), 53-62.
  4. Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing Social Infrastructure: Critical Issues in Creating Learning Environments With Technology. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301-329.
  5. Bruillard, E. (2011). Le déploiement des ENT dans l’enseignement secondaire: entre acteurs multiples, dénis et illusions. Revue française de pédagogie, 177(4), 101-130.
  6. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). Grounded Theory Research: Methods and Practices. In Bryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. Los Angeles: Sage.
  7. Bucheton, D. (2003). Du portfolio au dossier professionnel: éléments de réflexion. Tréma, 20-21.
  8. Carugati, F., & Tomasetto, C. (2002). Le corps enseignant face aux technologies de l’information et de la communication dans les pratiques d’enseignement. Revue des Sciences de l’Education, 28(2), 305-324.
  9. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
  10. Choplin, H., et al. (2007). Quelle recherche sur et pour l'innovation pédagogique. Distances et Savoirs, 4(5), 483-505. DOI 10.3166/ds.5.483-505.
  11. Cook, C., Pachler, N., & Bachmair, B. (2011). Ubiquitous Mobility With Mobile Phones: A Cultural Ecology for Mobile Learning. E-Learning and Digital Media, 8(3), 181-195.
  12. Depover, C., Karsenti, T., & Komis, V. (2007). Enseigner avec les technologies. Favoriser les apprentissages, développer des compétences. Québec, Canada: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
  13. El Bialy, S., & Jalali, A. (2015). Go Where the Students Are: A Comparison of the Use of Social Networking Sites Between Medical Students and Medical Educators. JMIR Medical Education, 1(2), e7.http://doi.org/10.2196/mededu.4908
  14. Fisher, T., Higgins, C., & Loveless, A. (2006). Teachers learning with digital technologies: A review of research and projects. Bristol: Futurelab.
  15. Genevois, S., & Poyet, F. (2010). Espaces numériques de travail (ENT) et « école étendue ».Vers un nouvel espace-temps scolaire? Distances et savoirs, 8(4), 565-583.
  16. Graham, C. R., Tripp, T., & Wentworth, N. (2009). Assessing and Improving Technology Integration Skills for Preservice Teachers Using the Teacher Work Sample. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(1), 39-62.
  17. Hannon, J., Riddle, M., & Ryberg, T. (2014). Assembling University Learning Technologies for an Open World: Connecting Institutional and Social Networks. In S. Bayne, C. Jones, M.de Laat, T. Ryberg, & C. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Networked Learning Conference (pp. 443-452).
  18. Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and Uses Among Members of the “Net Generation”. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92-113.
  19. Henry, J., & Joris, N. (2013). Maîtrise et usage des TIC: La situation des enseignants en Belgique francophone. In B.Drot-Delange, G.-L.Baron et E.Bruillard, Sciences et technologies de l’information et de la communication en milieu éducatif. Clermont-Ferrand, France.
  20. Hsu, S., & Kuan, P. (2012). The Impact of Multilevel Factors on Technology Integration: The Case of Taiwanese Grade 1-9 Teachers and Schools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1-26.
  21. IIomäki, L. (2008). The Effects of ICT on School: Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis B 314.
  22. Impedovo, M. A., Ritella, G., & Ligorio, B. (2013). Developing Codebooks as a New tool for Looking at Students’ ePortfolios. International Journal of ePortfolio, 3(2), 161-176 - ISSN 2157-622X.
  23. Jones, A., & Issroff, K. (2007). Learning Technologies: Affective and Social Issues. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: Themes, methods and impact on practice (pp.190-202). London: Routledge.
  24. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What Happens When Teachers Design Educational Technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
  25. Koh, J. H. L., & Divaharan, S. (2011). Developing Preservice Teachers’ Technology Integration Expertise Through the TPACK-Developing Instructional Model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 35-58.
  26. Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2007). Mobile Usability in Educational Contexts: What Have We Learnt? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. OER Knowledge Cloud.
  27. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
  28. Lantheaume, F., & Simonian, S. (2012). La transformation de la professionnalité des enseignants: Quel rôle du prescrit? Les Sciences de l'éducation - Pour l'Ère nouvelle, 3(45), 17-38. DOI 10.3917/lsdle.453.0017.
  29. Lasky, S. (2005). A Sociocultural Approach to Understanding Teacher Identity, Agency and Professional Vulnerability in a Context of Secondary School Reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 899-916.
  30. Lefebvre, S., & Loiselle, J. (2010). Développer la compétence professionnelle à exploiter les technologies de l’information et de la communication (TIC) en classe: Portrait d’un dispositif de formation. In L.Bélair, C.Lebel, N.Sorin et A.Roy (dir.), Évaluation et régulation des compétences professionnelles: Entre référentiels et pratiques (p. 39-52). Ottawa: Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.
  31. Lipponen, L., Lallimo, J., & Lakkala, M. (2006). Designing Infrastructures for Learning With Technology. In D. Fisher & S. Khine (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to research on learning environment: Worldview (pp. 449-460). Singapore: World Scientific.
  32. Lowther, D., Strahl, J. D., Inan, F. A., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does Technology Integration “Work” When Key Barriers are Removed? Educational Media International, 45, 195-213.
  33. Lund, A., & Rasmussen, I. (2008). The Right Tool for the Wrong Task? Match and Mismatch Between First and Second Stimulus in Double Stimulation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4).
  34. Muir-Herzig, R. (2004). Technology and its Impact in the Classroom. Computers & Education, 42, 111-131.
  35. OECD. (2014). TALIS 2013 Results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  36. Orji, R. (2010). Effect of Academic Discipline on Technology Acceptance. International Conference on Education and Management Technology, 11.
  37. Overdijk, M., & Van Diggelen, W. (2008). Appropriation of a Shared Workspace: Organizing Principles and Their Application. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 165-192.
  38. Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J. (2010). Mobile learning: Structures, agency, practices. New York, NY: Springer.
  39. Pacurar, E., & Abbas, N. (2015). Analysis of French Secondary School Teachers’ Intention to Integrate Digital Work Environments into Their Teaching Practices. Education And Information Technologies, 20(3), 537-557.
  40. Pamuk, S. (2012). Understanding Preservice Teachers' Technology Use Through TPACK Framework. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 425-439.
  41. Raby, C., Karsenti, T., Meunier, H., & Villeneuve, S. (2011). Usage des TIC en pédagogie universitaire: Point de vue des étudiants. Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 8(3), 6-19.
  42. Rey, J., & Coen, P. F. (2012). Evolutions des attitudes motivationnelles des enseignants pour l’intégration des technologies de l’information et de la communication. Formation et profession : Revue scientifique internationale en éducation, 20(2), 26-44.
  43. Ricard-Fersing, E., Dubant-Birglin, M. J., & Crinon, J. (2002). Mémoires professionnels et portfolios dans la formation des enseignants. Une étude comparative. Revue française de pédagogie, 139, 121-129.
  44. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining Teacher Technology Use: Implications for Preservice and Inservice Teacher Preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4).
  45. Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2005). Incorporating Internet Resources into Classroom Practice. Pedagogic Practices and Strategies of Secondary School Subject Teachers. Computers & Education, 44, 1-34.
  46. Sherman, R., End, C., Kraan, E., Cole, A., Campbell, J., Birchmeier, Z., & Klausner, J. (2000). The Internet Gender Gap Among College Students: Forgotten but Not Gone. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3(5), 885-894.
  47. Starkey, L. (2011). Evaluating Learning in the 21st Century: A Digital Age Learning Matrix Technology. Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 19-39.
  48. Tanggaard, L. (2009). The Research Interview as a Dialogical Context for the Production of Social Life and Personal Narratives. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(9), 1498-1515.
  49. Thomsen, L. D., Sørensen, M. T., & Ryberg, T. (2016). Where Have All the Students Gone? They are All on Facebook Now. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning, 2016. ISBN 978-1-86220-324-2.
  50. Tondeurs, J., van Keer, H., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT Integration in the Classroom: Challenging the Potential of a School Policy. Computers & Education, 51, 212-223.
  51. Tuomi, I. (2002). Networks of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  52. Vaidhyanathan, S. (2008). Generational Myth. Not All Young People are Tech-Savvy. The Chronicle Review, 55(4), B7.
  53. Wang, S. K., Hsu, H. Y., Campbell, T., Coster, D. C., & Longhurst, M. (2014). An Investigation of Middle School Science Teachers and Students Use of Technology Inside and Outside of Classrooms: Considering Whether Digital Natives are More Technology Savvy Than Their Teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(6), 637-662.
  54. Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing Computer Technologies: Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 173-207.
  55. Zeichner, K., & Hutchinson, E. (2004). Le rôle du portfolio de l’enseignant comme outil pour identifier et développer les compétences des enseignants. Recherche et formation, 47, 69-78.
  56. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. (2003). Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: An Ecological Perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.