Vol. 35 No. 1 (2020): Special Issue on Technology and Teacher Education
Special Issue

The Case for Digital Timelines in Teaching and Teacher Education

PDF HTML EPUB
  • Isha DeCoito,
  • Stefano Vacca
Isha DeCoito
Western University
Bio
Stefano Vacca
Western University
Bio

Published 2020-10-30

How to Cite

DeCoito, I., & Vacca, S. (2020). The Case for Digital Timelines in Teaching and Teacher Education. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 35(1). Retrieved from https://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1171
Copyright Notice

Abstract

Abstract

Digital timelines have been both transformational and supportive in enhancing the ways in which information is shared through text, images, interaction, and creativity to achieve course goals and objectives across numerous disciplines. In analyzing the experiences of teacher candidates (TCs) in their creation of a variety of resources to address the development of their digital competencies, it is worthwhile to further explore the design and effectiveness of one resource in particular, digital timelines. Thus, the aim of this paper is to explore TCs’ development of digital timelines in a senior science methods course and to demonstrate the ways in which digital timelines can assist educators in their practice. Through surveys, interviews, and student coursework, the author examines TCs’ attitudes towards technology, experiences with creating digital timelines, and their utilization of technology to promote and foster global skills and competencies. Findings of this study indicate beneficial effects of developing digital timelines including flexibility in achieving a variety of learning goals (including multi-scale analyses, visualizing different spatial and temporal arrangements, developing historical contexts, etc.) associated with the assignment, flexibility in application and actualization, and enhanced motivation and engagement. TCs engaged in knowledge construction as they created visually-enhancing and interactive timelines, and in doing so circumvented reducing, simplifying, and imposing linearity on complex scientific discoveries in the history of the discipline. TCs achieved success in developing scientific timelines that effectively immersed their peers in dynamic multimedia learning environments offering multiple sources of text, images, games, video, and audio, among other multimodal components.

Key Words: digital timelines; teacher candidate; teacher education; 21st century skills

Résumé

Les ligne du temps numériques ont été à la fois transformationnelles et favorables en améliorant la manière dont les informations sont partagées à travers le texte, les images, l'interaction et la créativité pour atteindre les objectifs du cours dans de nombreuses disciplines. En analysant les expériences des candidats enseignants (TC) dans leur création d'une variété de ressources pour aborder le développement de leurs compétences numériques, il vaut la peine d'explorer plus avant la conception et l'efficacité d'une ressource en particulier, les ligne du temps numériques. Ainsi, l’objectif de cet article est d’explorer le développement par les CT de ligne du temps numériques dans un cours de méthodes scientifiques de haut niveau et de démontrer les façons dont les ligne du temps numériques peuvent aider les éducateurs dans leur pratique. Au moyen d’enquêtes, d’entretiens et de cours d’étudiants, l’auteur examine l’attitude des TC à l’égard de la technologie, les expériences de création de ligne du temps numériques et leur utilisation de la technologie pour promouvoir et favoriser les compétences et compétences mondiales. Les résultats de cette étude indiquent les effets bénéfiques de l'élaboration de ligne du temps numériques, y compris la flexibilité pour atteindre une variété d'objectifs d'apprentissage (y compris des analyses multi-échelles, la visualisation de différents arrangements spatiaux et temporels, le développement de contextes historiques, etc.) associés à la mission, la flexibilité dans l'application et actualisation, et une motivation et un engagement accrus. Les CT se sont engagés dans la construction des connaissances en créant des ligne du temps interactifs et améliorant visuellement et, ce faisant, ont contourné la réduction, la simplification et l'imposition de linéarité sur des découvertes scientifiques complexes dans l'histoire de la discipline. Les CT ont réussi à développer des ligne du temps scientifiques qui immergeaient efficacement leurs pairs dans des environnements d'apprentissage multimédias dynamiques offrant de multiples sources de texte, d'images, de jeux, de vidéo et d'audio, entre autres composants multimodaux.

Mots-clés: chronologies numériques; candidat enseignant; formation des enseignants; compétences du 21e siècle

PDF HTML EPUB

References

  1. Aldunate, R., & Nussbaum, M. (2013). Teacher adoption of technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 519–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.017
  2. Bang, E., & Luft, J. (2013). Secondary science teachers’ use of technology in the classroom during their first 5 years. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2013.10784715
  3. Baturay, M. H., Gökçearslan, Ş., & Şahin, Ş. (2017, April 15). Associations among teachers' attitudes towards computer-assisted education and TPACK competencies. Informatics in Education, 16(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2017.01
  4. Belshaw, D. (2011). The essential elements of digital literacies. http://dougbelshaw.com/ebooks/digilit/
  5. Bolstad, T., Gilbert, J., McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S., & Hipkins, R. (2012). Supporting future oriented learning and teaching: A New Zealand perspective. New Zealand Council for Educational Research. https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/supporting-future-oriented-learning-and-teaching-a-new-zealand-perspective
  6. Bullock S. (2016) Digital technologies in teacher education. In C. Kosnik, S. White, C. Beck, B. Marshall, A. L. Goodwin, & J. Murray (Eds.), Building bridges (pp. 2–16). Sense Publishers.
  7. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Introduction: Multiliteracies. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Routledge.
  8. Cox, T. (2008). Learning styles and students’ attitudes toward the use of technology in higher and adult education classes. Institute for Learning Styles Journal, 1, 1–13. https://www.auburn.edu/academic/education/ilsrj/PreviousIssues/PDFs/Fall2008.pdf
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). SAGE.
  10. Dagienė, V. (2011). Development of ICT competency in pre-service teacher education. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 2(2), 1–10. http://doi.org/10.4018/jdldc.2011040101
  11. Davies, J., & Merchant, G. (2014). Digital literacy and teacher education. In P. Benson & A. Chik (Eds.), Popular culture, pedagogy and teacher education: International perspectives (pp. 180–193). Routledge.
  12. DeCoito, I. (2014). Teaching about the nature of science through digital scientific timelines. In P. D. Morrell & K. Popejoy (Eds.), A few of our favorite things: Teaching ideas for K-12 science methods instructors. Sense Publishers.
  13. DeCoito, I. (2017). Addressing digital competencies, curriculum development, and instructional design in science teacher education. Encyclopedia of information science and technology (pp. 1–12). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2255-3.ch122
  14. DeCoito, I. (2020). The use of digital technologies to enhance learners’ conceptions of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 343–358). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_19
  15. DeCoito, I., & Richardson, T. (2016). Using technology to enhance science literacy, mathematics literacy, or technology literacy: Focusing on integrated STEM concepts in a digital game. In M. Urban & D. Falvo (Eds.), Improving K-12 STEM education outcomes through technological integration (pp. 1–23). IGI Global.
  16. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9616-7.ch001
  17. DeCoito, I., & Richardson, T. (2017). Beyond Angry Birds™: Using web-based tools to engage learners and promote inquiry in STEM learning. In I. Levin & D. Tsybulsky (Eds.), Digital tools and solutions for inquiry-based STEM learning (pp. 166–196). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2525-7.ch007
  18. DeCoito, I., & Richardson, T. (2018). Teachers and technology in STEM education—Present practice and future directions. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 362–378. https://citejournal.org/volume-18/issue-2-18/science/teachers-and-technology-present-practice-and-future-directions
  19. DeCoito, I., & Briona, L. (in press). Navigating theory and practice: Digital video games (DVGs) in STEM education. In V. Akerson and G. Buck (Eds.), Critical questions in STEM education. Springer.
  20. Dede, C. (2014). The role of digital technologies in deeper learning. Students at the center: Deeper learning research series. Jobs for the Future. https://jfforg-prod-prime.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/The-Role-of-Digital-Technologies-in-Deeper-Learning-120114.pdf
  21. Evans, R., & Bradley, S. (2019). Time travelling with timelines: Web apps for storytelling in libraries. Computers in Libraries, 39(6), 17–21. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/law_lib_artchop/43
  22. Galili, I. (2018). Scientific knowledge as a culture: A paradigm for meaningful teaching and learning of science. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), History, philosophy and science teaching: New perspectives. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62616-1_8
  23. Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012, November). The impact of digital technology on learning: A summary for the Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Presentations/Publications/The_Impact_of_Digital_Technologies_on_Learning_(2012).pdf
  24. Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160–189. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312026002160
  25. Hug, B. Krajcik, J. S., & Marx, R. W. (2005). Using innovative learning technologies to promote learning and engagement in urban science classrooms. Urban Education, 40(4), 446–472. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0042085905276409
  26. International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=42513&v=2a53e184
  27. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241–267. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0091732X07310586
  28. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?
  29. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. https://citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/general/what-is-technological-pedagogicalcontent-knowledge
  30. Kräutli, F. (2016). Visualising cultural data: Exploring digital collections through timeline visualisations [Doctoral thesis, Royal College of Art, London, UK]. https://researchonline.rca.ac.uk/1774/1/kra%CC%88utli_florian_thesis_phd_2016.pdf
  31. Lemieux, A., & Rowsell, J. (2020). Taking a wide-angled view of contemporary digital literacy. In O. Erstad, R. Flewitt, B. Kümmerling-Meibauer, & Í. Pereira (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of digital literacies in early childhood (pp. 453–462). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203730638
  32. Lemke, J. (2004). Why study digital game worlds? Notes toward a basic research agenda for learning technologies. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jaylemke/games.htm
  33. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Inquiry and technology. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education. Lawrence Erlhaum Associates, Inc.
  34. Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development. University of Glasgow, Scotland. ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol5iss4/martin-grudziecki.pdf
  35. Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. [Eds.]. (2010). Encyclopedia of case study research. Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397
  36. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=12516
  37. O'Neill, M. (2015). Old stories and new visualizations: Digital timelines as public history projects (Publication No. 1588638) [Master’s thesis, Temple University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1687222535).
  38. Ontario Ministry of Education [OME]. (2016). Twenty-first century competencies. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. http://www.edugains.ca/resources21CL/About21stCentury/21CL_21stCenturyCompetencies.pdf
  39. Opfermann, M., Schmeck, A., & Fischer, H. E. (2017). Multiple representations in physics and science education—Why should we use them? In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & H. E. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple representations in physics education (pp. 1–22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5_1
  40. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2013). Trends shaping education 2013. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2013-en
  41. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world. The OECD PISA global competence framework. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf
  42. Pangrazio, L. (2018). Young people’s literacies in the digital age: Continuities, conflicts and contradictions. Routledge.
  43. Pearson, G., & Young, A. T. (Eds.). (2002). Technically speaking. Why all Americans need to know more about technology. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10250
  44. Picard, D., & Bruff, D. (2016). Digital timelines. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/digital-timelines/
  45. Plomp, T. (2013). Preparing education for the information society: The need for new knowledge and skills. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSMILE.2013.051651
  46. Pringle, R. M., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2015). Integrating science and technology: Using technological pedagogical content knowledge as a framework to study the practices of science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 648–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9553-9
  47. Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 186–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1052663
  48. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3
  49. Schellinger, J., Mendenhall, A., Alemanne, N., Southerland, S. A., Sampson, V., & Marty, P. (2019). Using technology-enhanced inquiry-based instruction to foster the development of elementary students’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09771-1
  50. Schnotz, W. (2014). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 72-103). Cambridge University Press.
  51. Schutz, P. A., Chambless, C. B., & DeCuir, J. T. (2004). Multimethods research. In K. B. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences: Frameworks for knowing and doing (pp. 267–281). Erlbaum.
  52. Sedivy-Benton, A.L., & Leland, K.M. (2014). The impact of technology on PK-12 teacher preparation programs. In V. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of research on education and technology in a changing society (pp. 235–245). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6046-5.ch018
  53. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X015002004
  54. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2008). Teacher self-efficacy: Conceptual analysis and relations with teacher burnout and perceived school context. In R. Craven, H. W. Marsh, & D. McInerney (Eds.), Self-processes, learning, and enabling human potential (pp. 223–247). Information Age Publishing.
  55. Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: Web-based Inquiry in the classroom. Teachers’ College Press.
  56. Sorensen, P., Twidle, J., Childs, A., & Godwin, J. (2007). The use of the internet in science teaching: A longitudinal study of developments in use by student-teachers in England. International Journal of Science Education, 29(13), 1605–1627. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601137676
  57. Spires, H. A., Wiebe, E., Young, C. A., Hollebrands, K., & Lee, J. K. (2012). Toward a new learning ecology: Professional development for teachers in 1:1 learning environments. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 12(2), 232–254. https://citejournal.org/volume-12/issue-2-12/current-practice/toward-a-new-learning-ecologyprofessional-development-for-teachers-in-11-learning-environments
  58. Thiry, E., Lindley, S., Banks, R., & Regan, T. (2013, April). Authoring personal histories: Exploring the timeline as a framework for meaning making. Proceedings of the 2013 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2013), 1619–1628. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466215
  59. Twyman, T., McCleery, J., & Tindal, G. (2006). Using concepts to frame history with explicit instruction. Journal of Experimental Education, 74(4), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.74.4.329-350
  60. Varier, D., Dumke, E. K., Abrams, L. M., Conklin, S. B., Barnes, J. S., & Hoover, N. R. (2017). Potential of one-to-one technologies in the classroom: Teachers and students weigh in. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 967–992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9509-2
  61. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge—a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
  62. Willingham, D. (2010, Summer). Have technology and multitasking rewired how students learn? American Educator, 23–28. https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/willingham-summer-10.pdf
  63. Wilson, E., Wright, V., & Peirano, A. (2007). The impact of using digital timelines in the social studies classroom. Social Studies Research and Practice, 2(2), 169–179. https://www.socstrpr.org/?page_id=507
  64. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312039001165
  65. Zhang, Z., & Martinovic, D. (2008). ICT in teacher education: Examining needs, expectations and attitudes. The Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2WK5T
  66. Zhao, F., Schnotz, W., Wagner, I., & Gaschler, R. (2019). Text and pictures serve different functions in conjoint mental model construction and adaptation. Memory & Cognition, 48(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00962-0
  67. Zhao, Y., Wehmeyer, M., Basham, J., & Hansen, D. (2019). Tackling the wicked problem of measuring what matters: Framing the questions. ECNU Review of Education, 2(3), 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2096531119878965