Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Teacher development with mobiles: Comparative critical factors

PROSPECTS Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper addresses ways that mobile technologies can be used in teacher development, and focuses on mobile technologies. In particular, it addresses issues of context. It outlines and explores accepted practice and illustrates how mobility invites change and reappraisal of the teacher education process. It places this against a backdrop of current global challenges and questions the validity of existing educational systems in the face of those challenges. It then places mobile technology in the role of digital learning tool rather than content delivery system and explores how teacher education needs to adapt to the context of learning that is presented by increased mobility. Finally, it explores the relationship between knowing and doing in teacher education, acknowledging tension in two areas: first, between the standardisation of practice and the creation of user-defined and user-owned knowledge creation based on interaction with distinct contexts and second, between the social practice of learning through mobility and the ‘otherness’ of formal education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  • Balmer, E., Chowcat, K., Crook, B., Manches, A., Patterson, M., Phillips, A., et al. (2010). Curriculum and pedagogy in technology assisted learning. Coventry: Becta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, M. C., & Radziwill, N. M. (2011). A path for exploring the agile organizing framework in technology education. Paper presented at Agile 2011, Salt Lake City, Utah, 9 August, 2011. http://nicoleradziwill.com/portfolio/BentonRadz_Agile2011AOF.pdf.

  • Berry, M. (2012). The case for agile pedagogy. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2012/may/16/agile-pedagogy-computer-programming-learning.

  • Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (Eds.) (1991). The challenge of problem-based learning. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, B. J. (1999). Islamic versus Western conceptions of education: Reflections on Egypt. International Review of Education, 45(3–4), 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, C. N., Goldberg, D. T., & Jones, Z. M. (2010). The future of thinking: Learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1903). Democracy in education. The Elementary School Teacher, 4(4), 193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Mineola, NY: Courier Dover Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, C. (2001). Nomads and Education for All: Education for development or domestication? Comparative Education, 37(3), 315–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2007). European framework for key competences. Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/key_en.htm.

  • Giroux, H. A. (2001). Theory and resistance in education. London: Bergin & Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, M. (1976). Challenging mystification: Educational foundations in dark times. Educational Studies, 7, 9–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadfield, M., Jopling, M., Royle, K., & Southern, L. (2009). Evaluation of the Training and Development Agency for Schools’ funding for ICT in ITT projects. London: TDA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-wb/20010220130000/http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec00/hase2.htm.

  • Hayes, C., & Williamson, B. (2009). Digital participation, digital literacy and school subjects. Bristol: FutureLab.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, G. (1999). We can’t teach what we don’t know. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hum, S. (1999). “Yes, we eat dog back home”: Contrasting disciplinary discourse and praxis on diversity. JAC, 19(4), 569–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, D., McGonigle, B., Patterson, W., & Tabbiner, B. (2010). Next generation user skills report. Sheffield: Sero Consulting. http://www.digital2020.org.uk/skills/strands/nextgen.

  • Kohlberg, L., & Mayer, R. (1972). Development as the aim of education. Harvard Educational Review, 42(4), 449–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, M. Z. (1992). Conflict and struggle: The enemies or preconditions of basic writing? College English, 54(8), 887–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayes, T., & De Freitas, S. (2004). Effective practice with e-learning. Bristol: JISC. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/effectivepracticedigitalage.pdf.

  • McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the message. New York: Bantam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nekby, L., Rödin, M., & Özcan, G. (2009). Acculturation identity and higher education: Is there a trade-off between ethnic identity and education? International Migration Review, 43(4), 938–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikolic, J., & Gledic, J. (2013). Going agile: Agile methodologies in the education of global citizens. In M. Stiasny & T. Gore (Eds.), Going global: Identifying trends and drivers of international education (pp. 119–127). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, B., & Davey, M. (2010). Technology in education: An agile systems approach. In Proceedings of Informing Science & IT Education Conference (InSITE) 2010 (pp. 297–306). http://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2010/InSITE10p297-306Davey785.pdf.

  • PISA [Programme for International Student Assessment] (2013). Organizational website. www.oecd.org/pisa.

  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2009). H. Sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate 5(3). http://editlib.org/p/104264/.

  • Purpos/ed (2013). Organizational website. http://web.archive.org/web/20130821155343/http://purposed.org.uk/.

  • Redden, R. J. (2012). Agile training: An innovative pedagogical process for educators. Master’s thesis, University of Nebraska at Omaha. http://gradworks.umi.com/15/08/1508663.html.

  • Royle, K., & Hadfield, M. (2012). From ‘posh pen and pad’ to participatory pedagogies: One story of a Netbook implementation project with 108 pupils in two primary schools. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 4(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royle, K., & Nikolic, J. (2012). Tales from the frontline: Introducing SCRUM as pedagogy in higher education. Paper presented at International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI), Madrid, 19 November, 2012.

  • Ryan, J., & Louie, K. (2007). False dichotomy? ‘Western’ and ‘Confucian’ concepts of scholarship and learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39(4), 404–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1973). Beyond the stable state: Public and private learning in a changing society. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1987). The standard of living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J. C., DeCusatis, C. S., Kidder, K., Massi, J. R., & Anne, K. M. (2012). Evaluating agile principles in active and cooperative learning. Paper presented at Student-Faculty Research Day, CSIS, Pace University, 8 May, 2009. csis.pace.edu/~ ctappert/srd2009/b3.pdf.

  • Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., Van Braak, J., Fisser, J. & Voogt, J. (2012). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education: In search of a new curriculum. Educational Studies, 39(2). doi:10.1080/03055698.2012.713548.

  • Traxler, J. (2008). Modernity, mobility and the digital divides. In M. MacPherson (Ed.), Research proceedings of ALT-C2008 (pp. 93–99). Oxford: Association for Learning Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, J. (2009). Education and the impact of mobiles and mobility. In B. Bachmair (Ed.), Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen [Media literacy in new cultural spaces] (pp. 103–113). Weisbaden: VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, J. (2010). Students and mobile devices. ALT-J, Association for Learning Technology Research Journal, 18(2), 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, J. (2013a). mLearning solutions for international development: Rethinking the thinking. Digital Culture and Education. http://www.digitalcultureandeducation.com/uncategorized/traxler_html/.

  • Traxler, J. (2013b). Mobiles for learning in Africa: The elephants in the room. In S. Marshall & W. Kinuthia (Eds.), On the move: Mobile learning for development. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, J. (2013c). Mobile learning: Shaping the frontiers of learning technologies in global context. In R. Huang, J. M. Spector, & Kinshuk (Eds.), Reshaping learning: The frontiers of learning technologies in a global context (415–438). New York: Springer.

  • Traxler, J. (2013d). Mobile learning for languages: Can the past speak to the future? TIRF Mobile Language Learning (MLL) Papers. Monterey, CA: TIRF, the International Research Foundation for English Language Education. http://www.tirfonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/TIRF_MALL_Papers_Traxler.pdf.

  • Traxler, J., et al. (2013). ALT Crisis and Response in Technology Enhanced Learning: Conference symposium. http://altc2013.alt.ac.uk/sessions/tel-crisis-response-342/members/.

  • Traxler, J., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2006). The evaluation of next generation learning technologies: The case of mobile learning. Paper presented at the 13th meeting of the Association for Learning Technology, 5–7 Sept. 2006, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland. In ALT-C2006: The next generation. Research proceedings of ALT-C2006. Oxford: Association for Learning Technology.

  • Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgment. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, J., Bagley, T., Barnyard, P., Dillon, G., Farrington Flint, L., Le Get, J., et al. (2010). Understanding the impact of technology: Learner and school level factors. Coventry: Becta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J., Verlop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, W. H. (1982). Perceiving affordances: The visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 683–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J., & Ireson, G. (2012). Science learning, science teaching (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. (1994). Vocationalism and liberal education: Exploring the tensions. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 28(1), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin/Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, Y., & Stahl, B. C. (2011). Technology, capabilities and critical perspectives: What can critical theory contribute to Sen’s capability approach? Ethics and Information Technology, 13(2), 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zickuhr, K., & Smith, A. (2012). Digital differences. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Digital-differences/Main-Report/Internet-adoption-over-time.aspx.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karl Royle.

Additional information

We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Tutaleni I. Asino, at Penn State University, and Ahmad Aljanazrah, at the University of Birzeit.

About this article

Cite this article

Royle, K., Stager, S. & Traxler, J. Teacher development with mobiles: Comparative critical factors. Prospects 44, 29–42 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-013-9292-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-013-9292-8

Keywords

Navigation