Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 143–163 | Cite as

University supervisor perspectives of the remote observation of graduate interns

  • Tina L. Heafner
  • Teresa M. Petty
  • Richard Hartshorne
Article
First Online:
  • 310 Downloads

Abstract

The University of North Carolina at Charlotte’s College of Education offers a 100 % online teacher licensure program. One component of the licensure program is the Graduate Internship, which involves the observation of graduate interns’ teaching. With many current and potential students located in more remote areas of the state, the remote observation of graduate interns (ROGI) was developed. Although a technology-based solution to observation barriers, evaluation of the remote observation process was necessary for larger programmatic expansion. Thus, the purpose of this qualitative study was to describe from the experiences of university supervisors who had conducted remote observations for 1 year. Researchers sought to understand, from an administrative perspective, what was gained or lost in substituting ROGI for traditional face to face observations. Drawing from interview data, researchers explore four university supervisors’ feelings about their experiences with ROGI, perceptions of the utility and limitations of ROGI, as well as their comfort in facilitating technology-mediated observations. Additionally, researchers describe university supervisor preferences in comparing face to face observations with ROGI, and examine from university supervisor experiences whether or not they believe the teaching internship semester can be effectively facilitated with technology.

Keywords

Teacher education Student teaching Internship Remote observation Video Distanced education Teacher licensure Online observation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ajayi, L. (2009). An exploration of pre-service teachers’ perceptions of learning to teach while using asynchronous discussion board. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 86–100. [Feature ABI: Y FTI: Y; P].Google Scholar
  2. Annetta, L., & Symansky, J. A. (2008). A comparison of rural elementary school teacher attitudes toward three modes of distance education for science professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(3), 1–16.Google Scholar
  3. Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, R., & Harasim, L. (2005). The online interaction learning model: An integrated theoretical framework for learning networks. In S. R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 19–37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Collias, K., Pajak, E., & Rigden, D. (2000). One cannot teach what one does not know: Training teachers in the United States who know their subjects and know how to teach their subjects. Retrieved from http://curie.umd.umich.edu/TeacherPrep/120.pdf.
  5. Crasborn, F., Hennissen, P., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Bergen, T. (2008). Promoting versatility in mentor teacher’s use of supervisory skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–44.Google Scholar
  7. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darling-Hammond, L., & Ball, D. L. (1997). Teaching for high standards: What policymakers need to know and be able to do. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.Google Scholar
  9. Darling-Hammond, L., Fickel, L., Macdonald, M., Merseth, K., Miller, L., Ruscoe, G., et al. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  11. Diaz, D. P., & Cartnal, R. B. (1999). Students’ learning styles in two classes: Online distance learning and equivalent on-campus. College Teaching, 47(4), 130–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frey, T. (2008). Determining the impact of online practicum facilitation for inservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 181–210.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
  14. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  16. Good, A. J., O’ Connor, K. A., Greene, H. C., & Luce, E. F. (2005). Collaborating across the miles: Telecollaboration in a social studies methods course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(3/4), 300–317.Google Scholar
  17. Hartshorne, R., Heafner, T., & Petty, T. (2011). Examining the effectiveness of the remote observation of graduate interns. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4), 395–422.Google Scholar
  18. Hastie, M., Chen, N. S., & Kuo, Y. H. (2007). Instructional design for best practice in the synchronous cyber classroom. Educational Technology & Society, 10, 281–294.Google Scholar
  19. Hatch, T., & Grossman, P. (2009). Learning to look beyond the boundaries of representation. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heafner, T., Ackerman, T., & Barts, D. (2005). An examination of the relationship between teacher quality and student EOG performance. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  21. Heafner, T., & Petty, T. (2010). Evaluating modes of observations: A comparative study of face to face and synchronous learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
  22. Heafner, T. L., Petty, T. M., & Hartshorne, R. (2012). Moving beyond four walls: Qualitative evaluation of ROGI (remote observation of graduate interns) for the expanding online teacher preparation classroom. In N. A. Alias & S. Hashim (Eds.), Instructional technology research, design and development: Lessons from the field (pp. 370–400). Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Hixon, E., & So, H. J. (2009). Technology’s role in field experiences for preservice teacher training. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 294–304. [Feature ABI: Y FTI: Y; P].Google Scholar
  24. Im, Y., & Lee, O. (2003). Pedagogical implications of online discussion for preservice teacher training. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 155–170.Google Scholar
  25. Jakobsson, A. (2006). Students’ self-confidence and learning through dialogues in a net-based environment. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 387–405. [Feature ABI: Y FTI: Y; P].Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, T. E., Maring, G. H., Doty, J. H., & Fickle, M. (2006). Cybermentoring: Evolving high-end video conferencing practices to support preservice teacher training. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 5(1), 59–74.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, B., Sullivan, A. M., & Williams, D. (2009). A one-eyed look at classroom life: Using new technologies to enrich classroom-based research. Issues in Educational Research, 19(1), 34–47.Google Scholar
  28. Kong, S. C. (2010). Using a web-enabled video system to support student–teachers’ self-reflection in teaching practice. Computers & Education, 55(4),1772–1782.Google Scholar
  29. Lehman, J. D., & Richardson, J. (2007). Linking teacher preparation programs with k-12 schools via video conferencing: Benefits and limitations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://p3t3.education.purdue.edu/AERA2007_Videoconf_Paper.pdf.
  30. Lesley, M. K., Hamman, D., Olivarez, A., Button, K., & Griffith, R. (2009). I’m prepared for anything now: Student teacher and cooperating teacher interaction as a critical factor in determining the preparation of “quality” elementary reading teachers. Teacher Educator, 4(1), 40–55.Google Scholar
  31. Levin, B., He. Y., & Robbins, H. (2006). Comparative analysis of preservice teachers’ reflective thinking in synchronous versus asynchronous online case discussions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 439–460.Google Scholar
  32. Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web. TechTrends, 52(4), 66–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Motiwalla, L., & Tello, S. (2000). Distance learning on the Internet: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(4), 253–264.Google Scholar
  34. Northwest Educational Technology Consortium. (2005). Overview of technology integration in schools. Retrieved from http://www.netc.org/images/pdf/tech.integration.pdf.
  35. O’Connor, D. (2003). Application sharing in K-12 education: Teaching and learning with Rube Goldberg. TechTrends, 47(5), 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Connor, K. A., Good, A. J., & Greene, H. C. (2006). Lead by example: The impact of teleobservation on social studies methods courses. Social Studies Research and Practice, 1(2), 165–178.Google Scholar
  37. Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human Computer Interaction, 15(2), 139–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Olson, G. M., Zimmerman, A., & Bos, N. (Eds.). (2008). Scientific research on the internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/framework_flyer_updated_jan_09_final-1.pdf.
  40. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  41. Petty, T., & Heafner, T. (2009). What is ROGI? Journal of Technology Integration in the Classroom, 1(1), 21–27.Google Scholar
  42. Petty, T., Heafner, T., & Hartshorne, R. (2009). Examining a pilot program for the remote observation of graduate interns. In R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen, & D. A. Willis, (Eds.), 2009 Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Annual: Proceedings of SITE2009 (pp. 2658–2660). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  43. Sanders, W.L., & Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers of future student academic achievement. Retrieved from http://www.mccsc.edu/~curriculum/cumulative%20and%20residual%20effects%20of%20teachers.pdf.
  44. Schulken, M. (2008). The end of brick and mortar era. Charlotte observer. Retrieved from http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2008/09/25/212524/the-end-of-the-bricks-and-mortar.html.
  45. Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to support teachers ability to notice in the classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475–491.Google Scholar
  46. Silverman, D. (1999). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Song, E., Petrushyna, Z., Cao, Y., & Klamma, R. (2011). Learning analytics at large: The lifelong learning network of 160,000 European teachers, towards ubiquitous learning. In Proceedings of 6th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2011, Palermo, Italy, September 20–23, 2011, LNCS (Vol. 6964, pp. 398–411). Springer.Google Scholar
  48. TeacherCertification.org. (2011). Teacher shortage. Retrieved from http://www.teachercertification.org/a/teacher-shortage.html.
  49. Wise, B., & Rothman, R. (2010). Issue brief: The online learning imperative: A solution to three looming crises in education. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  50. Young, A., & Lewis, C. W. (2008). Teacher education programmes delivered at a distance: An examination of distance student perceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 601–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhu, Q., Wang, T., & Yufu, J. (2007). Second life: A new platform for education. Information Technologies and Applications in Education, ISITAE ‘07, 23–25, 201–204.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tina L. Heafner
    • 1
  • Teresa M. Petty
    • 1
  • Richard Hartshorne
    • 2
  1. 1.Middle, Secondary, & K-12 EducationUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational and Human SciencesUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options