Embracing failure in a first-year technology course
Issue
Section
Keywords:
course design, resilience, failure, innovation, technology, teacher education
Published
Abstract
Although students might expect a technology literacy course to provide them with tool-driven educational experiences, first year students in a teachers college at a large public university in the United States discovered, instead, a course that would move them beyond technology use to reflective development and understanding. The course designers used Dewey’s natural impulses for learning to create a course with a range of innovative assignments and pedagogical approaches. The resulting experience immersed future educators in exploration, scaffolded learning, provided multiple opportunities, and allowed for intellectual and personal growth. In this paper, we will describe the conceptual structure of the course, provide examples of assignments and activities, and describe the use of technology both for pedagogy and instructor interaction and design. We will include samples of students’ work and a description of their experiences based on their reflections.
Downloads
Supporting agencias
NoLicense
Copyright (c) 2020 The authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors publishing in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant in the journal the right of first publication of the work, registered under a Creative Commons acknowledgement licence (CC BY-NC-SA), which allows dissemination with acknowledgement of authorship and first publication in this journal.
- Authors may independently enter into other contractual arrangements to allow publication of the version published in this journal in other media (e.g., in an institutional repository or in a book), with acknowledgement of initial publication in this journal.
- Authors have permission to publish their work online and are encouraged to do so (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, because it can produce good results and lead to the published work receiving more citations (see The Effect of Open Access).
PRIVACY STATEMENT
Names and email addresses on the journal website will only be used for the uses indicated in this journal and will not be made available for any other use or to third parties.
Downloads
References
Athanassoulis, N. (2017). A positive role for failure in virtue education. Journal of Moral Education, 46(4), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2017.1333409
Darabi, A., Arrington, T., & Sayilir, E. (2018). Learning from failure: a meta-analysis of the empirical studies. Educational Technology Research and Development: ETR & D, 66(5), 1101–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9579-9
Dewey, J. (1956). The child and the curriculum; and The school and society (Combined ed., Phoenix books). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (2007). Experience and education. Simon and Schuster.
Graham, C., Culatta, R., Pratt, M., & West, R. (2004). Redesigning the teacher education technology course to emphasize integration. Computers in the Schools, 21(1-2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1300/J025v21n01_10
Hasse, C. (2017). Technological literacy for teachers. Oxford Review of Education, 43(3), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1305057
Instefjord, E., & Munthe, E. (2016). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology: an analysis of the emphasis on digital competence in teacher education curricula. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2015.1100602
Mosca, J. B., Curtis, K. P., & Savoth, P. G. (2019). New approaches to learning for Generation Z. The Journal of Business Diversity, 19(3), 66–74. http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/2291989416?accountid=4485
Muilenburg, L., & Berge, Z. (2015). Revisiting teacher preparation: Responding to technology transience in the educational setting. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16(2), 93–105,148,150. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1705959047/
Simpson, A., & Maltese, A. (2017). “Failure is a major component of learning anything”: The role of failure in the development of STEM professionals. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9674-9
Simpson, E., Bradley, D., & O’Keeffe, J. (2018). Failure is an option: An innovative engineering curriculum. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 36(3), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-10-2017-0046
Skophammer, R., & Reed, P. A. (2014). Technological literacy courses in pre-service teacher education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 40(1/2), 68–80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43604310
Swanzen, R. (2018). Facing the generation chasm: The parenting and teaching of generations Y and Z. International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies, 9(2), 125–150. https://doi.org/10.18357/ijcyfs92201818216
Turner, A. (2015). Generation Z: Technology and social interest. Journal of Individual Psychology, 71(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1353/jip.2015.0021
Vito, M. (2013). Collaborative, experiential and technology approaches for 21st century learners. American Journal of Educational Studies, 6(1), 47–64. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1369815770/
Willis, J. (2015). Examining technology and teaching efficacy of preservice teacher candidates: A deliberate course design model. Current Issues in Education, 18(3), 18.
Yigit, E. O. (2013). Science, technology and social change course’s effects on technological literacy levels of social studies pre-service teachers. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 12(3), 142–156. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1016931
