Vol 3 No 4 (2020): Volume 3 Issue 4 Year 2020
Articles

Beginning teacher induction program for technology integration in CLIL

Thooptong Kwangsawad
Faculty of Education, Mahasarakham University, Nakhonsawan Road, Ta-Lad, Muang District, Mahasarakham, 44000, Thailand
Published October 10, 2020
Keywords
  • Induction program,
  • CLIL teacher education,
  • technology integration
How to Cite
Kwangsawad, T. (2020). Beginning teacher induction program for technology integration in CLIL. Asian Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 3(4), 22-33. https://doi.org/10.34256/ajir2043

Plum Analytics

Abstract

Beginning teacher induction is a transition from pre-service teacher preparation to teaching professional which brings a shift in a role orientation and an epistemological move from knowing about teaching through formal study to knowing how to teach by facing daily teaching challenges. This paper deals with the implementation and evaluation of beginning teacher induction programs for technology integration in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for 24 beginning teachers from the northeastern region in Thailand. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Quantitative data were collected from the assessment of the lesson plans and implementation of the lesson plans then analyzed using mean and standard deviation. Qualitative data were collected from three sources: (1) written logs by the participants, (2) data from video observation by the researcher, and (3) field notes by the researcher. Findings from the assessment of the lesson plans and implementation of the lesson plans were at a low level. Almost all participants reported having difficulties in technology integration in CLIL.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Bubb, S. (2007). Successful induction for new teachers: A guide for NQTs and induction tutors, coordinators and mentors. London, United Kingdom: Paul Chapman Publishing.
  2. CCSESA. (2016). Best practices in teacher and administrator induction programs. Research Report California County Superintendents Educational Services Association. Retrieved from https://www.slocoe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Teacher-and-Administrator-Induction-Programs-CCSESA.pdf
  3. Coiro, J., Leu, D., Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2008). Handbook of research on new literacies. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228682372 Handbook of Research on New Literacies
  4. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. European Commission. (2009). Policy approaches supporting the acquisition and continuous development of teacher competences. Warsaw: Author.
  6. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013-1055.
  7. Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3833-3840). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  8. Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration refrained. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536
  9. Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers' perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly 46(4), 312- 333. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.002
  10. Ingersoll, R., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Education Research, 81(2), 201-233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311403323
  11. Koehler, A. A., & Kim, C. M. (2012). Improving beginning teacher induction program through distance education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(3), 212-233. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6079
  12. Kwangsawad, T. (2017). In-service EFL teacher development for technology integration in communicative language teaching. Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning, 5, 44-52. https://doi.org/10.24203/ajeel.v5i2.4465
  13. Mazzella, A. M. (2011). What are we learning about technology integration and professional development?. Educator’s Voice,4, 42-49.
  14. McCann, M. T., & Johannessen, R. C. (2004). Why do new teachers cry?. The Clearing House,77(4), 138-145. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.77.4.138-145
  15. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  16. Niess, M. L. (2008). Guiding pre-service teacher in developing TPCK. In N. Silverman (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educator (pp. 223-250). New York: Routledge.
  17. OECD. (2016). Education in Thailand: An OECD-UNESCO perspective. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264259119-9-en
  18. O’Hara, S., Pritchard, R., Huang, C., & Pella, S. (2013). The teaching using technology studio: Learning to use new technologies through responsive teacher professional development. TESOL Journal, 4(2), 274–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.58
  19. Onafowora, L. L. (2004). Teacher efficacy issues in the practice of novice teachers. Educational Research Quarterly, 28(4), 34–44
  20. Papaja, K., & Swiatek, A. (2016). Modernizing educational practice: Perspective in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  21. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
  22. Talbert, E. J. (2010). Professional learning communities at the crossroads: How systems hinder or engender change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman & M. Fullan (Eds), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 555- 571). Springer of International Handbooks of Education, 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2660-632
  23. UNESCO. (2014). EFA global monitoring report–teaching and learning: Achieving quality for all. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.org/images/0022/002256/225660e.pdf
  24. Wong, H. (2005). New teacher induction: The foundation for comprehensive, coherent, and sustained professional development. In H. Portner (Ed.), New teacher induction and mentoring: The state of the art and beyond (pp. 47-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  25. Wong, H. K. (2004). Induction programs that keep new teachers teaching and improving. NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650408863804
  26. Youngs, P. (2007). How elementary principals’ beliefs and actions influence new teachers’ experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 101-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06293629
  27. Zeichner, M. K. (2003). Teacher research as professional development P–12 educators in the USA. Educational Action Research, 11(2), 301-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790300200211