The Future of Field Experiences in Distance Education:
A Case Study of Co-Teaching Practices in a Telepresence-Facilitated Field Placement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2019.v9n2p35-46Keywords:
co-teaching, field experiences, telepresence technology, rural education, technology in teachingAbstract
In an attempt to be more culturally responsive to the needs of its students, universities across the country are leveraging technologies to make their campuses more readily available to a broader student audience. Yet, with the proliferation of online teacher preparation programs, difficulties arise in providing preservice teachers with quality field experiences. This case study examines how telepresence robotic technology was used to facilitate a field experience that would otherwise have been prohibitive in a master of arts in teaching program. While a substantial body of literature examines the use of virtual environments and technologies in educating hard-to-reach populations, little research has been done in how telepresence technologies may effectively bridge the access gap for preservice teachers who are place-bound geographically. The findings from this study suggest that, when coupled with the implementation of effective co-teaching practices, telepresence technology can facilitate meaningful field experiences in real time, for place-bound preservice teachers without local K-12 institutions to host their field experiences.
References
Ally, M., Grimus, M., & Ebner, M. (2014). Preparing teachers for a mobile world, to improve access to education. Prospects, 44, 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-014-9293-2
Ally, M., & Samaka, M. (2013). Open education resources and mobile technology to narrow the learning divide. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(2), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i2.1530
Anderson, B., & Simpson, M. (2012). History and heritage in distance education. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 16(2), 1–10. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/147885/
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.890
Bartolome, S. J. (2009). Virtual field experiences for real music classrooms. Music Educators Journal, 96(1), 56–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432109340760
Carver, R. (1996). Theory for practice: A framework for thinking about experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 19(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382599601900102
Casey, D. M. (2008). Journey to legitimacy: The historical development of distance education through technology. TechTrends, 52(2), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-008-0135-z
Compton, L., & Davis, N. (2010). The impact of and key elements for a successful virtual early field experience: Lessons learned from a case study. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 309–337.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Students, 28(3), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.17161/fec.v28i3.6852
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.) [Kindle]. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Daley, S., & Murphy, S. (2019). Teaching through the eyes of a robot using robotic telepresence to facilitate early field experiences for pre-service teachers. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 65–70). Las Vegas, NV: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/208494
Dewey, J. (1923). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Dickey, M. D. (2011). The pragmatics of virtual worlds for K-12 educators: Investigating the affordances and constraints of “Active Worlds” and “Second Life” with K-12 in-service teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9163-4
Double Robotics, Inc. (2019). Double 3: Work even better from anywhere. Retrieved from https://www.doublerobotics.com/
Florio-Ruane, S., & Clark, C. M. (1990). Using case studies to enrich field experiences. Teacher Education Quarterly, 17(1), 17–28.
Gately, S. E., & Gately, F. J., Jr. (2001). Understanding coteaching components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990103300406
Han, J. (2012). Emerging technologies: Robot assisted language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 16(3), 1–9. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2012/emerging.pdf
Hang, Q., & Rabren, K. (2009). An examination of co-teaching: Perspectives and efficacy indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30(5), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508321018
Inverso, D. C., Kobrin, J., & Hashmi, S. (2017). Leveraging technology in adult education. Journal of Research and Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary, and Basic Education, 6(2), 55–58.
Johnson, L. F., & Levine, A. H. (2008). Virtual worlds: Inherently immersive, highly social learning spaces. Theory into Practice, 47(2), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840801992397
Kennedy, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Dawson, K. (2013). Preservice teachers' experience in a virtual school. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.756757
Knapczyk, D., Chapman, C., Rodes, P., & Chung, H. (2001). Teacher preparation in rural communities through distance education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(4), 402–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640102400415
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). The learning way: Meta-cognitive aspects of experiential learning. Simulation and Gaming, 40(3), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108325713
Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Kwon, O., Koo, S., Kim, Y., & Kwon, D. (2010, October 26–28). Telepresence robot system for English tutoring. In Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts, ARSO (pp. 152–155). Seoul, South Korea: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/ARSO.2010.5679999
Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). “Stakes is high”: Educating new century students. Journal of Negro Education, 82(2), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.2.0105
Latterman, K., & Steffes, S. (2017, October). Tackling teacher and principal shortages in rural areas. National Council of State Legislatures, 25(40). Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/tackling-teacher-and-principal-shortages-in-rural-areas.aspx
Lavalley, M. (2018). Out of the loop: Rural schools are largely left out of research and policy discussions, exacerbating poverty, inequity, and isolation. National School Boards Association, Center for Public Education. Retrieved from https://cdn-files.nsba.org/s3fs-public/10901-5071_CPE_Rural_School_Report_Web_FINAL.pdf
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Minsky, M. (1980, June). Telepresence. OMNI Magazine. Retrieved from https://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Telepresence.html
Mitra, S. (2009). Remote presence: Technologies for “beaming” teachers where they cannot go. Journal of emerging technology and web intelligence 1(1), 55–59. https://doi.org/10.4304/jetwi.1.1.55-59
Nadolny, L., Woolfrey, J., Pierlott, M., & Kahn, S. (2013). SciEthics interactive: Science and ethics learning in a virtual environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(6), 979–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9319-0
Nepo, K. (2016). The use of technology to improve education. Child Youth Care Forum, 46, 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-016-9386-6
Newhart, V. A., & Olson, J. S. (2017, May). My student is a robot: How schools manage telepresence experiences for students. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 342–347). Denver, CO: Association for Computing Machinery Conference. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025809
Nissim, Y., & Naifeld, E. (2018). Co-teaching in the academy-class program: From theory to practical experience. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(4), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n4p79
Phillion, J., Miller, P. C., & Lehman, J. D. (2005). Providing field experiences with diverse populations for pre-service teachers: Using technology to bridge distances and cultures. Multicultural Perspectives, 7(3), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327892mcp0703_2
Saunders, C., Rutkowski, A. F., van Genuchten, M., Vogel, D., & Orrego, J. M. (2011). Virtual space and place: Theory and test. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 1079–1098. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409974
Schultze, U., & Brooks, J. M. (2018). An interactional view of social presence: Making the virtual other “real.” Information Systems Journal, 29(3), 707–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12230
Sharkey, A. J. (2016). Should we welcome robot teachers? Ethics and Information Technology, 18(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9387-z
Simpson, M. (2006). Field experience in distance delivered initial teacher education programmes. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 241–254.
Soslau, E., Gallo-Fox, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2019). The promises and realities of implementing a coteaching model of student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(3), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117750126
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright Notice
Articles will be published using a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Sharealike license. (For more information on this license, please visit the Creative Commons license page.) Please also note that the authors are explicitly granting permission for Academic Library Services to store a copy of the article in The ScholarShip, ECU's Institutional Repository under the terms of the current ScholarShip license. As a North Carolina agency, ECU contributes copies of all publications to the North Carolina State Archives.