Teachers used the VCL in ways that re-enforced their current practice, whether student-centred or teacher-centred¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the follow-on case study, teachers ultimately used the VCL in a way that re-enforced their current practice, whether that was more student-centred or teacher-centred, with differences in ownership of the tool. → Donnelly 2011

Evidence¶

Donnelly 2011¶

Donnelly, D., McGarr, O. and O'Reilly, J. (2011). A Framework for Teachers' Integration of ICT Into Their Classroom Practice. Computers and Education;57(2), 1469-1483. https://hdl.handle.net/10344/2340

q2 · i? · qualitative · r2

Observational findings from the follow-on study of five practising chemistry teachers using the VCL. The article reports that "Teachers ultimately used the VCL in a way that re-enforced their current practice", with two teachers demonstrating ownership and two illustrating a lack of ownership.

"Teachers ultimately used the VCL in a way that re-enforced their current practice, whether that was more student-centred or teacher centred, towards ownership in the use of the VCL or illustrating a lack of ownership."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Teachers with ownership adapted the VCL easily while teachers lacking ownership reduced the problem to a cookbook approach — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• University teachers' design work is generally focused in one of two ways: student-centred or teacher-centred — a broader claim this one bears on
• Some teachers declined to use the VCL citing organisational difficulties and curriculum fit — related
• Teachers valued the VCL for removing the physicality of practical work and raising the cognitive level of problem-solving — related
• The VCL's open infrastructure leaves all variables to students' experimental design — related