File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Methodological approaches to comparing pedagogical innovations using technology

TitleMethodological approaches to comparing pedagogical innovations using technology
Authors
KeywordsComparative case studies
Comparing innovations
ICT-supported pedagogy
Pedagogical innovations
Issue Date2005
PublisherSpringer New York LLC. The Journal's web site is located at http://springerlink.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=journal&issn=1360-2357
Citation
Education And Information Technologies, 2005, v. 10 n. 1-2, p. 5-18 How to Cite?
AbstractThe study of educational innovations has become increasingly important in education research as many countries around the world have embarked on education reforms that aim to change both the goals and practices in education. There is also a general expectation that such innovations can be leveraged or supported by the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in the learning and teaching process. However, comparative studies of innovations are relatively rare. SITES M2, as an international comparative study of innovative pedagogical practices involving 28 participating systems, thus faced important methodological challenges the solution of which was no less an innovation in itself. This paper examines the methods of analysis used and the kind of research findings that resulted from the work of three research teams that had conducted comparisons of the case studies of innovation collected, including the work of the SITES M2 International Coordinating Centre (ICC). Even though all three studies attempted to examine similarities and differences across multiple case studies, the analysis conducted by the ICC looked for characterizations of the innovations while the other two studies developed meaningful ways to compare the cases in terms of "levels of innovation" across a number of dimensions. In discussing the methodological differences across these studies, this paper pays special attention to how one could compare different innovations in terms of their levels or extents of innovation and what such comparisons may contribute to our learning from technology-supported education innovations. © 2005 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/48559
ISSN
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.528
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLaw, Nen_HK
dc.contributor.authorChow, Aen_HK
dc.contributor.authorYuen, AHKen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2008-05-22T04:17:10Z-
dc.date.available2008-05-22T04:17:10Z-
dc.date.issued2005en_HK
dc.identifier.citationEducation And Information Technologies, 2005, v. 10 n. 1-2, p. 5-18en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1360-2357en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/48559-
dc.description.abstractThe study of educational innovations has become increasingly important in education research as many countries around the world have embarked on education reforms that aim to change both the goals and practices in education. There is also a general expectation that such innovations can be leveraged or supported by the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in the learning and teaching process. However, comparative studies of innovations are relatively rare. SITES M2, as an international comparative study of innovative pedagogical practices involving 28 participating systems, thus faced important methodological challenges the solution of which was no less an innovation in itself. This paper examines the methods of analysis used and the kind of research findings that resulted from the work of three research teams that had conducted comparisons of the case studies of innovation collected, including the work of the SITES M2 International Coordinating Centre (ICC). Even though all three studies attempted to examine similarities and differences across multiple case studies, the analysis conducted by the ICC looked for characterizations of the innovations while the other two studies developed meaningful ways to compare the cases in terms of "levels of innovation" across a number of dimensions. In discussing the methodological differences across these studies, this paper pays special attention to how one could compare different innovations in terms of their levels or extents of innovation and what such comparisons may contribute to our learning from technology-supported education innovations. © 2005 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.en_HK
dc.format.extent197585 bytes-
dc.format.extent2957 bytes-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain-
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherSpringer New York LLC. The Journal's web site is located at http://springerlink.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=journal&issn=1360-2357en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofEducation and Information Technologiesen_HK
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.rightsThe original publication is available at www.springerlink.comen_HK
dc.subjectComparative case studiesen_HK
dc.subjectComparing innovationsen_HK
dc.subjectICT-supported pedagogyen_HK
dc.subjectPedagogical innovationsen_HK
dc.titleMethodological approaches to comparing pedagogical innovations using technologyen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=1360-2357&volume=10&issue=1-2&spage=7&epage=20&date=2005&atitle=Methodological+Approaches+to+Comparing+Pedagogical+Innovations+Using+Technologyen_HK
dc.identifier.emailLaw, N: nlaw@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailYuen, AHK: hkyuen@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLaw, N=rp00919en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityYuen, AHK=rp00983en_HK
dc.description.naturepostprinten_HK
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10639-005-6743-8en_HK
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-24144441711en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros105555-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-24144441711&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume10en_HK
dc.identifier.issue1-2en_HK
dc.identifier.spage5en_HK
dc.identifier.epage18en_HK
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLaw, N=7005934146en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChow, A=11044168300en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridYuen, AHK=8983762600en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike196517-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats