Main Article Content
In the Bachelor of Education (BEd) Programme at the University of Trinidad and Tobago, prospective teachers are exposed to ‘zoom’ classes. This study investigated the perspectives of full-time and part-time prospective teachers with regard to classes conducted via web conferencing, with particular reference to zoom. It examined students’ views on the merits and demerits of the use of zoom by instructors. A mixed-method design was utilized as the appropriate design to determine prospective teachers’ viewpoints and beliefs, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of classes conducted via zoom. Data were gathered using an online survey, semi-structured interviews with focus groups and reflective posts on Canvas. Data analysis included a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches. The results indicated that most prospective teachers prefer a combination of zoom and face-to-face classes, while some have a preference for face-to-face classes only. Others prefer face-to-face classes together with an integration of different aspects of technology. Some participants lamented about their personal levels of proficiency with web conferencing. The merits and demerits were equitable, based on the maturity of the prospective teachers when the opinions of full-time and part-time students were considered. The conclusions were that zoom classes were satisfying for some prospective teachers whereas others perceived them as convenient and ‘a line of least resistance’. The findings have implications for the quality of classes conducted solely via ‘zoom’ on a consistent basis.
Keywords: prospective teachers, perspectives, zoom, mixed-method
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Copyrights for articles published in IJIER journals are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.
Alnemary, F. M., Wallace, M., Symon, J. B. G., & Barry, L. M. (2015). Using international videoconferencing to provide staff training on functional behavioral assessment. Behavioral Interventions, 30 (1), 73–86. doi:10.1002/bin.1403
Barkely, E. F., Cross, K.P. & Major, C. (2014). Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. (2nd ed.). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: designing and delivering e-learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cloete, A. L. (2017). Technology and education: Challenges and opportunities. HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 73(4), a4589. https://doi.org/ 10.4102/hts.v73i4.4589
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gleason, B. & Greenhow, C. (2017). Hybrid learning in higher education: The potential of teaching and learning with robot-mediated communication. Online Learning Journal, 21 (4), 159-176.
Gumport, P. J. & Chun, M. (1999). Technology and Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges for the New Era. American Higher Education in the Twenty-first Century: Social, Political and Economic Challenges. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gleason, B. & Greenhow, C. (2017). Hybrid learning in higher education: The potential of teaching and learning with robot-mediated communication. Online Learning, 21(4), 159-176. doi: 10.24059/olj.v21i4.1276
Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7) 14-26.
Menter, I. (2017). Teacher Education Research. In Oxford Encyclopaedia of Education. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.275
Miles, M. B., Huberman, M. A. & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon (MCB University Press 9 (5) 1-6. Retrieved 26.9.11 from https://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
Scott, C. L. (2015). The futures of learning 3: What kind of pedagogies for the 21st century? UNESCO Education Research and Foresight, Paris. [ERF Working Papers Series, No. 15].
The University of Trinidad and Tobago (2018). Our National University: Moving Forward. Retrieved 21.9.19 from: https://utt.edu.tt/press-releases/press-release-20180525
Verene, D. P. (2013), ‘Does online education rest on a mistake?’ Academic Quest 26, 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12129-013-9367-2
Wang, V. C. X. (2013). Traditional Teaching or Innovative Teaching via Technology? Learning and Performance Quarterly, 2(1), 1-13.