AI helps you reading Science

AI generates interpretation videos

AI extracts and analyses the key points of the paper to generate videos automatically


pub
Go Generating

AI Traceability

AI parses the academic lineage of this thesis


Master Reading Tree
Generate MRT

AI Insight

AI extracts a summary of this paper


Weibo:
While there was an increase in rationales oriented to the content specific from pre- to post-course assessment, the data helped researchers to see that teacher candidates were still relying heavily on their knowledge oriented to technological PK

Using TPACK as a framework to understand teacher candidates' technology integration decisions

J. Comp. Assisted Learning, no. 6 (2012): 530-546

Cited by: 156|Views6
EI

Abstract

This research uses the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework as a lens for understanding how teacher candidates make decisions about the use of information and communication technology in their teaching. Pre- and post-treatment assessments required elementary teacher candidates at Brigham Young University to ar...More

Code:

Data:

0
Introduction
  • In an effort to explain the types of knowledge teachers need in order to integrate technology into their teaching, Mishra and Koehler (2006) outlined the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework.
  • This framework explicitly acknowledges that effective pedagogical uses of information and communication technology (ICT) are deeply influenced by the content domains in which they are situated.
  • The candidates are simultaneously exposed to the complexities and interrelated nature of pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK) and technological knowledge (TK) (Koehler & Mishra 2005; Koehler et al 2007)
Highlights
  • In an effort to explain the types of knowledge teachers need in order to integrate technology into their teaching, Mishra and Koehler (2006) outlined the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework
  • This section of the paper outlines the nature of the rationales that researchers discovered which support TPACK constructs that relate to technology integration
  • 48% of codings were related to technological PK (TPK), with 42% related to TPACK and only 10% related to technological knowledge (TK)
  • The emergence of the TPACK framework emphasized the distinction between technology integration focused on general pedagogy (TPK) and content-specific pedagogy (TPACK) in the way that the pedagogical CK (PCK) framework distinguished between pedagogical knowledge (PK) and PCK (Graham 2011)
  • This paper developed and articulated a coding scheme for showing teacher candidates’ growth in TK, TPK and TPACK knowledge
  • While there was an increase in rationales oriented to the content specific (TPACK) from pre- to post-course assessment, the data helped researchers to see that teacher candidates were still relying heavily on their knowledge oriented to TPK
Methods
  • Participants in this research were enrolled in four sections of the educational technology course during the Data analysis

    To explore the evidence of TPACK constructs in student planning and decision making, researchers analysed the data obtained from candidates’ open-ended responses to the request that they supply rationales for the technology they selected for the design tasks.
  • Participants in this research were enrolled in four sections of the educational technology course during the Data analysis.
  • To explore the evidence of TPACK constructs in student planning and decision making, researchers analysed the data obtained from candidates’ open-ended responses to the request that they supply rationales for the technology they selected for the design tasks.
  • Afterwards, the two researchers separately coded approximately 10% (n = 83) of the total design task responses to confirm that saturation had been achieved and to obtain practice using the newly formed codebook.
Results
  • This section is divided into two major parts: (1) evidence and examples of each of the coding categories from the student rationales and (2) evidence for patterns of change in students’ rationales between pre- and postcourse examinations.

    Identifying rationales

    This section of the paper outlines the nature of the rationales that researchers discovered which support TPACK constructs that relate to technology integration.
Conclusion
  • The findings from this research provide several contributions to the current TPACK research literature, including (1) clearer understanding of how to differentiate between the PCK and TPACK constructs, and (2) better understanding of the types of rationales teacher candidates give for integrating technology into their lesson designs.
  • The emergence of the TPACK framework emphasized the distinction between technology integration focused on general pedagogy (TPK) and content-specific pedagogy (TPACK) in the way that the PCK framework distinguished between PK and PCK (Graham 2011).
  • While there was an increase in rationales oriented to the content specific (TPACK) from pre- to post-course assessment, the data helped researchers to see that teacher candidates were still relying heavily on their knowledge oriented to TPK.
  • Most claimed that the use of technology would improve content understanding without providing a robust rationale for how this would be accomplished, other than linking to a general pedagogy or learner characteristic
Summary
  • Introduction:

    In an effort to explain the types of knowledge teachers need in order to integrate technology into their teaching, Mishra and Koehler (2006) outlined the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework.
  • This framework explicitly acknowledges that effective pedagogical uses of information and communication technology (ICT) are deeply influenced by the content domains in which they are situated.
  • The candidates are simultaneously exposed to the complexities and interrelated nature of pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK) and technological knowledge (TK) (Koehler & Mishra 2005; Koehler et al 2007)
  • Methods:

    Participants in this research were enrolled in four sections of the educational technology course during the Data analysis

    To explore the evidence of TPACK constructs in student planning and decision making, researchers analysed the data obtained from candidates’ open-ended responses to the request that they supply rationales for the technology they selected for the design tasks.
  • Participants in this research were enrolled in four sections of the educational technology course during the Data analysis.
  • To explore the evidence of TPACK constructs in student planning and decision making, researchers analysed the data obtained from candidates’ open-ended responses to the request that they supply rationales for the technology they selected for the design tasks.
  • Afterwards, the two researchers separately coded approximately 10% (n = 83) of the total design task responses to confirm that saturation had been achieved and to obtain practice using the newly formed codebook.
  • Results:

    This section is divided into two major parts: (1) evidence and examples of each of the coding categories from the student rationales and (2) evidence for patterns of change in students’ rationales between pre- and postcourse examinations.

    Identifying rationales

    This section of the paper outlines the nature of the rationales that researchers discovered which support TPACK constructs that relate to technology integration.
  • Conclusion:

    The findings from this research provide several contributions to the current TPACK research literature, including (1) clearer understanding of how to differentiate between the PCK and TPACK constructs, and (2) better understanding of the types of rationales teacher candidates give for integrating technology into their lesson designs.
  • The emergence of the TPACK framework emphasized the distinction between technology integration focused on general pedagogy (TPK) and content-specific pedagogy (TPACK) in the way that the PCK framework distinguished between PK and PCK (Graham 2011).
  • While there was an increase in rationales oriented to the content specific (TPACK) from pre- to post-course assessment, the data helped researchers to see that teacher candidates were still relying heavily on their knowledge oriented to TPK.
  • Most claimed that the use of technology would improve content understanding without providing a robust rationale for how this would be accomplished, other than linking to a general pedagogy or learner characteristic
Tables
  • Table1: Technology integration projects for teacher candidates in the educational technology course
  • Table2: Open-response items used in each instructional design task
  • Table3: Examples of TK coded in the design task rationales. Coding category Examples of evidence for coding category
  • Table4: Examples of TPK coded in the design task rationales
  • Table5: Examples of TPACK coded in the design task rationales
  • Table6: Total category coding count for content design tasks and pre- and post-assessments. (n = 25 for each of the pre- and postcontent design tasks making a total N = 200.)
  • Table7: Individuals’ coding frequency mean for the pre- and post-assessment
Download tables as Excel
Funding
  • A paired-sample t-test found the change in all of the categories to be significant (P < 0.01) except for the change in TK (see Table 7)
Study subjects and analysis
data: 83
Through several iterations of this process, researchers appeared to have reached thematic saturation and a codebook was formed. Afterwards, the two researchers separately coded approximately 10% (n = 83) of the total design task responses to confirm that saturation had been achieved and to obtain practice using the newly formed codebook. Only minor changes were made to the codebook (see coding categories in Appendix I)

students: 137
2009 winter semester. Of the 137 students enrolled in the four sections, 133 agreed to participate in the research: 22 (16.5%) early childhood education majors and 111 elementary education majors. Only three of the candidates were male

Reference
  • Angeli C. & Valanides N. (2009) Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: advances in Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education 52, 154–168.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Baxter J.A. & Lederman N.G. (1999) Assessment and measurement of PCK. In PCK and Science Education (eds J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman), pp. 147–161. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, NY.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Carlsen W.S. (1999) Domains of teacher knowledge. In Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: PCK and Science Education (eds J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman), pp. 113–144. Kluwer Academic Publishers, NewYork, NY.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Cavin R.M. (2008) Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teachers through microteaching lesson study. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 5214–5220).
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Cochran K.F., DeRuiter J.A. & King R.A. (1993) Pedagogical content knowing: an integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education 44, 263–272. doi:10.1177/0022487193044004004.
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Cox S. (2008) A conceptual analysis of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Brigham Young University.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Doering A. & Veletsianos G. (2007) An investigation of the use of real-time, authentic geospatial data in the k-12 classroom. The Journal of Geography 106, 217–225.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Doering A., Veletsianos G., Scharber C. & Miller C. (2009) Using the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge framework to design online learning environments and professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research 41, 319–346. doi:10.2190/EC.41.3.d.
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • van Driel J.H., Verloop N. & de Vos W. (1998) Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35, 673–695. doi:10.1002/ (SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<673:AID-TEA5>3.3.CO; 2-9.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Gess-Newsome J. (2002) Pedagogical content knowledge: an introduction and orientation. In PCK and Science Education (eds J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman), pp. 3–17. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, NY.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Graham C.R. (2011) Theoretical considerations for understanding Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education 57, 1953–1969. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.010.
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Graham C.R., Culatta R., Pratt M. & West R. (2004) Redesigning the teacher education technology course to emphasize integration. Computers in the Schools 21, 127– 148.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Greenhow C., Dexter S. & Hughes J.E. (2008) Teacher knowledge about technology integration: an examination of inservice and preservice teachers’ instructional decision-making. Science Education International 19, 9–25.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Grossman P.L. (1990) The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge & Teacher Education. Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Haertel E. (1990) Performance tests, simulations, and other methods. In New Handbook on Teacher Evaluation: Assessing Elementary and Secondary Teachers (eds J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond), pp. 278–294.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Hargrave C.P. & Hsu Y. (2000) Survey of instructional courses for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 8, 303–314.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Harris J. & Hofer M. (2009) Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education 2009 (ed. C.D. Maddux), pp. 99–108. Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE), Chesapeake, VA.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Harris J. & Hofer M. (2011) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in action: a descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technologyrelated instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 43, 211–229.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Harris J., Mishra P. & Koehler M.J. (2009) Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and learning activity types: curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 41, 393–416.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Hofer M. & Harris J. (2010) Differentiating TPACK development: using learning activity types with inservice and preservice teachers. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (eds D. Gibson & B. Dodge), pp. 3857–3864. AACE, Chesapeake, VA.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Kagan D.M. (1990) Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: inferences concerning the goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research 60, 419–469. doi:10.3102/ 00346543060003419.
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Kersaint G. (2007) Toward technology integration in mathematics education: a technology-integration course planning assignment. (G. L. Bull & L. Bell, Eds.) Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 7, 256–278.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Koehler M.J. & Mishra P. (2005) What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research 32, 131–152.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Koehler M.J. & Mishra P. (2008) Introducing TPCK. In Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators (ed. AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology), pp. 3–29.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Koehler M.J., Mishra P. & Yahya K. (2007) Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education 49, 740–762.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Lee E., Brown M.N., Luft J.A. & Roehrig G.H. (2007) Assessing beginning secondary science teachers’ PCK: pilot year results. School Science and Mathematics 107, 52–60. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2007.tb17768.x.
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Lee E. & Luft J. (2008) Experienced secondary science teachers’ representation of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education 30, 1343–1363. doi:10.1080/09500690802187058.
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Lee M.-H. & Tsai C.-C. (2010) Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science 38, 1–21. doi:10.1007/ s11251-008-9075-4.
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Magnusson S., Krajcik J. & Borko H. (1999) Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In PCK and Science Education (eds J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman), pp. 95–132. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, NY.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Manfra M.M. & Hammond T.C. (2008) Teachers’ instructional choices with student-created digital documentaries?: case studies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 41, 223–245.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Marks R. (1990) Pedagogical content knowledge: from a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education 41, 3–11. doi:10.1177/ 002248719004100302. Mishra P. & Koehler M.J. (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record 108, 1017–1054.
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Niess M.L. (2008) Mathematics teachers developing Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK). In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008, Vol. 2008 (eds K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen & D.A. Willis), pp. 5297–5304. Las Vegas, NV. Segall A. (2004) Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: the pedagogy of content/the content of pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education 20, 489–504. doi:10.1016/ j.tate.2004.04.006. Shulman L.S. (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher 15, 4–14.
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Shulman L.S. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review 57, 1–21.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Tamir P. (1988) Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 4, 99–110.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Wentworth N., Graham C.R. & Monroe E.E. (2009) TPACK development in a teacher education program. In Handbook of Research on New Media Literacy at the K-12 Kevel?: Issues and Challenges, Vol. II (eds L.T.W. Hin & R. Subramaniam), pp. 823–838. IGI Global, Hershey, PA. Willis J.W. & Mehlinger H.D. (1996) Information technology and teacher education. Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2nd edition (ed. J. Sikula), pp. 978–1029.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
Author
N.B. Smith
N.B. Smith
Your rating :
0

 

Tags
Comments
小科