Technological pedagogical content knowledge

Last updated

Figure 1. Visual representation of the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge framework updated to include Context. "Reproduced by permission of the publisher, (c) 2012 by tpack.org" TPACK-new.png
Figure 1. Visual representation of the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge framework updated to include Context. “Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org”

The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework describes the kinds of knowledge required by teachers for the successful integration of technology in teaching. It suggests that teachers need to know about the intersections of technology, pedagogy, and content. Specifically, how these areas of knowledge interact and influence one another in unique and specific contexts. [1] In terms of teaching with technology, it suggests that it impacts not only what we teach but how we teach. This idea was in the zeitgeist in the early 2000s, with scholars working on variations of the idea. [2] [3] [4] [5]

Contents

The TPACK framework looks at content knowledge (CK) as the "what" that is the subject matter (arts, English, mathematics, science, etc.) teachers teach, pedagogical knowledge (PK) is the "how" that tells how the teacher will make the content more accessible (via direct instruction, inquiry, group discussion, debate, modeling, etc.). Then, technological knowledge (TK) as the "partner" answering the question of what tools (laptops, projects, smart boards, multimedia, simulations, etc.) will be selected to make the content more accessible to the students. The TPACK framework goes beyond seeing these three knowledge bases in isolation and goes further by emphasizing the kinds of knowledge that lie at the intersections between three primary forms: Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Researchers argue that pedagogical use of technology and effective technology integration using pedagogies for specific subject matter requires developing sensitivity to the dynamic, transactional relationship between these components of knowledge situated in unique contexts. [6] Individual teachers, grade-level, school-specific factors, demographics, culture, and other factors ensure that every situation is unique, and no single combination of content, technology, and pedagogy will apply to every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching. The outer dotted circle of the framework is thus renamed as the “Contextual Knowledge” (i.e., the teacher’s knowledge of the context)  and define it as everything from a teacher’s awareness of available technologies, to the teacher’s knowledge of the school, district, state, or national policies they operate within. [7] This also makes the outer circle another knowledge domain that teachers must possess to integrate technology in teaching. This, in turn, implies that contextual knowledge is something that we (as teacher educators) can act on, change, and help teachers develop. Since CK is taken (for Content Knowledge) and another CK would be confusing; therefore, the outer dotted circle is named as XK for "conteXtual Knowledge" distinguishing it from CK.

History

In the early 2000s, scholars noted a lack of theory and conceptual frameworks to inform and guide research and teacher preparation in technology integration. [8] The classic definition of PCK proposed by Shulman [9] included one dynamic and complex relationship between two different knowledge bodies: content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Shulman defined PCK as the blend between content and pedagogy, highlighting the teacher's comprehension of how specific topics are organized, adapted, and represented according to students' diverse interests and capabilities. For five years, Mishra & Koehler [1] participated in a design experiment whose focus was to understand P-20 educators’ professional development of rich technology uses as well as helping them develop their teaching with technology.  As a result of this work, they offered Technological, Pedagogical, Content Knowledge (TPCK). TPACK was called “TPCK” in the literature until 2008 when some in the research community proposed using the more easily spoken term TPACK. [10] The critical questions of "what the teachers need to know in order to appropriately incorporate technology into their teaching" [1] as well as "and how they might develop it" [1] were key to the framework development. Additionally, technology was identified as a significant player in the learning and teaching process as educational entities moved into the 21st century.

Both primary and secondary educators found they needed new skills and techniques as new technologies entered the field. Consequently, technology knowledge became an essential feature of teacher knowledge, not just an isolated item. Scholars proposed different frames about TPACK to promote a particular view, including ways and diverse perspectives on understanding and working with technology in the classroom. [2] [3] [11] [12] [13] [14] TPACK-based research has led to the emergence of a significant literature body. As of March 2021 this included: Articles: 1418, Chapters: 318, Books: 28, Dissertations: 438 (TPACK Newsletter #44, 2021). In 2019, Mishra offered that a change was needed in the original TPACK image. While the inner circles of the image enclosed aspects of teacher knowledge, the outer dotted line circle was simply labeled “Context” or “Contexts''. To resolve this issue, the outer dotted circle should be renamed ConteXtual Knowledge (XK) meaning “the teacher’s knowledge of the context." Contextual Knowledge would range from a “teacher’s awareness of available technologies to the teacher’s knowledge of the school, district, state, or national policies they operate within." [7] This change highlights the organizational and situational constraints that teachers work within.

As Herring and colleagues [15] described, the historical development of TPACK provided a conceptualization that both graphically and narratively explained what is studied, and presented the key concepts, factors, or variables and the presumed relationships found between them. Additionally, it scaffolds the application of findings to other contexts that theoreticians, researchers, and practitioners continue to examine. [15]

Definition

TPACK domains and related subdomains address the complex nature of teaching effectively with appropriate technologies. [1] [16] While the different domains and subdomains can be explored as separate skill concepts, domains and subdomains were conceptualized to work in synergistic reciprocity meaning that the knowledge is not entirely separate indicating the intersectionality of each area. Accordingly, the TPACK model consists of three main domains, each containing one subdomain. The purpose of the subdomains is to unpack the broader domain concept by understanding intersections among the three primary knowledge anchors for the overall framework. The main domains are 1. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK); 2. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), and 3. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). The three subdomains are 1. Technological Knowledge (TK); 2. Content Knowledge (CK); and 3. Pedagogical Knowledge (PK). In 2019, Mishra [7] proposed a revised TPACK diagram to emphasize the context in which technology integration occurs by retitling the outer circle as Contextual Knowledge or XK.

Technological Knowledge (TK) addresses how teachers demonstrate professional knowledge of technology. TK considers what is required for teachers to integrate technology tools and resources into their course content and instructional practice. The technology component of TPaCK in  Technology is most beneficial for learning when it brings a change in professional teaching practice [17] [18] and in designs for learning. For teachers, TK not only addresses knowledge about technology but also knowledge of the skills needed to use technology to effectively plan instruction, [16] [19] including with science teachers. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] TK involves understanding cross-platform applications and capabilities as well as how to configure those applications to realize instructional objectives and student learning outcomes. Content Knowledge (CK) is situated within the following definitional parameters of a teacher's knowledge about a particular subject matter and how it is taught and learned. [25] As Shulman [9] noted, CK would include knowledge of concepts, theories, ideas, organizational frameworks, knowledge of evidence and proof, as well as established practices and approaches toward developing such knowledge." For educators, effective content instruction that engages students in higher-order activities using authentic, real-world examples facilitated through technology is the cornerstone of teaching and learning in the 21st century. Thus, educators must not only be thoughtful in the instructional techniques they use to present content but also strategic in the technology selected to teach the subject matter as it may result in positive or negative results in long-term learning and knowledge retention. Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) addresses how teachers demonstrate professional knowledge of pedagogy. PK refers to the specific knowledge about teaching such as approaches or methods of how teachers teach a particular topic or how to scaffold a concept to the diverse interests and abilities of learners.  For teachers and educators, an effective teaching method that engages students in higher-order activities using real-world examples facilitated through different learning styles is the cornerstone of teaching and learning in the current era. Accordingly, educators must be thoughtful in the instructional techniques to teach the subject matter as it may have a great impact on long-term learning and knowledge acquisition.  Choosing the right technology to enable higher-order thinking within the content, long-term knowledge retention, and facilitate student learning outcomes are paramount within the CK construct.  Finally, Context Knowledge (XK) is the umbrella domain that refers to how teachers contextualize implementation based on the overall teaching and learning context.

Strategies for building TPACK

A wide variety of strategies have been used to develop educators’ TPACK abilities, such as (a) collaborative, design-based lesson planning; [26] (b) the use of technology mapping, game-based learning, and deep-play [27] [28] (c) scaffolding the design process; [29] [30] and (d) accounting for how teacher's beliefs influence their TPACK. [31] Researchers have found collaborative strategies to be helpful to develop teachers’ TPACK, such as (a) faculty-wide mentoring programs, [32] (b) professional collaboration and teacher talk, [33] (c) collaborative reflection practices, [28] and (d) professional learning communities. [34] [35] Teacher education leaders have used the Theory of Action to identify the critical areas as they plan for the effective integration of TPACK into their teacher education and faculty support programs. [15] [36]

Measures

Since its introduction, researchers and professional developers have created a variety of processes and instruments to assess an educator's TPACK, [28] [37] such as self-report measures, open-ended questionnaires, performance assessments, interviews, observations, and more. [38] [39] [40] Widely-used measures such as the Survey of Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Technology, [41] [42] [43] the TPACK-21 questionnaire, [44] and the TPACK leadership diagnostic tool, [15] [45] have been tested for reliability and validity and applied in a variety of educational settings.

Researchers have made considerable efforts to explore the details of educators’ TPACK through both quantitative [46] and qualitative measures. [47] Qualitative approaches for evaluating TPACK have included classroom observations, [47] the analysis of lesson plans, classroom videos, and interviews. [48] Furthermore, as researchers have sought to better address how the components of XK (including online learning environments and global contexts) influence the development of TPACK, measures of TPACK have begun to include educators’ future intentions to use technology. [49] Additionally, researchers have also considered educators’ self-efficacy alongside TPACK. [50] [51] [52]

Criticisms

The TPACK framework has received a number of criticisms, the majority of which are related to the lack of a precise definition. Similar to Shulman's Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), which serves as a foundation for TPACK, scholars have debated whether TPACK is integrative or transformative leading to varied and nuanced perspectives. [33] Furthermore, scholars have debated precise definitions for the seven knowledge domains associated with the TPACK framework, [53] and what differentiates one domain from another varies widely across studies. [53] [54] These challenges have led to what has been called "fuzzy boundaries" distinguishing TPACK domains [28] [55] [56] [57] [58] that have resulted in even more variations or adaptations of TPACK including TPACK-W for web technologies, G-TPACK for geospatial, TPACK-CT for computational thinking, TPACK-P for TPACK practical, etc. These variations have been considered by some researchers to be misappropriations or conceptual dilution. [59]

A second major area of criticism of TPACK is the lack of reliable assessment instruments, as well as difficulties with existing instruments. Some researchers have cited problems related to participant interpretation of survey items, [52] [55] [56] [60] while others have reported problems with convergence when multiple measures are used. [61] [62] [63]

A third major area of criticism is related to the implications of TPACK for practice. Some scholars argue that the complexity of the framework makes it difficult to operationalize among both researchers and practitioners. [62] Further, as a framework for teacher knowledge, it is not accompanied by specific recommendations or strategies for how to help develop this body of knowledge for teachers. [37] Finally, scholars have noted that is unclear whether the TPACK framework promotes the type of reform-oriented teaching encouraged in new standards and curricula. [64]

Related Research Articles

Science education is the teaching and learning of science to school children, college students, or adults within the general public. The field of science education includes work in science content, science process, some social science, and some teaching pedagogy. The standards for science education provide expectations for the development of understanding for students through the entire course of their K-12 education and beyond. The traditional subjects included in the standards are physical, life, earth, space, and human sciences.

Media literacy is an expanded conceptualization of literacy that includes the ability to access and analyze media messages as well as create, reflect and take action, using the power of information and communication to make a difference in the world. Media literacy is not restricted to one medium and is understood as a set of competencies that are essential for work, life, and citizenship. Media literacy education is the process used to advance media literacy competencies, and it is intended to promote awareness of media influence and create an active stance towards both consuming and creating media. Media literacy education is part of the curriculum in the United States and some European Union countries, and an interdisciplinary global community of media scholars and educators engages in knowledge and scholarly and professional journals and national membership associations.

Bloom's taxonomy is a set of three hierarchical models used for classification of educational learning objectives into levels of complexity and specificity. The three lists cover the learning objectives in cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. The cognitive domain list has been the primary focus of most traditional education and is frequently used to structure curriculum learning objectives, assessments and activities.

Instructional scaffolding is the support given to a student by an instructor throughout the learning process. This support is specifically tailored to each student; this instructional approach allows students to experience student-centered learning, which tends to facilitate more efficient learning than teacher-centered learning. This learning process promotes a deeper level of learning than many other common teaching strategies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open educational resources</span> Open learning resource

Open educational resources (OER) are teaching, learning, and research materials intentionally created and licensed to be free for the end user to own, share, and in most cases, modify. The term "OER" describes publicly accessible materials and resources for any user to use, re-mix, improve, and redistribute under some licenses. These are designed to reduce accessibility barriers by implementing best practices in teaching and to be adapted for local unique contexts.

Educational technology is the combined use of computer hardware, software, and educational theory and practice to facilitate learning. When referred to with its abbreviation, "EdTech," it often refers to the industry of companies that create educational technology. In EdTech Inc.: Selling, Automating and Globalizing Higher Education in the Digital Age, Tanner Mirrlees and Shahid Alvi (2019) argue "EdTech is no exception to industry ownership and market rules" and "define the EdTech industries as all the privately owned companies currently involved in the financing, production and distribution of commercial hardware, software, cultural goods, services and platforms for the educational market with the goal of turning a profit. Many of these companies are US-based and rapidly expanding into educational markets across North America, and increasingly growing all over the world."

Editing technology is the use of technology tools in general content areas in education in order to allow students to apply computer and technology skills to learning and problem-solving. Generally speaking, the curriculum drives the use of technology and not vice versa. Technology integration is defined as the use of technology to enhance and support the educational environment. Technology integration in the classroom can also support classroom instruction by creating opportunities for students to complete assignments on the computer rather than with normal pencil and paper. In a larger sense, technology integration can also refer to the use of an integration platform and application programming interface (API) in the management of a school, to integrate disparate SaaS applications, databases, and programs used by an educational institution so that their data can be shared in real-time across all systems on campus, thus supporting students' education by improving data quality and access for faculty and staff.

"Curriculum integration with the use of technology involves the infusion of technology as a tool to enhance the learning in a content area or multidisciplinary setting... Effective technology integration is achieved when students can select technology tools to help them obtain information on time, analyze and synthesize it, and present it professionally to an authentic audience. Technology should become an integral part of how the classroom functions—as accessible as all other classroom tools. The focus in each lesson or unit is the curriculum outcome, not the technology."

Culturally relevant teaching or responsive teaching is a pedagogy grounded in teachers' practice of cultural competence, or skill at teaching in a cross-cultural or multicultural setting. Teachers using this method encourage each student to relate course content to their cultural context.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Teacher education</span> Training teachers to develop teaching skills

Teacher education or teacher training refers to programs, policies, procedures, and provision designed to equip (prospective) teachers with the knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, approaches, methodologies and skills they require to perform their tasks effectively in the classroom, school, and wider community. The professionals who engage in training the prospective teachers are called teacher educators.

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is a pedagogical approach wherein learning takes place via social interaction using a computer or through the Internet. This kind of learning is characterized by the sharing and construction of knowledge among participants using technology as their primary means of communication or as a common resource. CSCL can be implemented in online and classroom learning environments and can take place synchronously or asynchronously.

Lee S. Shulman is an American educational psychologist and reformer. He has made notable contributions to the study of teaching, assessment of teaching, and the fields of medicine, science, and mathematics.

English-Language Learner is a term used in some English-speaking countries such as the United States and Canada to describe a person who is learning the English language and has a native language that is not English. Some educational advocates, especially in the United States, classify these students as non-native English speakers or emergent bilinguals. Various other terms are also used to refer to students who are not proficient in English, such as English as a Second Language (ESL), English as an Additional Language (EAL), limited English proficient (LEP), Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD), non-native English speaker, bilingual students, heritage language, emergent bilingual, and language-minority students. The legal term that is used in federal legislation is 'limited English proficient'. The instruction and assessment of students, their cultural background, and the attitudes of classroom teachers towards ELLs have all been found to be factors in the achievement of these students. Several methods have been suggested to effectively teach ELLs, including integrating their home cultures into the classroom, involving them in language-appropriate content-area instruction early on, and integrating literature into their learning programs.

An edublog is a blog created for educational purposes. Edublogs archive and support student and teacher learning by facilitating reflection, questioning by self and others, collaboration and by providing contexts for engaging in higher-order thinking. Edublogs proliferated when blogging architecture became more simplified and teachers perceived the instructional potential of blogs as an online resource. The use of blogs has become popular in education institutions including public schools and colleges. Blogs can be useful tools for sharing information and tips among co-workers, providing information for students, or keeping in contact with parents. Common examples include blogs written by or for teachers, blogs maintained for the purpose of classroom instruction, or blogs written about educational policy. Educators who blog are sometimes called edubloggers.

Inquiry-based learning is a form of active learning that starts by posing questions, problems or scenarios. It contrasts with traditional education, which generally relies on the teacher presenting facts and their knowledge about the subject. Inquiry-based learning is often assisted by a facilitator rather than a lecturer. Inquirers will identify and research issues and questions to develop knowledge or solutions. Inquiry-based learning includes problem-based learning, and is generally used in small-scale investigations and projects, as well as research. The inquiry-based instruction is principally very closely related to the development and practice of thinking and problem-solving skills.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open education</span> Educational movement

Open education is an educational movement founded on openness, with connections to other educational movements such as critical pedagogy, and with an educational stance which favours widening participation and inclusiveness in society. Open education broadens access to the learning and training traditionally offered through formal education systems and is typically offered through online and distance education. The qualifier "open" refers to the elimination of barriers that can preclude both opportunities and recognition for participation in institution-based learning. One aspect of openness or "opening up" education is the development and adoption of open educational resources in support of open educational practices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian Computers in Education Conference</span>

This National Conference is the biennial conference of the Australian Council for Computers in Education (ACCE). The conference opens to anyone who in interested in sharing their digital teaching experiences. The first conference took place in Melbourne, 1983. Between 1983 and 1996, the conference was held annually across Australia. After 1996, the conference became biennial. From 1994, a series of frameworks were launched in Australia to integrate Information and Communication Technology(ICT) into education. Western Australia's 2001 Competency framework for Teachers identified teachers as an important component in developing computer education. In 2010, Education Minister Julia Gillard, proposed an education agenda to provide Australia a better education system. Besides ACCE, there are many organizations and conferences supporting the development of computer education in Australia. Technology in education consists of two major approaches: Learning with technology and learning from technology. Technology in education learning and traditional classroom learning have different focuses and defining features. There are also four types of computer education:Bring your own device(BYOD), blended learning, online learning, and flipped learning.

Multiliteracy is an approach to literacy theory and pedagogy coined in the mid-1990s by the New London Group. The approach is characterized by two key aspects of literacy - linguistic diversity and multimodal forms of linguistic expressions and representation. It was coined in response to two major changes in the globalized environment. One such change was the growing linguistic and cultural diversity due to increased transnational migration. The second major change was the proliferation of new mediums of communication due to advancement in communication technologies e.g the internet, multimedia, and digital media. As a scholarly approach, multiliteracy focuses on the new "literacy" that is developing in response to the changes in the way people communicate globally due to technological shifts and the interplay between different cultures and languages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">ISTE Standards</span> Standards for the use of technology in teaching and learning

The ISTE Standards, formerly known as the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS), are standards for the use of technology in teaching and learning. They are published by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), a nonprofit membership association for educators focused on educational technology. They include the ISTE Standards for Students, which list skills and attitudes expected of students. They also include the ISTE Standards for Educators, ISTE Standards for Administrators, ISTE Standards for Coaches and ISTE Standards for Computer Science Educators.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indigenous education</span> Education that focuses on teaching within formal or non-formal educational systems

Indigenous education specifically focuses on teaching Indigenous knowledge, models, methods, and content within formal or non-formal educational systems. The growing recognition and use of Indigenous education methods can be a response to the erosion and loss of Indigenous knowledge through the processes of colonialism, globalization, and modernity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open educational practices</span>

Open educational practices (OEP) are part of the broader open education landscape, including the openness movement in general. It is a term with multiple layers and dimensions and is often used interchangeably with open pedagogy or open practices. OEP represent teaching and learning techniques that draw upon open and participatory technologies and high-quality open educational resources (OER) in order to facilitate collaborative and flexible learning. Because OEP emerged from the study of OER, there is a strong connection between the two concepts. OEP, for example, often, but not always, involve the application of OER to the teaching and learning process. Open educational practices aim to take the focus beyond building further access to OER and consider how in practice, such resources support education and promote quality and innovation in teaching and learning. The focus in OEP is on reproduction/understanding, connecting information, application, competence, and responsibility rather than the availability of good resources. OEP is a broad concept which can be characterised by a range of collaborative pedagogical practices that include the use, reuse, and creation of OER and that often employ social and participatory technologies for interaction, peer-learning, knowledge creation and sharing, empowerment of learners, and open sharing of teaching practices.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Mishra P, Koehler MJ. (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
  2. 1 2 Angeli, C.; Valanides, N. (2005). "Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: an instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge". Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 21 (4): 292–302. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00135.x. ISSN   1365-2729.
  3. 1 2 Koehler, Matthew J.; Mishra, Punya (1 March 2005). "What Happens When Teachers Design Educational Technology? The Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge". Journal of Educational Computing Research. 32 (2): 131–152. doi:10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV. ISSN   0735-6331. S2CID   61816983.
  4. ↑ Niess ML. (2005) Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509–523.
  5. ↑ Pierson, Melissa E. (1 June 2001). "Technology Integration Practice as a Function of Pedagogical Expertise". Journal of Research on Computing in Education. 33 (4): 413–430. doi:10.1080/08886504.2001.10782325. ISSN   0888-6504. S2CID   60600573.
  6. ↑ Koehler, M. J., Shin, T. S., & Mishra, P. (2012). How do we measure TPACK? Let me count the ways. In Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and approaches (pp. 16–31). IGI Global.
  7. 1 2 3 Mishra, Punya (3 April 2019). "Considering Contextual Knowledge: The TPACK Diagram Gets an Upgrade". Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. 35 (2): 76–78. doi: 10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611 . ISSN   2153-2974. S2CID   145840154.
  8. ↑ Angeli, Charoula; Valanides, Nicos; Mavroudi, Anna; Christodoulou, Andri; Georgiou, Kyriakoula (24 October 2014), "Introducing e-TPCK: An Adaptive E-Learning Technology for the Development of Teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge", Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Boston, MA: Springer US, pp. 305–317, doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-8080-9_16, ISBN   978-1-4899-8079-3 , retrieved 25 June 2021
  9. 1 2 Shulman LS. (1986) Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(4).
  10. ↑ Thompson, Ann D.; Mishra, Punya. "Editors' Remarks". Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. 24: 38–64. doi:10.1080/10402454.2007.10784583 (inactive 31 January 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of January 2024 (link)
  11. ↑ Margerum-Leys, Jon; Marx, Ronald W. (November 2004). "The Nature and Sharing of Teacher Knowledge of Technology in a Student Teacher/Mentor Teacher Pair". Journal of Teacher Education. 55 (5): 421–437. doi:10.1177/0022487104269858. ISSN   0022-4871. S2CID   145578522.
  12. ↑ Hughes, Joan (1997). "The Role of Teacher Knowledge and Learning Experiences in Forming Technology-Integrated Pedagogy". Journal of Technology and Teacher Education: 277–302. ISSN   1059-7069.
  13. ↑ Niess, Margaret L. (2005). "Scaffolding Math Learning with Spreadsheets. Learning Connections—Mathematics". Learning & Leading with Technology. 32 (5): 24. ISSN   1082-5754.
  14. ↑ Harris J, Mishra P, Koehler M. (2009) Teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416
  15. 1 2 3 4 Graziano, Kevin J.; Herring, Mary C.; Carpenter, Jeffrey P.; Smaldino, Sharon; Finsness, Elizabeth S. (11 March 2017). "A TPACK Diagnostic Tool for Teacher Education Leaders". TechTrends. 61 (4): 372–379. doi:10.1007/s11528-017-0171-7. ISSN   8756-3894. S2CID   255308494.
  16. 1 2 Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (March 2008). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 1–16). http://www.matt-koehler.com/publications/Mishra_Koehler_AERA_2008.pdf
  17. ↑ Papert, S. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Agents of change. The washington post education review, 27.
  18. ↑ Polin, L. & Moe, R. (2015). Locating TPACK in mediated practice. http://profmoe.com/PolinMoe_OnlineTeaching_v1a.pdf
  19. ↑ Bell, Randy L.; Maeng, Jennifer L.; Binns, Ian C. (March 2013). "Learning in context: Technology integration in a teacher preparation program informed by situated learning theory". Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 50 (3): 348–379. Bibcode:2013JRScT..50..348B. doi:10.1002/tea.21075.
  20. ↑ Çalik, Muammer; Özsevgeç, Tuncay; Ebenezer, Jazlin; Artun, Hüseyin; Küçük, Zeynel (June 2014). "Effects of 'Environmental Chemistry' Elective Course Via Technology-Embedded Scientific Inquiry Model on Some Variables". Journal of Science Education and Technology. 23 (3): 412–430. Bibcode:2014JSEdT..23..412C. doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9473-5. ISSN   1059-0145. S2CID   254753485.
  21. ↑ Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi; Çalik, Muammer; Aytar, Ayşe (6 June 2013). "Sınıf Öğretmen Adaylarının Öğretmenlik Uygulaması Sürecinde İnsanın Çevreye Etkisi Konusu İle İlgili Pedagojik Alan Bilgilerinin Araştırılması". Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. doi:10.12738/estp.2013.3.1649.
  22. ↑ Bilici, Sedef Canbazoglu; Guzey, S. Selcen; Yamak, Havva (3 May 2016). "Assessing pre-service science teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) through observations and lesson plans". Research in Science & Technological Education. 34 (2): 237–251. Bibcode:2016RSTEd..34..237C. doi:10.1080/02635143.2016.1144050. ISSN   0263-5143. S2CID   147638190.
  23. ↑ Maeng, Jennifer L.; Mulvey, Bridget K.; Smetana, Lara K.; Bell, Randy L. (December 2013). "Preservice Teachers' TPACK: Using Technology to Support Inquiry Instruction". Journal of Science Education and Technology. 22 (6): 838–857. Bibcode:2013JSEdT..22..838M. doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9434-z. ISSN   1059-0145. S2CID   254745216.
  24. ↑ Sheffield, Rachel; Dobozy, Eva; Gibson, David; Mullaney, Jim; Campbell, Chris (3 July 2015). "Teacher education students using TPACK in science: a case study". Educational Media International. 52 (3): 227–238. doi:10.1080/09523987.2015.1075104. ISSN   0952-3987. S2CID   61774139.
  25. ↑ Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 60–70.
  26. ↑ Papanikolaou, Kyparisia; Makri, Katerina; Roussos, Petros (18 September 2017). "Learning design as a vehicle for developing TPACK in blended teacher training on technology enhanced learning". International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 14 (1). doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0072-z . ISSN   2365-9440. S2CID   6782577.
  27. ↑ Koehler, Matthew J.; Mishra, Punya; Bouck, Emily C.; DeSchryver, Michael; Kereluik, Kristen; Shin, Tae Seob; Wolf, Leigh Graves (2011). "Deep-play: developing TPACK for 21st century teachers". International Journal of Learning Technology. 6 (2): 146. doi:10.1504/ijlt.2011.042646. ISSN   1477-8386.
  28. 1 2 3 4 Angeli, Charoula; Valanides, Nicos (January 2009). "Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK)". Computers & Education. 52 (1): 154–168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006. ISSN   0360-1315. S2CID   18954239.
  29. ↑ Koh, Joyce Hwee Ling; Chai, Ching Sing (1 November 2016). "Seven design frames that teachers use when considering technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)". Computers & Education. 102: 244–257. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.003. ISSN   0360-1315.
  30. ↑ Tsai, Chin-Chung; Chai, Ching Sing (15 August 2012). "The "third"-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education". Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 28 (6). doi: 10.14742/ajet.810 . ISSN   1449-5554. S2CID   54207780.
  31. ↑ Boschman, Ferry; McKenney, Susan; Voogt, Joke (March 2015). "Exploring teachers' use of TPACK in design talk: The collaborative design of technology-rich early literacy activities". Computers & Education. 82: 250–262. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.010. ISSN   0360-1315. S2CID   33054499.
  32. ↑ Baran, Evrim; Correia, Ana-Paula; Thompson, Ann (November 2011). "Transforming online teaching practice: critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers". Distance Education. 32 (3): 421–439. doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.610293. ISSN   0158-7919. S2CID   182769.
  33. 1 2 Voogt, J.; Fisser, P.; Pareja Roblin, N.; Tondeur, J.; van Braak, J. (16 March 2012). "Technological pedagogical content knowledge – a review of the literature". Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 29 (2): 109–121. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x. ISSN   0266-4909. S2CID   9140208.
  34. ↑ Phillips, Michael (7 July 2016). "Processes of practice and identity shaping teachers' TPACK enactment in a community of practice". Education and Information Technologies. 22 (4): 1771–1796. doi:10.1007/s10639-016-9512-y. ISSN   1360-2357. S2CID   146738729.
  35. ↑ Porras-Hernández, Laura Helena; Salinas-Amescua, Bertha (March 2013). "Strengthening Tpack: A Broader Notion of Context and the Use of Teacher's Narratives to Reveal Knowledge Construction". Journal of Educational Computing Research. 48 (2): 223–244. doi:10.2190/ec.48.2.f. ISSN   0735-6331. S2CID   61521327.
  36. ↑ Herring, Mary; Thomas, Tommye; Redmond, Pamela (21 April 2014). "Special Editorial: Technology Leadership for Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology". Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. 30 (3): 76–80. doi:10.1080/21532974.2014.891875. ISSN   2153-2974. S2CID   154467742.
  37. 1 2 Niess, Margaret L. (April 2011). "Investigating TPACK: Knowledge Growth in Teaching with Technology". Journal of Educational Computing Research. 44 (3): 299–317. doi:10.2190/EC.44.3.c. ISSN   0735-6331. S2CID   62439095.
  38. ↑ Koehler, Matthew J.; Mishra, Punya; Kereluik, Kristen; Shin, Tae Seob; Graham, Charles R. (2014), Spector, J. Michael; Merrill, M. David; Elen, Jan; Bishop, M. J. (eds.), "The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework", Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, New York, NY: Springer New York, pp. 101–111, doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_9, ISBN   978-1-4614-3184-8, S2CID   3899090 , retrieved 26 June 2021
  39. ↑ Mouza, Chrystalla. "Developing and assessing TPACK among pre-service teachers." Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators 169 (2016).
  40. ↑ Su, M., & Foulger, T. (March 2019). We aren't there yet: A progression of literature on TPACK measures to assess technology integration. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2534–2542). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  41. ↑ Hall, Jacob A.; Lei, Jing; Wang, Qiu (1 December 2020). "The first principles of instruction: an examination of their impact on preservice teachers' TPACK". Educational Technology Research and Development. 68 (6): 3115–3142. doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09866-2. ISSN   1556-6501. S2CID   228928224.
  42. ↑ Schmidt DA, Baran E, Thompson AD, Mishra P, Koehler MJ, Shin TS. (2009) Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.
  43. ↑ Wang, Wei; Schmidt-Crawford, Denise; Jin, Yi (2 October 2018). "Preservice Teachers' TPACK Development: A Review of Literature". Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. 34 (4): 234–258. doi:10.1080/21532974.2018.1498039. ISSN   2153-2974. S2CID   181909673.
  44. ↑ Valtonen, Teemu; Kukkonen, Jari; Kontkanen, Sini; Mäkitalo-Siegl, Kati; Sointu, Erkko (2018). "Differences in pre-service teachers' knowledge and readiness to use ICT in education". Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 34 (2): 174–182. doi:10.1111/jcal.12225. ISSN   1365-2729.
  45. ↑ Clausen, J. M., Finsness, E. S., Borthwick, A. C., Graziano, K. J., Carpenter, J. P., & Herring, M. (2019). TPACK leadership diagnostic tool: Adoption and implementation by teacher education leaders. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(1), 54–72.
  46. ↑ Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). 6A Review of the quantitative measures of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). In Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (pp. 97–116). Routledge.
  47. 1 2 Archambault, L. (2016). Exploring the use of qualitative methods to examine TPACK. Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators, 2, 65–86.
  48. ↑ Polly, D., & Orrill, C. H. (2016). Designing professional development to support teachers’ TPACK in elementary school mathematics. Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators, 2, 259–269.
  49. ↑ Foulger, Teresa S.; Buss, Ray R.; Su, Man (18 August 2021). "The IT2 Survey: contextual knowledge (XK) influences on teacher candidates' intention to integrate technology". Educational Technology Research and Development. 69 (5): 2729–2760. doi:10.1007/s11423-021-10033-4. ISSN   1042-1629. PMC   8373295 . PMID   34426722.
  50. ↑ Byker, E. J., Putman, S. M., Polly, D., & Handler, L. (2018). Examining elementary education teachers and preservice teachers’ self-efficacy related to technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). In Self-efficacy in instructional technology contexts (pp. 119–140). Springer, Cham.
  51. ↑ Kiray, S. A. (2016). Development of a TPACK self-efficacy scale for preservice science teachers. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(2), 527–541.
  52. 1 2 Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Examining the technological pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore preservice teachers with a large-scale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 563–573.
  53. 1 2 Cox, S. M. (2008). A conceptual analysis of technological pedagogical content knowledge.
  54. ↑ Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953–1960.
  55. 1 2 Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–1662.
  56. 1 2 Archambault L, Crippen K. (2009) Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88
  57. ↑ Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60–69.
  58. ↑ Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teacher’s professional development. Computers & Education,55(3), 1259–1269. doi : 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.022
  59. ↑ Bull, G., Hodge, C., Mouza, C., Grant, M., Archambault, L., Borup, J., ... & Schmidt-Crawford, D. A. (2019). Conceptual Dilution. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(2), 117–128.
  60. ↑ Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers' development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63–73.
  61. ↑ Agyei, D. D., & Keengwe, J. (2014). Using technology pedagogical content knowledge development to enhance learning outcomes. Education and Information Technologies, 19(1), 155–171.
  62. 1 2 Brantley-Dias, L., & Ertmer, P. A. (2014). Goldilocks and TPACK. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 46(2), 103–128.
  63. ↑ Kopcha, T. J., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Jung, J., & Baser, D. (2014). Examining the TPACK framework through the convergent and discriminant validity of two measures. Computers & Education, 78, 87–96.
  64. ↑ Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (March 2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3833–3840). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.