Upload
petra-fisser
View
2.742
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Meaningful use of ICT in education requires teachers to develop knowledge and skills that enables them to integrate ICT with a suitable pedagogical approach for teaching specific subject matter in a certain context. Koehler & Mishra (2008) introduced Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as a conceptual framework to describe the knowledge base teachers need for effective teaching with technology. This symposium aims to present successful strategies to develop Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) as emerged from several studies in different countries around the world. Based on the studies, and a further in-depth analysis of the data we tried to further uncover the conceptual understanding and the empirical validation of the TPACK framework. Active collaboration of teachers seems to be an effective way to develop TPACK, but the question remains how TPACK as a conceptual framework can be understood.
Citation preview
SITE 2012 TPACK Symposium Developing TPACK around the world: Probing the framework even as we apply it
05/03/2012 Title: to modify choose 'View' then
'Heater and footer'
1
This symposium..
… is a follow-up symposium!
2010: Strategies for teacher professional development in TPACK & How to
measure the impact of PD on TPACK
2011: Teacher’s Assessment of TPACK: Where are we and what is needed?
What do we assess, why and how? Quality of assessment instruments
The 2012 symposium aims to present successful strategies to develop
TPACK as emerged from several studies in different countries around the
world
Based on the studies, and a further in-depth analysis of the data we tried
to further uncover the conceptual understanding and the empirical
validation of the TPACK framework
TPACK?
Today’s presentations
The studies that will be presented in the first hour of the symposium
used several instruments to measure TPACK (self-report, lesson plan
evaluations, observations, interviews, etc.).
analyzing the data revealed differences between self-report findings
and actual TPACK learning outcomes as measured in practice
representing the TPACK framework by a Venn diagram in which three
knowledge domains overlap from which TPACK emerges is very
appealing and intuitive, but it might not represent the precise practice
of teachers’ ICT-integrating knowledge and skills.
The second part of the symposium therefore aims to go deeper into the
conceptual understanding and the empirical validation of the TPACK
framework.
Organization of the symposium
First hour:
Introduction to the symposium: 5 minutes
Contributions: 3*15 minutes
Discussion with the Audience 10 minutes
Second hour:
Contributions: 2*15 minutes
Discussant – 15 minutes
Discussion with the Audience – 10 minutes
Wrapping up: 5 minutes
First hour
1. Pre-service teachers’ competencies for technology integration: Insights
from a mathematics-specific instructional technology course in Ghana
Douglas Agyei & Joke Voogt, University of Twente, the Netherlands
2. Transforming Classroom Practices through Teachers’ Learning of
TPACK: The case of in-service teachers in Kibasila Secondary in
Tanzania
Ayoub Kafyulilo, Petra Fisser & Joke Voogt, University of Twente, the
Netherlands
3. Pre-service Teachers’ Competencies for ICT integration in Kuwait: What
do Learning Outcomes and Self-reported Data Tell?
Ghaida Alayyar, Petra Fisser & Joke Voogt, University of Twente, the
Netherlands
Second hour
1. Using the lens of classroom observation to examine teachers’ TPACK
Denise Schmidt-Crawford, Wei Wang, Diana Tai, & Ann Thompson,
Iowa State University, USA, Evrim Baran, University of British Columbia,
Canada
2. Towards understanding TPACK: An empirical analysis of pre-service
teacher’s perceptions of their ICT-integrating knowledge and skills
Joke Voogt & Petra Fisser, University of Twente, The Netherlands,
David Gibson, simSchool, USA, Gerald Knezek, University of North
Texas, USA, Jo Tondeur, Ghent University, Belgium
3. Discussion: The Forest or the Trees: TPACK Implementation and Theory
Development
Punya Mishra, Michigan State University, USA
Pre-service teachers’ competencies for technology integration: Insights from a mathematics-specific instructional technology
course
Douglas Agyei
&
Joke Voogt
05/03/2012 Title: to modify choose 'View' then
'Heater and footer'
10
Motivation
Part of a bigger study to integrate technology in teaching mathematics
(Ghana)
Two case studies of Professional Development (PD) in 2009 and 2010
Integration of the PD arrangement into a regular mathematics–specific IT
course
Problems with mathematics teaching in Ghana (Agyei & Voogt, 2011)
Teacher-centred approach ( Hardly any hands-on activities & Whole class
teaching)
low cognitive learning of maths ( concept formation at a more abstract level)
TPACK Framework
ICT (spreadsheet) to promote in-depth maths concept formation
Activity-Based Learning (ABL) to make lesson less teacher-centred
TPACK Conceptualization
CKmaths : knowledge about mathematical concepts.
PKABL: knowledge and skills about applying ABL teaching strategies.
TKss: knowledge and skills about use of spreadsheet its affordances and constraints.
PCKABL: knowledge and skills of how to apply ABL to teach particular mathematics content.
TCKss: knowledge and skills of representing mathematical concepts in a spreadsheet
TPKABL: knowledge and skills of how to use spreadsheets in ABL.
TPCKmaths: knowledge and skills of representing mathematical concepts with spreadsheet
using ABL.
Instructional Technology (IT) Course-Arrangement
Strategies (Adopted from Tondeur et al, 2011)
Aligning theory & practice - lectures, lab sessions & classroom implementation
Modelling how to use technology - lab sessions
Collaborating with peers - lectures and lab sessions
Learning technology by design - lab sessions
Scaffolding authentic technology experience - classroom implementation
24 teams - (from 104 pre-service teachers)
Semester’s long project - design & develop own lessons /plan instructional strategy
Lesson enactment - 8 teams present lessons twice: mid & end of course
- Another 8 teams present lesson at the end of course
Researchers’ role - mainly facilitative and demonstrative
Lesson enactment (1)
Lesson enactment (2)
'
Challenge & Data Collection
Challege : Impact IT strategies on teachers’ technology competencies
( ie. attitudes, knowledge and skill – TPACK)
Table 1: Overview of instruments and their stages of administration
Instrument TPACK data Stage of
Administration
Source Type B M E
Lesson Plan Rubric Team Artefact ✓ ✓
TPACK Observation
Rubric
Team Observable ✓ ✓
Design Team Reports Team Artefact ✓
TPACK Survey Individual Self-report ✓ ✓
TAC Survey Individual Self-report ✓ ✓
B= Before, M = Mid, E= End of Instructional technology course.
Analyzing Data
Quantitative Content Analysis (Berelson, 1952)
Categorizing and coding data based on TPACK (Koehler et al. 2007)
(Similar for Lesson Plans & Observed data)
Points (marks) awarded based on Lesson plan rubric and TPACK
observation rubric
Systematic quantitative Analysis (Mainly descriptive)
Intercoder reliability result using Cohen’s kappa (k)
0.86 (for Lesson plans)
0.84 (for observational data)
Categorizing and Coding data
Example of coding lesson document
Codes: [PKABL]
Prepare students for the following activities (Activities: 1.0 - 3.0) by organizing them in
small groups ... Assign specific roles to members….
Codes: [PCKABL]
In this activity, ask students to indicate (by tick (√)) the features of the equations as shown
on the Worksheet ... Ask the students to keep their results for discussion later in the lesson.
Codes: [TKss]
Set the cursor over cell D1 ... You should see: =m*x+k. (NB: The * symbol is used for
multiplication)… and then click on Scatter with Smooth Lines and Markers.
TPCKmaths
TKss
Linear functions in the slope intercept form
Results (1)
Comparing teachers with mid-peer teaching (PT) and without mid- peer teaching
(NPT) experiences.
End-TPACK score lesson plan (n=8) artefact (min=7, max=21).
PT (M= 16.38, SD=0.807) NPT (M= 15.03, SD=0.845)
Mann-Whitney U-test: (p=0.008, d=1.58)
End-TPACK score of lesson (n=8) observation (min=20, max= 60).
PT (M= 42.39) NPT (M= 40.54) (p < 0.0001, d=2.53)
large gains in: TKss (gain = 2.31), TPKABL (gain = 2.31),
TCKABL (gain = 2.44) & TPCKmaths (gain = 2.80)
Score on attitudes based on TAC (n=32)
Sig. for only two subscales :
lack of anxiety: PT (M= 4.22, SD=0.583) & NPT (M= 4.05, SD=0.588) ; (p=0.041,d=0.29)
Instr. productivity: PT (M= 4.44, SD=0.414) & NPT (M= 4.35, SD=0.511);(p=0.049, d=0.19).
Results (2)
Table 2: Perceived TPACK knowledge and skill for NPT and PT Factor PT (n=32)
Mean (SD)
NPT (n=32)
Mean (SD)
P
Effect size
TKss 4.13 (0.301) 4.41(0.399) 0.005*
0.79
CKmaths 4.44 (0.577) 4.52 (0.400) 0.049*
0.15
PKABL 4.33 (0.322) 4.50(0.430) 0.027*
0.45
PCKABL 4.36(0.459) 4.48(0.552) 0.031*
0.24
TCKABL 4.10 (0.309) 4.34(0.410) 0.008*
0.67
TPKABL 4.21 (0.291) 4.45(0.309) 0.001*
0.80
TPCKmaths 4.15(0.277) 4.43(0.340) 0.001*
0.90 * Significant at the 0.05 level
Results (3)
Table 3: Usefulness of the strategies in IT course (N=26 teams)
Strategy NPT (N=18) (100%) PT(N=8) (100%)
Collaborative Design Team 17(94.4%) 8 (100%)
Learning technology by doing approach 15 (83.3%) 7 (87.5%)
mixture lectures and practical sessions 16 (88.8%) 7 (87.5%)
Teaching try-out usefulness 8 (44.4%) 8 (100%)
Feedback from peers and instructors 13 (72.2%) 8 (100%)
Usefulness of exemplary materials 18 (100%) 8 (100%)
Use of demonstration by the lecturer 16 (88.8%) 7 (87.5%)
Summary of Results & Conclusions
Teachers developed & improved their competencies after the IT course
Attitudes, knowledge and skill (TPACK) improved significantly for both category
of teachers.
Teachers with mid-term teaching try-out developed their competencies better
The mathematic-specific strategies (all) were central in developing pre-service
teachers competencies.
More importantly, scaffolding authentic technology experiences (including
feedback from peers and instructor) made a significant contribution
The strategies provide useful guidelines in designing a subject-specific program
to prepare teachers in Ghana (and similar context) to teach with technology
Transforming Classroom Practices through Teachers’ Learning of TPACK
The case of in-service teachers in Tanzania
Ayoub Kafyulilo, Petra Fisser and Joke Voogt
University of Twente
Curriculum Design & Educational Innovation
5th March 2012
Introduction
Education reforms around the world emphasizes the use of learner-
centered teaching approaches
Our social and institutional contexts limit the effective use of learner-
centered approaches
Schools (e.g. in Tanzania) have;
fixed study schedules,
a time bound syllabus, and
examination oriented learning
Thus, teachers worry more about the time to finish the syllabus, than the
competencies that students need to develop
Technology can help teachers to use time effectively and enable students
to understand the lesson
How can technology enhance students learning
There is evidence from literature (Keong et al, 2005; Voogt et al, 2009;
Knezek & Christensen, 2008) that;
Constructivist pedagogical approaches are easily supported through the
use of technology.
With technology;
Students’ learning is improved through increased collaboration
Students maintain a high level of communication and sharing of
knowledge.
Students visualize difficult and/or dangerous concepts and processes
that cannot be visualized by eyes (e.g. cell division)
Technology Integration in Education in Tanzania
Despite the potentials of technology on students’ learning, the majority of
teachers in Tanzania are not embracing the use of technology in teaching
Factors contributing to low level of technology uptake in teaching:
lack of technological tools,
limited supply of electricity in most schools,
limited teachers’ technological knowledge and
Limited teachers’ technology integration competencies.
Most of the teachers in Tanzania have the basic ICT knowledge but they
don’t know how ICT can support teaching and learning
An understanding of TPACK was considered important in the
development of teachers’ ability to integrate technology in teaching
TPACK Development among In-service Teachers
A professional development program to develop teachers’ TPACK was
organized as follows;
Two days training and hands on activities on TPACK
Four weeks collaboration in teacher design teams to design
technology integrated lessons (scheme of work, lesson plan and
lesson notes)
A practical teaching of a technology integrated lesson in a classroom
One day workshop to reflect on the training, collaboration in design
teams, lesson design, classroom teaching and students feedback.
Redesign of the lesson in teacher design team and
Re-teach the lesson in the classroom
Some of the activities during the workshop
Lesson design in teacher design teams Rehearsing teaching with technology
Methodology
12 teachers participated in the project
Data were collected for pre-intervention and post-intervention results
The following data collection instrument were used for both pre and post
intervention results
i. Teachers’ questionnaire
ii. Teachers’ observation checklist
iii. Teachers’ interview guide
iv. Students’ observation checklist
Data were also collected by using student questionnaire for post
intervention
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics involving the calculation of mean and standard
deviations were conducted for the students’ experience with the use of
technology in learning
Wilcoxon signed ranks test for two related samples was used to analyze
the level of significance in the difference between pre and post
intervention results for teachers’ perceived ability of using technology in
Teaching
Effect sizes were calculated for each item to determine the magnitude of
the change between pre and post intervention results.
Teachers’ perceived effect of technology in teaching (N=12)
No of
items
Pre
Interventio
n
M (SD)
Post
Intervention
M(SD)
P Effect
size
Use of technology improves teaching
productivity (enhance students’
interactions, assessment and classroom
managment) 5
2.85
(0.73)
4.23
(0.67) .002 1.97
Use of technology supports learning
activities that facilitate students’ higher
order thinking 4
3.48
(0.73)
4.21
(0.52) .012 1.15
Scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Undecided, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree
Observed classroom practices with technology (1)
Prior to the participation in the professional development program to
develop TPACK, teachers were using teacher centered teaching
approaches.
Interaction with students in the classroom was limited
In all subjects teachers were lecturing; students were listening and
copying notes
Some teachers were talking while writing notice on the chalkboard.
After the training; the teaching approach changed,
The technology required a teacher to interact with the students by asking
questions regarding what is presented through technology.
Observed classroom practices with technology (2)
The use of an animation or video to depict scientific processes, enhanced
interaction between teacher and students, amongst students, students
and technology as well as students and subject matter.
Subject
matter
Teacher
Students
Technology
Observed classroom practices with technology
An example of interactive lesson was demonstrated by the biology team
through the video they made about first aid provision to a fainting
person
During this lesson, a teacher was seating behind the classroom with
students and acted like a fellow learner but a leader to the discussion
He made groups of five and assigned tasks to each group,
Each group made a presentation of their task to the colleagues in the
classroom
There was a great debate between students from different groups which
was reflecting on the video
Students’ Experience with Technology in
Science Learning (N = 40)
No of
items Mean SD
Student’s knowledge of computer (have seen it
before, used it) 4 3.59 1,04
Students’ attitude towards learning science with
technology 11 4.45 0.52
Use of technology enhances learning of difficult
concepts 5 4.24 0.64
Technology helps students to be more involved
in the learning process than the traditional
classes
6 4.35 0.57
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree
Teachers’ opinions regarding students learning in a
technology integrated class
Question Responses (number of respondents in brackets)
To what extent
do you think
students’
learning in
science
improved
through the
integration of
technology in
teaching?
- To a great extent (all teachers) reasons:
- Students attention to the lesson was increased (4)
- Students were very active during the technology integrated
lesson (4)
- They did well in the assignment they were given (5)
- They told us that they enjoyed and understood the lesson (3)
- Students asked for other lesson that use technology (3)
- They were able to observe process which are difficult to
observe in the regular classes (1)
- Students were excited by our lesson; they told us (3)
The Impact of TPACK on Teachers’ Classroom Practices
Teachers’ understanding of TPACK had an impact on:
Teachers’ choice of the pedagogical approaches in relation to the
content and the technology in use
Teachers’ design of the students activities in relation to the technology
in use and the content to be covered
By considering TPACK, Kibasila secondary school teachers were able to
focus their lessons design around technology, pedagogy and content in
an integrated manner
TPACK was used as a guide and a reflection model for ensuring a clear
interplay between content, pedagogy and technology
The Impact of TPACK on Teachers’ Classroom Practices (2)
An understanding of TPACK had an impact not only on how teachers
teach but also to the students;
Hayes (2007) uphold that, use of technology in teaching doesn’t only
change the way a teacher teaches, but also the way students learn
For example students at Kibasila secondary school reported to enjoy and
understand the technology integrated lessons better than traditional
lessons;
Students also reported to understand some scientific concepts and
processes (e.g. mitosis) more easily, and developed interests and
motivation to the lesson than it used to be in other lessons
The impact of teachers’ TPACK on classroom practices (3)
Learning with technology offered an opportunity for students to learn
through collaboration to solve a task given by their teachers.
The collaboration approach had two advantages to students;
the opportunity to share ideas and concepts, thus, being able to
respond to questions more appropriately; and
the social gain, where new friendships were established
From our findings we consider that the changes that teachers made in
their teaching, were a result of their learning and understanding of
TPACK.
Thank you for your attention
Pre-service Teachers’ Competencies for ICT Integration in Kuwait: What Do Learning Outcomes & Self-reported Data Tell ?
Ghaida M Alayyar – PAAET – Kuwait
Petra Fisser - UT – the Netherlands
Joke Voogt – UT – the Netherlands
•Kuwait University
Faculty of Education
•Public Authority of Applied Education and Training (PAAET)
College of Basic Education
Teacher preparation program in Kuwait
Science teacher preparation program at PAAET
(four-year program for primary science teachers, totally taught in Arabic language)
Note: All public primary school in Kuwait are taught by female staff
Teacher preparation program at PAAET
Context of the study
• Four-year program, 130 credits to graduate
• 122 credits for general, specialized and practical studies 8
credits for in-school field training
• The students spend three and a half years (i.e. seven
semesters) in the college learning theoretical knowledge and
the last semester is devoted to the field training in schools
• The program is mainly dependent on the teacher-centred
approach / lecture-based instruction
• Gender separation, male and female students are in different
buildings
• Totally taught in Arabic language
• Traditional teaching methods with a teacher-centered approach
• Limited or no ICT integration
• Stand alone technology courses
Assumption: providing pre-service teachers with technological skills will
automatically lead to effective integration of technology in their future classrooms
The integration of ICT in education at
the teacher preparation program at PAAET
Pre-service science teachers work in Design Teams (DTs) to design
technology-based activities and integrate these activities in their
lesson plan
What TPACK learning outcomes do pre-service teachers
demonstrate after working in DTs on ICT integration &
how are these TPACK learning outcomes related to their
self-reported TPACK?
Changing the PAAET context
Research Question
• 78 female pre-service science teachers worked in Design Teams (DTs)
• Spring semester of 2009/2010
• The participants were supported with by experts with technology, pedagogical
and content knowledge
• The participants were registered in the “Educational seminar” course,
accompanied with in- school training.
The Participants
Intervention: (12 weeks, 2 hours per week)
• Week 1-4: a workshop on DT’s & TPACK was organized, participants
were asked to do pre-measures
• Week 5: DTs were asked to present their problem and possible ICT
solution(s) to experts and peers (expert and peer reflection)
• Week 6-10: DTs designed an ICT-enhanced solution
• Week 11: DTs presented their solution to peer and experts and submit
a CD-ROM containing their product, lesson plan and the role of the
instructor and student
• Week 12: participants completed different measures on TPACK
Instrument Purpose Confidence/
Knowledge Type
TPACK data
Source Observable /
self-reported
Presentation
Rubric
Assess the ability to
present the idea behind
the final product for
experts and peers
Confidence /
Schematic Observation Individual O
Explanation
Checklist
Assess the ability to argue
and explain the rational
behind the chosen design,
ICT, pedagogy & content
Schematic Observation Individual O
TPACK
Definition
Rubric
Assess the ability to
define TPACK concept Declarative
Open ended
question Individual O
TPACK
Reflection
Rubric
Assess the ability to apply
TPACK in real practice Strategic
Open ended
question
Individual O
Instruments for measuring TPACK
Instrument Purpose Confidence/
Knowledge Type
TPACK data
Source Observable /
Self-reported
Lesson Plan
Rubric
Assess the quality of
ICT integration
lesson plan
Strategic Performance
assessment Team O
Product
Rubric
Assess the quality of
ICT integration in
the product
Strategic
Performance
assessment
Team O
ICT Skill
Test
Assess the ICT
skills Procedural
Performance
assessment
Individual O
TPACK
Survey
Assess self-reported
TPACK Confidence Survey Individual S
Results: Learning outcomes after working in DTs
SD Mean Min -
Max
Confidence /
Knowledge
Type Measure
(total points)
.892 4.88 0-6 Confidence /
Schematic
Observation Presentation (6)
.519 3.44 0-4 Schematic Observation Explanation (4)
.657 1.90 0-3 Declarative Open ended
questions
TPACK definition
(3)
2.849 10.47 0-15 Strategic Open ended
questions
TPACK reflection
(15)
3.206 12.74 1-16 Strategic Performance
assessment
Lesson plan
Score (16)
5.928 50.99 0-60 Strategic Performance
assessment
Product Score (60)
Effect
Size
P
Level of sig.
Post
Mean
(SD)
Pre
Mean
(SD)
Confidence /
Knowledge
Type Measure
(total points)
2.04 0.0001 13.96
(3.081)
7.72
(3.037)
Procedural Performance
assessment
ICT skill test
(20)
Results: Pearson Correlation Matrix among observable learning outcomes
ICT
skill
test
Lesson
plan
score
Product
score
TPACK
reflection
TPACK
definition
Presentation Explanation
1.000
Explanation
1.000 .361** Presentation
1.000 .361** TPACK
definition
1.000 .842** .434** .492** TPACK
reflection
1.000 .331** .345** .485** Product score
1.000 .873** .282* .277* .494** Lesson plan
score
1.000 .301* .254* .554** .543** .285* .406** ICT skill test
Note: **. Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed), *. Significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Results: Comparison of the pre-service teachers’ perception of their TPACK
Effect Size P
Level of sig.
Post
Mean (SD)
Pre
Mean (SD)
Factor
1.23 0.0001 3.80 (.506) 3.15 (.548) TK
0.98 0.0001 4.13 (.404) 3.55 (.735) CK
1.41 0.0001 4.28 (.379) 3.65 (.499) PK
1.09 0.0001 4.22 (.457) 3.58 (.699) PCK
1.74 0.0001 4.22 (.494) 3.20 (.664) TCK
2.42 0.0001 4.21 (.438) 3.10 (.481) TPK
2.53 0.0001 4.12 (.419) 2.99 (.475) TPACK
Note: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Undecided, 4= Agree & 5= Strongly Agree
Pearson correlation matrix between TPACK different domains (pre-measure)
TPACK TPK TCK PCK PK CK TK
1.000 TK
1.000 .293* CK
1.000 .481** .267* PK
1.000 .681** .312** PCK
1.000 .332** .384** .371** TCK
1.000 .425** .314** .414** TPK
1.000 .273* .296* .383** .507** TPACK
Note: **. Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed), *. Significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Pearson correlation matrix between TPACK different domains (post-measure)
TPACK TPK TCK PCK PK CK TK
1.000 TK
1.000 .437** CK
1.000 .378* .477** PK
1.000 .693** .339** .334** PCK
1.000 .455** .476** .444** .442** TCK
1.000 .566** .344** .542** .469** .575** TPK
1.000 .704** .578** .438** .538** .468** .662** TPACK
Note: **. Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed), *. Significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Pearson correlation matrix between TPACK domains & learning outcomes
ICT skill
test
Lesson
plan
Product TPACK
reflection
TPACK
definition
Presentation Explanation
.261* TK
CK
PK
PCK
.261* .245* TCK
.239* .243* .253* TPK
TPACK
Note: * Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed)
The pre-service teachers were able to:
• Develop an ICT-enhanced product (Strategic level) & integrate this
product into a lesson plan (Strategic level)
• Define TPACK (Declarative level) & reflect on TPACK framework
(Strategic level)
• Present their product to peers and instructors & defend their choice of
ICT tool, design-related issues (e.g. consistency, contrast, balance,
colour scheme), and pedagogy. Furthermore, they were able to build
their argument using the different domains of TPACK.
&
• The pre-service teachers’ ICT skills (Procedural level) significantly
increased
• Self-reported TPACK (Confidence level) increased significantly after
working in DTs.
Conclusions
However, correlations between observable TPACK learning outcomes &
self-reported TPACK outcomes were small or not significant
Possible reason: the TPACK survey addressed TPACK in a general
and abstract way while the instruments assessing TPACK learning
outcomes are assessing TPACK in more concrete way
So.....
To be able to measure TPACK development in a valid & reliable way
we need to agree upon the definition of TPACK as a construct before
measuring TPACK with different instruments of which we are not
sure whether they measure TPACK as intended
• About the instruments?
• About the results?
• About TPACK in Kuwait?
• About…
Please contact us!
Ghaida Alayyar: [email protected]
Petra Fisser: [email protected]
Joke Voogt: [email protected]
More information?
Applying the Framework:
Assessing Preservice
Teachers’ Development of
TPACK Denise Schmidt-Crawford
Wei Wang
Shu Ju Diana Tai
Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching
Iowa State University, U.S.A
Evrim Baran
University of British Columbia, Canada Developing TPACK around the World (Symposium)
SITE 2012 – Austin, TX
Designed a Longitudinal TPACK Study for our Program
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Data
Collected
TPACK
Survey
Pre-test (#1)
Post-test (#2)
Classroom
observation
& interview
(Practicum)
TPACK
Survey (#3)
Classroom
observation
& interview
(Student
Teaching)
TPACK
Survey (#4)
Teacher
Educatio
n
Program:
Check
Points
Required IT
Course
Enrollment
in Methods
Courses
(4 total)
Completion
Methods
courses
Enrollment
in Student
Teaching
Completion
Student
Teaching
Are we preparing TPACK teachers?
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., &
Shin, T.S. (2009-10). 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.
Stage 1 Research: Instructional Technology Course
• 3-credit introduction to technology
course (15 weeks)
• Required for elementary education
and early childhood education majors
• Attend two, 1-hour lectures and one,
2-hour lab per week
Stage 1 Research: Instructional Technology Course
N=534
88 % Female
12 % Male
89 %
22 years old
or younger
El. Ed. = 82 %
ECE = 16 %
Other = 2 %
Freshmen &
Sophomore
64 %
No practicum
experience
72 %
Stage 1 Research: Instructional Technology Course
Reported knowledge on each TPACK subscale.
Stage 1 Research: Instructional Technology Course
Reported knowledge on content specific area
‣ Significant differences in pre- and post-test means with all seven
TPACK components (Baseline data for program)
‣ Highest correlations were between the “T” components (e.g.,
TPACK & TPK, TPK & TCK, TK & TPK)
‣ Smallest pre- and post-test mean differences are in the Content
Knowledge areas.
‣ Self-report data - interpret with caution! (it appears students
enter with high perception of technology knowledge).... Leads to
the need for Stage 2
Stage 1 Research: Instructional Technology Course
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Data
Collected
TPACK
Survey
Pre-test (#1)
Post-test (#2)
Classroom
observation
& interview
(Practicum)
TPACK
Survey (#3)
Classroom
observation
& interview
(Student
Teaching)
TPACK
Survey (#4)
Teacher
Educatio
n
Program:
Check
Points
Required IT
Course
Enrollment
in Methods
Courses
(4 total)
Completion
Methods
courses
Enrollment
in Student
Teaching
Completion
Student
Teaching
Are we preparing TPACK teachers?
Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms
Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms
TPACK Observation Instrument
• Purpose: • What does TPACK look like in classrooms?
• Are preservice teachers exhibiting the TPACK
knowledge that they are reporting they have?
• Participants:
• 3 exemplary teachers (Goal: 6 teachers) • 5 observations and interviews
• Total Number of Codes (based on 2 observations and 1 interview)
TK
• 16
PK
• 3
CK
• 5
TPK
• 11
TCK
• 2
PCK
• 5
TPACK
• 10
Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms
103. TK_Select
104. TK_Affordance
117. TK_Transfer
Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms
• 101. TK_Emerge_Collaborate
• 102. TK-Emerge_Interactive
100. TK_Emerge
• 107. TK_Troubleshoot_Self
• 108. TK_Troubleshoot_Others
• 109. TK_Troubleshoot_Anticipate
106. TK_Troubleshoot
Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms
Full Code: Identifying the affordances of the
technology
Definition: Overall knowledge of what
technology can do
Example: “We’re also working on a …
global project… we’re working on with people from different
countries, different states. So we skyped through that.” (Interview)
Key Words: Skype (specific technology
mentioned)
104. TK_Affordance
Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms
601. TPK_Selection-Pedagogy
602. TPK_Coordinating-Tech
604. TPK_Troubleshooting-Managing
Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms
• 607. TPK_Extend-CR_Parents
606. TPK_Extend-CR
• 609. TPK_Demo-Tech_Instructions
• 610. TPK_Demo-Tech_Model
608. TPK_Demo-Tech
Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms
Full Code: Preparing instructional
materials with technology
Definition: Teachers use technology to
prepare for instruction beforehand, e.g. setting up the
accounts and getting the passwords for access
Example: Made tutorials for instructions -
posted video tutorials on her class website for students to access. (Observation notes)
Key Words: Prepare
600. TPK_Prepare-
Materials
Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms
Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms
Full Code: Identifying students’ learning needs
(e.g. content area, technology)
Definition: Teachers integrate technology with
content and pedagogy in mind based on learners’ needs
Example: “It is a lot of work but yet I think they
need to be exposed to [emerging technology].” (Interview)
Key Words: Need
701. TPACK_Learning_Needs
What will the TPACK Observation
Instrument look like?
Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms
Part 1:
Information on Background &
Context e.g., brief lesson plan
Part 2:
Checklist on TPACK
Characteristics
Part 3:
Questions for a Follow-up
Interview
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Data
Collected
TPACK
Survey
Pre-test (#1)
Post-test (#2)
Classroom
observation
& interview
(Practicum)
TPACK
Survey (#3)
Classroom
observation
& interview
(Student
Teaching)
TPACK
Survey (#4)
Teacher
Educatio
n
Program:
Check
Points
Required IT
Course
Enrollment
in Methods
Courses
(4 total)
Completion
Methods
courses
Enrollment
in Student
Teaching
Completion
Student
Teaching
Are we preparing TPACK teachers?
‣ Complete the development of TPACK observation instrument
‣ Collect TPACK survey Responses after preservice teachers
completed their method courses.
‣ Pilot study conducted in Fall 2011
Stage 3 Research: Methods Courses
Thank You!
Denise Schmidt-Crawford
Wei Wang
Shu Ju Diana Tai
Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching
Iowa State University
Evrim Baran
University of British Columbia
Towards understanding TPACK: An empirical analysis of pre-service teacher’s perceptions of their ICT-integrating knowledge and skills
Joke Voogt, Petra Fisser University of Twente
David Gibson CurveShift.Inc.
Gerald Knezek University of North Texas, USA
Jo Tondeur Ghent University, Belgium
SITE, Austin, 5 March 2012
In this presentation..
Aim of the study
Context of the study
Study design
Exploration of the constructs of the TPACK model
Exploration of relationships between the constructs
Conclusions
Aim of the study: Empirical exploration of the TPACK model
Can we reproduce the distinguished
constructs of the TPACK conceptual
framework as represented in the Venn
diagram in the data?
How are the constructs derived from the
data related?
Aim:
to explore the empirical basis of the TPACK
model;
to explore the potential of datamining
techniques to further understand
relationships in the data
The context of the study
The Netherlands
Pre-service teacher education (prospective elementary school
teachers)
Use of technology in the science domain
Sample:
287 students
age 16-24
24% male, 76% female
distributed over 4 years of study
Study Design
One-group post-test only design
Instrument: TPACK Survey (Schmidt et al., 2009)
self-assessment of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Focus on science only: we added science questions
Translated in Dutch
RQ1: Hierarchical Cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling,
Factor analysis
RQ2: Eureqa (data mining) and regression analysis
Factor analysis
Items Cronbach’s
Construct
F1 TK2, TK5, TK4, TK1, TK3, TK6, TK7 0.90 Technology knowledge (TK)
F2 TCK4, TCK3, TPK1, TCK5, TPK2,
TCK2, TCK6, TPCK4, (TCK1)
0.80
Technological Content Knowledge
(TCK)
F3 TPK4, TPK5, TPK3, TPCK1,
TPCK5,(TPCK2, TPCK3, TPCK6)
0.79
Technological Pedagogical
Knowledge (TPK)
F4 TPCK9, TPCK10, TPCK8, TPCK7 0.89 Technology leadership (lead)
F5 PK4, PK3, PK2, PK5, PK7, PK1, PK6 0.76 Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)
F6 CK2, CK1, CK3, PCK2, PCK1 0.80 Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(pCK)
To further explore the model
Instead of factor analysis:
Cluster analysis
(exploratory technique, to better understand what patterns exist in a
given data set)
Multidimensional scaling
(data analysis technique that provides a visual representation of the
pattern of proximities (similarities or distances) among a set of
objects)
Cluster analyses
Multidimensional scaling
Intermittant conclusion
TK, PK and TCK stand out as separate constructs
CK & PCK - TPK & TPCK are mixed up
Is it
because of the subject domain (science)?
because they are student teachers?
because the questions in the instrument are not good enough?
Technological leadership seems important (see also Riel & Becker,
2008)
But what does this mean in the case of student teachers?
The Venn diagram is an attractive conceptual model, but it is hard to
empirically reproduce the constructs
Exploring relationships between factors: Regression analysis
TK TCK TPK Lead PK pCK
/ p / p / p / p / p / p
TK Dependent 0.310/0.0001 -0.048/ns 0.061/ns -0.037/ns 0.214/0.003
TCK 0.451/0.0001 Dependent 0.522/0.0001 0.283/0.004 0.000/ns 0.154/ns
TPK -0.055/ns 0.417/ 0.0001 Dependent 0/117/ns 0.134/ns 0.172/0.031
Lead 0.051/ns 0.162/ 0.004 0.084/ns Dependent -0.098/ns 0.050/ns
PK -0.029/ns 0.000/ns 0.091/ns -0.093/ns Dependent 0.255/0.0001
pCK 0.216/0.003 0.106/ns 0.149/0.031 0.061/ns 0.323/0.0001 Dependent
R2 0.314 0.516 0.410 0.178 0.135 0.318
Graphical presentation of findings (Regression)
Adjacency matrix
TK TCK TPK lead PK pCK
TK 1 1
TCK 1 1 1
TPK 1 1
lead 1
PK 1
pCK 1 1 1
Directed graph
Exploring relationships between the factors: Eureqa (Cornell)
Data mining
Each factor was explored as a function of the other factors
E.g F1-TK= f (F2-PK, F3-TPK, F4-lead, F5-PK, F6, pCK)
Generates a set of equations that fit the data
We picked the equations that balanced accuracy and simplicity
fit R R2 Equation
F1 TK 0,779 0,535 0,307 0.920 + 0.587*F2_TCK + 0.164*F6_pCK
F2 TCK 0,707 0,682 0,451 0.293*F1_TK + 0.644*F3_TPK
F3 TPK 0,736 0,567 0,314 1.642 + 0.491*F2_TCK + 0.067*F4_lead
F4 lead 0,887 0,366 0,107 0.718 + 0.641*F2_TCK
F5 PK 0,946 0,321 0,100 2.91 + 0.236*F6_pCK
F6 pCK 0,836 0,562 0,314 0.232*F1_TK + 0.232*F2_TCK + 0.464*F5_PK
Graphical representation of findings (Eureqa)
Adjacency matrix
TK TCK TPK lead PK pCK
TK 1 1
TCK 1 1
TPK 1 1
Lead 1
PK 1
pCK 1 1 1
Directed graph
Comparison
Regression analysis Eureqa analysis
Conclusions
The integration of the domains as described by Koehler & Mishra
seem to go beyond the integration of the 3 circles as TPK and TPCK
seem to be intertwined
TK seems conditional for TCK and TPK
To further explore relationships between teacher knowledge about
technology, pedagogy and subject domains:
More data are needed (also in other domains than science)
Eureqa is a nice tool to explore relations between data, but we
need to explore its potential further on larger data sets and also in
different settings
What else are we working on….
Review of the literature on TPACK: To be published in the Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning
Together with our colleagues from the University of Ghent, Belgium:
Research on collaborative design of technology enhanced learning
environments in teacher teams as a means for teacher learning and
sustainable curriculum innovation
In this research we use TPACK as a conceptual model
With our PhD students: Exploring the potential of TPACK and
collaborative design in (student-)teacher teams (Ghana, Tanzania,
Kuwait)
With our colleagues from CurveShift & UNT
Further explorations of the potential of Eureqa for exploring relations
between variables in (large) data sets
More information?
Please contact us!
Joke Voogt: [email protected]
Petra Fisser: [email protected]
And for the Dutch people htpp://www.tpack.nl
Discussion
The Forest or the Trees: TPACK Implementation and Theory Development Punya Mishra, Michigan State University, USA