• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Brownbag_Presentation 2_17
 

Brownbag_Presentation 2_17

on

  • 183 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
183
Views on SlideShare
131
Embed Views
52

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 52

http://joshuamrosenberg.com 52

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Hello, and thank you for joining Barb and I today. I am excited to share preliminary results from the practicum study I conducted with my advisor Matthew Koehler over the past year.
  • I am interested in understanding how social and cultural factors affect how individuals teach and learn with technology, so that I can study and design learning environments that support learning with technology for all studentsEspecially disadvantaged students
  • “Double the estimate the graduate student gives, and then move on to the next higher time unit”(Mankiw, 2013)Context connects teachers’ knowledge with social and cultural contextual factors– and other things that affect how knowledge translates into action
  • Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) is a theoretical framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Koehler & Mishra, 2008) for the knowledge needed to teach with technologyTeachers require knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and content, and knowledge of what happens when considered in combinationSince its introduction, “the notion of TPACK has been rapidly extended across the fields of professional development and technology integration” (Voogt, Fisser, Roblin, Tondeur, & van Braak, 2012, p. 110)
  • Context is difficult to define because it can mean both the things around the object of study and part of the object of study Context has many meanings to researchers from different theoretical perspectivesBehaviorist: determines behaviorBioecological: has multiple levelsCultural-historical: is an activitySituated cognition: is connected to knowledgeSocial psychological: is a situationIn this study, I define context as the conditions or interactions at multiple levels that surround actors and their characteristics
  • Context is important in many social science fields (Burke, 1999)Context is important in education research (Wieman, 2014)Wieman explained why in a recent Educational Researcher article: “ “We know a lot more about the contextual influences on the behavior of atoms than we do about on students” Especially among researchers who view cognition as situated (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Clancey, 2008; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Putnam & Borko, 2000) and distributed (Salomon & Perkins, 1998; Hutchins, 1995)And among researchers conductingdesign based (Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer & Schauble, 2003; Tabak, 2004), sociocultural (Cole, 1996), and developmental (Schaffer, 2006) research
  • Researchers have developed for context (Turner & Meyer, 2000)And the term is the source of endless confusion (Cole, 2003)The authors of the first chapter of the APA Educational Psychology Handbook summarized the situation:“The sheer number of perspectives regarding what context is and how it relates to learning is staggering” (Alexander, Murphy, and Greene 2011, p. 20)
  • Because the TPACK framework includes context as The incorporation of context and contextual factors into scientific research in education can make research relevant to practice (Alexander, Murphy, & Greene, 2011; Burke, 1999; Kagan, 2011; Turner & Meyer, 2010; Watt, 2010). Kelly (2010) investigated the inclusion of context within the TPACK framework, and reported on its “virtual absence” (p. 3887)However Kelly examined a limited number of publications that made use of TPACK (n=16)And the operational definition for context was unclearPorras-Hernandez and Salinas-Amescua (2013) identified the widespread variation in meaning for contextBut did not empirically establish thisAttention to context improves both understanding of intervention and of theory (The Design Based Research Collective, 2003)
  • As described by its developers (e.g., Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Koehler, Mishra, Kereluik, Shin, & Graham, 2014; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) . . . And as described others (e.g., Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Jang & Tsai, 2013; Kelly, 2007; 2008a, 2008b; 2010; Koh et al., 2010; Porras-Hernandez & Salinas-Amescua, 2013; Reeve, 2008) . . . Context is a critically important part of TPACK
  • The context of teachers’ TPACK has been theorized in different ways - and with different meanings denoted by the term As discussed earlier with concern to the need for this study . . . There is evidence teachers’ context is not included as part of the TPACK framework (Kelly, 2010)Andd when context is included, it means different things to different researchers (Porras-Hernandez & Salinas-Amescua, 2013)Two prominent literature reviews (e.g., Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2013; Voogt, Fisser, & Roblin, 2012) recently took stock of the field but failed to examine the nature of context
  • The purpose of this descriptive (Shavelson & Towne, 2004), mixed methods content analysis (Schreier, 2012) is to establish the inclusion - and when included, specific aspects included – of context among publications that make use of the TPACK frameworkThis study builds upon and continues prior work by . . . . . . including more publications, and makes use of an operational definition for context, to extend Kelly’s (2010) study. . . using the conceptual framework for context that Porras-Hernandez and Salinas-Amescua’s (2013) identified but did not to empirically establish the widespread variation in meaning of context
  • Research Question #1 (RQ1):Has context been explicitly included when authors explain, describe, or operationalize TPACK in prior publications? Research Question #2 (RQ2): For those publications in which context was included in authors’ explanations, descriptions, or operationalizations of TPACK, what aspects of context are included?
  • I use this conceptual framework for context, which corresponds with my definition for context as “as the conditions or interactions at multiple levels that surround actors and their characteristics”Note: to develop the coding frame, I adapted the conceptual framework and added the inclusion of context as a coded variable; I and call each of these variables when using these as a coding frameScope – microClassroom or learning environmentScope – mesoSchool and communityScope – macroState, national or globalActor – studentCharacteristics of studentsActor – teacherCharacteristics of teachers
  • Search databases for TPACK and related termsApply inclusion criteriaPeer-reviewed journal; published 2005 – 2013; about TPACK; empirical nature; in EnglishSegment descriptions, explanations, or operationalizationsCode publications to provide data to answer RQ1 (inclusion of context)Code publications that included context to provide data to answer RQ2 (aspects of context included)
  • Increased interest in using the TPACK framework to describe the knowledge needed to teach with technologyTop 5 journals: Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, Computers & Education, Journal of Educational Computing Research, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, and Journal of Research on Technology in EducationNote that Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2013 reported on finding 74 articles by searching web of science, scopus, and ERICVoogt, Fisser, & Roblin, 2012 reported on finding 61 articles by searching ERIC, web of science, scopus, and psychinfo
  • In the following text, context is coded as included:“TPACK is especially referred to as contextualized knowledge that integrates technology and pedagogy on specific content knowledge” (Lin, Tsai, Chai, Lee, 2013)In the following text, micro was coded as included: Most studies did not identify the perspectives of teachers or explore how teachers develop TPACK in real classrooms.” (Liu, 2013) This process was repeated for each of the other variablesmeso, macro, student, and teacher“An instrument created to operationalize the TPACK construct could provide insights into strengths, shortcomings, and needed improvements in a school, college, or department of education’s curriculum and student teaching experiences.” (Lux, Bangert, & Whittier, 2011)“Thus, given the dominant force and prevailing presence of technology on college campuses and the advocacy of teaching in a digital age, we propose to step beyond the PCK boundary in the development of our instrument.” (Shih & Chuang, 2012)“This context might include students’ prior knowledge and learning difficulties.” (Jang & Tsai, 2012“Older teachers with more teaching experience were found to have lower TPACK self efficacy.” (Liang, Chai, Koh, Yang, & Tsai, 2013)
  • Context was included infrequently among publications that met the inclusion criteria:70/193 publications (36%) included contextContext is included to a greater extent than previous work suggested(Kelly, 2010) described the virtual absence of contextThis result does not suggest the inclusion of context in the extant literature is sufficient, nor that contextual variations are well representedFor the 70 papers which included context, I then looked at the prevalence of the aspects of context (as understood through the conceptual framework)
  • Aspects of context included frequently:59/70 publications (84%): Classroom-level conditions and interactions 43/70 publications (61%): School-level conditions and interactions40/70 publications (57%): Teacher-related characteristics Aspect of context included with moderate frequency:31/70 publications (44%): Student-related characteristics Aspect of context included infrequently:10/70 publications (14%): State- and national-level conditions and interactions
  • When context is included, some aspects have received much greater attention than others This suggests areas for increased attentionAnd the need to be systematic about the meaning of contextDeemphasized areas could be purposive
  • Reliance exclusively upon researchers’ written words in publications Exclusive use of empirical journal articlesCoding only for explicit inclusion of context Do not investigate implicit inclusion of context (e.g., “TPACK is situated knowledge”)Data analysis is ongoingReliability statistics have not been completed
  • Arguments about the non-systematic inclusion of context (Kelly, 2010) have stronger empirical support Arguments about the widespread variation in meaning for context (Porras-Hernandez & Salinas-Amescua, 2013) have empirical supportThis research has implications with concern to:The development of TPACK in diverse, authentic contexts (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Koehler & Mishra, 2008)And with concern to recent attempts develop contextualized measures of TPACK (Jang & Tsai, 2013; Koh et al., 2010)
  • Future workChanges in inclusion and aspects of context from earlier to more recent publicationsAnalysis of widespread variation in meaning within each aspect (e.g., analysis of which teacher-related characteristics are included)Educational psychology theories affect educational technologyBehaviorismProgrammed instruction (Skinner, 1961)CognitivismCognitive flexibility and hypertext (Spiro, 1992)Cultural psychologyFifth dimension (Cole, 1996)“The value of attending to context is not simply that it produces a better understanding of an intervention, but also that it can lead to improved theoretical accounts of teaching and learning” (The Design Based Research Collective, 2003)
  • Matthew Koehler Ideas, continuous input, feedback, and support for this project Leigh Graves Wolf and Andrea Zellner Practicum committee – input, perspective, and supportJack Smith,Cary Roseth, and Christine Greenhow Jack – intellectual history, research design Cary – educational inquiry, proseminar and my classmates in both classes Christine - proseminarMichelle Schira Hagerman FeedbackSpencer Greenhalgh Ongoing reliability Brittany and Sandra for their work to make this possible todayMy friends and support network Especially my wife Katie
  • Educational psychology theories affect educational technologyBehaviorismProgrammed instruction (Skinner, 1961)CognitivismLogo programming language (Papert, 1993); Cognitive flexibility and hypertext (Spiro, 1992); Cultural psychology5th dimension (Cole, 1996)

Brownbag_Presentation 2_17 Brownbag_Presentation 2_17 Presentation Transcript

  • Context and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Preliminary results of a content analysis A presentation at the Monday, 2/17, EPET Brownbag Michigan State University Joshua Rosenberg (with Matthew Koehler)
  • My interests  Understanding how social and cultural factors affect how individuals teach and learn with technology  So that I can study and design learning environments that support learning with technology for all students  Especially disadvantaged students
  • Some background  Context is one of the most important components of the TPACK framework  Context connects teachers’ knowledge with things that affect how knowledge translates into action  Especially social and cultural contextual factors  But context is often overlooked, and what researchers mean by context is confusing
  • Definitions  Context is difficult to define because it can mean both the things around the object of study and part of the object of study  Context has many meanings to researchers from different theoretical perspectives      Behaviorist: determines behavior Bioecological: has multiple levels Cultural-historical: is an activity Situated cognition: is connected to knowledge Social psychological: is a situation  In this study, I define context as the conditions or interactions at multiple levels that surround actors and their characteristics
  • Context is important  Context is important in many social science fields (Burke, 1999) and context is important in education research (Wieman, 2014)  Especially among researchers who view cognition as situated (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Clancey, 2008; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Putnam & Borko, 2000) and distributed (Salomon & Perkins, 1998; Hutchins, 1995)  And among researchers conducting design based (Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer & Schauble, 2003; Tabak, 2004), sociocultural (Cole, 1996), and developmental (Schaffer, 2006) research
  • But it is confusing  Researchers have developed for context (Turner & Meyer, 2000)  And the term is the source of endless confusion (Cole, 2003)  The authors of the first chapter of the APA Educational Psychology Handbook summarized the situation:  “The sheer number of perspectives regarding what context is and how it relates to learning is staggering” (Alexander, Murphy, and Greene 2011, p. 20)
  • Need for this study  Kelly (2010) investigated the inclusion of context within the TPACK framework, and reported on its “virtual absence” (p. 3887)  However Kelly examined a limited number of publications that made use of TPACK (n=16)  The operational definition for context was unclear  Porras-Hernandez and Salinas-Amescua (2013) identified the widespread variation in meaning for context  But did not empirically establish this  Attention to context improves both understanding of intervention and of theory (The Design Based Research Collective, 2003) and can make research more relevant to practice ((Alexander, Murphy, & Greene, 2011; Kagan, 2011; Turner & Meyer, 2010; Watt, 2010)
  • Context and TPACK  As described by its developers (Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Koehler, Mishra, Kereluik, Shin, & Graham, 2014; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) ...  And as described others (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Jang & Tsai, 2013; Kelly, 2007; 2008a, 2008b; 2010; Koh et al., 2010; PorrasHernandez & Salinas-Amescua, 2013; Reeve, 2008) . . .  Context is a critically important part of TPACK
  • But it is confusing!  The context of teachers’ TPACK has been theorized in different ways - and with different meanings denoted by the term  As discussed earlier with concern to the need for this study  There is evidence teachers’ context is not included as part of the TPACK framework (Kelly, 2010)  When context is included, it means different things to different researchers (Porras-Hernandez & Salinas-Amescua, 2013)  Two prominent literature reviews (e.g., Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2013; Voogt, Fisser, & Roblin, 2012) recently took stock of the field but failed to examine the nature of context
  • Purpose and methodology  The purpose of this descriptive (Shavelson & Towne, 2004), mixed methods content analysis (Schreier, 2012) is to establish the inclusion - and when included, specific aspects included – of context among publications that make use of the TPACK framework  This study builds upon and expands upon prior work by:  Including more publications, and makes use of an operational definition for context, to extend Kelly’s (2010) study  Using the conceptual framework for context that PorrasHernandez and Salinas-Amescua’s (2013) identified but did not to empirically establish the widespread variation in meaning of context
  • Research questions  Research Question #1 (RQ1): Has context been explicitly included when authors explain, describe, or operationalize TPACK in prior publications?  Research Question #2 (RQ2): For those publications in which context was included in authors’ explanations, descriptions, or operationalizations of TPACK, what aspects of context are included?
  • Conceptual framework  Scope – micro  Classroom or learning environment  Scope – meso  School and community  Scope – macro  State, national or global  Actor – student  Characteristics of students  Actor – teacher  Characteristics of teachers Adapted from Porras-Hernandez and Salinas-Amescua (2013)
  • Study design 1. Search databases for TPACK and related terms 2. Apply inclusion criteria  Peer-reviewed journal; published 2005 – 2013; about TPACK; empirical nature; in English 3. Segment descriptions, explanations, or operationalizations 4. Code publications to provide data to answer RQ1 (inclusion of context) 5. Code publications that included context to provide data to answer RQ2 (aspects of context included)
  • Publications that met the inclusion criteria (N=193) 70 64 60 50 40 40 34 29 30 20 14 10 2 1 2005 2006 3 5 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
  • Coding for RQ1 (inclusion)  In the following text, context is coded as included:  “TPACK is especially referred to as contextualized knowledge that integrates technology and pedagogy on specific content knowledge” (Lin, Tsai, Chai, Lee, 2013)  In the following text, micro was coded as included:  Most studies did not identify the perspectives of teachers or explore how teachers develop TPACK in real classrooms.” (Liu, 2013)  This process was repeated for each of the other variables  meso, macro, student, and teacher
  • RQ1: Results and discussion  Context was included infrequently among publications that met the inclusion criteria:  70/193 publications (36%) included context  Context is included to a greater extent than previous work suggested  (Kelly, 2010) described the virtual absence of context  This result does not suggest the inclusion of context in the extant literature is sufficient, nor that contextual variations are well represented
  • RQ2: Results  Aspects of context included frequently:  59/70 publications (84%): Classroom-level conditions and interactions  43/70 publications (61%): School-level conditions and interactions  40/70 publications (57%): Teacher-related characteristics  Aspect of context included with moderate frequency:  31/70 publications (44%): Student-related characteristics  Aspect of context included infrequently:  10/70 publications (14%): State- and national-level conditions and interactions
  • RQ2: Discussion  When context is included, some aspects have received much greater attention than others  This suggests areas for increased attention  And the need to be systematic about the meaning of context  Deemphasized areas could be purposive
  • Limitations  Reliance exclusively upon researchers’ written words in publications  Exclusive use of empirical journal articles  Coding only for explicit inclusion of context  Do not investigate implicit inclusion of context (e.g., “TPACK is situated knowledge”)  Data analysis is ongoing  Reliability statistics have not been completed
  • Significance  Arguments about the non-systematic inclusion of context (Kelly, 2010) have stronger empirical support  Arguments about the widespread variation in meaning for context (Porras-Hernandez & SalinasAmescua, 2013) have empirical support  This research has implications with concern to:  The development of TPACK in diverse, authentic contexts (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Koehler & Mishra, 2008)  And with concern to recent attempts develop contextualized measures of TPACK (Jang & Tsai, 2013; Koh et al., 2010)
  • Next steps  Complete coding for reliability  Present at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education conference  Defend to my practicum committee  Prepare for publication
  • Thanks to . . .  Matthew Koehler  Leigh Graves Wolf and Andrea Zellner  Jack Smith and Cary Roseth  Michelle Schira Hagerman  Spencer Greenhalgh  Brittany Dillman and Sandra Sawaya  My friends and support network
  • Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., & Greene, J. A. (2012). Projecting educational psychology’s future from it’s past and present: A trend analysis. In K.R. Harris, S. Graham, & Urdan, T. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (pp. 1-31). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. 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(1), 154-168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006 Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. doi:10.2307/1176008 Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A Review of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31-51. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational researcher, 32(1), 9-13. Cole, M. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard University Press. Clancey, W.J. (2009). Scientific antecedents of situated cognition. In M. Aydede and P. Robbins (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 11-34). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Jang, S. J., & Tsai, M. F. (2013). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese secondary school science teachers using a new contextualized TPACK model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4). Kelly, M. (2010). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A content analysis of 20062009 print journal articles. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3880–3888). Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/33985/ References
  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x Putnam, R.T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of research in education, 23, 1-24. Schaffer, H.R. (2006). Key concepts in developmental psychology. SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London, England: SAGE Publications. Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Tabak, I. (2004). Reconstructing context: Negotiating the tension between exogenous and endogenous educational design. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 225-233. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3904_4 Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional contexts of classrooms: Using our past to forge our future. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 69-85. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Roblin, N.P., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2012). Technological pedagogical content knowledge–a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109-121. References