2012-03-05 SITE TPACK Symposium
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

2012-03-05 SITE TPACK Symposium

on

  • 3,056 views

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 ...

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.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,056
Views on SlideShare
1,576
Embed Views
1,480

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
31
Comments
0

3 Embeds 1,480

http://www.scoop.it 1396
http://tpacknl.blogspot.com 51
http://tpacknl.blogspot.nl 33

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

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

2012-03-05 SITE TPACK Symposium 2012-03-05 SITE TPACK Symposium Presentation Transcript

  • SITE 2012 TPACK Symposium Developing TPACK around the world: Probing the framework even as we apply it05/03/2012 Title: to modify choose View then 1 Heater and footer
  • 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 hour1. 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 Netherlands2. 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 Netherlands3. 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 hour1. 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, Canada2. 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, Belgium3. 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 Voogt05/03/2012 Title: to modify choose View then 10 Heater and footer
  • 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 ConceptualizationCKmaths : 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 spreadsheetTPKABL: knowledge and skills of how to use spreadsheets in ABL.TPCKmaths: knowledge and skills of representing mathematical concepts with spreadsheetusing 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 CollectionChallege : 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 Team Observable ✓ ✓ Rubric 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 documentCodes: [PCKABL] In this activity, ask students to indicate (by tick (√)) the features of the equations as shownon the Worksheet ... Ask the students to keep their results for discussion later in the lesson.Codes: [PKABL]Prepare students for the following activities (Activities: 1.0 - 3.0) by organizing them insmall groups ... Assign specific roles to members….Codes: [TKss]Set the cursor over cell D1 ... You should see: =m*x+k. (NB: The * symbol is used formultiplication)… and then click on Scatter with Smooth Lines and Markers.
  • Linear functions in the slope intercept form TPCKmaths TKss
  • 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) NPT (n=32) P Effect size Mean (SD) Mean (SD) 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 TPACKThe 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 workshopLesson 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) P Effect Pre Post size No of Interventio Intervention items n M(SD) M (SD) Use of technology improves teaching productivity (enhance students’ interactions, assessment and classroom 2.85 4.23 managment) 5 .002 1.97 (0.73) (0.67) Use of technology supports learning activities that facilitate students’ higher 3.48 4.21 4 .012 1.15 order thinking (0.73) (0.52)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. Students Subject Technology matter Teacher
  • 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 inScience Learning (N = 40) No of Mean SD itemsStudent’s knowledge of computer (have seen it 4 3.59 1,04before, used it)Students’ attitude towards learning science with 11 4.45 0.52technologyUse of technology enhances learning of difficult 5 4.24 0.64conceptsTechnology helps students to be more involvedin the learning process than the traditional 6 4.35 0.57classesScale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree
  • Teachers’ opinions regarding students learning in a technology integrated classQuestion Responses (number of respondents in brackets)To what extent - To a great extent (all teachers) reasons:do you think - Students attention to the lesson was increased (4)students’ - Students were very active during the technology integratedlearning in lesson (4)science - They did well in the assignment they were given (5)improved - They told us that they enjoyed and understood the lesson (3)through the - Students asked for other lesson that use technology (3)integration of - They were able to observe process which are difficult totechnology in observe in the regular classes (1)teaching? - 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
  • Teacher preparation program in Kuwait•Kuwait University Faculty of Education•Public Authority of Applied Education and Training (PAAET) College of Basic Education
  • Teacher preparation program at PAAET• 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 Context of the study 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
  • The integration of ICT in education at the teacher preparation program at PAAET• Traditional teaching methods with a teacher-centered approach• Limited or no ICT integration• Stand alone technology coursesAssumption: providing pre-service teachers with technological skills willautomatically lead to effective integration of technology in their future classrooms
  • Changing the PAAET contextPre-service science teachers work in Design Teams (DTs) to designtechnology-based activities and integrate these activities in theirlesson plan Research Question 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?
  • The Participants• 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.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
  • Instruments for measuring TPACK TPACK data Confidence/Instrument Purpose Type Observable / Knowledge Source self-reported Assess the ability toPresentation present the idea behind Confidence / Observation Individual ORubric the final product for Schematic experts and peers Assess the ability to argueExplanation and explain the rational Schematic Observation Individual OChecklist behind the chosen design, ICT, pedagogy & contentTPACK Assess the ability to Open ended Definition Declarative Individual O define TPACK concept question RubricTPACK Open ended Assess the ability to applyReflection Strategic question Individual O TPACK in real practiceRubric
  • TPACK data Confidence/Instrument Purpose Type Knowledge Observable / Source Self-reported Assess the quality ofLesson Plan Performance ICT integration Strategic Team ORubric assessment lesson plan Assess the quality of PerformanceProduct ICT integration in Strategic assessment Team ORubric the product PerformanceICT Skill Assess the ICT Procedural assessment Individual O Test skillsTPACK Assess self-reported Confidence Survey Individual SSurvey TPACK
  • Results: Learning outcomes after working in DTsMeasure Type Confidence / Min - Mean SD(total points) Knowledge MaxPresentation (6) Observation Confidence / 0-6 4.88 .892 SchematicExplanation (4) Observation Schematic 0-4 3.44 .519TPACK definition Open ended Declarative 0-3 1.90 .657(3) questionsTPACK reflection Open ended Strategic 0-15 10.47 2.849(15) questionsLesson plan Performance Strategic 1-16 12.74 3.206Score (16) assessmentProduct Score (60) Performance Strategic 0-60 50.99 5.928 assessmentMeasure Type Confidence / Pre Post P Effect(total points) Knowledge Mean Mean Level of sig. Size (SD) (SD)ICT skill test Performance Procedural 7.72 13.96 0.0001 2.04(20) assessment (3.037) (3.081)
  • Results: Pearson Correlation Matrix among observable learning outcomes Explanation Presentation TPACK TPACK Product Lesson ICT definition reflection score plan skill score testExplanation 1.000Presentation .361** 1.000TPACK .361** 1.000definitionTPACK .492** .434** .842** 1.000reflectionProduct score .485** .345** .331** 1.000Lesson plan .494** .277* .282* .873** 1.000scoreICT skill test .406** .285* .543** .554** .254* .301* 1.000Note: **. 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 Factor Pre Post P Effect Size Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Level of sig. TK 3.15 (.548) 3.80 (.506) 0.0001 1.23 CK 3.55 (.735) 4.13 (.404) 0.0001 0.98 PK 3.65 (.499) 4.28 (.379) 0.0001 1.41 PCK 3.58 (.699) 4.22 (.457) 0.0001 1.09 TCK 3.20 (.664) 4.22 (.494) 0.0001 1.74 TPK 3.10 (.481) 4.21 (.438) 0.0001 2.42 TPACK 2.99 (.475) 4.12 (.419) 0.0001 2.53 Note: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Undecided, 4= Agree & 5= Strongly Agree
  • Pearson correlation matrix between TPACK different domains (pre-measure) TK CK PK PCK TCK TPK TPACKTK 1.000CK .293* 1.000PK .267* .481** 1.000PCK .312** .681** 1.000TCK .371** .384** .332** 1.000TPK .414** .314** .425** 1.000TPACK .507** .383** .296* .273* 1.000Note: **. 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) TK CK PK PCK TCK TPK TPACKTK 1.000CK .437** 1.000PK .477** .378* 1.000PCK .334** .339** .693** 1.000TCK .442** .444** .476** .455** 1.000TPK .575** .469** .542** .344** .566** 1.000TPACK .662** .468** .538** .438** .578** .704** 1.000Note: **. Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed), *. Significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed)
  • Pearson correlation matrix between TPACK domains & learning outcomes Explanation Presentation TPACK TPACK Product Lesson ICT skill definition reflection plan testTK .261*CKPKPCKTCK .245* .261*TPK .253* .243* .239*TPACKNote: * Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed)
  • ConclusionsThe 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.
  • 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
  • More information? • About the instruments? • About the results? • About TPACK in Kuwait? • About… Please contact us! Ghaida Alayyar: g_alayyar@yahoo.com Petra Fisser: p.h.g.fisser@utwente.nl Joke Voogt: j.m.voogt@utwente.nl
  • Applying the Framework: Assessing PreserviceTeachers’ 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 Classroom TPACK Classroom TPACK observation Data Survey observation TPACK Survey (#3) & interviewCollected Pre-test (#1) & interview Survey (#4) (Student Post-test (#2) (Practicum) Teaching)TeacherEducatio Enrollment Completion Enrollment Completion n Required IT in Methods Methods in Student StudentProgram: Course Courses courses Teaching Teaching (4 total) Check Points Are we preparing TPACK teachers?
  • Stage 1 Research: Instructional Technology CourseSchmidt, 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 Instrumentfor 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 88 % Female 89 % N=534 22 years old 12 % Male or younger El. Ed. = 82 % Freshmen & No practicum ECE = 16 % Sophomore experience Other = 2 % 64 % 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
  • Stage 1 Research: Instructional Technology Course ‣ 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 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Classroom TPACK Classroom TPACK observation Data Survey observation TPACK Survey (#3) & interviewCollected Pre-test (#1) & interview Survey (#4) (Student Post-test (#2) (Practicum) Teaching)TeacherEducatio Enrollment Completion Enrollment Completion n Required IT in Methods Methods in Student StudentProgram: Course Courses courses Teaching Teaching (4 total) Check Points 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 PK CK TPK TCK PCK TPACK • 16 • 3 • 5 • 11 • 2 • 5 • 10
  • Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms 103. TK_Select 104. TK_Affordance 117. TK_Transfer
  • Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms 100. TK_Emerge • 101. TK_Emerge_Collaborate • 102. TK-Emerge_Interactive 106. TK_Troubleshoot • 107. TK_Troubleshoot_Self • 108. TK_Troubleshoot_Others • 109. TK_Troubleshoot_Anticipate
  • Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms Full Code: Definition: Identifying the affordances of the Overall knowledge of what technology technology can do 104. TK_Affordance Example: “We’re also working on a … Key Words: global project… we’re working on Skype (specific technology with people from different mentioned) countries, different states. So we skyped through that.” (Interview)
  • Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms 601. TPK_Selection- Pedagogy 602. TPK_Coordinating- Tech 604. TPK_Troubleshooting- Managing
  • Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms 606. TPK_Extend-CR • 607. TPK_Extend-CR_Parents 608. TPK_Demo-Tech • 609. TPK_Demo- Tech_Instructions • 610. TPK_Demo-Tech_Model
  • Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms Definition: Teachers use technology to Full Code: prepare for instruction Preparing instructional beforehand, e.g. setting up the materials with technology accounts and getting the passwords for access 600. TPK_Prepare- Materials Example: Made tutorials for instructions - Key Words: posted video tutorials on her Prepare class website for students to access. (Observation notes)
  • Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms
  • Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms Definition: Full Code: Teachers integrate technology with Identifying students’ learning needs content and pedagogy in mind based (e.g. content area, technology) on learners’ needs 701. TPACK_Learning_Needs Example: “It is a lot of work but yet I think they Key Words: Need need to be exposed to [emerging technology].” (Interview)
  • What will the TPACK ObservationInstrument look like?
  • Stage 2 Research: Observations in Classrooms Part 1: Part 2: Part 3:Information on Checklist on Questions forBackground & TPACK a Follow-up Context Characteristics Interview e.g., brief lesson plan
  • Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Classroom TPACK Classroom TPACK observation Data Survey observation TPACK Survey (#3) & interviewCollected Pre-test (#1) & interview Survey (#4) (Student Post-test (#2) (Practicum) Teaching)TeacherEducatio Enrollment Completion Enrollment Completion n Required IT in Methods Methods in Student StudentProgram: Course Courses courses Teaching Teaching (4 total) Check Points Are we preparing TPACK teachers?
  • Stage 3 Research: Methods Courses‣ Complete the development of TPACK observation instrument‣ Collect TPACK survey Responses after preservice teachers completed their method courses.‣ Pilot study conducted in Fall 2011
  • Thank You! Denise Schmidt-Crawford dschmidt@iastate.edu Wei Wang weiyui72@iastate.edu Shu Ju Diana Tai sjtai@iastate.eduCenter for Technology in Learning and Teaching Iowa State University Evrim Baran evrimb@gmail.com University of British Columbia
  • Towards understanding TPACK: An empiricalanalysis of pre-service teacher’s perceptions of theirICT-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, 0.80 Technological Content Knowledge TCK2, TCK6, TPCK4, (TCK1) (TCK)F3 TPK4, TPK5, TPK3, TPCK1, 0.79 Technological Pedagogical TPCK5,(TPCK2, TPCK3, TPCK6) 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 / pTK Dependent 0.310/0.0001 -0.048/ns 0.061/ns -0.037/ns 0.214/0.003TCK 0.451/0.0001 Dependent 0.522/0.0001 0.283/0.004 0.000/ns 0.154/nsTPK -0.055/ns 0.417/ 0.0001 Dependent 0/117/ns 0.134/ns 0.172/0.031Lead 0.051/ns 0.162/ 0.004 0.084/ns Dependent -0.098/ns 0.050/nsPK -0.029/ns 0.000/ns 0.091/ns -0.093/ns Dependent 0.255/0.0001pCK 0.216/0.003 0.106/ns 0.149/0.031 0.061/ns 0.323/0.0001 DependentR2 0.314 0.516 0.410 0.178 0.135 0.318
  • Graphical presentation of findings (Regression) Adjacency matrix Directed graph  TK TCK TPK lead PK pCKTK 1 1TCK 1 1 1TPK 1 1lead 1PK 1pCK 1 1 1
  • 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 EquationF1 TK 0,779 0,535 0,307 0.920 + 0.587*F2_TCK + 0.164*F6_pCKF2 TCK 0,707 0,682 0,451 0.293*F1_TK + 0.644*F3_TPKF3 TPK 0,736 0,567 0,314 1.642 + 0.491*F2_TCK + 0.067*F4_leadF4 lead 0,887 0,366 0,107 0.718 + 0.641*F2_TCKF5 PK 0,946 0,321 0,100 2.91 + 0.236*F6_pCKF6 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 Directed graph  TK TCK TPK lead PK pCKTK 1 1TCK 1 1TPK 1 1Lead 1PK 1pCK 1 1 1
  • ComparisonRegression 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: j.m.voogt@utwente.nl Petra Fisser: p.h.g.fisser@utwente.nl And for the Dutch people  htpp://www.tpack.nl 
  • DiscussionThe Forest or the Trees:TPACK Implementation and Theory DevelopmentPunya Mishra, Michigan State University, USA