2014-03-19 SITE TPACK Symposium
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

2014-03-19 SITE TPACK Symposium

on

  • 2,148 views

Symposium on TPACK at SITE 2014 ...

Symposium on TPACK at SITE 2014

TPACK is recognized by many as a useful conceptual framework to help define the knowledge base teachers’ need to know to effectively integrate technology in their educational practice. However, determining whether teachers indeed have developed the knowledge and skills required for effective technology integration – or in short whether they have developed TPACK – is a much more complicated issue. This symposium discusses how artifacts are being used in assessing pre-service and practicing teachers technology integration competencies. TPACK calls for coherence between content, pedagogy and technology. The assumption is that having TPACK also implies teachers’ being able to demonstrate technology integration competencies. This assumption implies a fit between (pre-service) teachers’ TPACK (often measured through self-report instruments) and the artifacts they produce.

In this symposium we discuss how different kinds of artifacts, e.g. lesson plans and lesson practice as demonstrated in video clips can be used as an indicator of a teacher’s technology integration competencies. In this symposium we discuss different artifacts (pre-service) teachers produce in order to demonstrate that they have TPACK. In the symposium different artifacts will be discussed, such as lesson plans and video clips that show technology use in classroom practice. The symposium deals with the potential and restrictions of artifacts as indicator for technology integration, the assessment of artifacts and the relation with other TPACK measures, such as the TPACK survey from Schmidt et al. (2010). Examples from different educational contexts will be presented and discussed.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,148
Views on SlideShare
691
Embed Views
1,457

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
10
Comments
0

3 Embeds 1,457

http://www.scoop.it 1454
https://hootsuite.scoop.it 2
https://twitter.com 1

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

2014-03-19 SITE TPACK Symposium 2014-03-19 SITE TPACK Symposium Presentation Transcript

  • TPACK Symposium “Artifacts demonstrating teachers’ technology integration competencies” Joke Voogt, Petra Fisser, Johan van Braak, Liesbet Verplanken, Maaike Heitink, Ayoub Kafyulilo, Douglas Agyei, Matthew J. Koehler, Joshua Rosenberg, Spencer Greenhalgh, Andrea Zellner, Punya Mishra, Denise Schmidt-Crawford SITE, 19 March 2014
  • International symposium O 2010: Strategies for teacher professional development on TPACK O 2011: Teachers’ assessment of TPACK: Where are we and what is needed? O 2012: Developing TPACK around the world: Probing the framework even as we apply it O 2013: Measuring TPACK O 2014: Artifacts demonstrating teachers’ technology integration competencies
  • Ghana Iowa State Tanzania The Netherlands Belgium Michigan State View slide
  • Part 1 O Introduction to the symposium – Joke Voogt O The potential of video clips to demonstrate TPACK Petra Fisser, National Institute for Curriculum Development, the Netherlands, Joke Voogt, University of Amsterdam/ Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands, Johan van Braak & Liesbet Verplanken, Ghent University, Belgium, Maaike Heitink, University of Twente, the Netherlands O Developing TPACK through Learning Outcomes: The Case of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers in Ghana Douglas Agyei, University of Cape Coast, Ghana, Joke Voogt, University of Amsterdam/ Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands O Discussion with the Audience View slide
  • Part 2 O Introduction to the symposium – Joke Voogt O Developing technology integration knowledge and skills of the pre- service and in-service teachers through collaborative design in teams Ayoub Kafyulilo, Dar es salaam University College of Education, Tanzania , Petra Fisser, National Institute for Curriculum Development, The Netherlands, Joke Voogt, University of Amsterdam/ Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands O Can portfolio-based assessments demonstrate teachers’ TPACK? Matthew J. Koehler, Joshua Rosenberg, Spencer Greenhalgh, Andrea Zellner, Punya Mishra, Michigan State University O Discussant: Denise Schmidt-Crawford O Discussion with the Audience
  • Joke Voogt (UvA/ Windesheim) Johan van Braak (UG) Liesbet Verplanken (UG) Maaike Heitink (UT) Amber Walraven (ITS) Petra Fisser (SLO) The team 8SITE 2014
  • The reason for the study 0 A teacher’s technology integration depends on TPACK (knowledge and skills), beliefs and experiences 0 Is often determined by self report measures in large scale surveys Or 0 Through observations is small-scale studies SITE 2014 9
  • Purpose of the study 0 To explore the potential of videoclips to determine teachers’ competency to integrate technology in a sound way 0 Combining the depth of observations with a reasonable large sample SITE 2014 10
  • A teacher’s technology integration competency 0 Competency : the integration of knowledge, skill and attitude 0 Constitutes of the knowledge and skills (TPACK) , beliefs, self efficacy and experiences of teachers 0 Can be demonstrated by the wau a teacher acts in the classroom (pedagogy) with respect to technology and the capability to reason professionally about his/ her acting. Brief 0 We wanted to know how teachers integrate technology and why they do what they do SITE 2014 11
  • • Knowledge & Skills (TPACK) • Experiences • Beliefs • Self efficacy Professional Reasoning Characteristics of the teaching/learning practice Contribution to effective teaching & learning Context Technology Integration Competency Why a teacher acts this way. How a teacher designs his/her practice …concerning techhnology in education SITE 2014 12 The Analysis Model
  • Professional Reasoning Subject matter Student characteristics Learning processes Goals Curriculum Instruction http://www.evolllution.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/reflective-teaching.jpg SITE 2014 13 Conceptual understanding Meijer, 1999
  • Characteristics of effective teaching 0 Classroom management 0 Time on task 0 Well organized learning environment 0 Clearly structured teaching 0 Fostering active learning 0 Challenging and engaging 0 Fostering collaboration and respect betweenstudents and teachers 0 Learning to learn 0 Providing feedback/ formative assessment 0 Summative assessment 0 Time to practice 0 Learning resources 0 Personalized learning 0 Learning in authentic settings Scheerens, 2008; Dede, 2000; Voogt, 2008; Ertmer, 2012 SITE 2014 14
  • • Knowledge & Skills (TPACK) • Experiences • Beliefs • Self efficacy Professional Reasoning Characteristics of the teaching/learning practice Contribution to effective teaching & learning Context Technology Integration Competency Why a teacher acts this way. How a teacher designs his/het practice …concerning techhnology in education SITE 2014 15 The Analysis Model
  • Research Questions 0How can the examples be characterized in terms of effective teaching and learning with technology? 0How can teachers’ professional reasoning related to technology integration be characterized? SITE 2014 16
  • Method 0 Teachers were invited to submit videocases (N=157) 0 According to a protocol (introduction – practice – reflection) 0 Each videocase is about 10-12 minutes 0 Additional questionnaires TPACK-core, ICT skills, Beliefs (N=129) linked to the videocases 0 We checked the characteristics of our sample with a national benchmark SITE 2014 17
  • Observation checklist SITE 2014 18 0 The context 0 Hard- & software 0 Characteristics of teaching/learning activities 0 Curriculum characteristics 0 Grouping 0 Teacher role 0 Student role 0 Who’s in control 0 Assessment/ Feedbacke 0 Technology integration 0 Fit (TPACK) 0 Non-essential, supportive, essential use of technology 0 Added value 0 Fit (TPACK) 0 Student characteristics 0 Learning processes 0 Goals 0 Curriculum 0 Instruction 0 Interaction 0 Costs & Benefits 0 Monitoring student learning Professional Reasoning about Teaching and learning practice (observed)
  • Fit (professional reasoning & practice) 0 Fit: the technology strengthens the content, pedagogy, or both 0 Scoring: 0 No fit 0 The technology strengthens the content 0 The technology strengthens the pedagogy 0 The technology strengthens the content & the pedagogy Match: They do what they say professional reasoning ≈ practice
  • Example 0 Video: Using an interactive white board and digital pictures to foster speaking skills during circle time in Kindergarten SITE 2014 20
  • Scoring observed teaching practice (partly) Curriculum characteristics 0 Authentic setting Grouping 0 Whole classroom teaching Teacher role 0 Guide Student role 0 Executor & Listener Fit 0 The technology strengthens the content & the pedagogy Use 0 Supportive use SITE 2014 21
  • Scoring Professional reasoning about (partly) Added value 0 Motivating 0 Effective Fit 0 The technology strengthens the content & the pedagogy Learning processes 0 How technology helps students learn SITE 2014 Match professional reasoning ≈ practice
  • Results In only half of the cases we observed a match between professional reasoning and actual practice Practice: 0 The videocases showed a limited perspective on technology integration competency 0 Technology use is mainly supportive but not essential in the teaching learning/process 0 Mainly focused on teacher-centered education 0 ICT is hardly being used in authentic settings, learning to learn, ( formative) assessment Professional reasoning: 0 Teachers had limited language to reason about technology use 0 Facilitating learning processes 0 Realization of goals 0 Motivating students SITE 2014 23
  • Conclusions Indicators for technology integration competency are: 0 Technology is used to strengthen effective teaching 0 Technology is essential for realizing effective teaching 0 Match between TPACK (reasoning) & TPACK (practice) Technology integration is more than TPACK, but being able to demonstrate TPACK in practice and reason about TPACK is an important indicator of a technology integration competency SITE 2014 24
  • Next Steps Using a selection of the video cases to develop an interactive module for (pre-service) teachers to help them move to a pedagogy that fosters effective education in which technology is essential to realize effectivity SITE 2014 25
  • You want to know more? Email us 0 Joke Voogt: j.m.voogt@uva.nl 0 Petra Fisser: p.fisser@slo.nl SITE 2014 26
  • Douglas Agyei Department of Science & Mathematics Education University of Cape Coast, Ghana & Joke Voogt Research Institute of Child Development and Education University of Amsterdam,, The Netherlands 27
  • Poor student achievements (in mathematics)  High failure rate (More than 86% of failures to enter Tertiary levels)  TIMSS 2003 & 2007 (43rd out of 44 & 46th out of 48)  Poor attitudes Mathematics Teaching  Teacher-centred approach (Hardly any hands-on activities, Whole class teaching Lots of notes being copied )  Low cognitive learning (Concept formation at a more abstract level, Heavy emphasis on assessment) 28
  •  A Longitudinal 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 (2011)  TPACK Framework  ICT (spreadsheet) to promote in-depth maths concept formation  Activity-Based Learning (ABL) to make lesson less teacher- centred 29
  • 30  Make use of existing ICT tools (Spreadsheet-specific)  Active involvement of learners (Activity Based Learning-ABL)  Explore connection between spreadsheet, ABL pedagogy and mathematical concept  TPACK Frame work - Interconnection of content pedagogy & technology (Mishra & Koehler,2006)
  •  Introductory workshop (TDT,s, TPACK, Exemplary Materials, Co-plan activities, Micro- teaching & Team discussions)  Design Period : Working in DT’s to: - Identify mathematics topics (concept); - Identify appropriate spreadsheet resources for the topic; - Design & develop appropriate activities; - Incorporate activities in lesson & planning instructional strategy  Implementation - Designed actual class teaching try-out (peers) - Real classroom teaching  Role of Researcher: Consultative 31
  • Peer Teaching RealClassroomtry-outs (SHS) Lesson N(190) School Level N(225) Lesson Duration (Min) Distancebetweentwogivenpointsofaline(DBTGP) 32 A 1 43 40 QuadraticinPolynomialForm(QPF) 31 A 2 44 80 QuadraticinVectorForm(QVF) 34 B 2 36 80 TransformationbyaVector(TBV) 30 B 3 35 80 GraphsofLinearEquations(GLE) 31 C 1 25 40 TrigonometricFunctions(TRIG) 32 C 3 42 80 32
  •  Video link 33
  • 34
  • CALP Interview Observ. Checklist TPACK Questionnaire Instructional Plan ✓ Actual Classroom Practices ✓ Self- Reported ✓ ✓ Assessment of the PD:  Explore whether and how Prospective teachers integrate technology or demonstrate TPACK in their Learning Outcomes.  Compare Prospective teachers TPACK (Instructional, reported, observed) Effect levels and data collection Note: CALP (Criteria for Analyzing Lesson Plan) inspired by : Harris, Grandgenett and Hofer (2010). Observation Checklist inspired by : ISTE (2008) and Schmidt et al (2009) 35
  • Quantitative Content Analysis (Berelson, 1952)  Categorizing and coding data based on TPACK (Koehler et al. 2007) (Similar for Video data & Lesson Plans)  Points (marks) awarded based on CALP and observation Checklist  Systematic quantitative Analysis (Mainly descriptive) Intercoder reliability result using Cohen’s kappa (k)  0.91 – 0.93 (for Lesson plans)  0.79 – 0.81 (for observational data) 36
  • LESSON PLAN EXAMPLE Objectives for Lesson: The students will be able to:  discover how the slope affects the graph of a line  relate k to the y-intercept of a line  determine the equation of a line given a and k INTRODUCTION (10 minutes) The graph of linear function y = ax + k has several properties. In this lesson, activities have been designed to enable you guide students to discover how the slope (a) affects… Prepare students for the following activities (Activities 1 to 4) by organizing them in Small groups (2 to 3 student per group). Assign specific role to students in the group (as presenter, recorder, and leader). Start the lesson by giving each group the Students’ Worksheet. PROCEDURE (55 minutes) ACTIVITY 1: The graph of the linear function of the form Using spreadsheet, prepare the graph of by setting and before beginning the lesson on an overhead projector. PK TCK 37
  • ACTIVITY 2: Varying the value of (set k = 0)  Begin by using the spreadsheet to plot the graph of and let students observe the changes in the graph as the value of changes from positive to negative.  Ask students to describe the changes in the line as the value of increases (e.g.  Discuss group results with students. Some discussion points could a) represent the slope/gradient of the graph b) When = 0 we have a straight line passing through the x-axis ( ). c) The graphs of positive values of increases from left to right d) The graphs of negative values of decreases from left to right e) As the absolute value of increases the line becomes steeper and vice versa. TPK CK 38
  • T P A C K T K Linear functions in the slope intercept form 39
  •  Significant increases between pre- and post-test for all seven components of TPACK survey( Effect Size between 0.7 and 2.38)  Improved Teachers’ Instructional Plan (TPACK mean scores) observed with increasing number of teaching try-outs  Observed data (actual lesson enactment) particularly shows challenges/difficulties faced by target teachers 40
  • 1. Problems exploring properties/nature of quadratics: 2. Problems exploring which graph is steeper: Figure 2: a. Graph of: y = ax2 + bx + k b. Graph of: y = mx + k 3. Difficulty reading mid points of two equations- “Zooming” allowed in- depth investigation 4. Verifying graphical solution set (from the spreadsheets) - “Increase decimal” button 41
  • 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 TK CK PK PCK TCK TPK TPAC K TPACK Domain Mean Planned Practice Observed Practice Planned Instruction vs Actual Practice 42
  • 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Self Reported Instructional Plan Actual Practice TPACK Assessment type Mean TK CK PK PCK TCK TPK TPACK Results (3) 43
  •  Developed & improved teachers’ TPACK evident in all the data sources  Learning outcomes (lesson plan & observed data) provided specific & concrete representation of what they could do.  High score on expressed self-reported TPACK beliefs than instructional and actual practices (Teachers show high score of all components on TPACK survey ) – So & Kim, 2009  Teachers use of TPACK in practice differs from their planned instruction  Difficulties/challenges associated with teachers’ use of technology are pronounced more in their actual lesson enactment  A combination of Lesson plans and actual lesson enactmetment is an effective way to assess TPACK but Self report is also a necessity. 44
  •  Douglas D. Agyei Email: ddagyei@yahoo.com  Joke M. Voogt Email: j.m.voogt@uva.nl 45
  • DEVELOPINGTPACK OF PRE-SERVICE AND IN-SERVICETEACHERSTHROUGH COLLABORATIVE DESIGN INTEAMS Ayoub C Kafyulilo, Dar es Salaam University College of Education,Tanzania Petra Fisser, National Institute for Curriculum Development, the Netherlands JokeVoogt, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands SITE (Jacksonville, FL) 19 March 2014
  • 11 December 2013: Collaborative design in teams to develop science and mathematics teachers’ technology integration knowledge and skills
  • INTRODUCTION Initiatives to integrate technology in education in Tanzania started in 1997 2007: integration of technology in teaching still limited  Teaching of basic ICT skills (switching computers on and off, word processing, basic internet applications)  Using the computer for secretarial and administrative purposes 2010: hindering factors were analyzed
  • HINDERING FACTORS Inadequate training and capacity, resulting in underutilization of technology facilities Lack of awareness of the affordances of technology and how it can be used to address existing challenges of teaching and learning Lack of skilled teachers to implement a technology- enhanced curriculum Of all the factors, the inadequate training and lack of skilled teachers to implement technology-enhanced curriculum is crucial inTanzania
  • PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Professional development arrangement  A workshop on TPACK  Collaborative design in teams  Lesson implementation,  Reflection on the implemented lessons  Lesson re-design for pre-service and in-service teachers
  • PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Two important innovations for teachers in Tanzania  collaborative design in teams (offered as a professional development arrangement) for developing technology integration knowledge and skills  TPACK, which was adopted as a framework for describing the pre-service and in-service teachers’ knowledge requirements for integrating technology into their science and mathematics teaching
  • RESEARCH QUESTIONS The effect of the professional development arrangement on the development of technology integration knowledge and skills The impact of collaborative design in teams on the development of technology integration knowledge and skills The factors that affect the continuous use of technology in teaching after the professional development arrangement has ended
  • RESEARCH QUESTIONS The effect of the professional development arrangement on the development of technology integration knowledge and skills The impact of collaborative design in teams on the development of technology integration knowledge and skills The factors that affect the continuous use of technology in teaching after the professional development arrangement has ended
  • METHODOLOGY Design-based research with 4 studies 1. 22 pre-service teachers 2. 12 in-service teachers 3. 20 in-service teachers from two schools 4. 42 in-service and pre-service teachers
  • RESULTS (1ST STUDY) The adoption of collaborative design in team was effective for the development of pre-service teachers’ technology integration knowledge and skills Results from the pre-service teachers’ perceptions and classroom observation showed a significant difference between pre and post intervention
  • RESULTS (1ST STUDY) The adoption of collaborative design in team was effective for the development of pre-service teachers’ technology integration knowledge and skills Results from the pre-service teachers’ perceptions and classroom observation showed a significant difference between pre and post intervention
  • RESULTS (2ND STUDY) Collaborative design in teams was adopted as the main professional development arrangement for the second study. Significant increase in both observed and perceived knowledge The need for support emerged
  • RESULTS (2ND STUDY) Collaborative design in teams was adopted as the main professional development arrangement for the second study. Significant increase in both observed and perceived knowledge The need for support emerged
  • 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
  • RESULTS (3RD STUDY) Teachers’ collaborative lesson design in teams was supported through The availability of an expert Collaboration guidelines Exemplary lessons Online materials Teachers were able to develop technology integration knowledge and skills better
  • RESULTS (3RD STUDY) Teachers’ collaborative lesson design in teams was supported through The availability of an expert Collaboration guidelines Exemplary lessons Online materials Teachers were able to develop technology integration knowledge and skills better
  • RESULTS (4TH STUDY) Years/months after the professional development To investigate the continuous use of technology in teaching Several variables were studied: Personal factors Institutional factors Professional development factors Technological factors
  • RESULTS (4TH STUDY) Only a few teachers continued to integrate technology in their teaching Professional development did not have a direct impact on the continuous use of technology Access to technology, ease of use, and support from the management does have a direct impact Professional development is a prerequisite to start thinking about technology integration
  • RESULTS (4TH STUDY) Only a few teachers continued to integrate technology in their teaching Professional development did not have a direct impact on the continuous use of technology Access to technology, ease of use, and support from the management does have a direct impact Professional development is a prerequisite to start thinking about technology integration
  • CONCLUSION - GENERAL Collaborative design in teams is an effective professional development arrangement Teachers’ development of technology integration knowledge and skills is higher when there is support The long term impact is determined by the professional development arrangement, teachers’ knowledge and skills, accessibility to technology, ease of use of technology, and management support
  • CONCLUSION - ARTIFACTS Several instruments were used Self-reported & observable measures Artifacts: videos, lesson plans, classroom practice, simulations, presentations, etc.
  • CONCLUSION - ARTIFACTS Professional development does increase TPACK (as measured with the instruments) does not necessarily lead to continuous technology use.. Professional development & “prove” with artifacts alone is not enough!
  • HOW TO PROCEED? Ayoub Kafyulilo, kafyulilo@duce.ac.tz Petra Fisser, p.fisser@slo.nl JokeVoogt, j.m.voogt@uva.nl
  • Discussion Denise Schmidt-Crawford
  • Artifacts Demonstrating Teachers’ Technology Integration Competencies Thank you to all presenters! 5th year Anniversary TPACK Symposium
  • • Competencies – (Europe): integrate knowledge and skills and attitude – (USA): actual demonstration of skills learned (competency-based education) • Artifacts – video cases, lesson plans, collaborative lesson design, portfolios
  • Key TPACK Themes to Remember • International perspective of TPACK research • “Context” is still very important to TPACK – explain it well! • Pedagogical approaches – (e.g., activity based learning, collaborative design in teams) • Concrete representations of what teachers can do (e.g., lessons, portfolios, videos)
  • TPACK Common Ground • Critical investigations of how to measure TPACK -- - (using artifacts) – Methodologies & Analysis (multiple measures) • Approaches to identifying how teachers enact TPACK – what does it “look like” in practice? • Technology no longer stands alone – we have come a long way in 5 years…. In 8 years (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) – Professional practice, characteristics of effective teaching, competency, reflective practice • TPACK is not easy (wicked problem!) --- hindering factors
  • Key Points to Take Away • We are in the initial stages of explaining what TPACK “looks like” in different contexts. • Technology can strengthen effective teaching – solid content knowledge & effective pedagogy. • Importance of “Match” – Are teachers doing what they say (ie., self-report, lesson plans) they are doing (i.e., observations? • We must keep the TPACK research momentum going…there is much more to investigate! • Integration…. Innovation
  • Questions to Consider • How can we better connect theory to practice related to TPACK? • How do we best structure or restructure our experiences in our teacher preparation programs while preparing TPACK teachers? How do we learn from what we already know? • What are specific competencies that should be measured for TPACK? • How do we (continue to…) measure TPACK? – What are the next steps? – formative & summative – reliable & valid measures and approaches
  • Looking forward to TPACK Symposium #6!