Technological Interdisciplinary Content Knowledge: A Learners' Framework

939 views

Published on

TAN, Christian Bernard (University of Saint Joseph / National Science Learning Centre (U.K.))

http://citers2012.cite.hku.hk/en/paper_522.htm

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
939
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
71
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Technological Interdisciplinary Content Knowledge: A Learners' Framework

  1. 1. Technological Inter-disciplinaryContent Knowledge - A Learners’ Learners Framework by Christian Bernard Tan (PhD Candidate)
  2. 2. TechnologicalOrganizer Inter-disciplinary Presenter Represents Content Knowledge - A Learners’ Learners USJOrganizer Framework by Christian Bernard Tan (PhD Candidate)
  3. 3. Organizer What makes students’ Presenter RepresentsOrganizer TICK? USJ by Christian Bernard Tan (PhD Candidate)
  4. 4. The Background of the study f h d
  5. 5. 1Digital g Revolution
  6. 6. 1Digital Education Revolution g New forms of learning:e-Learning, m-Learning, blended learning, Web 2.0 technologies, U-Learning, etc. g g g g g
  7. 7. 2 Vision of Scientific S i ifiExcellenceE ll
  8. 8. 2 C H I N A’ S 1 2 -Y E A R Vision of Scientific S i ifiExcellenceE ll(2008-2020)
  9. 9. 3
  10. 10. 3
  11. 11. 3
  12. 12. 3
  13. 13. 3
  14. 14. 12 3
  15. 15. DIGITAL EDUCATION REVOLUTION VISION OF SCIENCE SCIENTIFIC LEARNINGEXCELLENCE CENTRES
  16. 16. The Problem statement
  17. 17. Research Gap #1 p“Research on the use of educational technology“R h h f d i l h l that fails to align with curriculum, pedagogy and assessment are inadequate...”( g g(Langrange, Artigue, Lanorde, & Trouche, 2001; Pollard & Pollard, 2004-2005; gRoblyer & Knezeck, 2003; Strudler, 2003; U.S. department of Education, 2004; Waxman, Lin, & Michko, 2003)
  18. 18. The Interacting Triad g CURRICULUMPEDAGOGY ASSESSMENT
  19. 19. The Interacting Triad g CURRICULUMPEDAGOGY ASSESSMENT
  20. 20. The Interacting Triad g CURRICULUMHowever, TECHNOLOGY is missing. PEDAGOGY ASSESSMENT
  21. 21. Research Gap #2 p “Of the existing studies on educational Of technology that examines learning outcomes, few specify all three domains – pedagogy, ll content, and technology affordance.”( g g ,(Langrange, Artigue, Lanorde, & Trouche, 2001; Pollard & Pollard, 2004-2005; g , , , ; , ;Roblyer & Knezeck, 2003; Strudler, 2003; U.S. department of Education, 2004; Waxman, Lin, & Michko, 2003)
  22. 22. Technology Integration gy gCURRICULUM PEDAGOGY TECHNOLOGYPEDAGOGY TECHNOLOGY CURRICULUMTECHNOLOGY CURRICULUM PEDAGOGY
  23. 23. Technology Convergence gy gCURRICULUM PEDAGOGY TECHNOLOGYPEDAGOGY TECHNOLOGY CURRICULUMTECHNOLOGY CURRICULUM PEDAGOGY
  24. 24. The Significance of the study f h d
  25. 25. The Most Glaring Research Issue
  26. 26. from ‘Stone Age’to the ‘Conceptual Age’
  27. 27. To seek a learning framework g that develops student’s scientific knowledgeand which can serve as the basis for the kinds of curricula that are essential for the “conceptual age” p g (Gardner, 2007; Pink, 2005)
  28. 28. The Methodology of the study f h d
  29. 29. Research QuestionsQ1. In what ways, and to what extent have TPACK technology integrationaffected learners’ learning science education? learnersQ2. In what ways, and to what extent have TPACK technology integrationaffected students’ learning in science education? studentsQ3. How have students’ performed in the science module in the traditionalstructured learning en ironment compared to the technology integration environmentlearning environment?Q4. What factors and barriers influence the change in technology l lalignment, integration and convergence in schools?
  30. 30. Research Design and MethodologyBoth qualitative and quantitative data were collected.• Quantitative analyses through’ surveys and self-reports questionnaires used to l lidentify participants’ perceptions of their expertise in the areas of content, pedagogyand technology and overlapping areas (Mishra & Koehler, 2005)• Q lit ti analyses th Qualitative l through case studies of learning-by-design groups (K hl h t di fl i b d i (Koehler,Mishra, Hershey, & Peruski, 2004).•Both qualitative and quantitative data will be analyze using the T-P-C framework.• Additional sources of data includes online data, surveys discourse analysis data surveys,of written assignments, reflective journals, design-based projects, videotaperecordings, and face-to-face interviews.• Instrument: Participants of this study include science teachers and students fromTak Sun Secondary School, Hong Kong, and Keang Peng Middle School, Macau.• Subjects: The total subjects are 118 F5 high school students, from two academiccalendar years, September 2009 to June 2010 and September 2010 to June 2011 years 2010, 2011.
  31. 31. The Theoretical framework f k
  32. 32. Building on past frameworks g p TRACK framework is built on Shulmans’ idea of Pedagogical Content Knowledge ( (Shulman,1986) ) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A Framework for Teachers’ Knowledge ( (Mishra and Koehler, 2005) , ) ( Proposed Conceptual Framework )Technological Inter-Disciplinary Content Knowledge (TICK): A Framework for Students Knowledge Students’ (Tan, 2012)
  33. 33. ContentKnowledge Content (CK)
  34. 34. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Shulman, 1986) Pedagogical ContentPedagogy Knowledge Knowledge Content (IK) (CK)
  35. 35. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Shulman, 1986)Pedagogy Pedagogical Knowledge Content Knowledge Content (IK) (CK)
  36. 36. Technology Technological Knowledge (TK) Pedagogical ContentPedagogy Knowledge Knowledge Content (PK) (CK)
  37. 37. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Mishra & Koelher, 1986) Technology Technological Knowledge (TK) Pedagogical Content Pedagogy Knowledge Knowledge Content (PK) (CK)
  38. 38. The Conceptual framework f k
  39. 39. What makes students tick?
  40. 40. ContentKnowledge Content (CK)
  41. 41. Inter-disciplinary ContentInter-disciplinary Knowledge Knowledge Content (IK) (CK)
  42. 42. Technology Technological Knowledge (TK) Inter-disciplinary ContentInter-disciplinary Knowledge Knowledge Content (IK) (CK)
  43. 43. Technology Technological Knowledge (TK) Inter-disciplinary ContentInter-disciplinary Knowledge Knowledge Content (IK) (CK)
  44. 44. Technological Inter-disciplinary Content Knowledge C l (TICK) Technology Technological Inter-disciplinary Technological Technological Knowledge Knowledge Content Knowledge (TIK) (TK) (TCK) Inter-disciplinary ContentInter-disciplinary Knowledge Knowledge Content (IK) (CK) Inter-disciplinary Content Knowledge (ICK)
  45. 45. Technological Inter-disciplinary 7 Content Knowledge C l (TICK) Technology Technological 3 6 5 Inter-disciplinary Technological Technological Knowledge Knowledge Content Knowledge (TIK) (TK) (TCK) Inter-disciplinary ContentInter-disciplinary Knowledge Knowledge Content (IK) (CK) 2 1 Inter-disciplinary 4 Content Knowledge (ICK)
  46. 46. Technological Inter-disciplinary 7 Content Knowledge C l (TICK) Technology Technological 3 6 5 Inter-disciplinary Technological Technological Knowledge Knowledge Content Knowledge (TIK) (TK) (TCK) Inter-disciplinary ContentInter-disciplinary Knowledge Knowledge Content (IK) (CK) 2 1 Inter-disciplinary 4 Content Knowledge (ICK)
  47. 47. Technological Inter-disciplinary Content Knowledge C l (TICK) Technology Technological Inter-disciplinary Technological Technological Knowledge Knowledge Content Knowledge (TIK) (TK) (TCK) Inter-disciplinary ContentInter-disciplinary Knowledge Knowledge Content (IK) (CK) Inter-disciplinary Content Knowledge (ICK)
  48. 48. Technological Inter-disciplinary Content Knowledge C l (TICK) TechnologicalInter-disciplinary Technological Technological Knowledge Knowledge Content Knowledge (TIK) (TK) (TCK) Inter-disciplinary Content Knowledge Knowledge (IK) (CK) Inter-disciplinary Content Knowledge (ICK)
  49. 49. What makes students TICK? Technological Inter-disciplinaryContent Knowledge (TICK) (C.S TAN, 2012)
  50. 50. A Framework for Teachers KnowledgeA Framework for Teachers’ Knowledge  A Framework for Students Knowledge A Framework for Students’ Knowledge focus on  focus on  Teachers’ Knowledge Expertise  Students’ Knowledge Expertise  g p Figure: Theoretical Framework: Figure: Theoretical Framework: Figure: Proposed Conceptual Framework: Figure: Proposed Conceptual Framework: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK):   Technological Interdisciplinary Content Knowledge (TICK):   (Mishra and Koehler, 2005) (Tan, 2012)
  51. 51. Technological Interdisciplinary Content Knowledge (TICK) Technological Interdisciplinary Knowledge (TIK) Interdisciplinary Knowledge (IK) Figure: Proposed Conceptual Framework:Technological Interdisciplinary Content Knowledge (TICK):  A Framework for Students’ Knowledge (Tan, 2012)
  52. 52. Rationale Technological Inter-Disciplinary Content Knowledge (TICK) : A Framework for Students’ Knowledge (Tan, 2012) I would like to propose the concept of Technological Inter-Disciplinary Content Knowledge (TICK) Unlike Shulman’s Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PACK). which focuses on “what teachers should know and be able to do”, or Mi h and K hl ’ T h l i l Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Mishra d Koehler’s Technological P d i lC t tK l d which focuses, among others, on the dynamics of technology integration, as well as the complex role of teachers to ensure high quality instruction through online teaching. Technological Inter-Disciplinary Content Knowledge (TICK) Inter Disciplinary focuses on the end-user of the online instruction, i.e. the learner. What the learner should know and be able to do is crucial, if not, the raison dêtre for any good teaching. In examining how learners should be prepared to learn in online environments in the Conceptual Age, TICK addresses the three domain areas needed to ensure Deep and Strategic learning approaches to achieve positive learning outcomes. This lens offers a way to examine students’ knowledge about their understanding of their own learning, specifically: personal conceptions of learning (Marton & Saljo 1997, Saljo 1979), epistemological beliefs (Hoefer & Pintrich 1997 Perry 1970) and 1997, 1970),intrinsic learning orientations (Entwistle 2000, Morgan and Beaty 1997, Van Rossum & Schenk 1984, Vermunt 1998). Simply put, TICK, is the integration of the development of learners’ beliefs and attitudes with the use of educational technology and how they impact the learning content. Christian Bernard Tan 12 February 2012
  53. 53. The Preliminary findings fi di
  54. 54. Preliminary Results and Analysis
  55. 55. Preliminary Results and Analysis
  56. 56. What Works Inter- Content C t t disciplinary Technology Context
  57. 57. What Doesn’t Doesn t Inter- disciplinary Content Technology Context
  58. 58. Where the magic happens happens… Inter- Content C t t disciplinary Technology Context
  59. 59. The Implications for i f science students d
  60. 60. Preliminary FindingsTo support meaningful learning, To support transformative learning,science CURRICULUM be: science PEDAGOGY be built around: 1. Actively engaging in scientific1. Systematically organized; and engineering practices; d i i i2.2 Focus on depth over breath; 2. Cross-cutting concepts that Cross cutting that transcends disciplinary3. Engaging opportunities to boundaries; engage in scientific enquiry, such as conducting experiments 3. Core ideas in key disciplinary with peers and mentors areas taught simultaneously g y
  61. 61. Preliminary FindingsTo support productive learning, To support productive learning,TECHNOLOGY should: ASSESSMENT should:1. Understand how students 1. Through fair, valid, and learning progression, core ideas careful assessment, and practices of science and how evaluate students mastery best to support that learning of the content knowledge knowledge, through well-designed i.e. to find out what they digital tools. know and are able to do. 2. To evaluate program’s effectiveness and its possible need for revision.
  62. 62. Implications for science students Connect with scientists. C h Be inspired by scientists. Think like scientists. Be a scientist
  63. 63. Regional ROV ChR i l Champions, H i Hong Kong K 12th – 14th March 2011
  64. 64. Regional ROV ChR i l Champions, H i Hong Kong K 12th – 14th March 2011
  65. 65. Regional ROV ChR i l Champions, H i Hong Kong K 12th – 14th March 2011
  66. 66. RegionalROVCompetition2011Hong Kong g g12th – 14th March 2011
  67. 67. INTEL S i Science and E i d Engineering Fair 2011 i F i 8th – 14th April 2011
  68. 68. INTELScience andEngineeringFair 20118th – 14th April 2011
  69. 69. RegionalROVCompetition2012Hong Kong g g12th – 14th April 2012
  70. 70. NASA I International ROV Competition, Huston l RO C 14th – 18th June 2011
  71. 71. Thank YouT Y ( No stones please )
  72. 72. Thank YouT Y ( No stones please )

×