2012-03-05 SITE TPACK Symposium

SITE 2012 TPACK Symposium
Developing TPACK around the world:
Probing the framework even as we apply it

05/03/2012 Title: to modify choose 'View' then 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 hour

1. Pre-service teachers’ competencies for technology integration: Insights
from a mathematics-specific instructional technology course in Ghana
Douglas Agyei & Joke Voogt, University of Twente, the Netherlands
2. Transforming Classroom Practices through Teachers’ Learning of
TPACK: The case of in-service teachers in Kibasila Secondary in
Tanzania
Ayoub Kafyulilo, Petra Fisser & Joke Voogt, University of Twente, the
Netherlands
3. Pre-service Teachers’ Competencies for ICT integration in Kuwait: What
do Learning Outcomes and Self-reported Data Tell?
Ghaida Alayyar, Petra Fisser & Joke Voogt, University of Twente, the
Netherlands

Second hour

1. Using the lens of classroom observation to examine teachers’ TPACK
Denise Schmidt-Crawford, Wei Wang, Diana Tai, & Ann Thompson,
Iowa State University, USA, Evrim Baran, University of British Columbia,
Canada
2. Towards understanding TPACK: An empirical analysis of pre-service
teacher’s perceptions of their ICT-integrating knowledge and skills
Joke Voogt & Petra Fisser, University of Twente, The Netherlands,
David Gibson, simSchool, USA, Gerald Knezek, University of North
Texas, USA, Jo Tondeur, Ghent University, Belgium
3. Discussion: The Forest or the Trees: TPACK Implementation and Theory
Development
Punya Mishra, Michigan State University, USA

Pre-service teachers’ competencies for technology integration:
Insights from a mathematics-specific instructional technology
course
Douglas Agyei
&
Joke Voogt

05/03/2012 Title: to modify choose 'View' then 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 Conceptualization

CKmaths : knowledge about mathematical concepts.
PKABL: knowledge and skills about applying ABL teaching strategies.

TKss: knowledge and skills about use of spreadsheet its affordances and constraints.

PCKABL: knowledge and skills of how to apply ABL to teach particular mathematics content.
TCKss: knowledge and skills of representing mathematical concepts in a spreadsheet
TPKABL: knowledge and skills of how to use spreadsheets in ABL.
TPCKmaths: knowledge and skills of representing mathematical concepts with spreadsheet
using ABL.

Instructional Technology (IT) Course-Arrangement

 Strategies (Adopted from Tondeur et al, 2011)
 Aligning theory & practice - lectures, lab sessions & classroom implementation

 Modelling how to use technology - lab sessions
 Collaborating with peers - lectures and lab sessions
 Learning technology by design - lab sessions
 Scaffolding authentic technology experience - classroom implementation

 24 teams - (from 104 pre-service teachers)

 Semester’s long project - design & develop own lessons /plan instructional strategy
 Lesson enactment - 8 teams present lessons twice: mid & end of course
- Another 8 teams present lesson at the end of course

 Researchers’ role - mainly facilitative and demonstrative

Challenge & Data Collection

Challege : Impact IT strategies on teachers’ technology competencies
( ie. attitudes, knowledge and skill – TPACK)

Table 1: Overview of instruments and their stages of administration
Instrument TPACK data Stage of
Administration
Source Type B M E
Lesson Plan Rubric Team Artefact ✓ ✓
TPACK Observation 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 document

Codes: [PCKABL]
In this activity, ask students to indicate (by tick (√)) the features of the equations as shown
on the Worksheet ... Ask the students to keep their results for discussion later in the lesson.

Codes: [PKABL]
Prepare students for the following activities (Activities: 1.0 - 3.0) by organizing them in
small 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 for
multiplication)… 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 TPACK

The case of in-service teachers in Tanzania

Ayoub Kafyulilo, Petra Fisser and Joke Voogt
University of Twente
Curriculum Design & Educational Innovation
5th March 2012

Introduction

 Education reforms around the world emphasizes the use of learner-
centered teaching approaches
 Our social and institutional contexts limit the effective use of learner-
centered approaches
 Schools (e.g. in Tanzania) have;
 fixed study schedules,
 a time bound syllabus, and
 examination oriented learning
 Thus, teachers worry more about the time to finish the syllabus, than the
competencies that students need to develop
 Technology can help teachers to use time effectively and enable students
to understand the lesson

How can technology enhance students learning

 There is evidence from literature (Keong et al, 2005; Voogt et al, 2009;
Knezek & Christensen, 2008) that;
 Constructivist pedagogical approaches are easily supported through the
use of technology.
 With technology;
 Students’ learning is improved through increased collaboration
 Students maintain a high level of communication and sharing of
knowledge.
 Students visualize difficult and/or dangerous concepts and processes
that cannot be visualized by eyes (e.g. cell division)

Technology Integration in Education in Tanzania

 Despite the potentials of technology on students’ learning, the majority of
teachers in Tanzania are not embracing the use of technology in teaching
 Factors contributing to low level of technology uptake in teaching:
 lack of technological tools,
 limited supply of electricity in most schools,
 limited teachers’ technological knowledge and
 Limited teachers’ technology integration competencies.
 Most of the teachers in Tanzania have the basic ICT knowledge but they
don’t know how ICT can support teaching and learning
 An understanding of TPACK was considered important in the
development of teachers’ ability to integrate technology in teaching

TPACK Development among In-service Teachers

 A professional development program to develop teachers’ TPACK was
organized as follows;
 Two days training and hands on activities on TPACK
 Four weeks collaboration in teacher design teams to design
technology integrated lessons (scheme of work, lesson plan and
lesson notes)
 A practical teaching of a technology integrated lesson in a classroom
 One day workshop to reflect on the training, collaboration in design
teams, lesson design, classroom teaching and students feedback.
 Redesign of the lesson in teacher design team and
 Re-teach the lesson in the classroom

Some of the activities during the workshop

Lesson design in teacher design teams Rehearsing teaching with technology

Methodology

 12 teachers participated in the project
 Data were collected for pre-intervention and post-intervention results
 The following data collection instrument were used for both pre and post
intervention results
i. Teachers’ questionnaire
ii. Teachers’ observation checklist
iii. Teachers’ interview guide
iv. Students’ observation checklist
 Data were also collected by using student questionnaire for post
intervention

Data Analysis

 Descriptive statistics involving the calculation of mean and standard
deviations were conducted for the students’ experience with the use of
technology in learning
 Wilcoxon signed ranks test for two related samples was used to analyze
the level of significance in the difference between pre and post
intervention results for teachers’ perceived ability of using technology in
Teaching
 Effect sizes were calculated for each item to determine the magnitude of
the change between pre and post intervention results.

Teachers’ perceived effect of technology in teaching (N=12)
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 in
Science Learning (N = 40)

No of
Mean SD
items

Student’s knowledge of computer (have seen it
4 3.59 1,04
before, used it)
Students’ attitude towards learning science with
11 4.45 0.52
technology
Use of technology enhances learning of difficult
5 4.24 0.64
concepts
Technology helps students to be more involved
in the learning process than the traditional 6 4.35 0.57
classes
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

Teachers’ opinions regarding students learning in a
technology integrated class

Question Responses (number of respondents in brackets)
To what extent - 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 integrated
learning 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 to
technology 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.

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

2012-03-05 SITE TPACK Symposium

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 courses
Assumption: providing pre-service teachers with technological skills will
automatically lead to effective integration of technology in their future classrooms

Changing the PAAET context

Pre-service science teachers work in Design Teams (DTs) to design
technology-based activities and integrate these activities in their
lesson 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 to
Presentation present the idea behind Confidence /
Observation Individual O
Rubric the final product for Schematic
experts and peers
Assess the ability to argue
Explanation and explain the rational
Schematic Observation Individual O
Checklist behind the chosen design,
ICT, pedagogy & content

TPACK
Assess the ability to Open ended
Definition Declarative Individual O
define TPACK concept question
Rubric

TPACK Open ended
Assess the ability to apply
Reflection Strategic question Individual O
TPACK in real practice
Rubric

TPACK data
Confidence/
Instrument Purpose Type
Knowledge
Observable /
Source
Self-reported

Assess the quality of
Lesson Plan Performance
ICT integration Strategic Team O
Rubric assessment
lesson plan

Assess the quality of Performance
Product
ICT integration in Strategic assessment Team O
Rubric
the product

Performance
ICT Skill Assess the ICT
Procedural assessment Individual O
Test skills

TPACK Assess self-reported
Confidence Survey Individual S
Survey TPACK

Results: Learning outcomes after working in DTs

Measure Type Confidence / Min - Mean SD
(total points) Knowledge Max
Presentation (6) Observation Confidence / 0-6 4.88 .892
Schematic
Explanation (4) Observation Schematic 0-4 3.44 .519

TPACK definition Open ended Declarative 0-3 1.90 .657
(3) questions
TPACK reflection Open ended Strategic 0-15 10.47 2.849
(15) questions
Lesson plan Performance Strategic 1-16 12.74 3.206
Score (16) assessment
Product Score (60) Performance Strategic 0-60 50.99 5.928
assessment

Measure 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 test
Explanation
1.000
Presentation .361** 1.000

TPACK .361** 1.000
definition
TPACK .492** .434** .842** 1.000
reflection
Product score .485** .345** .331** 1.000

Lesson plan .494** .277* .282* .873** 1.000
score
ICT skill test .406** .285* .543** .554** .254* .301* 1.000

Note: **. Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed), *. Significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Results: Comparison of the pre-service teachers’ perception of their TPACK

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 TPACK

TK 1.000
CK .293* 1.000
PK .267* .481** 1.000
PCK .312** .681** 1.000
TCK .371** .384** .332** 1.000

TPK .414** .314** .425** 1.000
TPACK .507** .383** .296* .273* 1.000


Pearson correlation matrix between TPACK different domains (post-measure)

TK CK PK PCK TCK TPK TPACK

TK 1.000
CK .437** 1.000
PK .477** .378* 1.000
PCK .334** .339** .693** 1.000
TCK .442** .444** .476** .455** 1.000

TPK .575** .469** .542** .344** .566** 1.000
TPACK .662** .468** .538** .438** .578** .704** 1.000


Pearson correlation matrix between TPACK domains & learning outcomes

Explanation Presentation TPACK TPACK Product Lesson ICT skill
definition reflection plan test
TK .261*
CK

PK

PCK

TCK .245* .261*

TPK .253* .243* .239*
TPACK

Note: * Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Conclusions

The pre-service teachers were able to:
• Develop an ICT-enhanced product (Strategic level) & integrate this
product into a lesson plan (Strategic level)
• Define TPACK (Declarative level) & reflect on TPACK framework
(Strategic level)
• Present their product to peers and instructors & defend their choice of
ICT tool, design-related issues (e.g. consistency, contrast, balance,
colour scheme), and pedagogy. Furthermore, they were able to build
their argument using the different domains of TPACK.
&
• The pre-service teachers’ ICT skills (Procedural level) significantly
increased
• Self-reported TPACK (Confidence level) increased significantly after
working in DTs.

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 Preservice
Teachers’ Development of
TPACK
Denise Schmidt-Crawford
Wei Wang
Shu Ju Diana Tai
Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching
Iowa State University, U.S.A
Evrim Baran
University of British Columbia, Canada
Developing TPACK around the World (Symposium)
SITE 2012 – Austin, TX

Designed a Longitudinal TPACK Study for our Program

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Classroom
TPACK Classroom
TPACK observation
Data Survey observation TPACK
Survey (#3) & interview
Collected Pre-test (#1) & interview Survey (#4)
(Student
Post-test (#2) (Practicum)
Teaching)

Teacher
Educatio Enrollment
Completion Enrollment Completion
n Required IT in Methods
Methods in Student Student
Program: Course Courses
courses Teaching Teaching
(4 total)
Check
Points

Are we preparing TPACK teachers?

Stage 1 Research: Instructional Technology Course

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., &
Shin, T.S. (2009-10). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK): The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument
for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
42(2), 123-149.

• 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 %


Reported knowledge on each TPACK subscale.


Reported knowledge on content specific area


‣ Significant differences in pre- and post-test means with all seven
TPACK components (Baseline data for program)
‣ Highest correlations were between the “T” components (e.g.,
TPACK & TPK, TPK & TCK, TK & TPK)
‣ Smallest pre- and post-test mean differences are in the Content
Knowledge areas.
‣ Self-report data - interpret with caution! (it appears students
enter with high perception of technology knowledge).... Leads to
the need for Stage 2

Stage 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


103. TK_Select

104. TK_Affordance

117. TK_Transfer


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


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)


601. TPK_Selection-
Pedagogy

602. TPK_Coordinating-
Tech

604. TPK_Troubleshooting-
Managing


606. TPK_Extend-CR

• 607. TPK_Extend-CR_Parents

608. TPK_Demo-Tech

• 609. TPK_Demo-
Tech_Instructions
• 610. TPK_Demo-Tech_Model


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)


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 Observation
Instrument look like?


Part 1: Part 2: Part 3:
Information on Checklist on Questions for
Background & TPACK a Follow-up
Context Characteristics Interview
e.g., brief lesson plan

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.edu

Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching
Iowa State University

Evrim Baran
evrimb@gmail.com
University of British Columbia

Towards understanding TPACK: An empirical
analysis of pre-service teacher’s perceptions of their
ICT-integrating knowledge and skills

Joke Voogt, Petra Fisser
University of Twente
David Gibson
CurveShift.Inc.
Gerald Knezek
University of North Texas, USA
Jo Tondeur
Ghent University, Belgium

SITE, Austin, 5 March 2012

In this presentation..

 Aim of the study
 Context of the study
 Study design
 Exploration of the constructs of the TPACK model
 Exploration of relationships between the constructs
 Conclusions

Aim of the study: Empirical exploration of the TPACK model
 Can we reproduce the distinguished
constructs of the TPACK conceptual
framework as represented in the Venn
diagram in the data?

 How are the constructs derived from the
data related?

Aim:
to explore the empirical basis of the TPACK
model;
to explore the potential of datamining
techniques to further understand
relationships in the data

The context of the study

 The Netherlands
 Pre-service teacher education (prospective elementary school
teachers)
 Use of technology in the science domain
 Sample:
 287 students
 age 16-24
 24% male, 76% female
 distributed over 4 years of study

Study Design

 One-group post-test only design
 Instrument: TPACK Survey (Schmidt et al., 2009)
 self-assessment of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
 Focus on science only: we added science questions
 Translated in Dutch

 RQ1: Hierarchical Cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling,
Factor analysis
 RQ2: Eureqa (data mining) and regression analysis

Factor analysis

Items Cronbach’s Construct


F1 TK2, TK5, TK4, TK1, TK3, TK6, TK7 0.90 Technology knowledge (TK)
F2 TCK4, TCK3, TPK1, TCK5, TPK2, 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)

Intermittant conclusion

 TK, PK and TCK stand out as separate constructs
 CK & PCK - TPK & TPCK are mixed up
 Is it
 because of the subject domain (science)?
 because they are student teachers?
 because the questions in the instrument are not good enough?
 Technological leadership seems important (see also Riel & Becker,
2008)
 But what does this mean in the case of student teachers?
 The Venn diagram is an attractive conceptual model, but it is hard to
empirically reproduce the constructs

Exploring relationships between factors: Regression analysis
TK TCK TPK Lead PK pCK
/ p / p / p / p / p / p
TK Dependent 0.310/0.0001 -0.048/ns 0.061/ns -0.037/ns 0.214/0.003

TCK 0.451/0.0001 Dependent 0.522/0.0001 0.283/0.004 0.000/ns 0.154/ns

TPK -0.055/ns 0.417/ 0.0001 Dependent 0/117/ns 0.134/ns 0.172/0.031

Lead 0.051/ns 0.162/ 0.004 0.084/ns Dependent -0.098/ns 0.050/ns

PK -0.029/ns 0.000/ns 0.091/ns -0.093/ns Dependent 0.255/0.0001

pCK 0.216/0.003 0.106/ns 0.149/0.031 0.061/ns 0.323/0.0001 Dependent

R2 0.314 0.516 0.410 0.178 0.135 0.318

Graphical presentation of findings (Regression)

Adjacency matrix Directed graph

TK TCK TPK lead PK pCK

TK 1 1

TCK 1 1 1

TPK 1 1

lead 1

PK 1

pCK 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 Equation

F1 TK 0,779 0,535 0,307 0.920 + 0.587*F2_TCK + 0.164*F6_pCK

F2 TCK 0,707 0,682 0,451 0.293*F1_TK + 0.644*F3_TPK

F3 TPK 0,736 0,567 0,314 1.642 + 0.491*F2_TCK + 0.067*F4_lead

F4 lead 0,887 0,366 0,107 0.718 + 0.641*F2_TCK

F5 PK 0,946 0,321 0,100 2.91 + 0.236*F6_pCK

F6 pCK 0,836 0,562 0,314 0.232*F1_TK + 0.232*F2_TCK + 0.464*F5_PK

Graphical representation of findings (Eureqa)

Adjacency matrix Directed graph

TK TCK TPK lead PK pCK

TK 1 1

TCK 1 1

TPK 1 1

Lead 1

PK 1

pCK 1 1 1

Comparison

Regression analysis Eureqa analysis

Conclusions

 The integration of the domains as described by Koehler & Mishra
seem to go beyond the integration of the 3 circles as TPK and TPCK
seem to be intertwined
 TK seems conditional for TCK and TPK

 To further explore relationships between teacher knowledge about
technology, pedagogy and subject domains:
 More data are needed (also in other domains than science)
 Eureqa is a nice tool to explore relations between data, but we
need to explore its potential further on larger data sets and also in
different settings

What else are we working on….
 Review of the literature on TPACK: To be published in the Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning
 Together with our colleagues from the University of Ghent, Belgium:
 Research on collaborative design of technology enhanced learning
environments in teacher teams as a means for teacher learning and
sustainable curriculum innovation
 In this research we use TPACK as a conceptual model
 With our PhD students: Exploring the potential of TPACK and
collaborative design in (student-)teacher teams (Ghana, Tanzania,
Kuwait)
 With our colleagues from CurveShift & UNT
 Further explorations of the potential of Eureqa for exploring relations
between variables in (large) data sets

More information?

 Please contact us!
 Joke Voogt: j.m.voogt@utwente.nl
 Petra Fisser: p.h.g.fisser@utwente.nl

And for the Dutch people  htpp://www.tpack.nl 

Discussion

The Forest or the Trees:
TPACK Implementation and Theory Development

Punya Mishra, Michigan State University, USA

2012-03-05 SITE TPACK Symposium

2012-03-05 SITE TPACK Symposium

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot(20)

Similar to 2012-03-05 SITE TPACK Symposium

Similar to 2012-03-05 SITE TPACK Symposium(20)

More from Petra Fisser

More from Petra Fisser(20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded(20)

2012-03-05 SITE TPACK Symposium