The document outlines a symposium on teacher technology integration competencies, focusing on the development and assessment of TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) through various studies and video case submissions. It examines teachers' technology integration practices, professional reasoning, and the challenges faced in real classroom settings, emphasizing the importance of aligning self-reported beliefs with actual teaching practices. The findings suggest a need for enhanced professional development to effectively integrate technology into education and improve teaching outcomes.

1. 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

2. 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

4. Ghana
Iowa State
Tanzania
The Netherlands
Belgium
Michigan State

5. 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

6. 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

8. Joke Voogt (UvA/
Windesheim)
Johan van Braak (UG)
Liesbet Verplanken (UG) Maaike Heitink (UT)
Amber Walraven (ITS) Petra Fisser (SLO)
The team
8SITE 2014

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. • 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. • 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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)

19. 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

20. Example
0 Video: Using an interactive white board and digital
pictures to foster speaking skills during circle time in
Kindergarten
SITE 2014 20

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29.  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. 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)

31.  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

32. 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

33.  Video link
33

34. 34

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. T P A C K
T K
Linear functions in the slope intercept form
39

40.  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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44.  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

45.  Douglas D. Agyei
Email: ddagyei@yahoo.com
 Joke M. Voogt
Email: j.m.voogt@uva.nl
45

47. 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

48. 11 December 2013: Collaborative design in teams
to develop science and mathematics teachers’
technology integration knowledge and skills

50. 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

51. 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

53. 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

55. 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

56. 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

57. 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

58. 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

59. 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

60. 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

62. 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

63. 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

64. 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

65. 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

66. 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

67. 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

68. 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

69. 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

70. 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

71. CONCLUSION - ARTIFACTS
Several instruments were used
Self-reported & observable measures
Artifacts: videos, lesson plans, classroom practice,
simulations, presentations, etc.

72. 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!

73. HOW TO PROCEED?
Ayoub Kafyulilo, kafyulilo@duce.ac.tz
Petra Fisser, p.fisser@slo.nl
JokeVoogt, j.m.voogt@uva.nl

75. Discussion
Denise Schmidt-Crawford

76. Artifacts Demonstrating Teachers’
Technology Integration
Competencies
Thank you to all presenters!
5th year Anniversary
TPACK Symposium

77. • 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

78. 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)

79. 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

80. 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

81. 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

82. Looking forward to
TPACK Symposium #6!