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

'Heater and footer'

1

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

'Heater and footer'

10

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

Lesson enactment (1)

Lesson enactment (2)

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

Rubric

Team Observable ✓ ✓

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: [PKABL]

Prepare students for the following activities (Activities: 1.0 - 3.0) by organizing them in

small groups ... Assign specific roles to members….

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: [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.

TPCKmaths

TKss

Linear functions in the slope intercept form

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)

Mean (SD)

NPT (n=32)

Mean (SD)

P

Effect size

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)

No of

items

Pre

Interventio

n

M (SD)

Post

Intervention

M(SD)

P Effect

size

Use of technology improves teaching

productivity (enhance students’

interactions, assessment and classroom

managment) 5

2.85

(0.73)

4.23

(0.67) .002 1.97

Use of technology supports learning

activities that facilitate students’ higher

order thinking 4

3.48

(0.73)

4.21

(0.52) .012 1.15

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.

Subject

matter

Teacher

Students

Technology

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MujBQPmeOlU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MujBQPmeOlU

Students’ Experience with Technology in

Science Learning (N = 40)

No of

items Mean SD

Student’s knowledge of computer (have seen it

before, used it) 4 3.59 1,04

Students’ attitude towards learning science with

technology 11 4.45 0.52

Use of technology enhances learning of difficult

concepts 5 4.24 0.64

Technology helps students to be more involved

in the learning process than the traditional

classes

6 4.35 0.57

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

do you think

students’

learning in

science

improved

through the

integration of

technology in

teaching?

- To a great extent (all teachers) reasons:

- Students attention to the lesson was increased (4)

- Students were very active during the technology integrated

lesson (4)

- They did well in the assignment they were given (5)

- They told us that they enjoyed and understood the lesson (3)

- Students asked for other lesson that use technology (3)

- They were able to observe process which are difficult to

observe in the regular classes (1)

- Students were excited by our lesson; they told us (3)

The Impact of TPACK on Teachers’ Classroom Practices

Teachers’ understanding of TPACK had an impact on:

Teachers’ choice of the pedagogical approaches in relation to the

content and the technology in use

Teachers’ design of the students activities in relation to the technology

in use and the content to be covered

By considering TPACK, Kibasila secondary school teachers were able to

focus their lessons design around technology, pedagogy and content in

an integrated manner

TPACK was used as a guide and a reflection model for ensuring a clear

interplay between content, pedagogy and technology

The Impact of TPACK on Teachers’ Classroom Practices (2)

An understanding of TPACK had an impact not only on how teachers

teach but also to the students;

Hayes (2007) uphold that, use of technology in teaching doesn’t only

change the way a teacher teaches, but also the way students learn

For example students at Kibasila secondary school reported to enjoy and

understand the technology integrated lessons better than traditional

lessons;

Students also reported to understand some scientific concepts and

processes (e.g. mitosis) more easily, and developed interests and

motivation to the lesson than it used to be in other lessons

The impact of teachers’ TPACK on classroom practices (3)

Learning with technology offered an opportunity for students to learn

through collaboration to solve a task given by their teachers.

The collaboration approach had two advantages to students;

the opportunity to share ideas and concepts, thus, being able to

respond to questions more appropriately; and

the social gain, where new friendships were established

From our findings we consider that the changes that teachers made in

their teaching, were a result of their learning and understanding of

TPACK.

Thank you for your attention

Pre-service Teachers’ Competencies for ICT Integration in Kuwait: What Do Learning Outcomes & Self-reported Data Tell ?

Ghaida M Alayyar – PAAET – Kuwait

Petra Fisser - UT – the Netherlands

Joke Voogt – UT – the Netherlands

•Kuwait University

Faculty of Education

•Public Authority of Applied Education and Training (PAAET)

College of Basic Education

Teacher preparation program in Kuwait

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

Teacher preparation program at PAAET

Context of the study

• 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

• 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

The integration of ICT in education at

the teacher preparation program at PAAET

Pre-service science teachers work in Design Teams (DTs) to design

technology-based activities and integrate these activities in their

lesson plan

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?

Changing the PAAET context

Research Question

• 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.

The Participants

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

Instrument Purpose Confidence/

Knowledge Type

TPACK data

Source Observable /

self-reported

Presentation

Rubric

Assess the ability to

present the idea behind

the final product for

experts and peers

Confidence /

Schematic Observation Individual O

Explanation

Checklist

Assess the ability to argue

and explain the rational

behind the chosen design,

ICT, pedagogy & content

Schematic Observation Individual O

TPACK

Definition

Rubric

Assess the ability to

define TPACK concept Declarative

Open ended

question Individual O

TPACK

Reflection

Rubric

Assess the ability to apply

TPACK in real practice Strategic

Open ended

question

Individual O

Instruments for measuring TPACK

Instrument Purpose Confidence/

Knowledge Type

TPACK data

Source Observable /

Self-reported

Lesson Plan

Rubric

Assess the quality of

ICT integration

lesson plan

Strategic Performance

assessment Team O

Product

Rubric

Assess the quality of

ICT integration in

the product

Strategic

Performance

assessment

Team O

ICT Skill

Test

Assess the ICT

skills Procedural

Performance

assessment

Individual O

TPACK

Survey

Assess self-reported

TPACK Confidence Survey Individual S

Results: Learning outcomes after working in DTs

SD Mean Min -

Max

Confidence /

Knowledge

Type Measure

(total points)

.892 4.88 0-6 Confidence /

Schematic

Observation Presentation (6)

.519 3.44 0-4 Schematic Observation Explanation (4)

.657 1.90 0-3 Declarative Open ended

questions

TPACK definition

(3)

2.849 10.47 0-15 Strategic Open ended

questions

TPACK reflection

(15)

3.206 12.74 1-16 Strategic Performance

assessment

Lesson plan

Score (16)

5.928 50.99 0-60 Strategic Performance

assessment

Product Score (60)

Effect

Size

P

Level of sig.

Post

Mean

(SD)

Pre

Mean

(SD)

Confidence /

Knowledge

Type Measure

(total points)

2.04 0.0001 13.96

(3.081)

7.72

(3.037)

Procedural Performance

assessment

ICT skill test

(20)

Results: Pearson Correlation Matrix among observable learning outcomes

ICT

skill

test

Lesson

plan

score

Product

score

TPACK

reflection

TPACK

definition

Presentation Explanation

1.000

Explanation

1.000 .361** Presentation

1.000 .361** TPACK

definition

1.000 .842** .434** .492** TPACK

reflection

1.000 .331** .345** .485** Product score

1.000 .873** .282* .277* .494** Lesson plan

score

1.000 .301* .254* .554** .543** .285* .406** ICT skill test

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

Effect Size P

Level of sig.

Post

Mean (SD)

Pre

Mean (SD)

Factor

1.23 0.0001 3.80 (.506) 3.15 (.548) TK

0.98 0.0001 4.13 (.404) 3.55 (.735) CK

1.41 0.0001 4.28 (.379) 3.65 (.499) PK

1.09 0.0001 4.22 (.457) 3.58 (.699) PCK

1.74 0.0001 4.22 (.494) 3.20 (.664) TCK

2.42 0.0001 4.21 (.438) 3.10 (.481) TPK

2.53 0.0001 4.12 (.419) 2.99 (.475) TPACK

Note: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Undecided, 4= Agree & 5= Strongly Agree

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

TPACK TPK TCK PCK PK CK TK

1.000 TK

1.000 .293* CK

1.000 .481** .267* PK

1.000 .681** .312** PCK

1.000 .332** .384** .371** TCK

1.000 .425** .314** .414** TPK

1.000 .273* .296* .383** .507** TPACK


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

TPACK TPK TCK PCK PK CK TK

1.000 TK

1.000 .437** CK

1.000 .378* .477** PK

1.000 .693** .339** .334** PCK

1.000 .455** .476** .444** .442** TCK

1.000 .566** .344** .542** .469** .575** TPK

1.000 .704** .578** .438** .538** .468** .662** TPACK


Pearson correlation matrix between TPACK domains & learning outcomes

ICT skill

test

Lesson

plan

Product TPACK

reflection

TPACK

definition

Presentation Explanation

.261* TK

CK

PK

PCK

.261* .245* TCK

.239* .243* .253* TPK

TPACK

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

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.

Conclusions

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

• About the instruments?

• About the results?

• About TPACK in Kuwait?

• About…

Please contact us!

Ghaida Alayyar: [email protected]

Petra Fisser: [email protected]

Joke Voogt: [email protected]

More information?

mailto:[email protected]



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

Data

Collected

TPACK

Survey

Pre-test (#1)

Post-test (#2)

Classroom

observation

& interview

(Practicum)

TPACK

Survey (#3)

Classroom

observation

& interview

(Student

Teaching)

TPACK

Survey (#4)

Teacher

Educatio

n

Program:

Check

Points

Required IT

Course

Enrollment

in Methods

Courses

(4 total)

Completion

Methods

courses

Enrollment

in Student

Teaching

Completion

Student

Teaching

Are we preparing TPACK teachers?

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.

Stage 1 Research: Instructional Technology Course

• 3-credit introduction to technology

course (15 weeks)

• Required for elementary education

and early childhood education majors

• Attend two, 1-hour lectures and one,

2-hour lab per week


N=534

88 % Female

12 % Male

89 %

22 years old

or younger

El. Ed. = 82 %

ECE = 16 %

Other = 2 %

Freshmen &

Sophomore

64 %

No practicum

experience

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



Data

Collected

TPACK

Survey

Pre-test (#1)

Post-test (#2)

Classroom

observation

& interview

(Practicum)

TPACK

Survey (#3)

Classroom

observation

& interview

(Student

Teaching)

TPACK

Survey (#4)

Teacher

Educatio

n

Program:

Check

Points

Required IT

Course

Enrollment

in Methods

Courses

(4 total)

Completion

Methods

courses

Enrollment

in Student

Teaching

Completion

Student

Teaching


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

• 16

PK

• 3

CK

• 5

TPK

• 11

TCK

• 2

PCK

• 5

TPACK

• 10


103. TK_Select

104. TK_Affordance

117. TK_Transfer


• 101. TK_Emerge_Collaborate

• 102. TK-Emerge_Interactive

100. TK_Emerge

• 107. TK_Troubleshoot_Self

• 108. TK_Troubleshoot_Others

• 109. TK_Troubleshoot_Anticipate

106. TK_Troubleshoot


Full Code: Identifying the affordances of the

technology

Definition: Overall knowledge of what

technology can do

Example: “We’re also working on a …

global project… we’re working on with people from different

countries, different states. So we skyped through that.” (Interview)

Key Words: Skype (specific technology

mentioned)

104. TK_Affordance


601. TPK_Selection-Pedagogy

602. TPK_Coordinating-Tech

604. TPK_Troubleshooting-Managing


• 607. TPK_Extend-CR_Parents

606. TPK_Extend-CR

• 609. TPK_Demo-Tech_Instructions

• 610. TPK_Demo-Tech_Model

608. TPK_Demo-Tech


Full Code: Preparing instructional

materials with technology

Definition: Teachers use technology to

prepare for instruction beforehand, e.g. setting up the

accounts and getting the passwords for access

Example: Made tutorials for instructions -

posted video tutorials on her class website for students to access. (Observation notes)

Key Words: Prepare

600. TPK_Prepare-

Materials


Full Code: Identifying students’ learning needs

(e.g. content area, technology)

Definition: Teachers integrate technology with

content and pedagogy in mind based on learners’ needs

Example: “It is a lot of work but yet I think they

need to be exposed to [emerging technology].” (Interview)

Key Words: Need

701. TPACK_Learning_Needs

What will the TPACK Observation

Instrument look like?


Part 1:

Information on Background &

Context e.g., brief lesson plan

Part 2:

Checklist on TPACK

Characteristics

Part 3:

Questions for a Follow-up

Interview


Data

Collected

TPACK

Survey

Pre-test (#1)

Post-test (#2)

Classroom

observation

& interview

(Practicum)

TPACK

Survey (#3)

Classroom

observation

& interview

(Student

Teaching)

TPACK

Survey (#4)

Teacher

Educatio

n

Program:

Check

Points

Required IT

Course

Enrollment

in Methods

Courses

(4 total)

Completion

Methods

courses

Enrollment

in Student

Teaching

Completion

Student

Teaching


‣ Complete the development of TPACK observation instrument

‣ Collect TPACK survey Responses after preservice teachers

completed their method courses.

‣ Pilot study conducted in Fall 2011

Stage 3 Research: Methods Courses

Thank You!

Denise Schmidt-Crawford

[email protected]

Wei Wang

[email protected]

Shu Ju Diana Tai

[email protected]

Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching

Iowa State University

Evrim Baran

[email protected]

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,

TCK2, TCK6, TPCK4, (TCK1)

0.80

Technological Content Knowledge

(TCK)

F3 TPK4, TPK5, TPK3, TPCK1,

TPCK5,(TPCK2, TPCK3, TPCK6)

0.79

Technological Pedagogical

Knowledge (TPK)

F4 TPCK9, TPCK10, TPCK8, TPCK7 0.89 Technology leadership (lead)

F5 PK4, PK3, PK2, PK5, PK7, PK1, PK6 0.76 Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)

F6 CK2, CK1, CK3, PCK2, PCK1 0.80 Pedagogical Content Knowledge

(pCK)

To further explore the model

Instead of factor analysis:

Cluster analysis

(exploratory technique, to better understand what patterns exist in a

given data set)

Multidimensional scaling

(data analysis technique that provides a visual representation of the

pattern of proximities (similarities or distances) among a set of

objects)

Cluster analyses

Multidimensional scaling

Intermittant conclusion

TK, PK and TCK stand out as separate constructs

CK & PCK - TPK & TPCK are mixed up

Is it

because of the subject domain (science)?

because they are student teachers?

because the questions in the instrument are not good enough?

Technological leadership seems important (see also Riel & Becker,

2008)

But what does this mean in the case of student teachers?

The Venn diagram is an attractive conceptual model, but it is hard to

empirically reproduce the constructs

Exploring relationships between factors: Regression analysis

TK TCK TPK Lead PK pCK

/ p / p / p / p / p / 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

TK TCK TPK lead PK pCK

TK 1 1

TCK 1 1 1

TPK 1 1

lead 1

PK 1

pCK 1 1 1

Directed graph

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

TK TCK TPK lead PK pCK

TK 1 1

TCK 1 1

TPK 1 1

Lead 1

PK 1

pCK 1 1 1

Directed graph

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: [email protected]

Petra Fisser: [email protected]

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