2014-03-19 site tpack symposium

TPACK Symposium “Artifacts demonstrating

teachers’ technology integration competencies”

Joke Voogt, Petra Fisser, Johan van Braak, Liesbet Verplanken, Maaike Heitink, Ayoub Kafyulilo, Douglas Agyei, Matthew J.

Koehler, Joshua Rosenberg, Spencer Greenhalgh, Andrea Zellner, Punya Mishra, Denise Schmidt-Crawford

SITE, 19 March 2014

International symposium

O 2010: Strategies for teacher professional development on TPACK

O 2011: Teachers’ assessment of TPACK: Where are we and what is needed?

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

O 2013: Measuring TPACK

O 2014: Artifacts demonstrating teachers’ technology integration competencies

Ghana

Iowa State

Tanzania

The Netherlands Belgium

Michigan State

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

Part 2 O Introduction to the symposium – Joke Voogt

O Developing technology integration knowledge and skills of the pre-service and in-service teachers through collaborative design in teams Ayoub Kafyulilo, Dar es salaam University College of Education, Tanzania , Petra Fisser, National Institute for Curriculum Development, The Netherlands, Joke Voogt, University of Amsterdam/ Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands

O Can portfolio-based assessments demonstrate teachers’ TPACK? Matthew J. Koehler, Joshua Rosenberg, Spencer Greenhalgh, Andrea Zellner, Punya Mishra, Michigan State University

O Discussant: Denise Schmidt-Crawford

O Discussion with the Audience

Joke Voogt (UvA/

Windesheim)

Johan van Braak (UG)

Liesbet Verplanken (UG) Maaike Heitink (UT)

Amber Walraven (ITS) Petra Fisser (SLO)

The team

8 SITE 2014

The reason for the study

0 A teacher’s technology integration depends on TPACK (knowledge and skills), beliefs and experiences

0 Is often determined by self report measures in large scale surveys

Or

0 Through observations is small-scale studies

SITE 2014 9

Purpose of the study

0 To explore the potential of videoclips to determine teachers’ competency to integrate technology in a sound way

0 Combining the depth of observations with a reasonable large sample

SITE 2014 10

A teacher’s technology integration competency

0 Competency : the integration of knowledge, skill and attitude

0 Constitutes of the knowledge and skills (TPACK) , beliefs, self

efficacy and experiences of teachers

0 Can be demonstrated by the wau a teacher acts in the classroom (pedagogy) with respect to technology and the capability to reason professionally about his/ her acting.

Brief 0 We wanted to know how teachers integrate technology and why

they do what they do

SITE 2014 11

• Knowledge & Skills (TPACK)

• Experiences

• Beliefs

• Self efficacy

Professional

Reasoning

Characteristics of

the

teaching/learning

practice

Contribution to

effective teaching

& learning

Context

Technology Integration Competency

Why a teacher

acts this way.

How a teacher

designs his/her

practice

…concerning

techhnology in

education

SITE 2014 12

The Analysis Model

Professional Reasoning

Subject

matter

Student

characteristics

Learning

processes

Goals

Curriculum

Instruction

http://www.evolllution.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/reflective-teaching.jpg

SITE 2014 13

Conceptual

understanding

Meijer, 1999

Characteristics of effective teaching 0 Classroom management 0 Time on task 0 Well organized learning environment 0 Clearly structured teaching 0 Fostering active learning 0 Challenging and engaging 0 Fostering collaboration and respect betweenstudents and teachers 0 Learning to learn 0 Providing feedback/ formative assessment 0 Summative assessment 0 Time to practice 0 Learning resources 0 Personalized learning 0 Learning in authentic settings

Scheerens, 2008; Dede, 2000; Voogt, 2008; Ertmer, 2012

SITE 2014 14

• Knowledge & Skills (TPACK)

• Experiences

• Beliefs

• Self efficacy

Professional

Reasoning

Characteristics of

the

teaching/learning

practice

Contribution to

effective teaching

& learning

Context

Technology Integration Competency

Why a teacher

acts this way.

How a teacher

designs his/het

practice

…concerning

techhnology in

education

SITE 2014 15

The Analysis Model

Research Questions

0How can the examples be characterized in terms of effective teaching and learning with technology?

0How can teachers’ professional reasoning related to technology integration be characterized?

SITE 2014 16

Method

0 Teachers were invited to submit videocases (N=157) 0 According to a protocol (introduction – practice –

reflection) 0 Each videocase is about 10-12 minutes

0 Additional questionnaires TPACK-core, ICT skills,

Beliefs (N=129) linked to the videocases

0 We checked the characteristics of our sample with a national benchmark

SITE 2014 17

Observation checklist

SITE 2014 18

0 The context

0 Hard- & software

0 Characteristics of teaching/learning activities

0 Curriculum characteristics

0 Grouping

0 Teacher role

0 Student role

0 Who’s in control

0 Assessment/ Feedbacke

0 Technology integration

0 Fit (TPACK)

0 Non-essential, supportive, essential use of technology

0 Added value 0 Fit (TPACK) 0 Student characteristics 0 Learning processes 0 Goals 0 Curriculum 0 Instruction 0 Interaction 0 Costs & Benefits 0 Monitoring student

learning

Professional Reasoning about

Teaching and learning practice (observed)

Fit (professional reasoning & practice)

0 Fit: the technology strengthens the content, pedagogy, or both

0 Scoring:

0 No fit

0 The technology strengthens the content

0 The technology strengthens the pedagogy

0 The technology strengthens the content & the pedagogy

Match: They do what they say professional reasoning ≈ practice

Example

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

SITE 2014 20

Scoring observed teaching practice (partly)

Curriculum characteristics

0 Authentic setting

Grouping

0 Whole classroom teaching

Teacher role

0 Guide

Student role

0 Executor & Listener

Fit


Use

0 Supportive use

SITE 2014 21

Scoring Professional reasoning about (partly)

Added value

0 Motivating

0 Effective

Fit


Learning processes

0 How technology helps students learn

SITE 2014

Match professional reasoning ≈ practice

Results In only half of the cases we observed a match between professional

reasoning and actual practice

Practice:

0 The videocases showed a limited perspective on technology integration competency

0 Technology use is mainly supportive but not essential in the teaching learning/process

0 Mainly focused on teacher-centered education 0 ICT is hardly being used in authentic settings, learning to learn, ( formative)

assessment Professional reasoning:

0 Teachers had limited language to reason about technology use

0 Facilitating learning processes

0 Realization of goals

0 Motivating students

SITE 2014 23

Conclusions Indicators for technology integration competency are:

0 Technology is used to strengthen effective teaching

0 Technology is essential for realizing effective teaching

0 Match between TPACK (reasoning) & TPACK (practice)

Technology integration is more than TPACK, but being able to demonstrate TPACK in practice and reason

about TPACK is an important indicator of a technology integration competency

SITE 2014 24

Next Steps

Using a selection of the video cases to develop an interactive module for (pre-service) teachers to help

them move to a pedagogy that fosters effective education in which technology is essential to realize

effectivity

SITE 2014 25

You want to know more?

Email us

0 Joke Voogt: [email protected]

0 Petra Fisser: [email protected]

SITE 2014 26

Douglas Agyei

Department of Science & Mathematics Education University of Cape Coast, Ghana

&

Joke Voogt

Research Institute of Child Development and Education University of Amsterdam,, The Netherlands

27

Poor student achievements (in mathematics)

High failure rate (More than 86% of failures to enter Tertiary

levels)

TIMSS 2003 & 2007 (43rd out of 44 & 46th out of 48)

Poor attitudes

Mathematics Teaching

Teacher-centred approach (Hardly any hands-on activities, Whole class teaching Lots of notes being copied )

Low cognitive learning (Concept formation at a more abstract level, Heavy emphasis on assessment)

28

A Longitudinal study to integrate technology in teaching mathematics (Ghana)

Two case studies of Professional Development (PD) in 2009 and 2010

Integration of the PD arrangement into a regular mathematics–specific IT course (2011)

TPACK Framework

ICT (spreadsheet) to promote in-depth maths concept formation

Activity-Based Learning (ABL) to make lesson less teacher-centred

29

30

Make use of existing ICT tools

(Spreadsheet-specific)

Active involvement of learners (Activity Based Learning-ABL)

Explore connection between spreadsheet, ABL pedagogy and mathematical concept

TPACK Frame work -Interconnection of content pedagogy & technology (Mishra & Koehler,2006)

Introductory workshop

(TDT,s, TPACK, Exemplary Materials, Co-plan activities,

Micro- teaching & Team discussions)

Design Period : Working in DT’s to:

- Identify mathematics topics (concept);

- Identify appropriate spreadsheet resources for the topic;

- Design & develop appropriate activities;

- Incorporate activities in lesson & planning instructional strategy

Implementation

- Designed actual class teaching try-out (peers)

- Real classroom teaching

Role of Researcher: Consultative

31

Peer

Teaching

Real Classroom try-outs

(SHS)

Lesson N(190) School Level N(225)

Lesson

Duration

(Min)

Distance between two given points of a line (DBTGP) 32 A 1 43 40

Quadratic in Polynomial Form (QPF) 31 A 2 44 80

Quadratic in Vector Form (QVF) 34 B 2 36 80

Transformation by a Vector (TBV) 30 B 3 35 80

Graphs of Linear Equations (GLE) 31 C 1 25 40

Trigonometric Functions (TRIG) 32 C 3 42 80

32

Video link

33

CALP Interview Observ.

Checklist

TPACK

Questionnaire

Instructional Plan ✓

Actual Classroom

Practices

✓

Self- Reported ✓ ✓

Assessment of the PD: Explore whether and how Prospective teachers integrate

technology or demonstrate TPACK in their Learning Outcomes.

Compare Prospective teachers TPACK (Instructional, reported, observed)

Effect levels and data collection

Note: CALP (Criteria for Analyzing Lesson Plan) inspired by : Harris, Grandgenett and Hofer (2010).

Observation Checklist inspired by : ISTE (2008) and Schmidt et al (2009)

35

Quantitative Content Analysis (Berelson, 1952)

Categorizing and coding data based on TPACK (Koehler et al. 2007)

(Similar for Video data & Lesson Plans)

Points (marks) awarded based on CALP and observation Checklist

Systematic quantitative Analysis (Mainly descriptive)

Intercoder reliability result using Cohen’s kappa (k)

0.91 – 0.93 (for Lesson plans)

0.79 – 0.81 (for observational data)

36

LESSON PLAN EXAMPLE

Objectives for Lesson:

The students will be able to:

discover how the slope affects the graph of a line

relate k to the y-intercept of a line

determine the equation of a line given a and k

INTRODUCTION (10 minutes)

The graph of linear function y = ax + k has several properties. In this lesson, activities

have been designed to enable you guide students to discover how the slope (a) affects…

Prepare students for the following activities (Activities 1 to 4) by organizing them in

Small groups (2 to 3 student per group). Assign specific role to students in the group

(as presenter, recorder, and leader). Start the lesson by giving each group the Students’

Worksheet.

PROCEDURE (55 minutes)

ACTIVITY 1: The graph of the linear function of the form

Using spreadsheet, prepare the graph of by setting and before

beginning the lesson on an overhead projector.

PK

TCK

37

ACTIVITY 2: Varying the value of (set k = 0)

Begin by using the spreadsheet to plot the graph of and let students

observe the changes in the graph as the value of changes from positive to negative.

Ask students to describe the changes in the line as the value of increases

(e.g.

Discuss group results with students. Some discussion points could

a) represent the slope/gradient of the graph

b) When = 0 we have a straight line passing through the x-axis ( ).

c) The graphs of positive values of increases from left to right

d) The graphs of negative values of decreases from left to right

e) As the absolute value of increases the line becomes steeper and vice versa.

TPK

CK

38

T P A C K

T K

Linear functions in the slope intercept form

39

Significant increases between pre- and post-test for all seven components of TPACK survey( Effect Size between 0.7 and 2.38)

Improved Teachers’ Instructional Plan (TPACK mean scores) observed with increasing number of teaching try-outs

Observed data (actual lesson enactment) particularly shows challenges/difficulties faced by target teachers

40

1. Problems exploring properties/nature of quadratics:

2. Problems exploring which graph is steeper:

Figure 2: a. Graph of: y = ax

2 + bx + k b. Graph of: y = mx + k

3. Difficulty reading mid points of two equations- “Zooming” allowed in-depth investigation

4. Verifying graphical solution set (from the spreadsheets) - “Increase decimal” button

41

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

2.60

2.70

TKCK

PK

PCK

TCK

TPK

TPAC

K

TPACK Domain

Mean Planned Practice

Observed Practice

Planned Instruction vs Actual Practice

42

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Self Reported Instructional

Plan

Actual Practice

TPACK Assessment type

Mean

TK

CK

PK

PCK

TCK

TPK

TPACK

Results (3)

43

Developed & improved teachers’ TPACK evident in all the data sources Learning outcomes (lesson plan & observed data) provided specific & concrete

representation of what they could do.

High score on expressed self-reported TPACK beliefs than instructional and actual practices (Teachers show high score of all components on TPACK survey ) – So & Kim, 2009

Teachers use of TPACK in practice differs from their planned

instruction Difficulties/challenges associated with teachers’ use of technology are

pronounced more in their actual lesson enactment

A combination of Lesson plans and actual lesson enactmetment is an effective way to assess TPACK but Self report is also a necessity.

44

Douglas D. Agyei

Email: [email protected]

Joke M. Voogt

Email: [email protected]

45

mailto:[email protected]



DEVELOPING TPACK OF PRE-SERVICE

AND IN-SERVICE TEACHERS THROUGH

COLLABORATIVE DESIGN IN TEAMS

Ayoub C Kafyulilo, Dar es Salaam University College of Education, Tanzania

Petra Fisser, National Institute for Curriculum Development, the Netherlands

Joke Voogt, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

SITE (Jacksonville, FL)

19 March 2014

11 December 2013: Collaborative design in teams

to develop science and mathematics teachers’

technology integration knowledge and skills

INTRODUCTION

Initiatives to integrate technology in education in

Tanzania started in 1997

2007: integration of technology in teaching still

limited

Teaching of basic ICT skills (switching computers on and

off, word processing, basic internet applications)

Using the computer for secretarial and administrative

purposes

2010: hindering factors were analyzed

HINDERING FACTORS

Inadequate training and capacity, resulting in underutilization of technology facilities

Lack of awareness of the affordances of technology and how it can be used to address existing challenges of teaching and learning

Lack of skilled teachers to implement a technology-enhanced curriculum

Of all the factors, the inadequate training and lack of skilled teachers to implement technology-enhanced curriculum is crucial in Tanzania

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Professional development arrangement

A workshop on TPACK

Collaborative design in teams

Lesson implementation,

Reflection on the implemented lessons

Lesson re-design

for pre-service and in-service teachers

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Two important innovations for teachers in Tanzania

collaborative design in teams (offered as a professional

development arrangement) for developing technology

integration knowledge and skills

TPACK, which was adopted as a framework for

describing the pre-service and in-service teachers’

knowledge requirements for integrating technology into

their science and mathematics teaching

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The effect of the professional development

arrangement on the development of technology

integration knowledge and skills

The impact of collaborative design in teams on the

development of technology integration knowledge

and skills

The factors that affect the continuous use of

technology in teaching after the professional

development arrangement has ended

METHODOLOGY

Design-based research with 4 studies

1. 22 pre-service teachers

2. 12 in-service teachers

3. 20 in-service teachers from two schools

4. 42 in-service and pre-service teachers

RESULTS (1ST STUDY)

The adoption of collaborative design in team was

effective for the development of pre-service

teachers’ technology integration knowledge and

skills

Results from the pre-service teachers’ perceptions

and classroom observation showed a significant

difference between pre and post intervention

RESULTS (2ND STUDY)

Collaborative design in teams was adopted as the

main professional development arrangement for

the second study.

Significant increase in both observed and perceived

knowledge

The need for support emerged

Observed classroom practices with technology

An example of interactive lesson was demonstrated by the biology team

through the video they made about first aid provision to a fainting

person

During this lesson, a teacher was seating behind the classroom with

students and acted like a fellow learner but a leader to the discussion.

He made groups of five and assigned tasks to each group,

Each group made a presentation of their task to the colleagues in the

classroom

There was a great debate between students from different groups which

was reflecting on the video

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

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

RESULTS (3RD STUDY)

Teachers’ collaborative lesson design in teams was

supported through

The availability of an expert

Collaboration guidelines

Exemplary lessons

Online materials

Teachers were able to develop technology

integration knowledge and skills better

RESULTS (4TH STUDY)

Years/months after the professional development

To investigate the continuous use of technology in

teaching

Several variables were studied:

Personal factors

Institutional factors

Professional development factors

Technological factors

RESULTS (4TH STUDY)

Only a few teachers continued to integrate

technology in their teaching

Professional development did not have a direct impact

on the continuous use of technology

Access to technology, ease of use, and support from

the management does have a direct impact

Professional development is a prerequisite to start

thinking about technology integration

CONCLUSION - GENERAL

Collaborative design in teams is an effective

professional development arrangement

Teachers’ development of technology integration

knowledge and skills is higher when there is support

The long term impact is determined by the

professional development arrangement, teachers’

knowledge and skills, accessibility to technology, ease

of use of technology, and management support

CONCLUSION - ARTIFACTS

Several instruments were used

Self-reported & observable measures

Artifacts: videos, lesson plans, classroom practice,

simulations, presentations, etc.

CONCLUSION - ARTIFACTS

Professional development

does increase TPACK (as measured with the instruments)

does not necessarily lead to continuous technology use..

Professional development & “prove” with artifacts alone is not enough!

HOW TO PROCEED?

Ayoub Kafyulilo, [email protected]

Petra Fisser, [email protected]

Joke Voogt, [email protected]

Discussion Denise Schmidt-Crawford

Artifacts Demonstrating Teachers’ Technology Integration

Competencies

Thank you to all presenters!

5th year Anniversary

TPACK Symposium

• Competencies

– (Europe): integrate knowledge and skills and attitude

– (USA): actual demonstration of skills learned (competency-based education)

• Artifacts – video cases, lesson plans, collaborative lesson design, portfolios

Key TPACK Themes to Remember

• International perspective of TPACK research

• “Context” is still very important to TPACK – explain it well!

• Pedagogical approaches – (e.g., activity based learning, collaborative design in teams)

• Concrete representations of what teachers can do (e.g., lessons, portfolios, videos)

TPACK Common Ground

• Critical investigations of how to measure TPACK --- (using artifacts) – Methodologies & Analysis (multiple measures)

• Approaches to identifying how teachers enact TPACK – what does it “look like” in practice?

• Technology no longer stands alone – we have come a long way in 5 years…. In 8 years (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) – Professional practice, characteristics of effective

teaching, competency, reflective practice

• TPACK is not easy (wicked problem!) --- hindering factors

Key Points to Take Away

• We are in the initial stages of explaining what TPACK “looks like” in different contexts.

• Technology can strengthen effective teaching – solid content knowledge & effective pedagogy.

• Importance of “Match” – Are teachers doing what they say (ie., self-report, lesson plans) they are doing (i.e., observations?

• We must keep the TPACK research momentum going…there is much more to investigate!

• Integration…. Innovation

Questions to Consider

• How can we better connect theory to practice related to TPACK?

• How do we best structure or restructure our experiences in our teacher preparation programs while preparing TPACK teachers? How do we learn from what we already know?

• What are specific competencies that should be measured for TPACK?

• How do we (continue to…) measure TPACK? – What are the next steps? – formative & summative – reliable & valid measures and approaches

Looking forward to TPACK Symposium #6!