![\"TPACK](\"http:\/\/punyamishra.com\/images\/gottpack.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
TPACK Newsletter, Issue #14:<\/strong>February 2013<\/strong><\/p>\n Welcome to the fourteenth edition of the (approximately quarterly) TPACK Newsletter! TPACK work is continuing worldwide, and is appearing in an increasing diversity of publication, conference, and professional development venues. This document contains recent updates to that work that we hope will be interesting and useful to you, our subscribers. If you are not sure what TPACK is, please surf over to http:\/\/www.tpack.org\/<\/a> to find out more.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Gratuitous Quote About Technology<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works–Steve Jobs<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In This Issue<\/strong><\/p>\n -1. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Gratuitous Quote About Technology 1. TPACK Newsletter Update<\/strong><\/p>\n The TPACK Newsletter currently has 1209 subscribers. It has been distributed for just over four years.<\/p>\n 2. Recent TPACK Publications <\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n Below are recent TPACK publications that we know about: 26 articles, 4 chapters and 1 book. If you know of others that were published within the past several months, please let us know (tpack.news.editors@wm.edu<\/a>).<\/p>\n Articles<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Alayyar, G. M., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2012). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service science teachers: Support from blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28<\/em>(8), 1298-1316.<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: “The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework has been used to prepare pre-service science teachers at the Public Authority of Applied Education and Training in Kuwait for ICT integration in education. Pre-service teachers worked in teams to design an ICT solution for an authentic problem they faced during in-school training. Pre-service teachers were separated into two groups. The first group was coached by ICT, pedagogy, and content experts. The second group was offered a blended condition, by which they had access to an online portal with different tutorials and examples, with opportunities to meet with different experts whenever they wanted. Pre-test and post-test design data were collected for attitudes toward ICT, ICT skills, and TPACK. The findings show that the self-reported TPACK, the score of attitudes toward ICT, and ICT skills increased in both groups. However, the blended support condition reported a higher increase in the participants’ technological knowledge (TK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), their attitude toward ICT as a tool for instruction and productivity, and ICT enjoyment. This indicated that students perceived the blended condition for supporting design teams as a more desirable method for enhancing their development of TPACK.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Alsofyani, M. M., bin Aris, B., Eynon, R.., & Abdul Majid, N. (2012). A preliminary evaluation of short blended online training workshop for TPACK development using technology acceptance model. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11<\/em>(3), 20-32.<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: “The use of Short Blended Online Training (SBOT) for the development of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a promising approach to facilitate the use of e-learning by academics. Adult learners prefer the blend of pedagogies such as the presentation, demonstration, practice and feedback if they are structured and instructor-led with an efficient training length. In this paper, we suggest that SBOT has the potential to create a highly preferred environment for training if adult learning principles are considered. The study explores the evaluation of this mode of training by using Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The results show a great acceptance for this mode of training. Moreover, in practice, dual training modes can be offered for TPACK development programs, which may consist of face-to-face training and SBOT.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Annetta, L., Frazier, W., Folta, E., Holmes, S., Lamb, R., & Cheng, M-T. (2013). Science teacher efficacy and extrinsic factors toward professional development using video games in a design-based research model: The next generation of STEM learning. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 22<\/em>(1), 47-61.<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: Designed-based research principles guided the study of 51 secondary-science teachers in the second year of a 3-year professional development project. The project entailed the creation of student-centered, inquiry-based, science, video games. A professional development model appropriate for infusing innovative technologies into standards-based curricula was employed to determine how science teacher’s attitudes and efficacy where impacted while designing science-based video games. The study’s mixed-method design ascertained teacher efficacy on five factors (General computer use, Science Learning, Inquiry Teaching and Learning, Synchronous chat\/text, and Playing Video Games) related to technology and gaming using a web-based survey). Qualitative data in the form of online blog posts was gathered during the project to assist in the triangulation and assessment of teacher efficacy. Data analyses consisted of an Analysis of Variance and serial coding of teacher reflective responses. Results indicated participants who used computers daily have higher efficacy while using inquiry-based teaching methods and science teaching and learning. Additional emergent findings revealed possible motivating factors for efficacy. This professional development project was focused on inquiry as a pedagogical strategy, standard-based science learning as means to develop content knowledge, and creating video games as technological knowledge. The project was consistent with the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) framework where overlapping circles of the three components indicates development of an integrated understanding of the suggested relationships. Findings provide suggestions for development of standards-based science education software, its integration into the curriculum and, strategies for implementing technology into teaching practices.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Bauer, W. I., Hofer, M., & Harris, J. (2012). Grounded tech integration: Music. Learning & Leading with Technology, 40<\/em>(3), 30-32.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0Description<\/span>: “To assist teachers with technology integration, we offer comprehensive sets of learning activity types in ten curriculum areas, with specific educational technologies suggested that can best support each type of learning described. The learning activity types are organized into subcategories, so that each content-based collection comprises an informal taxonomy. Once teachers have determined the learning goals for a particular lesson, project, or unit, they review the activity types in the taxonomy\/ies for the content area(s) being addressed, selecting and combining learning activities that will best help students to achieve the designated goals. Since appropriate educational technologies are recommended for each learning activity type, choosing the activities helps teachers to subsequently select well-matched technologies to support the plan. We think of this as grounded technology integration, since it is based in content, pedagogy, and how teachers plan instruction.” The TPACK-based music taxonomy overviewed in this article is available online at: http:\/\/activitytypes.wmwikis.net\/Music<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Bull, G., Thompson, A. D., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. A. (2012). New directions for ed tech journals: Encouraging and facilitating use of video in publication. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29<\/em>(2), 37-38.<\/p>\n \u00a0Abstract<\/span>: Information about several papers discussed at a meeting hosted by the National Technology Leadership Coalition (NTLC) in the U.S. is presented. Topics include vido-based [sic<\/em>] teaching cases, and technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK), and development of preservice teachers. The meeting featured speakers including Marilyn Strutchens and Willy Kjellstrom.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Ho, H. N. J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). Examining preservice teachers’ perceived knowledge of TPACK and cyberwellness through structural equation modeling. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28<\/em>(6), 1000-1019.<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: “This study examined outcomes from an information and communication technology (ICT) course designed on the basis of the meaningful learning framework and general cyberwellness issues. It also examined the relationships among Singaporean preservice teachers’ perceptions of the constructs pertaining to technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), and their perceived ability to integrate cyberwellness knowledge when designing web-related learning. Two questionnaires were administered to 668 and 628 preservice teachers before and after the ICT course to elicit the relationships. Five TPACK knowledge constructs (PK, CK, Web 2.0-related TK, TPK, TPACK) and the teachers’ cyberwellness knowledge were identified from factor analysis results. The pre-post course surveys indicate that the preservice teachers perceived strong gain in 5 out 6 constructs measured. Additionally, the structural equation model analysis revealed that cyberwellness knowledge contributes significantly to TPK and TPACK, based on the preservice teachers’ perception. As such, the study argues that the preservice teachers’ confidence to integrate their cyberwellness knowledge into their teaching may play an important role in influencing how they plan and design web-based learning. Cyberwellness knowledge may be an important knowledge component to foster when considering the future development of teachers’ TPACK for web-based learning.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Dempsey, C., Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2013). Grounded tech integration: Visual arts. Learning & Leading with Technology, 40<\/em>(5), 36-38.<\/em><\/p>\n Description<\/span>: “One way to help teachers to integrate technologies meaningfully is to focus upon instructional planning. When teachers plan according to their students curriculum-based learning needs, they typically organize their lessons, units and projects around content-based learning activities. When considering how to integrate technologies effectively into instruction, we suggest that teachers begin with selecting these content-based learning activities, based upon the learning processes and outcomes intended for the lesson, project, or unit being planned. Educational technologies can then be chosen according to how well their use can support students learning in each of the activities that have already been planned.<\/p>\n How can these selection processes be supported within the constraints of teachers busy schedules? To assist teachers in choosing among a full range of learning activity types in each content area, we have developed and published comprehensive taxonomies of learning activity types in each of ten curriculum areas. The learning activities in each of the taxonomies are organized into subcategories to make working with the taxonomies more efficient. Once teachers select and sequence a combination of activity types that will help their students meet identified curriculum-based learning goal(s) for a particular lesson, project, or unit, they then consider the digital tools and resources suggested for each selected learning activity type. Because the suggested technologies are uniquely suited to support, extend, and\/or enhance each content-based learning activity, we consider this planning process to be a grounded approach to technology integration that is focused upon students curriculum-based learning.” This article provides an overview of the learning activity types taxonomy in visual arts. The taxonomy itself is available online at: http:\/\/activitytypes.wmwikis.net\/Visual+Arts<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Dilworth, P., Donaldson, A., George, M., K., Searson, M., Starkweather, K., Strutchens, M.,…Robinson, S. (2012). Preparing teachers for tomorrow’s technologies. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 56<\/em>(4), 11-14. doi: 10.1007\/s11528-012-0581-5<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: “The editorial discusses technology education for teachers, with particular focus given to a framework titled TPACK which focuses on technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge. The origin and application of TPACK are examined, and the importance of technological understanding for teachers is emphasized.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Do?an, M. (2012). Prospective Turkish primary teachers’ views about the use of computers in mathematics education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15<\/em>(4), 329-341. doi: 10.1007\/s10857-012-9214-3<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: “The use of computers and technology in mathematics education affects students’ learning, achievements, and affective dimensions. This study explores prospective Turkish primary mathematics teachers’ views about the use of computers in mathematics education. The sample comprised of 129 fourth-year prospective primary mathematics teachers from two different universities in Turkey. Data consisting of participants’ written responses were qualitatively analyzed and categorized according to TPACK. Results show that the prospective teachers’ views about computers and their use in mathematics are usually positive. They enjoy working with computers, even though they are only able to perform relatively minor calculations with computers. They stated that improved use of computers can help them to learn and teach mathematics more effectively. However, they did not feel confident about their ability to teach mathematics using computers.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Dron, J. (2012). The pedagogical-technological divide and the elephant in the room. International Journal on E-Learning, 11<\/em>(1), 23-38. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.editlib.org\/p\/33288<\/a><\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: There is a widely held belief in e-learning circles that pedagogy must come before technology. In this paper it is argued that, not only is that not true, but that it is a weak distinction as pedagogies, insofar as they represent a set of techniques and tools for learning, are as much technologies as the computers, forums, virtual classrooms and institutional structures in which they are used. This perspective has some significant implications as to how we should research and use educational technologies. The nature of the relationship between different technologies is examined and some conclusions drawn about implications for educational research, and how technologies should be designed. A major outcome of this analysis is to consider the importance of factors apart from pedagogies and other technologies that lead to effective learning experiences. It is argued that this is the elephant in the room that is largely ignored in educational technology research.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Foulger, T. S., Buss, R. R., Wetzel, K., & Lindsey, L. (2012). Preservice teacher education benchmarking a standalone ed tech course in preparation for change. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29<\/em>(2), 48-58.<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: “In an effort to reform a teacher education program by strengthening content-area preparation and adding opportunities to practice by extending the time for student teaching, Arizona State University’s Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College eliminated a group of teacher education courses, including the standalone educational technology course. Educational technology faculty members were charged with developing an alternative approach of infusing technology into methods courses. Our first step was to conduct this benchmarking study of the standalone course to determine the successful lessons and practices that should be incorporated into the new program design. Results from analysis of pre- and post-course survey results and focus-group data indicated that candidates’ confidence and TPACK scores increased in the standalone course. We will share benchmarks that arose from the study with program developers for adoption or adaptation to the new technology-infused courses where appropriate. Findings may also be useful to other teacher credentialing institutions that are changing to a technology- infused instructional approach.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Integrating educational technology into the secondary science teaching. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12<\/em>(2), 162-183. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.editlib.org\/p\/39130\/<\/a><\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: The integration of technology in teaching is still challenging for most teachers, even though there has been a historical growth of Internet access and available educational technology tools in schools. Teachers have not incorporated technology into their teaching for various reasons, such as lack of knowledge of technology, time, and support. In this study, three beginning science teachers who successfully achieved technology integration were followed for 3 years to investigate how their beliefs, knowledge, and identity contributed to their uses of technology in their classroom instruction. The findings demonstrate that the participating teachers were all intrinsically motivated to use technology in their teaching and this motivation allowed them to enjoy using technology in their instruction and kept them engaged in technology use. The major findings of the study are displayed in a model, which indicates that the internalization of the technology use comes from reflection and that teachers use of technology in classroom instruction is constructed jointly by their technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge; beliefs; identity; and the resources that are available to them. The study has implications for teachers and teacher educators for successful technology integration into science classrooms.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hsu, P. S. (2013). Examining changes of preservice teachers beliefs about technology integration during student teaching. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21<\/em>(1), 27-48.<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine changes in preservice teachers beliefs about technology integration during the student teaching semester in USA. This study used in-depth interviews, review of documents, and observations. The findings indicated the preservice teachers beliefs about technology integration changed in two directions. Although changes may be attributed to cooperating teachers practices about technology integration, this study suggested that cooperating teachers modeling does not necessarily lead preservice teachers to change their beliefs about technology integration in a positive way. Thus, this study suggested a need to build reflective activities for preservice teachers to gain access to the cooperating teachers thinking process in the modeling process.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Juniu, S., Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2012). Grounded tech integration: Physical education. Learning & Leading with Technology, 40<\/em>(2), 34-36.<\/em><\/p>\n Description<\/span>: “To assist teachers with technology integration, we offer comprehensive sets of learning activity types in ten curriculum areas, with specific educational technologies suggested that can best support each of the types of learning described. The learning activity types are organized into subcategories, so that each content-based collection of learning activity types forms an informal taxonomy. Once teachers have determined the learning goals for a particular lesson, project, or unit, they review the activity types in the taxonomy for the content area(s) being addressed, selecting and combining learning activities that will best help students to achieve the designated goals. Since appropriate educational technologies are recommended for each learning activity type, choosing the activities helps teachers to subsequently select technologies to support the plan in practical and usable ways. We think of this as grounded technology integration, since it is based in content, pedagogy, and how teachers plan instruction. We have identified 56 physical education learning activity types to date.” The TPACK-based physical education learning activity types taxonomy overviewed in this article\u00a0is available online at: http:\/\/activitytypes.wmwikis.net\/Physical+Education<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Kaya, S., & Da?, F. (2013). Turkish adaptation of technological pedagogical content knowledge survey for elementary teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13<\/em>(1), 302-306.<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: The purpose of this study was to adapt the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Survey developed by Schmidt and colleagues into Turkish and investigate its factor structure through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The participants were 352 elementary pre-service teachers from three large universities in northwestern Turkey. For statistical analyses SPSS and LISREL programs were used. Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficients of subscales ranged between 0.77 and 0.88. Exploratory factor analysis results showed that the factor structure of the Turkish version of the survey was similar with the original version. According to the confirmatory factor analysis results, the goodness of fit indices indicated a good model fit. Based on the results, it was concluded that the TPACK Survey is appropriate for Turkish culture.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n McDonald, S. (2012). The challenge to situate digital learning technologies in preservice teacher mathematics education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12<\/em>(4), 355-368.<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: This paper focuses on how preservice primary teachers can be supported to embrace digital learning technologies (DLTs) in their teaching of mathematics. The nature of the instruction and the assessment in the final mathematics unit of the bachelor of education program were changed. Despite being tagged as tech-savvy, preservice students use digital technologies primarily for social networking and information retrieval. These uses of digital technologies do not guarantee any facility for their utilization as learning technologies, which may result in early career teachers being unprepared to enact the effective use of expensive equipment in schools. The provision of a communal constructivism environment supported student learning as they met the challenges of creating interactive digital applications to teach a mathematical concept to their peers. This paper is likely to be of interest to mathematics educators who are trying to steer preservice teachers away from worksheet maths as well as other preservice teacher educators who wish to incorporate digital technologies into their content and methodology units.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Meng, C. C., & Sam, L. C. (2013). Developing pre-service teachers technological pedagogical content knowledge for teaching mathematics with The Geometers Sketchpad through lesson study. Journal of Education and Learning, 2<\/em>(1), 1-8. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.ccsenet.org\/journal\/index.php\/jel\/article\/view\/23809<\/a><\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: The purpose of this study was to develop pre-service secondary teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for teaching mathematics with The Geometers Sketchpad (GSP) through Lesson Study (LS). Specifically, a single-group pretest-posttest design was employed to examine whether there was a significant difference in the pre-service secondary teachers’ TPACK for teaching mathematics with GSP after engaging in LS which was incorporated into the mathematics teaching methods course during the first semester of the 2011\/2012 academic session in a Malaysian public university. Forty-six pre-service secondary teachers who enrolled in the course completed both the pretest and posttest questionnaires on teachers’ TPACK for teaching mathematics with GSP. The results of the paired-samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference in the pre-service secondary teachers’ TPACK for teaching mathematics with GSP for all the subscales after engaging in LS.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Murphy, K. (2013). Technology techniques: Using them the right way. Science Scope, 36<\/em>(5), 6-7.<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: The author discusses the importance of using the appropriate educational technology in a classroom setting, noting Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), which focuses on the integration of technology with teacher knowledge. The article addresses the importance of avoiding technocentric instruction, or education focused on the technology instead of on the student. It includes discussion of the educational technologies Glogster, VoiceThread, and Animoto.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Niess, M., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2013). Advancing K-8 teachers STEM education for teaching interdisciplinary science and mathematics with technologies. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 32<\/em>(2), 219-245.<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: This primarily online Master’s degree program focused on advancing K-8 teachers interdisciplinary mathematical and science content knowledge while integrating appropriate digital technologies as learning and teaching tools. The mixed-method, interpretive study examined in-service teachers technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) within the context of interdisciplinary content knowledge, pedagogical strategies for teaching interdisciplinary topics, and technological knowledge when applied to teaching and learning interdisciplinary content. The results documented ways specific coursework in the graduate program impacted the teachers overarching conceptions of teaching interdisciplinary topics, their knowledge of students understanding and thinking, their instructional strategies, and their knowledge of curriculum and curriculum materials for learning in interdisciplinary contexts with the integration of appropriate technologies.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Otrel-Cass, K., Khoo, E., & Cowie, B. (2012). Scaffolding with and through videos: An example of ICT-TPACK. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12<\/em>(4), 369-390. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.editlib.org\/p\/40416<\/a><\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: In New Zealand and internationally claims are being made about the potential for information and communication technologies (ICTs) to transform teaching and learning. However, the theoretical underpinnings explaining the complex interplay between the content, pedagogy and technology a teacher needs to consider must be expanded. This article explicates theoretical and practical ideas related to teachers application of their ICT technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) in science. The article unpacks the social and technological dimensions of teachers use of TPACK when they use digital videos to scaffold learning. It showcases the intricate interplay between teachers knowledge about content, digital video technology, and students learning needs based on a qualitative study of two science teachers and their students in a New Zealand primary school.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Peeraer, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). The limits of programmed professional development on integration of information and communication technology in education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28<\/em>(6), 1039-1056.<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: “In the framework of a development cooperation program on quality of education in Vietnam, a professional development trajectory for teacher educators on the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in education was developed and implemented over the course of a three-year program. We describe how the framework on Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge inspired the development of the program. In a longitudinal panel study, we followed a group of 1191 teacher educators (the “total accumulated popluation” [sic<\/em>]). We describe the trainees’ reaction to training and learning outcomes and we compare the use of ICT by educators who participated in the program with those who did not participate. Data was collected from self-reported questionnaires and focus group interviews. Comparison of the use of ICT for teaching over the course of the program shows that an ICT core group of enthusiasts made significant progress in integrating ICT into teaching practice. Exploratory multiple regression analysis highlights technological pedagogical knowledge and membership of a community of practice as significant factors for improved use of ICT. Nevertheless, the elements of the professional development program explain only 26.2% of variance. We discuss the extent to which programmed professional development can have an effect on integration of ICT in education and reflect on how to make training programs more effective.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Rienties, B., Brouwer, N., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). The effects of online professional development on higher education teachers’ beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and technology. Teaching & Teacher Education, 29<\/em>, 122-131. doi: 10.1016\/j.tate.2012.09.002<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: “An important development in higher education is the increased learning possibilities brought by ICT. Many academics seem reluctant to embrace technology. An online teacher training program was followed by 73 academics from nine higher educational institutions. Data were gathered using the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model and the Teacher Beliefs and Intentions questionnaire using a prepost test-design. The results amongst 33 participants who completed both pre- and post-test indicate that TPACK skills increased substantially. Over time academics were less convinced about the merits of knowledge transmission. Disciplines and institutional cultures, time investment and beliefs towards employability influenced training retention.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Semiz, K. & Ince, M. L. (2012). Pre-service physical education teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge, technology integration self-efficacy and instructional technology outcome expectations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28<\/em>(7), 1248-1265.<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: “The purposes of this study were to (1) identify the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), Technology Integration Self Efficacy (TISE) and Instructional Technology Outcome Expectations (ITOE) of pre-service physical education teachers, (2) examine the relationships among TPACK, TISE and ITOE, and lastly (3) examine the differences between pre-service physical education teachers who perceived and who did not perceive technology integration by their university instructors on TPACK, TISE, and ITOE scores. Findings indicate that while TPACK, TISE and ITOE perceptions of pre-service physical education teachers were at satisfactory levels, university instructors were not good role models in the use of technology in their classrooms. Pre-service teachers reported that integration of physical education and sport-related emerging technologies were almost non-existent in the teaching practices within the university setting. TPACK, TISE, and ITOE were moderately related with each other (p<0.05). Pre-service teachers’ self-perceptions of TPACK, TISE, and ITOE were positively influenced by their perception of university instructors’ technology integration into teaching in university courses (p<0.05). Providing professional development programs for the teacher education program instructors, both in technology integration in teaching and in emerging physical education and sports- related technologies, is recommended.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Siko, J., & Barbour, M. K. (2012). Homemade PowerPoint games: Game design pedagogy aligned to the TPACK framework. Computers in the Schools, 29<\/em>(4), 339-354. doi: 10.1080\/07380569.2012.734430<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: “While researchers are examining the role of playing games to learn, others are looking at using game design as an instructional tool. However, game-design software may require additional time to train both teachers and students. In this article, the authors discuss the use of Microsoft PowerPoint as a tool for game-design instruction and the philosophical justifications for its use. They examine the research that has been conducted using homemade PowerPoint games in the classroom and detail how the implementation of the games has evolved in a manner that reflects the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n van Olphen, M., Hofer, M., & Harris, J. (2012-2013). Grounded tech integration: ESOL. Learning & Leading with Technology, 40<\/em>(4), 37-39.<\/em><\/p>\n Description<\/span>: “The [TPACK-based] taxonomy overviewed\u00a0[in this article]\u00a0organizes 67 specific ESOL teaching strategies into eight general recommendations for working with [English language learners]: communicate clearly, make content understandable, check students understanding, elicit students responses, demonstrate and model, encourage interpersonal communication, group students to assist their learning, and promote cross-cultural awareness. Once teachers select\u00a0[specific curriculum-based]\u00a0learning activity types and accompanying ESOL strategies to incorporate within a specific lesson, unit, or project, they then consider the suggested technologies associated with each.”\u00a0 This taxonomy of technology-supported ESOL teaching strategies is available online at: http:\/\/activitytypes.wmwikis.net\/ESOL<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Walker, A., Recker, M., Ye, L., Robertshaw, B., Sellers, L., & Leary, H. (2012). Comparing technology-related teacher professional development designs: A multilevel study of teacher and student impacts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60<\/em>(3), 421-444. Retrieved from http:\/\/digitalcommons.usu.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=iagroup<\/a><\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: This article presents a quasi-experimental study comparing the impact of two technology-related teacher professional development (TTPD) designs, aimed at helping junior high school science and mathematics teachers design online activities using the rapidly growing set of online learning resources available on the Internet. The first TTPD design (tech-only<\/em>) focused exclusively on enhancing technology knowledge and skills for finding, selecting, and designing classroom activities with online resources, while the second (tech + pbl<\/em>) coupled technology knowledge with learning to design problem-based learning (PBL) activities for students. Both designs showed large pre-post gains for teacher participants (N = 36) in terms of self-reported knowledge, skills, and technology inte- gration. Significant interaction effects show that teachers in the tech + pbl<\/em> group had larger gains for self-reported knowledge and externally rated use of PBL. Three general- ized estimating equation (GEE) models were fit to study the impact on students (N = 1,247) self reported gains in behavior, knowledge, and attitudes. In the resulting models, students of tech + pbl<\/em> teachers showed significant increases in gain scores for all three outcomes. By contrast, students of tech-only teachers showed improved gains only in attitudes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Chapters<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Foster, A. (2012). Assessing learning games for school content: The TPACK-PCaRD framework and methodology. In D. Ifenthaler, D. Eseryel, & X. Ge (Eds.), Assessment in game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspectives<\/em> (pp. 201-215). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media. doi: 10.1007\/978-1-4614-3546-4_11<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: In this chapter, two studies are used to demonstrate an assessment process for learning in games in two different contexts, one using the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and another using TPACK and the play, curricular activity, reflection, and discussion (PCaRD). First, TPACK and how it is used to guide the creation of assessments is described. For a more detailed understanding of TPACK as an analytical lens for games with a focus on pedagogy and content see 1, Foster, Mishra, and Koehler in Learning to Play: Exploring the Future of Education with Games<\/em> (2011). Second, the PCaRD model and its role in integrating games for learning in varying contexts is described. Third, study 1, an after-school study in a computer room with upper-elementary children using a commercial entertainment game is described, followed by study 2 in a high school classroom using a commercial educational game. Finally, the implications of this combination using the TPACK and PCaRD models together to create assessments and to keep the process of game-based learning in classroom focused on contexts, pedagogy, and content are explained. Using both a theoretical and empirical approach, this chapter will show how the TPACK framework and the PCaRD approach facilitated assessment and integration of games for learning.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The following three chapters comprise Part I of the newly published book, Research on Technology in English Education<\/em>, summarized here:<\/p>\n This book brings together the voices of leading English Education researchers who work to offer views into the changing landscape of English as a result of the use of digital media in classrooms, out of school settings, universities and other contexts in which readers and writers work. But, as in most useful texts, the purpose is more nuanced and far reaching than simply offering a glimpse into where we currently find ourselves as a field. In sum, the collection brings together and interweaves what we are coming to know and understand about teaching English within a shifting digital landscape as well as the implications for teacher education and the discipline of English Education specifically.<\/p>\n The intended audience for this particular book is English educators, doctoral candidates in the field of English education, researchers and scholars in the field, and English language arts teachers especially those interested in the impact digital technologies can have in our field. (http:\/\/www.infoagepub.com\/products\/Research-on-Technology-in-English-Education)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hicks, T. (2013). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge through English teacher research and a pedagogy of multiliteracies. In C. A. Young & S. Kajder (Eds.), Research on technology in English education<\/em> (pp. 3-32). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.<\/p>\n Shoffner, M. (2013). Placing technologies in preservice English teacher reflection: Connecting reflective practice and TPACK. In C. A. Young & S. Kajder (Eds.), Research on technology in English education<\/em> (pp. 63-86). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.<\/p>\n Spires, H., Hervey, L., & Watson, T. (2013). Scaffolding the TPACK framework in reading and language arts: New literacies, new minds. In C. A. Young & S. Kajder (Eds.), Research on technology in English education<\/em> (pp. 33-62). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.<\/p>\n Books<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Syh-jong, J. (2012). From PCK to TPACK: Research and development. <\/em>Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: One criticism of school-based instruction is the use of outdated teaching methods and contents to equip current students for future society. Schoolteachers in the 21st century need to be equipped with professional teacher knowledge, which has been referred to as Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). This implies that teachers have the ability to apply technology into their pedagogical strategies and content representations for teaching specific topics to promote students learning efficiency. This book discusses four studies related to PCK research and development and also four studies related to TPACK research, development and applications. The principal audiences for this book include all level school teachers, graduate students, academic researchers, and college teachers and scholars.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 3. Recent TPACK Presentations<\/strong><\/p>\n Bauer, W. I. (2012, November). Integrating technology in the music classroom: Operationalizing technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) through activity types<\/em>. Presentation given at the Association for Technology in Music Instruction Conference, San Diego, CA.<\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>:To successfully achieve technology integration in music classrooms and rehearsals requires careful planning of student learning experiences, a difficult process for teachers who have little background in the pedagogies of teaching with various technologies. An activity types (http:\/\/activitytypes.wmwikis.net<\/a>) approach to instructional planning emphasizes consideration of curricular learning goals and generalized learning activities before considering the affordances and constraints of various technologies that may be used to support student learning. This presentation will describe the development and refinement of a taxonomy of music learning activity types that were developed through a collaborative effort between a music education content specialist\/researcher and two educational technology researchers who are experts in TPACK and the activity types paradigm. The resultant musical activity types, available under a Creative Commons license, are designed to provide a reference for teachers that connect curricular content with content-based activities and technologies that will support those activities.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Doyle, H., & Reading, C. (2012, November). Building teacher educator TPACK: Developing leaders as a catalyst for change in ICT education. Presentation given at the Ascilite Conference 2012<\/em>, Wellington, New Zealand.<\/em> Abstract retrieved from http:\/\/www.editlib.org\/p\/42598\/<\/a><\/p>\n Abstract<\/span>: Teacher educators with TPACK are critical to the development of the ICT competence of the next generation of teachers. To effect real change in ICT education leaders must be developed amongst teacher educators as well as teachers. An Australian university implemented a supported program of professional development for teacher educators as they implemented innovative ICT-rich practice. This paper reports on data collected before, during and after the process to inform planning. Areas identified where teacher educator TPACK was lacking were used to inform the professional development process. For a variety of ICT competences teacher educators were generally convinced of the usefulness but not so convinced of their own confidence. Enablers of learning identified by teacher educators, who had engaged in innovative practice, showed that they were building TPACK that would equip them to be leaders and thus catalysts for change in ICT education.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hammett, R., St. Croix, L., & Wicks, C. (2012). Enhancing online and face-to-face teaching with social networking sites and digital literacy activities. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2012 <\/em>(pp. 1036-1041). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).<\/p>\n
\n0. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In This Issue (<\/strong>\u00e0<\/strong> You are here.<\/strong>)
\n1. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 TPACK Newsletter Update
\n2. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Recent TPACK Publications
\n3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Recent TPACK Presentations
\n4. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Recent TPACK-Related Dissertations
\n5. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Recent TPACK-Related Videos
\n6. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Selected TPACK-Related Blog Entry
\n7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Other TPACK Updates
\n8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 TPACK Newsletter Suggested Citation
\n9. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Learning and Doing More with TPACK
\n-. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Un-numbered miscellaneous stuff at the end<\/p>\n