Mathematics Teachers Developing Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK)
Margaret Niess, Oregon State University, United States
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-64-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA
In-service teacher education programs are currently focused on developing teachers' TPACK. With the newness of the TPACK framework, clearer descriptions are needed to guide teacher educators in (1) assessing teachers' progress in meeting the needs of their students in technology-enhanced classroom environments, (2) assessing initial and extended teacher education programs, and (3) educational accreditation programs, such as NCATE, to clarify directions for improving all teacher education programs. Multiple research efforts have been directed at preparing mathematics teachers to teach with technologies. Substantial qualitative differences in their TPACK have been revealed. Analysis of the differences mathematics teachers' TPACK from these programs revealed five incrementally increasing levels of TPACK: recognizing, accepting, adapting, exploring and advancing. A pooled data analysis of multiple and varied in-service teacher education programs in developing mathematics teachers' TPACK resulted in extended descriptions for each of these TPACK levels.
Niess, M. (2008). Mathematics Teachers Developing Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK). In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2008--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 5297-5304). Las Vegas, Nevada, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved January 15, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/28121/.
© 2008 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
- Borko, H., & Putnam, T. (1996) Learning to teach. In Handbook of Educational Psychology, D.C. Berliner and R.C. Calfee (eds), Simon and Schuster Macmillan: New York, pp. 673-708.
- Clements, D.H. (1994) The uniqueness of the computer as a learning tool: Insights from research and practice. In Young Children: Active Learners in a Technological Age, J.L. Wright and D.D. Shade (eds), NAEYC, Washington, 31-50.
- Grossman, P.L. (1989) A study in contrast: Sources of pedagogical content knowledge for secondary English. Journal of Teachers Education, 40(5), 24-31.
- Grossman, P.L. (1991) Overcoming the apprenticeship of observation in teacher education coursework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 245-257.
- International Society for Technology in Education. (2000) National Educational Technology Standards for Students: Connecting Curriculum and Technology. International Society for Technology in Education: Eugene, Oregon.
- Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R.W. (2004) The nature and sharing of teacher knowledge of technology in a student teachers/mentor teacher pair. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 421-437.
- Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
- National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. NCTM, Reston, Virginia.
- Niess, M.L. (2005) Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523.
- Niess, M.L., Suharwoto, G., Lee, K., & Sadri, P. (2006) Guiding Inservice Mathematics Teachers in Developing TPCK. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Annual Conference, San Francisco, California, April.
- Pierson, M.E. (2001) Technology integration practices as function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413-429.
- Rogers, E. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press of Simon and Schuster Inc.: New York, NY. Shavelson, R. Ruiz-Primo, A. Li, M., & Ayala, C. (2003). Evaluating New Approaches to Assessing Learning (CSE Report 604). University of California National Center for Research on Evaluation: Los Angeles, CA. Shreiter, B., & Ammon, P. (1989) Teachers’ Thinking and Their Use of Reading Contracts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California, April. Uit Beijerse, R.P. (2000) Questions in knowledge management: Defining and conceptualizing a phenomenon. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(2), 94-109.
- Yelland, N.J., & Masters, J.E. (1997) Learning mathematics with technology: Young children's understanding of paths, Research Journal, 9(1), 83-99.
- Zhao, Y. (2003) What Teachers Should Know about Technology: Perspectives and Practices. Information Age Publishing: Greenwich, CT.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Exploring Independence of Five TPACK Domains TK, PK, CK Math, CK Science, and TPACK of Pre-service Special Education Teachers.
Aleksandra Kaplon-Schilis, The Graduate Center, CUNY, United States; Irina Lyublinskaya, College of Staten Island, CUNY, United States
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2017 (Mar 05, 2017) pp. 2367–2375
Exploring Changes in Technological Knowledge (TK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), Content Knowledge (CK) and TPACK of Pre-service, Special Education Teachers Taking Technology-based Pedagogical Course
Aleksandra Kaplon-Schilis, CUNY, The Graduate Center, United States; Irina Lyublinskaya, CUNY, College of Staten Island, United States
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2015 (Mar 02, 2015) pp. 3296–3303
Beth Bos, Texas State University, United States
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education Vol. 11, No. 2 (June 2011) pp. 167–183
These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact email@example.com.