You are here:

Differentiating TPACK-based Learning Materials for Preservice and Inservice Teachers
PROCEEDING

, , School of Education, College of William & Mary, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, TX, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-27-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

Teacher educators have long noted differences between preservice and inservice teachers’ knowledge, practice, and professional learning. A small number of studies have compared novice and experienced teachers’ technology integration knowledge, attitudes, and intentions, with mixed results. Most TPACK research has examined preservice and inservice teachers separately. How should TPACK development be differentiated for preservice and inservice teachers? We sought experienced teachers’ perceptions and recommendations about how an online short course that was developed for novice teachers should be changed so that it can facilitate experienced teachers’ professional learning. Data generated and analyzed were focus group interviews, demographics, and written suggestions for changes to the short course’s modules. The participating teachers’ animated and detailed recommendations highlighted the need for differentiated content, sequencing, illustrations of practice, and engagement techniques.

Citation

Hofer, M. & Harris, J. (2017). Differentiating TPACK-based Learning Materials for Preservice and Inservice Teachers. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2357-2366). Austin, TX, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved February 16, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Brush, T.A., & Saye, J.W. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2), 112.
  2. Cochran, K.F., King, R.A., & DeRuiter, J.A. (1991, April). Pedagogical content knowledge: A tentative model for teacher preparation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
  3. Dong, Y., Chai, C.S., Sang, G.-Y., Koh, J.H.L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2015). Exploring the profiles and interplays of preservice and in-service teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in China. Educational Technology& Society, 18(1), 158-169.
  4. Greenhow, C., Dexter, S., & Hughes, J.E. (2008). Teacher knowledge about technology integration: An examination of inservice and preservice teachers' instructional decision-making. Science Education International, 19(1), 9-25.
  5. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In Maddux, C. (Ed.). Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99-108).
  6. Harris, J.B., Hofer, M.J., Blanchard, M.R., Grandgenett, N.F., Schmidt, D.A., van Olphen, M., & Young, C.A. (2010). "Grounded" technology integration: Instructional planning using curriculum-based activity type taxonomies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(4), 573-605.
  7. Hofer, M. & Harris, J. (2010). Differentiating TPACK development: Using learning activity types with inservice and preservice teachers. In C.D. Maddux, D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (Eds.). Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2010 (pp. 295-302). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher
  8. Hofer, M., & Harris, J. (2016). Open educational resources (OERs) for TPACK development. In M. Searson& M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education international conference 2016 (pp. 4865-4870). Waynesville, NC: AACE.
  9. Kennewell, S. (2001). Using affordances and constraints to evaluate the use of information and communications technology in teaching and learning. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(1-2), 101-116,
  10. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  11. Palacio-Cayetano, J., Schmier, S., Dexter, S., & Stevens, R.H. (2002, June). Experience counts: Comparing inservice and preservice teachers technology-integration decisions. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, San Antonio, TX.
  12. Papert, S. (1987). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future. Retrieved from http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html
  13. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., & O'Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.
  14. Thomas, K., & O'Bannon, B.W. (2015). Looking across the new digital divide: A comparison of inservice and preservice teacher perceptions of mobile phone integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(4), 561-581.
  15. Wetzel, K., Zambo, R., & Ryan, J. (2007). Contrasts in classroom technology use between beginning and experienced teachers. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 15-27.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Slides