You are here:

Topics and Sequences in Experienced Teachers’ Instructional Planning: Addressing a ~30-year Literature Gap
PROCEEDING

, , William & Mary School of Education, United States

AACE Award

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-37-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Full Text

Abstract

Which topics were addressed, and in what sequence(s) did they appear, in experienced K-12 teachers’ instructional plans that incorporate students’ educational technology use? Eight volunteer classroom teachers with expertise in a broad variety of curricula and instructional levels participated in a university-sponsored professional learning program that helped them to explore ways to plan technology-enhanced, curriculum standards-specific lessons, units, and projects. Data were generated through individual participants’ think-aloud and group reflection audio recordings, plus follow-up interviews with two participants that occurred after the planned units were taught. Many individual differences in planning topics and sequences were noted when the data were analyzed. Overall, the teachers’ TPCK/TPACK-based pedagogical reasoning first emphasized curriculum content, then knowledge of students and/or learning activities. Technological considerations were voiced far less often than those regarding content, students, and learning activities, but did increase when participants used planning aids that matched recommended educational technologies to specific types of learning activities.

Citation

Hofer, M. & Harris, J. (2019). Topics and Sequences in Experienced Teachers’ Instructional Planning: Addressing a ~30-year Literature Gap. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2443-2452). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 12, 2019 from .

© 2019 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: An instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 292-302.
  2. Biggers, M., Forbes, C.T., & Zangori, L. (2013). Elementary teachers' curriculum design and pedagogical reasoning for supporting students' comparison and evaluation of evidence-based explanations. The Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 48-72.
  3. Bos, B. (2011). Professional development for elementary teachers using TPACK. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol11/iss2/mathematics/article1.cfm
  4. Brown, D.S. (1988). Twelve middle-school teachers' planning. The Elementary School Journal, 89(1), 69-87.
  5. Feng, Y. & Hew, K. (2005). K-12 teachers’ pedagogical reasoning in planning instruction with technology integration. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber& D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2005—
  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. Hutchison, A.C., & Woodward, L. (2018). Examining the technology integration planning cycle model of professional development to support teachers' instructional practices. Teachers College Record, 120(10), 1-44.
  8. McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: An ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instructional Science, 43(2), 181-202.
  9. Munthe, E. & Conway, P.F. (2017). Evolution of research on teachers’ planning: Implications for teacher education. In D.J. Clandinin & J. Husu (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 836-849).
  10. Niess, M., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2017). Expanding teachers’ technological pedagogical reasoning with a systems pedagogical approach. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 77-95. Https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3473
  11. Peterson, P.L., Marx, R.W., & Clark, C.M. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 417-432.
  12. Roblyer, M.D., & Doering, A.H. (2012). Integrating educational technology into teaching (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  13. Romiszowski, A.J. (2016). Designing instructional systems: Decision making in course planning and curriculum design. New York: Routledge.
  14. Shavelson, R.J. (1983). Review of research on teachers' pedagogical judgments, plans, and decisions. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 392-413.
  15. Shavelson, R.J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455-498.
  16. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  17. Tubin, D., & Edri, S. (2004). Teachers planning and implementing ICT-based practices. Planning and Changing, 3(3 & 4), 181– 191.
  18. Warren, L.L. (2000). Teacher planning: A literature review. Educational Research Quarterly, 24(2), 37-55.
  19. Yinger, R.J. (1977). A study of teacher planning: Description and theory development using ethnographic and information processing methods (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 288001251)
  20. Young, A.C., Reiser, R.A., & Dick, W. (1998). Do superior teachers employ systematic instructional planning procedures? A descriptive study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(2), 65-78.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Slides

Also Read