You are here:

Instructional Planning Activity Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development
PROCEEDINGS

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

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Charleston, SC, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-67-9 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

Teachers’ knowledge is situated, event-structured, and episodic. Technology, pedagogy and content knowledge (TPACK) – one form of highly practical professional educational knowledge – is comprised of teachers’ concurrent and interdependent curriculum content, general pedagogy, and technological understanding. Teachers’ planning – which expresses teachers’ knowledge-in-action in pragmatic ways – is situated, contextually sensitive, routinized, and activity-based. To assist with the development of teachers’ TPACK, therefore, we suggest using what is understood from research about teachers’ knowledge and instructional planning to form an approach to curriculum-based technology integration that is predicated upon the combining of technologically supported learning activity types within and across content-keyed activity type taxonomies. In this chapter, we describe such a TPACK development method.

Citation

Harris, J. & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional Planning Activity Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development. In I. Gibson, R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2009--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4087-4095). Charleston, SC, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved February 20, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Bray, J., Russell, D., & Hofer, M. (2006). Civil War voice wall project. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from http://www.ddguild.org/examples/voicewall/
  2. Brown, D.S. (1990). Experienced teachers' planning practices: A US survey. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16 (1), 57-71.
  3. Clark, C.M., & Dunn, S. (1991). Second-generation research on teachers’ planning, intentions, and routines. In H.C. Waxman& H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 183-201). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
  4. Dawson, K (2007). The role of teacher inquiry in helping prospective teachers untangle the complexities of technology use in classrooms. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24 (1), 5-14.
  5. Harris, J.B. (2008). TPACK in inservice education: Assisting experienced teachers’ planned improvisations. In AACTE Committee on Innovation& Technology (Eds.). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 251-271). New York, NY: Routledge.
  6. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2006, July). Planned improvisations: Technology-supported learning activity design in social studies. Session presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, San Diego, CA. Retrieved November 19, 2008, from http://center.uoregon.edu/ISTE/NECC2006/program/search_results_details.php?sessionid=13514149
  7. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation& Technology (Eds.). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 3-29). New York, NY: Routledge.
  8. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21 (3), 94-102.
  9. Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, & Technology. Computers& Education, 49 (3), 740-762.
  10. Linn, M., Lewis, C., Tsuchida, I., & Songer, N. (2000). Beyond fourth-grade science: Why do U.S. And Japanese students diverge? Educational Researcher, 29 (3), 4-14.
  11. McCutcheon, G., & Milner, H.R. (2002). A contemporary study of teacher planning in a high school English class. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8 (1), 81-94.
  12. Niess, M.L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509-523
  13. Papert, S. (1987). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html
  14. Pierson, M. (2008). Teacher candidates reflect together on their own development of TPCK: Edited teaching videos as data for inquiry. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 5305-5309). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  15. Putnam, R.T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29 (1), 4-15.
  16. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.
  17. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1). 1-22.
  18. Tubin, D., & Edri, S. (2004). Teachers planning and implementing ICT-based practices. Planning and Changing, 35 (3 & 4), 181191.
  19. Wilson, S.M., Shulman, L.S., & Richert, A.E. (1987). ‘150 different ways’ of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104-124). London: Cassell Educational Limited.

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.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Views of Social Science Teachers and Preservice Teachers on their TPACK Perceptions

    Ozkan Akman, Cemal Guven, S. Ahmet Kiray & Ismail Celik, Necmettin Erbakan University, Turkey

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2015 (Mar 02, 2015) pp. 3032–3039

  2. Faculty Development for Technology Integration: Opportunities and Challenges on a Global Scale

    Mark Hofer, College of William & Mary, United States; John Lee, North Carolina State University, United States; David Slykhuis, James Madison University, United States; James Ptaszynski, Microsoft Education, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2014 (Mar 17, 2014) pp. 770–774

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.