You are here:

Highlighting the Importance of Context in the TPACK Model: Three Cases of Non-traditional Settings
ARTICLE

Issues and Trends in Educational Technology Volume 5, Number 1, Publisher: University of Arizona Libraries

Abstract

This paper presents three cases of technology intervention in classrooms where the TPACK model seemingly falls short of a due consideration of context. The argument is made that context can drive pedagogy, technology and content independently whilst the established interactions of each continues to occur. The analysis suggests that contextual factors of culture, learning challenges and second language study present additional complexity to the teaching and learning environment especially as technology is employed to empower learning.

Citation

MacKinnon, G. (2017). Highlighting the Importance of Context in the TPACK Model: Three Cases of Non-traditional Settings. Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, 5(1),. University of Arizona Libraries. Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Christodoulou, A. (2016). Theoretical Considerations of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators, 2nd Ed. 11-32.
  2. Beaulieu, R. (2013). Action research: Trends and variations. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 14(3), 29-39.
  3. Benton-Borghi, B.H. (2013). A Universally Designed for Learning (UDL) infused Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) practitioners' model essential for teacher preparation in the 21st Century. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 245-265.
  4. Benton-Borghi, B.H. (2016). Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Infused Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Model Prepares Efficacious 21st-Century Teachers. Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators, 143.
  5. Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  6. Carr, A.A., Jonassen, D.H., Litzinger, M.E., & Marra, R.M. (1998). Good ideas to foment educational revolution: The role of systemic change in advancing situated learning, constructivism and feminist pedagogy. Educational Technology, 5-15.
  7. CDB (2015). The evaluation of the Caribbean development bank’s intervention in technical and vocational education and training (1990-2012). Retrieved from: http://www.caribank.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/CompleteTVETReport.pdf Chick, N.L., Haynie, A., Gurung, R.A.R. (2012). Exploring more signature pedagogies: approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind. Virginia: Stylus.
  8. CIS (2012). Signature pedagogies incorporating technology. Computers in Schools 29 (1-2). (special issues)
  9. Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillenial learning styles: Implications for investments in technology and faculty. In Educating the net generation. D. Oblinger& J. Oblinger (Eds.) Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE 14
  10. Dede, C. (2007). Introduction: A sea of change in thinking, knowing, learning& Teaching In Salaway, G. & Borreson Caruso, J. The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Boulder, CO EDUCAUSE
  11. Dobbins, K. (2005). Getting ready for the net generation. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 8-9.
  12. Dolman, D. (1986). Sign languages in Jamaica. Sign Language Studies, 52(1), 235-242.
  13. Dunn, D. & Brooks, K. (2007). Teaching with cases. Halifax, NS: Society for Teaching& Learning in Higher Education.
  14. Forsythe, T. & MacKinnon, G. (2005) Technology& Cooperative learning: The IIT model for teaching authentic chemistry curriculum. In R. Yager, Exemplary science in grades 9-12: Standards-based success stories (pp. 11-23.). Arlington, VA: NSTA
  15. Gurung, R.A., Chick, N.L., & Haynie, A. (2009). Exploring signature pedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind. Virginia: Stylus Publishing.
  16. Halverson, R. & Collins, A. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology. The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press. Herring, M.C., Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators. Routledge.
  17. King, C., Lawrence, L., & MacKinnon, G. (2014). Using multimedia technology in Jamaican athletic training education: A case based learning approach. Journal of Applied Learning Technology 4(2), 40-48.
  18. MacKinnon, G. & King, C. (2012). A Sports injury case study model: Capitalizing on virtual reality technology. Journal of Sports Science& Technology 12(1), 117128.
  19. MacKinnon, G. & Soutar, I. (2015) Creating a Digital Jamaican Sign Language Dictionary: A R2D2 Approach, Computers in the Schools, 32, 224-239.
  20. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  21. Porras-Hernández, L.H., & Salinas-Amescua, B. (2013). Strengthening TPACK: A broader notion of context and the use of teacher's narratives to reveal knowledge construction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 223-244.
  22. Rice, M.F. (2003). Information and communication technologies and the global digital divide: Technology transfer, development, and least developing countries. Comparative Technology Transfer and Society, 1(1), 72-88.
  23. Roblyer, M.D. (2005). Educational technology research that makes a difference: Series introduction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/volume-5/issue-2-05/ Seminal-articles/educational-technology-research-that-makes-a-differenceseries-introduction
  24. Rosenberg, J.M., & Koehler, M.J. (2015). Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): a systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 186-210.
  25. Sanders, M. (2009). Stem, stem education, stemmania. The Technology Teacher (Dec/ Jan) 20-26.
  26. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  27. Shulman, L.S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 5259.Retrieved from http://gse.buffalo.edu/gsefiles/documents/about/Signaturepedagogies-in-the-professions.pdf
  28. Selwyn, N. (1997). The continuing weaknesses of educational computing research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 305-307.
  29. Selwyn, N. (2002). Telling tales on technology: Qualitative studies of technology and education. Burlington VT: Ashgate.
  30. Thompson, A., Simonson, M. & Hargrave, C. (1996). Educational technology: A review of the research. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. 16
  31. White, S. (2007). Mapping the global digital divide. International Journal of Business Information Systems 7(2), 1-19.

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.