You are here:

Using lesson plans as a proxy for teacher technology integration practices in math and science using TPACK: A transferrable research design
PROCEEDINGS

, , University of Florida, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Jacksonville, Florida, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-07-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to describe a novel approach to measuring teacher technology integration practices in the context of lesson plans using the TPACK framework. We first describe the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework in light of lesson plans as a proxy for teacher practices. We then describe a systematic and rigorous procedure for analyzing the lesson plans for evidence of TPACK. We used this method on a large cross-sectional sample of teacher lesson plans in the context of math and science lesson plans. We believe this approach is a novel way to gauge teacher technology integration practices beyond self-report measures, observation, and case study. Significance and caveats to this approach are described in light of our experiences.

Citation

Dawson, K. & Ritzhaupt, A. (2014). Using lesson plans as a proxy for teacher technology integration practices in math and science using TPACK: A transferrable research design. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1398-1404). Jacksonville, Florida, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 27, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the united states. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71.
  2. Becker, H.J. (1991). How computers are used in united states schools: Basic data from the 1989 I.E.A. Computers in education survey. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(4), 385-406.
  3. Becker, H.J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications.. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true & Db=tfh & AN=9502070435 & Site=ehost-live
  4. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, pp. 249-305. Retrieved from
  5. Culp, K.K.M.M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of educational technology policy Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279-307.
  6. Darling-Hammond, L.L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166-173.
  7. Darling-Hammond, L.L. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance assessments can measure and improve teaching. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress.
  8. Dawson, K., Ritzhaupt, A.D., Liu, F., Rodriguez, P. & Frey, C. (2013). Using TPCK as a lens to study the practices of math and science teachers involved in a year-long technology integration initiative. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 32(4), 395-422.
  9. Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, A.D. (2008). Florida's EETT leveraging laptops initiative and its impact on teaching practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 143-159.
  10. Dawson, K. & Ferdig, R.E. (2006). Commentary: Expanding notions of acceptable research evidence in educational technology: A Response to Schrum et al. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 6(1), 133-142.
  11. Florida Department of Education. (2010). Florida next generation sunshine state standards. Tallahassee, FL: FLDOE.
  12. Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R., & Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. Longman Publishing.
  13. Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalities and distinctive patterns in teachers' integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101(3), pp. 261-315. Retrieved from
  14. Jacobs, C.L., Martin, S.N., & Otieno, T.C. (2008). A science lesson plan analysis instrument for formative and summative program evaluation of a teacher education program. Science Education, 92(6), 1096-1126.
  15. Jonassen, D.H., & Jonassen, D.H. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  16. Kersaint, G., Horton, B., & Stohl, H. (2003). Technology beliefs and practices of mathematics education faculty. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(4), 549-577. Retrieved from HTML: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml? Recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34ebdacdb87ed2eb681284f8353fb5946390dcc5dfa7d56 426&fmt=HPDF
  17. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94-102.
  18. Kozma, R.B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1-14. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=aph&AN=11950622&site=ehost-live
  19. Lei, J. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers and Education, 49(2), 284.
  20. Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 455-472.
  21. Mayer, D.P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), pp. 29-45. Retrieved from
  22. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  23. Morrison, G.R.E.D., Kemp, J.E., & Ross, S.M. (2007). Designing effective instruction (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley.
  24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
  25. 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.
  26. Niess, M.L., van Zee, E.H., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2010). Knowledge growth in teaching mathematics/science with spreadsheets: Moving PCK to TPACK through online professional development. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(2), 42-52.
  27. Pearson, P.D., & Gallagher, M.C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317-344.
  28. Polly, D. (2011). Examining teachers’ enactment of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in their mathematics teaching after technology integration professional development. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(1), 37-59. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/34610 Russell, M.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.
  29. Sandholtz, J.H., Dwyer, D.C., & Ringstaff, C. (1996). Teaching with technology: Creating studentcentered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
  30. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), pp. 4-14. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1175860 Silk, Y., Silver, D., American, S., Nishimura, C., & Boscardin, C.K. (2009). Using classroom artifacts to measure the efficacy of professional development. No. 761). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.
  31. Silver, E.E.A., Mesa, V.M., Morris, K.A., Star, J.R., & Benken, B.M. (2009). Teaching mathematics for understanding: An analysis of lessons submitted by teachers seeking NBPTS certification. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 501-531.
  32. Warschauer, M.D. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of Educationalo Computing Research, 38(3), 305-332.
  33. Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Technology and achievement the bottom line. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 2932. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=aph&AN=19270012&site=ehost-live
  34. Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 2(2) Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=2 & N=2
  35. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers' use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), pp. 165-205. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3202475

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.