You are here:

Knowledge-of-Practice for Teaching with Technologies: Pedagogically-focused Experiences and Reflections
PROCEEDINGS

, , Oregon State University, 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

Different course designs frame the relationship among content, pedagogy, and technology when preparing in-service teachers for teaching with technologies. This study compared how different approaches were reflected in teachers’ actions as they implement their TPACK knowledge-of-practice. How does teacher knowledge gained from an emphasis on the technology as a tool for learning the content compare with the knowledge gained from an emphasis on pedagogical methods for teaching with the technologies? This study compares practices and reflections of 10 K-12 in-service teachers with respect to their different technology learning experiences. The comparison reveals benefits for courses designed using pedagogical methods focused around student-centered, collaborative, inquiry-based activities in mathematics and science. Implications for continued teacher professional development include ideas for professional development courses with school-based professional learning communities (PLC).

Citation

Niess, M. & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2014). Knowledge-of-Practice for Teaching with Technologies: Pedagogically-focused Experiences and Reflections. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2589-2597). Jacksonville, Florida, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 26, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Borko, H., Stecher, B., & Kuffner, K. (2007). Using artifacts to characterize reform-oriented instruction: The Scoop Notebook and rating guide. (Technical Report 707). Los Angeles: CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED495853)
  2. Chiu, M.M. (2008). Flowing toward correct contributions during group problem solving: A statistical discourse analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 415-463.
  3. Chiu, M.M., & Kuo, S.W. (2010). From metacognition to social metacognition: Similarities, differences and learning. Journal of Education Research, 3(4), 321–338.
  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.
  5. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Stanford, CA: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/news/NSDCstudy2009.pdf. Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process, D.C. Heath, Boston.
  6. Erickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In J.L. Green, G. Camilli & P.B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in educational research (pp. 177-191).
  7. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definitions and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, pp. 33-49.
  8. Kim, C., Kim, M.K., Lee, C., Spector, J.M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85.
  9. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21, 94-102.
  10. Meyers, J.D., Chappell, A., Elder, M., Geist, A., & Schwidder, L. (2003). Re-Integrating the research record. Computing in Science and Engineering, 5(3), 44-50.
  11. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, pp. 1017-1054.
  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(5), 509-523.
  13. Niess, M.L. (2013). Central component descriptors for levels of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Special issue on Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Educational Computer Research, 48(2), 173-198.
  14. Roberts, B. (2002). Interaction, reflection and learning at a distance. Open Learning, 17(1).
  15. Schön. D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  16. Thompson, A.D. & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24, 38, 64.
  17. Wheatley, G.H. (1992). The role of reflection in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(5), 529-541.
  18. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). Abstraction, re-presentation, and reflection: An interpretation of experience and Piaget’s approach, in L. Steffe (ed.), Epistemological Foundations of Mathematical Experience (pp. 45-67), Springer-Verlag, New York.

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.