You are here:

Progression in Practice: Development of TPACK in didactical designs
PROCEEDINGS

, , University West, Sweden

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

We report results from a three-year School Development Project in which digital technology supports cross-border collaboration and innovative models for teaching in virtual classrooms are designed. The study involved 22 teachers and 600 students in elementary school. The development and implementation of didactical designs were examined by using the TPACK model as an analytic lens. An in-depth analysis of 14 didactical designs, i.e., pre-planned sequences of lessons with specified learning objectives, in mathematics were conducted. We show how the TPACK model can be used to identify progression in practice, when didactical designs are studied in detail. We have been able to track progression in the didactical designs, where the TPACK components are becoming more integrated and balanced over time. We have seen examples of organizational development, in which teacher teams together with researchers built a productive community of practice around developing TPACK-based competence.

Citation

Willermark, S. & Pareto, L. (2015). Progression in Practice: Development of TPACK in didactical designs. In D. Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2015--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 79-86). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., McCarthey, S., Vojak, C. & Kline, S. (2011) Technology-Mediated Writing Assessments: Principles and Processes. Computers and Composition 28, 79–96.
  2. Cox, S., & Graham, C. (2009). An elaborated model of the TPACK framework. In Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2009, No. 1, pp. 4042-4049).
  3. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think, New York: Heath.
  4. Fleischer, H. (2013) En elev – en dator: kunskapsbildningens kvalitet och villkor i den datoriserade skolan, Jönköping. [One student-one computer: knowledge-building quality and condition of the computerized school. Doctoral thesis.
  5. Grönlund, H., Englund, T., Andersson, A., Wiklund, M., Norén, I., & Hatakka, M. (2011). Årsrapport Unosuno 2011. Örebro universitet. [Annual report, Unosuno 2011. Örebro University]
  6. Grönlund, Å. (2014). Att förändra skolan med teknik: Bortom "en dator per elev". [Changing school with technology: Beyond "one computer per student"]
  7. Hameyer, U (2001). School improvement as a problem solving process: Using what we know. In Letschert, J. (Ed.), Turning the perspective: New outlooks for education. Enschede: CIDREE/SLO. Hanafin, M, (2008) Strategy Group’s Report, ‘Investing Effectively in Information and Communications Schools 2008–2013’. Ministry for Education& Science, Ireland. Technology in
  8. Hattie, J.A.C. (2008). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London New York,Routledge.
  9. Kabakci Yurdakul, I., & Coklar, A.N. (2014). Modeling preservice teachers’ TPACK competencies based on ICT usage. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
  10. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
  11. Kotovsky, K., Hays, J.R., & Simon, H.A. (1985). Why are some problems hard: Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248-294.
  12. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177-200.
  13. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
  14. Pareto, L. (2014). A Teachable Agent Game Engaging Primary SchoolChildren to Learn Arithmetic Concepts and Reasoning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(3), 251-283.
  15. Pareto, L., Lindhardt, B., Vejbaek, L., Wølner, T.A. & Gynther, K. (2013). A Model for Instructional Design in Virtual Nordic Classrooms. In: The Inaugural European Conference on Technology in the Classroom 2013: The Impact of Innovation: Technology and You. Pp. 222-233. Naka Ward, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan: The International Academic Forum.
  16. Shulman, L. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  17. Skolverket (2013) It-användning och it-kompetens i skola. RAPPORT 386. Stockholm. [Swedish National School Board, The use of IT and IT skills in school. REPORT 386. Stockholm].
  18. Suhr, K.A., Hernandez, D.A., Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Laptops and fourth grade literacy: Assisting the jump over the fourth-grade slump. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(5)
  19. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & Van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge–a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109-121.
  20. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice— Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

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.