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), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

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 August 10, 2024 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  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. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

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.

Also Read

Related Collections