You are here:

Understanding Teacher Candidate TPACK while Participating in a STEM Professional Development School Partnership Program
PROCEEDING

, University of South Dakota, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-37-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Preparing teacher candidates to teach with technology is an enduring issue within teacher education. As programs throughout the United States have revised curriculum to prepare candidates to combine their knowledge of content, pedagogy, and technologies, multiple approaches to teacher candidate TPACK development have emerged. One approach concurrently enrolls teacher candidates in educational technology, methods, and field experience courses. Building upon these efforts, the purpose of this study was to investigate teacher candidate TPACK development while enrolled in an educational technology course taught as part of a STEM professional development school partnership program. A self-report TPACK survey instrument was used to collect pre-post data from two cohorts of teacher candidates enrolled in the program. Data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Findings indicated a statistically significant increase on most composite TPACK domains with medium and large effect sizes.

Citation

Mourlam, D. (2019). Understanding Teacher Candidate TPACK while Participating in a STEM Professional Development School Partnership Program. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2479-2488). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 9, 2024 from .

© 2019 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. An, H., Wilder, H., & Lim, K. (2011). Preparing elementary pre-service teachers from a non-traditional student population to teach with technology. Computers in the Schools, 28(2), 170–193.
  2. Asghar, A., Ellington, R., Rice, E., Johnson, F., & Prime, G.M. (2012). Supporting STEM education in secondary Science contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(2), 85–126.
  3. Brush, T., & Saye, J.W. (2009). Strategies for preparing preservice social studies teachers to integrate technology effectively: Models and practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 46– 59. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/articles/v9i1socialstudies1.pdf
  4. Castle, S., Arends, R. And Rockwood, K. (2008). Student learning in a professional development school and a control school. The Professional Educator, 32(1).
  5. Castle, S., Fox, R.K., & Fuhrman, C. (2009). Does Professional Development School preparation make a difference? A comparison of three teacher candidate studies. School-University Partnerships, 3(2), 58–68.
  6. Castle, S., Fox, R.K., & Souder, K.O.H. (2006). Do Professional Development Schools (PDSs) make a difference? A comparative study of PDS and non-PDS teacher candidates. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 65–80.
  7. Fayer, S., Lacey, A., & Watson, A. (2017). STEM occupations: Past, present, and future. Spotlight on Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
  8. Figg, C., & Jaipal, K. (2013). Using TPACK-in-Practice Workshops to enable teacher candidates to create professional development workshops that develop tech-enhanced teaching. In R. McBride& M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (pp. 5040–5047). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  9. Goodlad, J.I. (1993). School-university partnerships and partner schools. Educational Policy, 7(1), 24-39.
  10. Habowski, T., & Mouza, C. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in the context of a secondary science teacher education program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(4), 471–495. Http://doi.org/https://www.learntechlib.org/j/JTATE/
  11. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In C.D. Maddux (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education (pp. 99–
  12. Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2009). Teacher’s technological pedagogical content knowledge: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416. Http://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2803_7
  13. Heil, L. (1986, April). A university faculty member’s perspective: Lesson learned from a partnership experience. In Williams, D., Improving education through a public school-university partnership. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
  14. Herschbach, D.R. (2011). The STEM initiative: Constraints and challenges. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48(1), 96–112.
  15. Hofer, M., & Harris, J. (2010). Differentiating TPACK Development: Using Learning Activity Types with Inservice and Preservice Teachers. In C.D. Maddux, D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (Eds.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2010 (pp. 295–302). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information
  16. Hofer, M. & Harris, J. (2016). Open Educational Resources (OERs) for TPACK Development. In G. Chamblee& L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference 2016 (pp. 2872-2877). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
  17. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
  18. Houston, W.R., Hollis, L.Y., Clay, D., Ligons, C.M., & Roff, L. (1999). Effects of collaboration on urban teacher education programs and professional development schools. In D.M. Byrd, & D.J. McIntyre (Eds.), Research on Professional Development Schools: Teacher Education Yearbook VII (pp. 6-28). Thousand
  19. Klingner, J., Ahwee, S., van Garderen, D., and Hernandez, C. (2004). Closing the gap: Enhancing student outcomes in an urban professional development school. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(3).
  20. Knight, S., Wiseman, D., and Cooner, D. (2000). Using collaborative teacher research to determine the impact of professional development school activities on elementary students’ math and writing outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 26-38.
  21. Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., Bouck, E.C., DeSchryver, M., Kereluik, K., Shin, T.S., & Wolf, L.G. (2011). Deepplay: Developing TPACK for 21st century teachers. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(2), 146–163. , J., & E. Wenger. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Levin, B.B., & Rock, T.C. (2003, April). The effects of collaborative action research on preservice and experienced teacher partners in professional development schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 135-149.
  23. Long, J.C., & Morrow, J. (1995). Research analysis of professional development school graduates and traditional phase I and phase II graduates. Paper presented at the Association of Teacher Educators Annual Meeting. Detroit, MI.
  24. McDermott, P., Gormley, K., Rothenberg, J., & Hammer, J. (1995). The influence of classroom practica experiences on student teachers’ thoughts about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 46(3), 184-191.
  25. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  26. Mourlam, D.J., & Montgomery, S.E. (2015). IPads and teacher education: Exploring a 1:1 initiative in a professional development school partnership. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 31(3), 107–116.
  27. Mouza, C. (2016). Developing and assessing TPACK among pre-service teachers: A synthesis of research. In M.C. Herring, M.J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for educators (2nd ed., pp. 169-190). New York, NY: Routledge.
  28. Mouza, C., Karchmer-Klein, R., Nandakumar, R., Yilmaz Ozden, S., & Hu, L. (2014). Investigating the impact of an integrated approach to the development of preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers and Education, 71, 206–221.
  29. National Association for Professional Development Schools. (2008). What it means to be a Professional Development School. Waco, TX. Retrieved from https://napds.org/nine-essentials/
  30. National Center for Women& Information Technology. (2016). Computer Science is for everyone! Boulder, CO. Retrieved from http://www.ncwit.org/CSEveryone_Toolkit
  31. NCATE (2001). Standards for Professional Development Schools. Washington, DC: NCATE.
  32. Nelson, J. (1986, April). The partnership concept from the perspective of an educator in the public schools. In Williams, D., Improving education through a public school-university partnership. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
  33. Niess, M., 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.
  34. Pamuk, S., Ergun, M., Cakir, R., & Yilmaz, H.B. (2013). Exploring relationships among TPACK components and development of the TPACK instrument. Education and Information Technologies, 20(2), 241–263.
  35. Rakow, S., and Robinson, L. (1997). Public school/university partnerships. Education Digest, 63, 64-9.
  36. Reinhartz, J. & Stetson, R. (1999). Teachers as leaders: A question or an expectation? In D.M. Byrd & D.J. McIntyre, (Eds.), Research on Professional Development Schools: Teacher Education Yearbook VII (pp. Vii-xii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  37. Rinke, C.R., Gladstone-Brown, W., Kinlaw, C.R., & Cappiello, J. (2016). Characterizing STEM teacher education: Affordances and constraints of explicit STEM preparation for elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 116(6), 300–309.
  38. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  39. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1).
  40. Teitel, L. (2004). How professional development schools make a difference: A review of research (Rev. 2nded.). Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
  41. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers& Education, 59(1), 134–144. Http://doi.org/10.1016/J.compedu.2011.10.009
  42. Tusin, L.F. (1992). The Satellite Program: A collaboration for clinical experiences in teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
  43. Williams, D. (1986). Introduction to the research question: Can a comprehensive public school-university partnership meaningfully contribute to the solution of educational problems?
  44. Xue, Y., & Larson, R. (2015). STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes. Http://doi.org/.
  45. Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J.T. (2011). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. In T.J. Cortina, E.L. Walker, L. Smith King, & M.R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education-SIGCSE ’11. Dallas, TX: ACM.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts