Punya Mishra's Web

I have been in Singapore the past few days at the invitation of Mike Thiruman and his team at Educare. Educare is a co-operative of the Singapore Teachers’ Union and sees itself as serving “teachers and schools so as to enhance the quality of teaching.” I had two sessions with them on June 1 and 2 on Harnessing ICT towards transformative teaching and learning in the 21st Century. The first day was a presentation and the next day I presented a full day workshop to 35+ educators.

The sessions went really well and I have included below (for the record) the slides from both my presentations as well as some photographs I took both at the event and after. I would like to take a moment to thank Mike and his team (including Dr. Aksir Kumar and Richard Singh among others) for both inviting me to Singapore and hosting me for the past couple of days.

• PDF of my presentation slides
• PDF of my workshop slides

I also got to catch up with a couple of friends when I was here. One of them, Alfred Low, is someone I had never met, though we have known each other for a few years now. Alfred had contacted me a while back regarding his interest in TPACK and we have stayed connected by email and Facebook for a while. It was great to finally meet up with him. Here are the two of us catching up over a couple of beers.

I also met up with Aurobindo Ghosh a faculty member at Singapore Management University. Aurobindo (and his wife) were also at Urbana-Champaign when I was there as a graduate student. We met up again after 13 years… a lot of water has passed below the bridge in the meanwhile (my son was just two years old when I left UIUC). What was great how easily we picked up pretty much from where we had left off, 13 years ago!

Finally, a slideshow of photographs I took during my few days here.

I just found out that I made “The Big 10: The Most Influential People in EdTech for 2011.” This list is created by the Tech & Learning journal—a magazine for Ed Tech leaders. This news came  as a total surprise to me since I did not know that I was even in the running for something like this. The June issue, which has this as a cover story, will be out in a few days though you can access it on the web (link below). Here’s the cover, and that’s me on the first row (second from the left).

The other nine people are really some of the biggest names in the business. They inclue, Doug Levin, Karen Cator, Greg Festa, Ann Thompson, David Warlick, John Kao, Salman Khan, Jonathan Ive and the Apple design team, and the Google for Educators developer team! Even as I type these names, I wonder if there has been a mistake in including me in this list. How did this list come to be? This is how the note from the editor describes the selection process:

Who has the biggest influence over your career? Your first instinct is most likely to point to a boss or a colleague, or maybe even your students. But there are other people out there, far removed from your everyday business in classrooms and administration offices, who are creating new devices, crafting policy, and pursuing far-out ideas that will ultimately have a huge effect on how you do your job.

These are the understated yet significant men and women picked for this year’s most-influential list (“The Big 10,” page 33) in a survey of readers and advisors plus a dash of editorial privilege. We believe that these men and women will profoundly change the way we think about learning in school, how we use technology to effect that change, and how we incorporate policies that make that change nationwide.

It is indeed a great honor to make this Big 10 list, and I am humbled and grateful to the editors and people who proposed my name and voted for me. I hope I will be able to live up to this recognition.

To top it all they got a professional illustrator to create pretty cool cartoons of each of the people on the list. I think mine came out pretty good

You can find the magazine online (PDF version) here.

TPACK is huge in Australia (for instance see this note TPACK underpins Aussie Teacher Ed Restructuring). I am hopeful that one of these days this interest will translate into a trip down-under… It would be great to travel around the continent, giving talks, meeting some cool educators, and maybe even get to see some cricket! How cool would that be.

Now, due to this interest, my TPACK-related Google Alert often provides links to work being done down-under. Recently I was treated to two video mashups based on the SITE2008 Keynote that Matt Koehler and I presented at Las Vegas.

These videos were created by Mike Sisley, at The University of Canberra, as a part of a special focus on TPACK for English, literacy and History. Mike is a TPACK advocate and seeks to create resources for the teachers of the content areas and created these mashups for this purpose. The first has an autotuned version of my voice (!!!) and the second has an original song called the Shulman Shuffle.

For some reason the embed codes don’t seem to work, so you will have to navigate over to Vimeo to watch them. Check out

• TPACK – Refrain: wicked problem
• TPACK: Adaptation of the Shulman Shuffle

What fun!

A couple of years ago I visited the Friday Institute at North Carolina State University. I had a wonderful time meeting old friends and making new ones. One of the old/new friends was doctoral student Lisa Hervey. As a part of her dissertation Lisa had been interested in developing observational protocols to measure TPACK. At that time, Lisa was the first person I knew who was tackling this problem, though in the meanwhile Judi Harris, Denise Schmidt and others have worked in this area.. but Lisa’s was the first that I had heard about.

So it was with great pleasure I learned that Lisa recently completed and successfully defended her dissertation. Congratulations Dr. Hervey! The title and abstract are given below:

Between the Notion and the Act: Veteran Teachers’ TPACK and Practice in 1:1 Settings

Veteran teachers have found it daunting to efficaciously weave educational technologies into their established instructional practices (Bebell & Kay, 2010). A surge in 1:1 initiatives, where every teacher and student has access to a mobile, Internet-connected device for 24-hour use, further adds to the complexity of the educational landscape for veteran teachers. Despite the increase in 1:1 initiatives, there is a lack of clarity about the kind of professional knowledge veteran teachers must have to create and implement instructional activities to effectively support student learning within these environments. The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework is a nuanced lens to study teachers’ 21st century professional knowledge and practice (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), and has been applied in a variety of settings.  Veteran teachers practicing in 1:1 settings, however, are not targeted in current TPACK research. In this mixed-methods study, veteran secondary education teachers (N = 85) were first surveyed to determine their self-reported technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) while practicing in 1:1 settings. Information rich teacher cases (N = 6) were identified for the subsequent qualitative phase. Qualitative data included teachers’ videotaped lessons, simulated recall and semi-structured transcripts and field notes. TPACK a priori codes were used during within-case analysis. Open coding analysis was conducted to discover emerging themes across cases. Findings suggest that most veteran teachers had lower self-perceptions of their TPACK than their practices indicated.  TCK, TPK, and TPACK a priori coding resulted in observational findings that significantly added under-theorized aspects of the TPACK framework.  Cross-case results indicated that veteran teachers’ want: (a) autonomy in selecting technology related professional development; (b) freedom to choose technologies to use with their students, and (c) opportunities to practice with technology with their peers. Discussion highlighted issues of reliability and validity associated with the adapted version of Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Technology Survey, illuminated TCK, TPK, and TPACK and unique challenges secondary veteran teachers face while practicing in 1:1 setting. Recommendations for future research are offered where appropriate.

Pauline Kael is regarded to be one of the best film reviewers to have ever lived. Sam Sacks has a piece on Kael in which he describes her style of film review, one based less on academic nitpicking and the presence (or absence) of directorial flourishes than on her personal aesthetic response to cinema. She is quoted as saying that there is only one rule in filmmaking:

There is only one rule: Astonish us! In all art we look and listen for what we have not experienced quite that way before. We want to see, to feel, to understand, to respond in a new way.

I read this quote and immediately realized that this rule applies to teaching as well. I have often described teaching as doing two things – making the strange familiar (an eclipse of the sun is caused by the moon falling into the earth’s shadow) or making the familiar strange (all matter is essentially empty space). What is common is the sense of surprise we experience in both cases.

It appears to me that very often we forget the value of astonishment and awe in teaching and learning. This is where the quote above really connects with my idea of teaching. Repeating the quote but by changing just one word—replacing “art” with “teaching.”

There is only one rule: Astonish us! In all teaching we look and listen for what we have not experienced quite that way before. We want to see, to feel, to understand, to respond in a new way.

How do we as educators meet this goal of “astonishing us all.”

Many years ago I got bitten by the Ambigram bug and before I knew it I had created hundreds! This was of course long before Dan Brown and Angels and Demons made ambigrams wildly popular. It has been fun to see what was once a fringe activity take on a wider popularity. There was a time that I could actually count the number of ambigram artists on the fingers of my hand, and, in fact, most of us knew each other, either formally or informally. Things are very different today as a Google search will easily reveal, but this also means that keeping track of all that is going on in the ambigram field is extremely difficult.

Over the past few months I have been talking with Mark Hunter a gentleman who is trying to make high quality ambigrams accessible to more people, and to raise awareness of ambigrams worldwide.  He is doing this through two different web sites.

He is also the owner of Ambigram.com, which seeks to be an almost one stop site for all you need to know about ambigrams. He told me about how he spent a considerable sum to purchase the Ambigram.com domain name and has worked hard to grow its membership. He has been quite successful in this and in fact they they recently announced their new Ambigrammy Awards! (How cool is that.) He also maintains a list of artists practicing this craft (your’s truly being one of them).

He also runs FlipScript.com, a site dedicated to creating high quality ambigrams on demand. The results are actually quite good, far better than previous attempts to accomplish this task.  Don’t miss his demonstration short story made up of more than 30 ambigrams.

If you are interested in visual wordplay these sites may be excellent time-sinks!

A few weeks ago I had written about an email that I received from an eighth grader in Colorado. Jake, a budding poet, was interested in learning more about me in the context of some palindromic poetry I had written many years ago. I wrote back to Jake (you can see the correspondence here) and a couple of days ago I received another email from him, this time containing a palindromic poem written by him. With his permission, I am including his email and poem below:

Punya,
Here is the palindromic poem that I wrote recently, but I made it so that the words are reversed instead of just the lines. It adds another layer of difficulty to creating it, and I recommend trying it if you get the chance.

Falling Snow

snow falling gently
on stomping feet
cold stinging
the teasing and laughing children
sculpted beautifully – crystals form
flakes dancing gracefully
tumble and spin
spin and tumble
gracefully dancing flakes
form crystals – beautifully sculpted
children laughing and teasing the
stinging cold
feet stomping on
gently falling snow

How awesomely cool is that! I wrote back to him right away saying

Jake. This is awesome!!!! I just shared it with my family and we were unanimous in our appreciation and praise for your achievement. Not only is it a doubly palindromic poem, an achievement in and of itself, it is a wonderful poem in it’s own right….

Thank you so much for sharing this with me. It completely made my day.

Don’t you just love the open-architecture of the web (and why I resist the closed worlds of Facebook).

I have been a huge fan of Don Norman ever since I first ran into his book on the Psychology of Everyday Things (which he later renamed as The Design of Everyday Things, and the story behind that name change is worth reading as an excellent example of design). Don Norman also was the inspiration behind my collection of examples of good and bad design, something that ended up in the CEP817, Learning Technology by Design seminar.

Recently I got to read an essay by him titled “Why Design Education Must Change.” Essentially he argues that design education, as it is done today, does not prepare designers for the challenges of the present or the future. As he says:

Where once industrial designers focused primarily upon form and function, materials and manufacturing, today’s issues are far more complex and challenging. New skills are required, especially for such areas as interaction, experience, and service design. Classical industrial design is a form of applied art, requiring deep knowledge of forms and materials and skills in sketching, drawing, and rendering. The new areas are more like applied social and behavioral sciences and require understanding of human cognition and emotion, sensory and motor systems, and sufficient knowledge of the scientific method, statistics and experimental design so that designers can perform valid, legitimate tests of their ideas before deploying them.

Many of the things he wrote about resonated with me as an educator with an interest in technology. I have often argued for seeing education through the lens of design and in fact have written extensively about it (too lazy to list/link these publications here).

Over the past few years I have become somewhat disenchanted with the nature of educational technology research and its value to practitioners. The top journals seem to be biased towards specific kinds of research (quantitative, experimental, control group kinds of studies). The research and publication process just takes too long. It can take years from the start of a research study to its final publication (going through the stages of conceptualizing a study to collecting and analyzing data, to writing and submitting it for publication and responding to reviewers comments). This process was ok when the world we lived in was stable. But in a world where technology changes pretty much every day, a publication can be out of date even before it is published. The goals of this process were more to be “scientific” rather than to impact practice. Qualitative approaches have often been offered as a response but they have their own challenges of experimenter bias, generalizability and so on.

To cut a long story short, I have been struggling, in often an inchoate kind of way, with these issues. So it was with great pleasure that I read Don’s article – even though it did not deal directly with educational research. And somewhat towards the end a couple of paragraphs caught my eye – that seemed to offer, very broadly, a way forward. I have cut and pasted these paragraphs below, with one change – replacing the word “designer” with “educator.” Take a look…

Educators are practitioners, which means they are not trying to extend the knowledge base of science but instead, to apply the knowledge. The educator’s goal is to have large, important impact. Scientists are interested in truth, often in the distinction between the predictions of two differing theories. The differences they look for are quite small: often statistically significant but in terms of applied impact, quite unimportant. Experiments that carefully control for numerous possible biases and that use large numbers of experimental observers are inappropriate for educators.

The educator needs results immediately, in hours or at possibly a few days. Quite often tests of 5 to 10 people are quite sufficient. Yes, attention must be paid to the possible biases (such as experimenter biases and the impact of order of presentation of tests), but if one is looking for large effect, it should be possible to do tests that are simpler and faster than are used by the scientific community will suffice. Designs don’t have to be optimal or perfect: results that are not quite optimum or les than perfect are often completely satisfactory for everyday usage. No everyday product is perfect, nor need they be. We need experimental techniques that recognize these pragmatic, applied goals.

Education needs to develop its own experimental methods. They should be simple and quick, looking for large phenomena and conditions that are “good enough.” But they must still be sensitive to statistical variability and experimental biases. These methods do not exist: we need some sympathetic statisticians to work with educators to develop these new, appropriate methods.

What do you think? What would some of these new experimental methods look like? It seems to me that this is a design problem that should really be at the forefront of what we educational technology researchers do.

I recently received this email:

Dear Mr. Mishra,

I am currently working on a poetry research project for school, and one of the requirements is researching five different poets. While looking for people who wrote palindromic poetry, I found your website and decided to use you in my project. The only problem is that I can’t find much information about you for my research. If you could, please respond to this e-mail with a little information about your history (i.e.-date and place of birth, family relations, etc.) as well as your inspiration for writing your palindromic poems. Thank you for your support!!!!!
Sincerely, Jake

P.S.- I am an eighth grader from Colorado and an aspiring poet.

Now I don’t consider myself a poet in any serious sense of the word (my dabbling in mathematical poetry or palindromic poetry notwithstanding). But it is great feeling when something you create and put out there in the world connects with someone else, someone who you would never otherwise have met or gotten to know. Here is what I wrote back to Jake:

Dear Jake –
Thank you so much for writing to me. I am honored to make it to your list of poets and glad that you are interested in palindromic poetry.

As for my history: I am professor at Michigan State University in East Lansing MI. I am originally from India where I studied engineering and design before coming to the US and getting my PhD. My wife is a graphic designer and I have two kids: my son who is a freshman in high school and my daughter who is in 6th grade.

Ever since I was a kid I have always been interested in puzzles and mathematics and poetry and visual design. That I think led to a habit of playing with words and images… so I do a lot of doodling and sketching (specially when I in meetings). I am fond of asking questions and looking at things around me in new ways. For instance, I love photography, on my Flickr site you will find photos of silly things like finding alphabets in cracks, and faces in everyday things. See this link and this one…

• Alphabets in cracks
• Faces we see

Then there are the videos I make with my kids. For instance see the new year’s card we made recently.

This also led to my creating ambigrams, which are words that are written in a special ways so that they can be read multiple ways. You can find a bunch of such designs on my website.

So I guess, palindromic poetry emerged out this desire or propensity to see the world in weird ways. And the challenge of writing poems that read the same backward and forward was inherently interesting. I particularly enjoyed writing ones that flipped in their meaning when you cross the half-way point. For instance in the poem “Me as I sit” the poem switches from me watching you to you watching me!

Finally, as must have noticed, from the dates, most of these were written a bunch of years ago when I was a graduate student at the University of Illinois. I haven’t written too many recently but the fact that they are on my website leads people to them – and I form all kinds of cool connections – such as the email I just received from you. A year or so ago I heard from someone who uses my poetry to teach poetry to inmates in prison (how cool is that!). You can read about that here.

That’s all for now.. I would love to read any palindromic poetry you may have written, if you are comfortable sharing them with me. Thank you again for your interest in my work. I look forward to hearing from you and let me know if there is anything else you need to know.

take care ~ punya

Note: I got Jake’s (and his parent’s) permission to post our correspondence on this blog under the condition that I not include his email address or other contact information.

Many moons ago I had written about the idea of the web as small pieces loosely connected (read Gandhi, ambigrams, creativity & the power of small pieces loosely joined) that allow people to pursue their passions and share it with the world at large. This is what gives the web its power, and this is also why I am not as comfortable with the barricaded worlds created by Facebook, which would not have allowed someone like Jake to easily find me, (but that is a rant for another day).

The Innovative Educator had a recent post about how the “Henrico County School system has adopted TPACK as the Framework for professional development and 21st Century Learning.” Read the complete story Using TPACK as a Framework for Tech PD, Integration and Assessment. Follow the link to see videos, webinars, links to 21st century assessments and much more…

To understand the significance of April 2, 2011, I have to go back 28 years, back to the summer of 1983.

I had just finished 10th grade, and that summer I took a trip to the hills of North India, as a part of a social work volunteer effort. I remember sleeping on the floor in this little unfurnished hut up in the hills, spending the days digging what would be the foundation of a village school. We had no electricity, no TV, the our toilet was to go out in the woods.

We did have a tiny transistor radio and we used that to listen to the Prudential Cricket World Cup, taking place in far away England. The West Indies were favored to win, the English were pretty good, and Australia and New Zeland weren’t too bad either. But India was no where in the picture, and no one really expected anything from our team. Our record, before this date had been dismal at best. But amazingly enough, India, led by Kapil Dev, this young Jat from Harayana, somehow made it to the semi-finals where we were facing England. There was little hope that we would go any further. The fact that we had made it that far was victory enough!

I remember, one late night, in this little room, with a bunch of kids my age, from different schools from around North India, crowded around the little radio, listening to the commentary of this semi-final game being played half-way across the globe. I don’t remember many of the details but two things do stand out. I remember hearing the commentator describing this young Indian batsman, Sandeep Patil, destroying the English bowling. And I remember, after the game was over, and India had won and made it to the finals, all of us, 16-17 year olds, standing up, in our pajamas, in this candle-lit room, spontaneously, beginning to sing the Indian National Anthem. Loudly, surely off key, but with gusto and pride.

A few days later I was back home in Delhi, watching the finals on our black-and-white TV. I remember West Indies destroying the Indian batting and then just as they started batting, the TV transmission died. (This was actually quite common back then.) I ran back to my radio, to keep up with the game, while keeping an eye on the TV, just in case the game came back on. I missed seeing the great catch by Kapil Dev that got rid of Viv Richards (who single handedly could decimate any opposing team). And then the West Indies wickets started to fall, and the TV came back, and I watched, what was the most amazing sight, the mighty West Indies collapse, and, wonder of wonders, India winning the world cup!

That was a defining moment for my generation and I remember it as clearly as it was yesterday. I doubt you can meet any Indian of around my age for whom this is not an unforgettable memory!

India, as a nation, had been going through a tough time. The Indira Gandhi government’s usurpation of power in 1975 (with the declaration of Emergency) was not too far from our memories. The government that had come after that had been woefully underwhelming, not even lasting a full term. Punjab was in flames, due to an insurgency that would (a few years later) consume Indira Gandhi herself. In the middle of all this was the world cup! It pulled us all, across India, together in ways that cannot be described. This victory was a turning point for all of us, a way of saying that our time had come. After this, there was little that we could no do!

Well a lot has changed in India since then. But India has never repeated that feat. India had never won another world cup.

Till today.

It took 28 years, but after a great game against Sri Lanka, in the 2011 world cup finals, India has done it again. Emphatically, and with grace India has won the world cup. Along the way India knocked out Australia (the winner of the past three competitions) and Pakistan (arguably as big a game as the final). As Joe Biden said, in a slightly different context, this is ****ing huge!

A new defining moment for a new generation.

As I go around the country talking about the TPACK framework, one of the questions that is always put to me is, about which comes first when planning a lesson, content, pedagogy or technology. The standard answer is that content comes first since it is only after we decide what it is that we want our students to learn (the content)  that we can speak of how we are to teach it (the pedagogy) and what tools to use (the technology).

For instance consider the excellent work being done by Judi Harris and her colleagues on activity structures and the TPACK framework. This work is one of the best, research and data driven approaches to applying the TPACK framework to the the actual work teachers do. The activity structures approach focuses on traditional practice i.e. the kinds of activity structures for specific content areas that are important for teachers engage in and it is only after these have been figured out that we think of selecting the appropriate technology. Clearly, in this approach technology comes in only after content and pedagogy have been specified. This is an excellent way to think about teachers and technology integration, and in many cases the most appropriate way of going forward.

Matters, however, I believe, are not that straightforward.

I say this because I am acutely sensitive to the fact that new technologies can often engender new activity structures, structures that may not have been possible without the advent of some new tool that we had not thought of before. The fact that technology may be the first piece of the puzzle is entirely consistent with the TPACK framework, which is not as much about process as it is about the end result i.e. that technology, pedagogy and content should all work together.

For instance, one example where this happens, and one that Matt Koeheler and I have often talked about, has to do with the advent of the web and the rise of online learning. Now, Tim Berners-Lee and the Mark Andreessen were not thinking of K12 learning when they developed the HTTP protocols and the HTML language, the foundation of the web as we know it. They were after different game. Tim Berners-Lee was out to develop ways for nuclear scientists develop betters ways of sharing information and it is not exactly clear to me what Mark Andreessen was initially interested in when he worked on developing the Mosaic browser. The point being though that once this tool was in the world, and freely available, educators recognized its potential and began thinking of ways of using this new technology for educational purposes. All of a sudden professors and K12 teachers were having to think about how to best use this new tool in their everyday work – that of teaching. Pedagogical processes and techniques that had worked before, for face to face contexts, needed to change, to fit this new medium. The manner in which content was represented had to shift and change as well.

So in this case technology came first and pedagogy and content (at least the manner in which it was represented) came afterwards.

I have made similar arguments about the use of micro-blogging in the classroom (see posts here and here).

Recently I came across another profound example of how new technologies change pedagogy in profound kinds of ways. Most of us have now heard of Khan Academy and about how it came to be. Essentially, Salman Khan a hedge fund manager took time to develop a series of video tutorials (essentially screen captures of him talking about math and science concepts and procedures) that he made freely available on the web. Though this began as a personal project for his cousins the videos soon began receiving positive attention from learners and teachers who stumbled upon his work. At this time the Khan Academy website has over 2000+ videos on a range of topics, arithmetic, physics, finance and history.

Salman Khan was recently asked to come and speak at TED and in his talk he talked about how the availability of these videos changed (at least in some cases) what teachers do in their classrooms. The fact that these lectures are freely available 24/7 frees teachers up to focus on other, maybe more important, aspects of teaching and learning than lecturing to their students. As Khan says, and I am paraphrasing here, technology can actually humanize classrooms! Khan calls this “flipping the classroom” by which he means that lectures can be moved online and outside of the classroom while class-time is used to work on problem solving and other engaging individual and collaborative work.  while focusing on problem solving and collaborative work during class time.

This is not a new idea. Karl Fisch, for instance, has described this eloquently (though he doesn’t claim credit for the idea and in fact provides credit to other precursors of the idea) in his blog post. As Karl writes:

My plan is to deliver the traditional lecture portion of an Algebra class as the homework, thus freeing up class time to explore the mathematics and pursue some interesting problems, as well as provide time for guided practice and collaborative work.

[Incidentally Dan Pink blogged about this idea as well, see here].

The fact that technology allows us to create and share, or freely access video based resources such as lectures fundamentally changes the game for teachers. Taking advantage of these tools, and to use them to their fullest potential, requires changing one’s pedagogical practices in fundamental ways, maybe “flipping” them almost totally around. Karl Fisch can still be the “sage on the stage” delivering his “knowledge” to the class but he can shift that part away into the “homework” arena and more effectively use his class time to customize his teaching to meet individual strengths and weaknesses.

I cannot imagine how this “flipping the classroom” could have happened prior to the advent of easy to use, cross-platform, always available, essentially free, web based resources such as Youtube!

Now could one have predicted something like this 20, or even 10 years ago? But given these tools (and resources) would it be right to keep doing things the same old way? I don’t think so.

I guess this is now my favorite example of how technology can fundamentally change pedagogy and content, and allow for the development of new activity structures, the idea at the heart of the TPACK framework.

I had a wonderful day at the Grant Woods Area Education Agency at Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I was invited there by Andy Crozier and his team as a part of their 21st Century Learning Institute. I spent the day with 50+ teachers, library media specialists, and administrators talking about TPACK, creativity, technology integration and other fun stuff. This was a great group of people and I had a great time (and I hoped that they did too).

A wordle of some of the ideas that we touched upon can be found below (thanks Nick Sauers)

You can find a PDF document of my slides as well as a PDF of the demotivational posters created by the participants. (Even if you don’t see my slides, you MUST see the posters… they are funny and worth a moment of your time).

A couple of participant took notes during the day and have kindly made them available:

• Nick Sauer’s Notes | Blog posting
• Matt Townsley’s Notes (Incidentally Matt and I have known each other for a while now but had never met. It was great to finally meet up with one of my online buddies. Matt blogs at MetaMusing)

The participants also created (as a part of the workshop) some poems. I am including them below:

Creativity Haiku
by Karry, Michelle, Kathleen, Beth, Todd, Kathy
technology is
creative innovation
tpack makes us think

Limerick
by Deanne, Ruth, Jason
Administrators, librarians and teachers
Came to learn about “teachnology” features
TPACK is the focus
Dr. Punya is the “mostest”
They came out of there much wiser creatures

Untitled
by Joe, Kay, and Jessica
While spoon feeding our students in class
We focus on the Total PACKage
As we use, integrate, and innovate
To help them Know-Act-Value
We find-Everything is NEW

Deja Who?
by Amy, Christopher, & Mike
There once was a man from MSU.
He Déjà Vu’ed and Veja du’ed.
TPACK was his shared view
of all that was NEW!

Poem
by Melva, Cathy, Jan, Kim, Dianna
Acronyms, acronyms, here’s what we found
TPACK is where teaching hits the ground.
Technology, Pedagogy, Content and Knowledge
Will take teaching beyond the cutting edge.

NEW stands for Novel, Effective and Whole
And if something is meant to roll, it should roll.
We’re learning how in our classrooms to apply
All of this information which is in great supply.

Team TPACK
by Tony, Mary, Kelly, Jodi
There once was a teacher from Marimac
Who wanted to teach with his Mac
His friend said now Jo
Just take it slow.
Remember to think about TPACK

Poem
by Mary, Brad and Jan
Teaching 3 knowledge bases
Providing framework for technology integration
And
Creativity
Keeping learning déjà vu and veja du

Creativity
by Brian, Lisa, Seth, Julie, Stacy
There was a smart man from MSU,
who defined creativity as N-E-W.
He effectively did present
technology, pedagogy and content
and it all started with veja du.

Thanks to Andy and his team for this wonderful opportunity.

Back in January I was invited to speak at the Drexel Learning Games Network (DGLN) seminar series. As I had written in my original post (TPACK & Games @ Drexel), DLGN is the brainchild of  Aroutis Foster, former graduate student, now rising star academic and researcher. As the DLGN website says

The Drexel Learning Games Network is made up of faculty and staff at Drexel University interested in game-based learning initiatives. It was established in the School of Education in Goodwin College with the goal of supporting teaching, researching, and designing of games for learning from K- to infinity.

I had mentioned that though I am not primarily a games and learning researcher, I have done some work in the area, primarily through collaborations with colleagues and students around MSU. I had a lot of fun constructing this talk, attempting to make some connections between my TPACK work and the idea of learning from games.

I see digital games as being an important part of learning – but in a somewhat different way than merely learning by playing games. In fact I have been somewhat skeptical of how one can use games for developing disciplinary knowledge. My experience has been that there is a fundamental tension in designing educational games – where the demands of designing engaging gameplay often conflict with the broader pedagogical goal of respecting the core concepts of the discipline or content to be covered. For instance a recent dissertation on how participants were learning Chinese from playing a massively multiplayer online role playing game (Zon) showed that my concerns were justified. Most participants focused on the gameplay rather than on the tasks that were connected with learning the language. I don’t think that finding this balance between gameplay and learning content is impossible to achieve – but that it is maybe the most important challenge faced by educational game designers.

I tried, in my presentation, to make some connections to learning from games by repurposing games – i.e. seeing their pedagogical potential outside of just playing with them. I of course used the TPACK framework as guiding my talk – but also brought in issues related to trans-disciplinary learning and design.

Anyway, to cut to the chase, the entire talk is now available online as a video. You can see it in its entirety by going here: http://gcpsx.coeps.drexel.edu/videos/dgvls_ep2public/

Enjoy!

Dr. Matthew Kearney (who was featured in my recent post on student constructed iVideos) just wrote to inform me about a teacher preparation project currently underway in Australia. The Teaching Teachers for the Future (TTF) project is a $7.8 million project

… aimed at enabling all pre-service teachers at early, middle and senior levels to become proficient in the use of ICT in education. It will focus on the first phase of the Australian Curriculum subjects – English, Mathematics, Science and History – and will be completed in June 2012. [Emphasis mine.]

The project seeks to target “systematic change in the Information and Communication Technology in Education (ICTE) proficiency of graduate teachers across Australia.” The project is led by a slew of key organizations, including:

Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC), and includes the Australian Council of Deans of Education (ACDE), the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), Education Services Australia (ESA), the Australian Council for Computers in Education (ACCE), and the 39 Australian higher education institutions with pre-service teacher education programs as partners. [Emphasis mine.]

As can be clear this is a huge undertaking seeking to transform teacher training for the entire country. You can find out more about the project by going to their website http://www.altc.edu.au/ttf/

What is interesting is that the TPACK framework underpins much of the work in the project (a link right there on the front page)! How cool and amazing is that.

This year at the SITE conference in Nashville, I was often blown away by the fact that work done my Matt Koehler and myself, (on the TPACK framework) sitting on the 5th floor of Erickson Hall in East Lansing is being utilized by researchers across the US and beyond. For instance, our symposium included presentations on TPACK being applied in Ghana and Kuwait! That is indeed a great feeling.

But this TTF project is a different scale altogether. To have our ideas play an important role in the restructuring of an entire nation’s (actually an entire continent’s, since Australia is both a country and a continent) teacher preparation program… is something else altogether.

I am truly blown away.

Last June I had posted a note (Teacher as filmmaker: An update from down under) about the iVideos created by students from the University of Technology, Sydney (under the guidance of Dr. Matthew Kearney). iVideos or “idea videos” are short films often 2 minutes (or less) in duration in which a student explores an important issue in K-12 education.

The idea of iVideos connects with a couple of strands of work that I have been involved in. These include, the TPACK framework, and the learning by design approach. We have written about this in a variety of articles but the specific one that Dr. Kearney points to is:

Wong, D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., & Siebenthal, S. (2007). Teacher as Filmmaker: iVideos, Technology Education, and Professional Development. In M. Girod & J. Steed (Eds.), Technology in the college classroom. Stillwater, Oklahoma: New Forums Press.

In this article we argue that there is great value in having teachers engage in such creative, design tasks since it allows them to “transform ideas and practice by immersing themselves in deep pedagogical consideration of subject-matter, significance, audience, learning, epistemology, and aesthetics.” Some evidence of this comes from a blog post by Dr. Kearney, based on his experience of having his students create their own iVideos. He says that,

We noted a high degree of emotional investment, motivation and interest in these tasks amongst our student teachers and postulate that these outcomes were a catalyst in their TPACK development. [You can read the entire blog post here.]

As in the previous year, Dr. Kearney’s students have been busy working on working on a new set of videos for 2011. In this years edition students created iVideos in three main areas related to the use of ICT in education. These topics include, Teacher professional learning; Curriculum; and Social, Ethical, Legal and Equity issues around ICT. There are over 2 dozen videos on the site and you can access them by going to

http://sites.google.com/site/teacherivideos/

Incidentally, you can see last year’s videos by following this link

http://sites.google.com/site/teacherivideos/2010-ivideos

Click the links above to see the these iVideos and, if possible, take a moment to write a comment or response to the videos. It will take you just a few minutes of your time but I know this will be greatly appreciated by the students.

I had posted earlier about the paper presentations I was involved with during the recently concluded SITE conference at Nashville. Matt Koehler and I were co-Program Chairs for the conference, and sadly Matt was sick and had to miss the trip. In the photo below the space between Gary Marks and myself, is where Matt would stand, if he had been there. (And of course, Gary would be making rabbit years over his head!)

As program chair I had the usual responsibilities, shake hands with everybody, smile a lot, make announcements, introduce speakers and so on. I tried to make these tasks (particularly the announcements) interesting and fun. Below are some examples of some of some of the things we did.

The first is a presentation in which I introduced our first keynote speaker: Yong Zhao. Yong and I go back a long time (almost 17 years!) so I had lots of stories to share, including one of my son when he was three years old! [See the slides here, PDF].

A few days later, I was asked to announce the poster award winners, I had some fun with that as well, particularly in creating, what I called, a “sting” video, revealing nefarious activities that occurred every SITE conference. Of course this was all good clean fun… You can find the video embedded below and the slides here PDF.

I also took some pictures during SITE. You can find them here

Finally you can see a music-video I created for the closing day reception as well as the final set of slides (once again in PDF format)

Over the past few years my scholarly focus has shifted into areas related to teacher creativity and transdisciplinary learning. I see this as being the next step in my research work. Though I have been thinking quite a bit about this, have applied to to my teaching (particularly my course on Creativity in Teaching and Learning), and there have been occasional blog posts about this as well, it has not had much of an impact on my academic writing. A large part of it has to do with the fact that academic writing (writing for journals and edited books) has, by necessity, a longer time-frame than teaching or blogging. Writing and submitting, taking care of changes suggested by editors and reviewers, and then waiting for the actual publication to emerge, all take time.

To cut a long story short, the first article about this new line of work has finally been published. It is a special issue of the journal Educational Technology devoted to Emerging Technologies and Transformative Learning. This special issue was edited by George Veletsianos and Brendan Calandra (thanks for giving us the opportunity) and was co-authored with Matt Koehler (no surprise there) and Danah Henriksen.

Educational Technology had quite stringent word-limits and length requirements, so the final published article is much shorter than what we had originally submitted. And since I had already felt that the original article was shorter than it needed to be… the final version seems more than a bit truncated. For this reason I am providing links below to both the published piece and a longer unpublished version. If I had to choose, I would read the longer version but that need not be your choice.

Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., & Henriksen, D. (2011). The Seven Trans-Disciplinary Habits of Mind: Extending the TPACK Framework Towards 21 st Century learning. Educational Technology, 51(2) 22-28.

Abstract: In this article we examine the need for fostering transformative learning, emphasizing the roles that trans-disciplinary thinking and recent technologies can play in creating the transformative teaching and learning of the 21st century. We introduce the Technological, Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework as a starting point for discussing the special kinds of knowledge, skills, and understanding that teachers require in order to become effective classroom mediators of transformative learning experiences. Within this framework, we propose seven cognitive tools needed for success in the new millennium, and describe examples of how teachers can repurpose digital technologies to use these cognitive tools. We explore the implications for research and practice.

Here is a link to the longer (draft) version.

Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., & Henriksen, D. (draft). The Seven Trans-Disciplinary Habits of Mind: Extending the TPACK Framework Towards 21 st Century learning (full version).

I had a bunch of presentations at the recently concluded SITE2011 conference at Nashville TN. There is a lot to post about the conference, particularly the presentations I made at the beginning of the day… but that will have to wait until later. This posting is about the various presentations I was involved with. The topics ranged from a study of adolescent’s activities online to TPACK to developing a better understanding of what we mean when we say 21st Century Learning. I am including below, the title and abstract of the presentation along with a pdf of the final presentation. If you have any questions, or need more details on these studies, please feel free to email me…

Adolescents’ activities online and how their notions of learning shape strategies and expectation
Kristen Kereluik & Punya Mishra, Michigan State University

Abstract: This paper reports on a case study of adolescents’ experiences online. Specifically this study sought to explore adolescents’ typical Internet use and understand how adolescents’ notions of learning impacted their use of self-regulated learning strategies online. Interview data was collected from 13 adolescent participants and their parents and was coded using grounded theory analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) and the constant comparative method. Analysis indicates that participants’ Internet use is highly dynamic and not easily categorized. Additionally, results suggested that adolescents’ notions and understanding of learning influenced their computer and Internet use. Participants reported differential computer use based on the specific task (academic or informal) and held differing expectations for possible and intended outcomes. Implications for findings are discussed as well as necessary next steps and future directions.

Download a pdf version of the slides from here…

Teachers’ assessment of TPACK: Where are we and what is needed?
Joke Voogt, Ghaida Alayyar, Petra Fisser, Douglas Agyei, Bart Ormel, Chantal Velthuis, Jo Tondeur: University of Twente, Netherlands; Tae Shin: University of Central MissouriPunya Mishra & Matt Koehler: Michigan State University, Denise Schmidt, Evrim Baran, Ann Thompson, Wei Wang: Iowa State University; , Edith Stein: University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands; University of Ghent, Belgium; David Gibson (discussant), Global Challenge.

Abstract: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) has emerged as a useful conceptual framework for understanding the teachers’ knowledge base needed for effectively teaching with technology. The symposium aims to further our thinking about TPACK as a conceptual framework and to relate TPACK as the teachers’ knowledge base for teaching with technology to factors affecting teachers’ adoption of technology. Various ways (self-report data, observations, tests) to assess teachers’ TPACK and adoption of technology will be presented.

Download PDF of slides for the entire symposium here…

We had a lot of fun creating this presentation. As you will see we developed a “film theme” with actual movie posters introducing each of the speakers. We also created a poster for the session (see below and click for a larger version).

What 21st Century Learning? A review and a synthesis
Punya Mishra & Kristen Kereluik, Michigan State University

Abstract: The discussion of 21st century skills has become increasingly prevalent in educational discourse and several organizations have developed 21st century frameworks. This papers seeks to compare prominent 21st century frameworks to both provide clarity on what it actually means to teach and learn in the 21st century and to find common themes across frameworks.

Download PDF of slides of the presentations from here…

Developing Trans-disciplinary creativity, rethinking the C in TPACK
Kristen Kereluik & Punya Mishra, Michigan State University, USA

Abstract: This brief paper discusses the 21st century skills movement, and transformative learning theory as a framework for fostering these skills in both teachers and students. TPACK is discussed as a bridge between theory and practice and as a route towards preparing educators for teaching in the 21st century and to natives of the 21st century. A masters level course in educational technology is presented as an example of bringing together 21st century skills, trans-disciplinary teaching and learning, and the TPACK framework. The course is briefly discussed and examples of student products are presented. Finally, conclusions and possible future directions are discussed.

Download PDF of slides of the presentations from here…

The 2012 U.S. News rankings of graduate programs in education have been released and there is good news for our college and department. Overall, the College of Education at Michigan State is ranked 17th which is where we were last year. It appears that our reputation ratings from, two key audiences, academic peers and administrators, is quite high.

More specifically, graduate Programs are ranked as follows.

Elementary Education–#1 for the 17th consecutive year (from the beginning of U.S. News rankings)
Secondary Education–#1 (same as above)
Curriculum and Instruction–#2
Rehabilitation Counseling–#2
Educational Psychology–#4 (my home department and up one rank from last year!!)
Higher Education Administration–#4
Administration and Supervision (K-12)–#8
Educational Policy–# 11

It is not clear just what these rankings mean (and how to interpret them) but it is good to know just where we stand

Below please find a listing of TPACK-related papers/sessions that will be presented at the SITE conference in March in Nashville, Tennessee; at the AERA annual meeting in April in New Orleans, Louisiana; and at the ISTE conference in June in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (That’s 71 TPACK-related conference sessions in just 3.5 months!)

SITE 2011 TPACK-Related Presentations

1. Teacher competencies for 21st century pedagogy, Joke Voogt, University of Twente, Netherlands | Tuesday 11:30-12:30 – Hermitage A
2. Developing a Classroom Observation Tool on Pedagogy and Technology Integration: A Delphi Study, Douglas Elmendorf, Towson University, USA; Liyan Song, Towson University, USA| Tuesday 11:30-12:30 – Kingsley
3. Using the TPACK Framework to Study a Sixth Grade Classroom with High Access to Technology, Keith Wetzel, Arizona State University, USA | Tuesday 1:30-2:30 – Edgewood
4. Explicitly Addressing TPACK in Preservice Teacher Curriculum, Mia Kim Williams, University of Northern Colorado, USA; Keith Wetzel, Arizona State University, USA; Teresa Foulger, Arizona State University, USA; Todd Kisicki, Arizona State University, USA; Lisa Giacumo, Arizona State University, USA (Roundtable) | Tuesday 2:45–3:45 – Bellmeade
5. Using SEM to Move from Theory to Practice with the TPACK Framework, Brandy Jones, University of Louisville, USA; Jill Adelson, University of Louisville, USA; Leanna Archambault, Arizona State University, USA | Tuesday 4:30-5:30 – Hermitage B
6. Instructional Technology Adoption Strategies for College of Education Faculty, Robert Bowe, National-Louis University, USA | Tuesday 5:15-6:15 – Hermitage B
7. Tracking TPACK Development through Conversations about New Literacies, Jennifer Lubke, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, USA; Jeffrey Beard, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, USA | Wednesday 11:30-12:30 – Hermitage B
8. Comparing How Teachers use Technology and Teacher Education Programs Prepare Teachers to use Technology, Anne Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Indiana University, USA; Thomas Brush, Indiana University, USA | Wednesday 1:30-2:30 – Two Rivers
9. Leveraging the Affordances of YouTube: Pedagogical Knowledge and Mental Models of Technology Affordances as Predictors for Pre-Service Teachers’ Planning for Technology Integration., Karsten Krauskopf, Knowledge Media Research Center, Germany; Carmen Zahn, Knowledge Media Research Center, Germany; Friedrich W. Hesse, Knowledge Media Research Center, Germany | Wednesday 1:30-2:30 – McGavock’s A
10. Developing a New Technology Infusion Program for Preparing Saudi Preservice Teachers, Mohammed Alhawiti, Indiana State University, USA | Wednesday 2:45-3:45 – Evergreen
11. Preparing Digital Citizens for a Participatory Culture: Critical Digital Literacies in Pre-service Education (Poster/Demo), Sarah Lohnes Watulak, Towson University, USA | Wednesday 6:30-8:00 – Bellmeade
12. Using eBooks to Develop TPACK: Teacher Candidates Get ‘Handy’ for Class (Poster/Demo) | Candace Figg, Brock University, Canada; Burson Jenny, Brock University, Canada | Wednesday 6:30-8:00 – Bellmeade
13. Applying TPACK to Preservice Teacher Technology Integration Courses (Poster/Demo), Liangyue Lu, Syracuse University-School of Education, USA; Laurene Johnson, Syracuse University-School of Education, USA; Leigh Tolley, Syracuse University-School of Education, USA; Theresa Gilliard-Cook, Syracuse University-School of Education, USA; Jing Lei, Syracuse University-School of Education, USA | Wednesday 6:30-8:00 – Bellmeade
14. Professional Development for Teachers of Chinese: The Interplay of Content Knowledge, Pedagogy, and Technology (Poster/Demo), Carolina Bustamante, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA; Aleidine Moeller, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA | Wednesday 6:30-8:00 – Bellmeade
15. Why Are They Not Using It?: Middle Grades Social Studies Teachers’ Technology Integration (NTLI Fellows Symposium), Caroline C. Sheffield, University of Louisville, USA; Rita Hagevik, University of Tennessee, USA; Patty Stinger-Barnes, University of Tennessee, USA | Thursday 10:15 – 11:15 – Hermitage D
16. Teachers’ assessment of TPACK: Where are we and what is needed? (Symposium),
17. Joke Voogt, University of Twente, Netherlands; Tae Shin, University of Central Missouri, USA; Punya Mishra, University of Michigan, USA; Matt Koehler, University of Michigan, USA; Denise Schmidt, Iowa State University, USA; Evrim Baran, Iowa State University, USA; Ann Thompson, Iowa State University, USA; Wei Wang, Iowa State University, USA; Ghaida Alayyar, University of Twente, Netherlands; Petra Fisser, University of Twente, Netherlands; Douglas Agyei, University of Twente, Netherlands; Bart Ormel, University of Twente, Netherlands; Chantal Velthuis, Edith Stein University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands; Jo Tondeur, University of Ghent, Belgium; David Gibson, Global Challenge, USA | Thursday 10:15-11:15 – Tulip Grove F
18. Determining Teachers’ TPACK through observations and self-report data, Douglas Agyei, University of Cape Coast-Ghana, Ghana; Joke Voogt, University of Twente, Netherlands | Thursday 10:15-11:15 and 11:30-12:30 – Tulip Grove F
19. Teachers’ Rationale as Evidence of TPACK, Kimberly McCollum, BYU, USA; Jered Borup, BYU, USA; Charles Graham, BYU, USA | Thursday 11:30-12:30 – Edgewood
20. TPACK Model Integration: Preparing Preservice Teachers to Teach with Technology, Prince Bull, North Carolina Central University, USA; Dogoni Cisse, North Carolina Central University, USA | Thursday 11:30-12:30 – Edgewood
21. TPACK in the Science Methods Classroom: Focusing on the Space Between, Richard Hechter, University of Manitoba, Canada; Lynette Phyfe, University of Manitoba, Canada | Thursday 11:30-12:30 – Edgewood
22. Using Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK) to Design Preservice Teacher Technology Integration and Inservice Teacher Professional Development (Panel), Liz Berquist, Towson University, USA; Bill Sadera, Towson University, USA; Liyan Song, Towson University, USA; Yvonne Domings, Center for Applied Special Technology, USA; Lisa Katz, MSDE/HCPS, USA; Linda Macaulay, Towson University, USA | Thursday 1:30-2:30 – Tulip Grove E
23. The Effects of Teacher Content Authoring on TPACK and on Student Achievement in Algebra: Research on Instruction with the TI-Nspire Handheld, Irina Lyublinskaya, CUNY College of Staten Island, USA; Nelly Tournaki, CUNY College of Staten Island, USA | Thursday 1:30-2:30 – Two Rivers
24. Do teacher education courses influence pre-service teachers’ Educational Technology Competencies?— An investigation of pre-service teachers majored in Math Education in China, Ning Yang, School of Education, Fujian Normal University, China | Thursday 1:30-2:30 – Two Rivers
25. Technology in the Mathematic’s Classroom: A Teacher Candidate’s Perspective, Christian Cruze, Ball State University, USA; Kathryn Shafer, Ball State University, USA | Thursday 1:30-2:30 – Kingsley
26. The Influence of Technology Rich Learning Environments: A Classroom-based Observational Study, Jana Craig Hare, ALTEC/Center for Research on Learning, USA; Marilyn Ault, ALTEC/Center for Research on Learning, USA; Chris Niileksela, ALTEC/Center for Research on Learning, USA | Thursday 1:30-2:30 – Kingsley
27. Developing a Survey from a Taxonomy of Characteristics for TK, TCK, and TPK to Assess Teacher Candidates’ Knowledge of Teaching with Technology, Candace Figg, Brock University, Canada; Kamini Jaipal, Brock University, Canada | Thursday 1:30-2:30 – Oaklands
28. Pre-Service Teacher Learning: Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Video-Based Problem-Solving, Ugur Kale, West Virginia University, USA; Pamela Whitehouse, West Virginia University, USA | Thursday 1:30-2:30 – Oaklands
29. Pre-Service Teachers’ Experience with ICT Integration in Secondary Schools: A Case Study of One New Zealand Context., Hasniza Nordin, University of Canterbury, New Zealand; Donna Morrow, University of Canterbury, New Zealand; Niki Davis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand | Thursday 2:45-3:45 – Kingsley
30. Advancing K-8 Teachers’ STEM Education for Teaching Interdisciplinary Science and Mathematics Teaching With Technologies, Margaret Niess, Oregon State University, USA; Emily van Zee, Oregon State University, USA; Henry Gillow-Wiles, Oregon State University, USA; Nancy Staus, Oregon State University, USA | Thursday 4:00-5:00 – Two River
31. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in the Elementary Classroom: A Case Study of One Teacher’s Decision Making Process, Melissa Beeson, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA | Thursday 4:00-5:00 – Two Rivers
32. Impact of Research-Based Professional Development: Investigation of Inservice Teacher Learning and Practice in Wiki Integration, Mesut Duran, University of Michigan-Dearborn, USA; Stein Brunvand, University of Michigan-Dearborn, USA; Justin Ellsworth, Farmington Public Schools, USA; Serkan Sendag, Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Turkey | Thursday 4:00-5:00 – Kingsley
33. Developing Secondary Mathematics Preservice Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge: Influencing Positive Growth, Jeremy Zelkowski, The University of Alabama, USA | Thursday 4:00-5:00 – Edgewood
34. Poetry in Motion: Using VoiceThread to Prepare 21st Century English Teachers, Leanna Archambault, Arizona State University, USA; David Lee Carlson, Arizona State University, USA | Thursday 4:00-5:00 – Edgewood
35. Testing a TPACK-Based Technology Integration Observation Instrument, Mark Hofer, College of William and Mary, USA; Neal Grandgenett, University of Nebraska at Omaha, USA; Judi Harris, College of William and Mary, USA; Kathy Swan, University of Kentucky, USA | Thursday 4:00-5:00 – Oaklands
36. Learning by Design: TPACK in Action, Liangyue Lu, Syracuse University-School of Education, USA; Laurene Johnson, Syracuse University-School of Education, USA; Leigh Tolley, Syracuse University-School of Education, USA; Theresa Gilliard-Cook, Syracuse University-School of Education, USA; Jing Lei, Syracuse University-School of Education, USA | Thursday 4:00-5:00 – Oaklands
37. An Exploration of Initial Certification Candidates’ TPACK and Mathematics-based Applications using Touch Device Technology, Michael McCrory, Victory University, USA | Thursday 4:00-5:00 – McGavock’s A
38. Integrating Technology in Pre-Service Teacher Education through Peer Assisted Just-in-Time Support (Roundtable), Julie Mueller, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada | Thursday 4:00-5:00 – McGavock’s B
39. An Alternative Framework for Course Evaluation & Redesign: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Teachers (Roundtable), Matthew Kruger-Ross, North Carolina State University, USA; Lori Holcomb, North Carolina State University, USA; Terrance Wolfe, North Carolina State University, USA | Thursday 4:00-5:00 – McGavock’s B
40. Pedagogical Strategies for K-12 Teachers’ Use of Interactive Whiteboards (Roundtable), Ying Wang, Northwestern College, USA; Ronald Ginn, Northwestern College, USA; Teresa Gonske, Northwestern College, USA | Thursday 4:00-5:00 – McGavock’s B
41. Instructional Technical and Pedagogical Design: Teaching Future Teachers Educational Technology, Anne Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA; Mark Millard, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA; Peter van Leusen, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA | Thursday 5:15-6:15 – Hermitage A
42. Influence of Graduate Coursework on Teachers’ Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) Skill Development: An Exploratory Study, Crystal Machado, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA; DeAnna Laverick, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA; Jason Smith, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA | Thursday 5:15-6:15 – Two Rivers
43. Refining TPACK Rubric through Online Lesson Plans, Mete Akcaoglu, Michigan State University, USA; Kristen Kereluik, Michigan State University, USA; Greg Casperson, Michigan State University, USA | Thursday 5:15-6:15 – Two Rivers
44. Development and Validation of a Survey to Measure TPACK for Preservice Science Educators, Jason Abbitt, Miami University, USA; Bruce Perry, Miami University, USA; Todd Edwards, Miami University, USA | Thursday 5:15-6:15 – Two Rivers
45. Video Game Design Principles in Logo Impact Teacher Candidates’ Technology Integration, Aaron Bruewer, Ball State University, USA; Kathryn Shafer, Ball State University, USA | Thursday 5:15-6:15 – Kingsley
46. Using Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as a Framework for Video Case Analysis and Teacher Technology Preparation, Amy Chase Martin, Towson University, USA; William Sadera, Towson University, USA | Thursday 5:15-6:15 – Kingsley
47. I Know I Am Supposed To, But I Just Can’t: Insights into Technology Integration in Science Classrooms, Richard Hechter, University of Manitoba, Canada; Laurie Anne Vermette, University of Manitoba, Canada | Thursday 5:15-6:15 – Edgewood
48. Designing with and for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Evolution of GeoThentic, Aaron Doering, University of Minnesota, USA; Charles Miller, University of MN, USA; Cassie Scharber, University of MN, USA | Thursday 5:15-6:15 – McGavock’s A
49. Three Perspectives on Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge: Framing Technology Education using TPACK (Symposium), Figg Candace, Brock University, Canada; Jaipal Kamini, Brock University, Canada; Julie Mueller, Wilfred Laurier University, Canada | Friday 10:15-11:15 and 11:30-12:30– Hermitage D
50. Identifying Affordances and Barriers to Student-centered, Collaborative Learning in the Integration of Interactive Whiteboard Technology, Cesar Navarrete, University of Texas at Austin, USA | Friday 11:30-12:30 – Evergreen
51. Developing Trans-disciplinary creativity, rethinking the C in TPACK, Kristen Kereluik, Michigan State University, USA; Punya Mishra, Michigan State University, USA | Friday 2:45-3:45 – Tulip Grove F
52. Two Birds, One Stone: A TPACK-Inspired Model to Guide Standards-Based Social Studies Instruction, John Hineman, Robert Morris University, USA; George Semich, Robert Morris University, USA | Friday 2:45-3:45 – Evergreen

AERA 2011 TPACK-Related Conference Papers, Roundtables, and Posters

1. Between the Notion and the Act: Distinctions Among Secondary Veteran Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in 1:1 Computing Settings
2. (Roundtable), Lisa G. Hervey (North Carolina State University) | Scheduled Time: Sun, Apr 10 – 10:35am – 12:05pm Building/Room: Sheraton / Grand Ballroom E | In Session Submission: Analyzing and Assessing Teacher Knowledge and Practice
3. Assessing Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge Development in the Context of a Technology Integration Course (Roundtable), Chrystalla Mouza (University of Delaware), Rachel A. Karchmer (Virginia Commonwealth University), Sule Yilmaz Ozden (University of Delaware), Ratna Nandakumar (University of Delaware) | Scheduled Time: Sun, Apr 10 – 10:35am – 12:05pm Building/Room: Sheraton / Grand Ballroom E | In Session Submission: Analyzing and Assessing Teacher Knowledge and Practice
4. A Comprehensive Approach to Assessing Technological, Pedagogical, And Content Knowledge (TPACK) as an Interdisciplinary Construct (Roundtable), David K. Pugalee (University of North Carolina – Charlotte), Margaret L. Niess (Oregon State University) | Scheduled Time: Sun, Apr 10 – 10:35am – 12:05pm Building/Room: Sheraton / Grand Ballroom E | In Session Submission: Analyzing and Assessing Teacher Knowledge and Practice
5. The Development of an Instrument to Measure Preservice Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Roundtable), Nicholas Lux (Montana State University), Art W. Bangert (Montana State University), David Whittier (Boston University) | Scheduled Time: Sun, Apr 10 – 10:35am – 12:05pm Building/Room: Sheraton / Grand Ballroom E | In Session Submission: Analyzing and Assessing Teacher Knowledge and Practice
6. A Critical Review of Technological, Pedagogical, And Content Knowledge (TPACK) Assessments (Poster), Tae Seob Shin (Michigan State University), Matthew J. Koehler (Michigan State University), Punya Mishra (Michigan State University) | Scheduled Time: Mon, Apr 11 – 2:15pm – 3:45pm Building/Room: Sheraton / Grand Ballroom C | In Session Submission: Technology as an Agent of Change in Teaching and Learning Poster Session\
7. Reading Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Between the Lines of Theory and Practice in Preservice Teachers (Poster), Kristen Marie Kereluik (Michigan State University), Mete Akcaoglu (Michigan State University), Greg Casperson (Michigan State University) | Scheduled Time: Mon, Apr 11 – 12:25pm – 1:55pm Building/Room: Sheraton / Grand Ballroom C | In Session Submission: Topics in Teacher Education: Assessment, Supervision, Curriculum, and Instruction
8. Teaching Mathematics With Technology: A Longitudinal Study of Secondary Preservice Teacher Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Development (Roundtable), Jeremy Zelkowski (The University of Alabama) | Scheduled Time: Mon, Apr 11 – 8:15am – 9:45am Building/Room: Sheraton / Grand Ballroom E | In Session Submission: SIG/Research in Mathematics Education Roundtable 3: Understanding
9. The Effects of Teacher Content Authoring on Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and on Student Achievement in Algebra (Paper), Irina Lyublinskaya (College of Staten Island – CUNY), Eleni Tournaki (College of Staten Island – CUNY) | Scheduled Time: Mon, Apr 11 – 12:25pm – 1:55pm Building/Room: New Orleans Marriott / Mardi Gras Salon A | In Session Submission: Research on Technology Integration Professional Development
10. Beyond Technology, Pedagogy, and Content: Insights Into the Knowledge Bases for Collaborative E-Learning Design (Roundtable), Lina Markauskaite (University of Sydney), Agnieszka Bachfischer (University of Sydney), Yael Kali (Technion – Israel Institute of Technology), Peter Michael Goodyear (University of Sydney) | Scheduled Time: Sun, Apr 10 – 12:25pm – 1:55pm Building/Room: Sheraton / Grand Ballroom D | In Session Submission: Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning Roundtable 2: Issues in Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning
11. Teachers’ Learning While Constructing Technology-Based Instructional Resources (Roundtable), Andrew B. Polly (University of North Carolina – Charlotte) | Scheduled Time: Mon, Apr 11 – 12:25pm – 1:55pm Building/Room: Sheraton / Grand Ballroom E | In Session Submission: SIG Instructional Technology: Technology Evaluation Strategies
12. The Acquisition of Musical Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (Paper), William I. Bauer (Case Western Reserve University) | Scheduled Time: Sun, Apr 10 – 2:15pm – 3:45pm Building/Room: JW Marriott / Orleans | In Session Submission: Collaborative Learning Environments in Music Education: Implications for Professional Development
13. Instructional Strategies for High-Level Learning Engaging a Community of Learners in an Online Master’s Program in Mathematics and Science Education (Paper), Margaret L. Niess (Oregon State University), Emily H. Van Zee (Oregon State University), Henry Gillow-Wiles (Oregon State University), Nancy Staus (Oregon State University) | Scheduled Time: Sat, Apr 9 – 12:25pm – 1:55pm Building/Room: New Orleans Marriott / Preservation Hall Studio 4 | In Session Submission: Exploring the Possibilities of Online Learning for Future Teachers and Teacher Educators

ISTE 2011 TPACK-Related Conference Sessions

1. Designing and Doing TPACK-Based Professional Development

   [Concurrent Session: Spotlight], Monday, 6/27/2011, 8:30am–9:30am Professional Learning : Professional Development Judith Harris, College of William & Mary

2. Effective Practices: TPACK, the Arts, and IT [Learning Station Session: Poster] Tuesday, 6/28/2011, 1:00pm–3:00pm | Digital-Age Teaching & Learning : Arts | Camille Dempsey, Duquesne University with Jordan Mroziak
3. Integrating TPACK into Preservice Teachers’ Learning Experiences [Research Paper: Roundtable], Monday, 6/27/2011, 4:15pm–5:15pm | Professional Learning : Teacher Education (Preservice & Advanced) | Mia Williams, University of Northern Colorado with Teresa Foulger, Tara Laughlin and TzongYin Lin
4. Remix/Reboot: Enhancing and Evolving Digital Music Curriculum through Technology [Concurrent Session: Lecture], Monday, 6/27/2011, 12:45pm–1:45pm | Digital-Age Teaching & Learning : Music | Jordan Mroziak, Duquesne University with Judith Bowman
5. Student-Driven TPACK: Implications for Development and Supervision [Learning Station Session: Poster], Monday, 6/27/2011, 11:00am–1:00pm | Digital-Age Teaching & Learning : English Language Arts | Rebecca Langrall, Parkway School District
6. There’s an App for That! iPads in Elementary Science Classrooms [Learning Station Session: Poster], Wednesday, 6/29/2011, 11:00am–1:00pm | Digital-Age Teaching & Learning : Science | Margaret Thombs, Roger Williams University with Kelly Donnell, Kristina Soprano and Li-Ling Yang
7. TPACK and the Missing Paradigm | [Research Paper: Roundtable], Monday, 6/27/2011, 4:15pm–5:15pm | Professional Learning : Teacher Education (Preservice & Advanced) | Nicholas Lux, Montana State University

8. TPACK in Teacher Education: Innovative Models that Work [Concurrent Session: Panel], Monday, 6/27/2011, 12:45pm–1:45pm | Professional Learning : Teacher Education (Preservice & Advanced) |

   Ann Cunningham, Wake Forest University with Teresa Foulger, Randy Hansen, Mia Kim Williams, Denise Schmidt, Andrew Smith and Keith Wetzel

I was recently in San Diego for the annual conference of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. I had served as a chair of the Innovation & Technology Committee for a while, and the committee invited me to participate in two different sessions. The current chairs, Glen Bull and Pamela Redmond (with Rachel Popham of the AACTE) did a super job of organizing the two sessions.

The first was a concurrent session on Integrating Technology into Teaching & Learning: TPACK’s Next Chapter. This session focused on the integration of technology, pedagogy and content knowledge, framed by review of the TPACK Handbook and the upcoming Practitioner’s Guide to TPACK. My task was quite simple really, to provide an introduction to TPACK and context for the handbook. I was preceded by Joel Colbert (former chair of the committee under whose leadership the Handbook of TPACK was published) and followed by Denise Schmidt (current member of the committee) who talked about the research they have been doing on TPACK at Iowa State University. The last speakers were Glen Bull and Pamela Redmond who spoke about the upcoming Practitioner’s Guide to TPACK. It was a pretty full room and I think all the presentations went really well.

Here are the slides of all the presentations, in pdf format.

The next day was a major forum on Preparing Millennial Educator Candidates. The session was moderated by Pam Redmond and included Colleen Kennedy who spoke about 21st Century Education: Impact and Applications of Social Networking, Richard Sterling who talked about Teaching writing in the 21st Century, Denise Schimdt speaking about Are “Our” Teachers Ready for the Millennials? and finally your’s truly who spoke about What does the future hold? I took this opportunity to share some of the work I have been doing with Kristen Kereluik on 21st Century Learning and our transdisciplinary course.

The slides for all the sessions can be found here, in pdf format.

TPACK Newsletter, Issue #8: February 2011

Welcome to a new year and to the eighth edition of the TPACK Newsletter! Please forgive our long delay in getting this “mega-issue” to you. We’ll do a lot of “catching up” with what has been happening with TPACK worldwide in this issue, so please sit back and prepare to be impressed with how quickly and far use of this construct has spread!

If you are not sure what TPACK is, please surf over to http://www.tpack.org/ to find out more.

Gratuitous Quote About Technology

“Social networking on the Internet is to socializing what reality TV is to reality.”

~Aaron Sorkin

In This Issue

-1. Gratuitous Quote About Technology
0. In This Issue (–> You are here)
1. TPACK Newsletter Update
2. Recent TPACK Publications
3. Recent TPACK Presentations
4. Recent TPACK-Related Dissertations
5. Other TPACK Resources
6. TPACK at Upcoming Conferences
7. TPACK Work in Progress
8. Other Types of TPACK
9. Learning and Doing More with TPACK
–. Un-numbered miscellaneous stuff at the end

1. TPACK Newsletter UpdateThe TPACK newsletter currently has 1072 subscribers! This represents a 67% increase during the past year.

2. Recent TPACK PublicationsBelow are recent TPACK publications that we know about. If you know of others that were published within the past several months, please let us know (tpack.news.editors@wm.edu).

Articles
An, H., & Shin, S. (2010). The impact of urban district field experiences on four elementary preservice teachers’ learning regarding technology integration. Journal of Technology Integration in the Classroom, 2(3), 101-107.

Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. Revisiting Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656-1662.

Archambault, L., Wetzel, K., Foulger, T. S., & Williams, M. K. (2010). Professional development 2.0: Transforming teacher education pedagogy with 21^st century tools. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(1), 1-4.

Baker, M. A., & Bunch, J. C. (2010). CTRL + AL T +DELE TE: Rethinking how we use technology in the AGED classroom. Agricultural Education Magazine, 83(3), 9-11.

Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C-C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ development of Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63-73.

Erdogan, A., & Sahin, I. (2010). Relationship between math teacher candidates’ Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) and achievement levels. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2707-2711.

Finger, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Albion, P. Beyond Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The importance of TPACK for informing preservice teacher education in Australia. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology 2010, 324, 114-125. Doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-15378-5_11

Guerrero, S. (2010). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(4), 132-139.

Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211-229.

Harris, J. B., Hofer, M. J., Blanchard, M. R., Grandgenett, N. F., Schmidt, D. A., van Olphen, M., & Young, C. A. (2010). “Grounded” technology integration: Instructional planning using curriculum-based activity type taxonomies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(4), 573-605.

Hur, J. W., Cullen, T., & Brush, T. (2010). Teaching for application: A model for assisting pre-service teachers with technology integration. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 18(1), 161-182.

Jang, S-J. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1744-1751.

Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259-1269.

Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2011). On learning to subvert signs: Literacy, technology and the TPACK framework. California Reader, 44(2), 12-18.

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Examining the technological pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 557-63.

LaFee, S. (2010). Taking the ‘i21? initiative. Education Digest, 76(3), 47-51.

Miller, C., Doering, A. & Scharber, C. (2010). No such thing as failure, only feedback: Designing innovative opportunities for e-assessment and technology-mediated feedback. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 21(1), 65-92. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/33184

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.

Oster-Levinz, A., & Kleiger, A. (2010). Indicator for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) evaluation of online tasks. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 11(4). Retrieved from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde40/index.htm

Özgün-Koca, A. A., Meagher, M., & Edwards, M. T. (2009/2010). Preservice teachers’ emerging TPACK in a technology-rich methods class. The Mathematics Educator, 19(2), 10-20. Retrieved from http://math.coe.uga.edu/TME/issues/v19n2/v19n2_OzgunKoca,%20Meagher,%20&%20Edwards.pdf

Pierson, M., & Borthwick, A. (2010). Framing the assessment of educational technology professional development in a culture of learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(4), 126-131.

Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching & Teacher Education, 26(4), 863-870.

Richardson, K. W. (2010). TPACK: Game on. Learning & Leading with Technology, 37(8), 34-35.

Schmidt, D., Harris, J. & Hofer, M. (2010). “Grounded” technology integration using K-6 literacy learning activity types. Learning & Leading With Technology, 37(6). 30-32.

Thompson, A. D., & Schmidt, D. (2010). Second-generation TPACK: Emphasis on research and practice. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(4), 125.

Trautmann, N. M., & MaKinster, J. G. (2010). Flexibly adaptive professional development in support of teaching science with geospatial technology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(3), 351-370.

Chapters
Doukakis, S., Chionidou-Moskofoglou, M., Mangina-Phelan, E., & Roussos, P. (2010). Measuring technological and content knowledge of undergraduate primary teachers in mathematics. In M. D. Lytras, (Ed.). Tech-Education 2010: Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 73 (pp. 405-410), Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Doukakis, S., Koilias, C., & Chionidou-Moskofoglou, M. (2010). Students’ satisfaction with an undergraduate primary education teaching practicum design on developing technological, pedagogical and mathematical knowledge. In M. D. Lytras, (Ed.). Tech-Education 2010: Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 73 (pp. 661-666), Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Harris, J. B., Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2010). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. In Schrum, L., (Ed.). Considerations on Technology and Teachers: The Best of JRTE (pp. 181-204), Eugene, OR: ISTE.

Book
“In the recently released Jossey-Bass publication, Because Digital Writing Matters by the National Writing Project, with Danielle Nicole DeVoss, Elyse Eidman-Aadahl, and Troy Hicks, these authors discuss the TPACK framework as they describe the complex process of teaching “writing” – a content area that involves many pedagogical decisions about how to teach both process and product. By exploring the ways in which writing is evolving through new technologies such as blogs, wikis, and digital stories, as well as analyzing the physical and virtual spaces in which students collaborate such as computer labs and social networks, Because Digital Writing Matters offers readers vignettes of teacher practice that can help frame their discussions and understanding about what it means to teach writing with technology.”

3. Recent TPACK PresentationsColes, D. (2010, June). An introduction to TPACK. Paper presented at the 2010 Canadian eLearning Conference, Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from http://mrcoles.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/celc-2010-an-introduction-to-tpack/

Jamieson-Proctor, R., Finger, G. & Albion, P. (2010, April). Auditing the TPACK capabilities of final year teacher education students: Are they ready for the 21st century? Paper presented at the Australian Computers in Education Conference 2010, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://acec2010.info/proposal/248/auditing-tpck-capabilities-final-year-teacher-education-students-are-they-ready-21st .pdf of paper

Jimoyiannis, A. (2010, June). Developing a Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework for science education: Implications of a teacher trainers’ preparation program. Paper presented at the Informing Science & IT Education Conference (InSITE) 2010, Cassino, Italy. Retrieved from

http://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2010/InSITE10p597-607Jimoyiannis867.pdf

4. Recent TPACK-Related DissertationsThe following TPACK-based dissertations have come to our attention recently. There may be more… (and if so, you know whom to contact with that information J).

Liaw, H. (2010). Using online primary source resources in fostering historical thinking skills: The pre-service social studies teachers’ understanding. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 71(09), (AAT 3420677).

Abstract: This dissertation entailed a qualitative case study on the confluence of technology and social studies in fostering a constructivist education. Through the examination of pre-service social studies teachers’ understanding of the online primary source resources (OPSR), three themes emerged. The first exposed the fragmented understanding of important pedagogical theories of constructivism and historical thinking among participants; the second suggested that OPSR was mostly valued by pre-service teachers for its provision of primary sources; and the third related to how pre-service teachers viewed the current state of technology and context as problematic for technology integration. Accordingly, four findings were revealed. First, the pre-service teachers in the study demonstrated a limited understanding of the application of foundational theories central to their field of study; second, there were instances of deeper appreciation of the potential of OPSR, indicating that pre-service teachers’ theoretical understanding is nascent and may deepen over time; third, the full potential of technologies such as OPSR was not recognized; and fourth, the pre-service teachers’ perceptions of school and educational system conditions tended to negatively influence their views toward the integration of technology into their teaching practices. Implications indicate that first, foundational pedagogical theories are critical with regard to technology integration in education and as such teacher preparation programs must not assume what is taught is what is learned; second, instances of deeper understanding among pre-service teachers only appeared during the application of their theoretical understandings; third, context is critical in how OPSR would be used in classrooms and such contextual issues must not be ignored by teacher preparation programs; and fourth, teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (PCK/TPCK) is critical in the integration of technology in education.

Lux, N. J. (2010). Assessing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 71(12), (AAT 3430401).

Abstract: Building on Shulman’s (1986) theory of pedagogical content knowledge that outlines distinct domains of teacher knowledge, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) has emerged as a framework for examining educational technology training in teacher preparation (Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Neiss, 2008; Shin, Koehler, Mishra, Schmidt, Baran, & Thompson, 2009). The research presented here examines the theoretical basis of TPACK and describes the process of developing the Pre-service Teacher – Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Survey (PT-TPACK Survey). The PT-TPACK Survey is an instrument constructed to measure self-perceptions of TPACK in pre-service teachers completing a “Foundations of Educational Technology Course”. The research focused on collecting evidence for the validity and reliability of the PT-TPACK survey. A pilot study, understandability study, and expert review were conducted in early stages of the research. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and reliability measures were analyzed after the survey was administered to 120 pre-service teachers. The factor structure suggests a superior model fit, as did the goodness-of-fit indices. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was equal to .013, and both the comparative fit index (CFI) and non-normed fit index (NNFI) were ? .90 (CFI=1.0, NNFI=1.0). Internal consistency between the individual factors was also strong. The resulting coefficient alpha statistics suggest instrument reliability (TPACK, ?=.903; TPK, ?=.844; PK, ?=.771; CK, ?=.774; TK, ?=.747; PCK, ?=.653). Six of the seven widely accepted hypothesized TPACK dimensions emerged in the factor structure. Technological content knowledge (TCK) was the only hypothesized dimension that did not emerge. Finally, this study recommends several reasons for the lack of the TCK dimension, some of which could have an impact on how teachers are trained to use technology.

Plair, S. K. (2010). On becoming technology fluent: Digital classrooms and middle aged teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 72(01), (AAT 3435097).

Abstract: This dissertation, organized in chapter format, is comprised of a collection of case studies designed to explain why some teachers are not prepared to meet the challenges of the National Education Technology Plan despite the pervasive evidence of technology in our personal and professional lives. The first case study is the personal history of one teacher who “battles the machine” and is reluctant to alter what works in her current practice. The next chapter is a multiple case study that examines the issues and challenges experienced teachers faced in their efforts to become more fluent in the use of educational technology. Using an extensive technology related professional development event as an intervention, the study explores teachers’ use of technology before and after the inservice, the role of professional development in building technology skills, and matters related to the sustainability of skills. Teachers stressed the need for ongoing support in the form of a knowledge broker to assure continued efficacy and proficiency while integrating technology into their content and their practice. The fourth chapter, after a five year lapse, revisits two teachers from the previous multiple case study and introduces a new tech savvy teacher who shares her experiences as a new integrator of technology. Self report is used to examine the issues and challenges these experienced teachers faced in their efforts to become more fluent in the use of educational technology. The teachers in this multiple case study participated in a number of technology related professional development interventions over a period of approximately four years. This chapter includes their reflections on the successes and failures as they continue to grapple with the challenges of increasing their technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge or TPACK and create change in their practice. Included is an essay presenting a proposal for a framework of five phases of professional development to support the federal government policies of No Child Left Behind and the National Education Technology Plan. The framework is upheld by five principles of professional development considered crucial for effectively changing teacher practice to incorporate instructional technology into the curriculum. By superimposing these principles: duration, content, active learning, and collaboration, this essay then positions technology related professional development as ongoing with the support of professional learning communities or networks and knowledge brokers as a means of sustaining and expanding the efforts teachers make toward technology fluency. The concluding chapter discusses how education systems constrain teachers’ effort or ability to changes. Recommendations are provided on how relations among teachers and institutions might be reconfigured to promote more and better professional learning and practice in technology.

(The following dissertation may be the first that was based upon Mishra & Koehler’s conceptualization of TPACK. We found it recently.)

Youmans, M. J. (2006). When, where, how, and why Berkshire County high school teachers use the Internet for teaching and learning. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 67(10), (AAT 3238849).

Abstract: This study draws on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from public and private high school teachers in Berkshire County, Massachusetts, to describe their current uses of, beliefs about, and knowledge base surrounding the Internet for teaching and learning. An underlying assumption of this study is that before the outcomes of teachers’ uses of the Internet can be addressed, there must first be a clear understanding of how teachers are actually using it for preparation, instruction, and student-directed work. 142 teachers responded to a survey about their most prevalent uses of the Internet, as well as their perceptions about both its value and the obstacles that prevent its effective deployment. Nine participants were chosen from six of the schools to provide richer detail and further examples of major trends discovered in the survey data. The grounded theory, complementary methods study elicited themes that suggest how and why the preponderance of the participants are currently using the Internet to inform and enrich their professional practice and suggest a new domain of teacher knowledge, namely technological pedagogical content knowledge. Key factors influencing teachers’ decisions about Internet use include their perceptions about its importance for teaching and learning as well as about the obstacles it poses. The study is significant both in adding to the current knowledge of how some teachers are using the Internet to enhance their craft, offering a methodological lens supporting a multiple measures approach to assessing and understanding teachers’ use of technology, and developing a theoretical framework for understanding the particular kind of knowledge Internet-using educators possess. It closes by suggesting a fruitful area for future research and professional development lies in helping teachers build their technological pedagogical content knowledge.

5. Other TPACK Resources
Tae Shin, Punya Mishra, and Matt Koehler at Michigan State University have spent considerable time and effort putting together a TPACK bibliography with about 250 entries – as Matt says, “not by any means complete, but a good start…and the most comprehensive TPACK bibliography out there” – and are hoping that their work might be of use to others.

http://mkoehler.educ.msu.edu/tpack/partial-bibliography-of-tpack-related-works/

http://www.mendeley.com/groups/522011/tpack/papers/

On the recommendation of the members of SITE’s TPACK SIG, we have established four TPACK-related email discussion lists:

• tpack.research
• tpack.teaching
• tpack.grants
• tpack.future

Instructions for how to subscribe to these lists are on the SITE TPACK SIG’s Web page: http://site.aace.org/sigs/tpack-sig.htm. (Please note that we will soon be retiring the TPACK Google Group, also in accordance with the decision made at the 2010 TPACK SIG meeting.)

Matt Koehler has posted an online version of the popular “TPACK Game,” which was created originally for use at the 2007 National Educational Technology Leadership Symposium in Washington, DC (USA). There are multiple versions of the TPACK Game circulating at present, including: Karen Richardson’s version (see new articles, above), Petra Fisser’s version (in Dutch), Michael Porter’s version, and the original version played at NTLS 2007.

Jordy Whitrmer at the Birmington Covington School, in the Birmingham Public Schools in Bloomfield Township, Michigan, USA, created a TPACK WebQuest. Jordy says, “This WebQuest is designed to first familiarize you with the TPaCK framework, then to examine and discuss examples that combine the three bases to different degrees and success, and finally to help you define the areas of interplay in your own words.” http://ignite.wikis.birmingham.k12.mi.us/TPaCK+WebQuest

Students at Michigan State University have written and filmed a clever TPACK Rap: “Jamie has a nightmare involving TPACK chasing her around the campus of Rouen Business School.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEj9eA49dzU

6. TPACK at Upcoming Conferences

We’re happy to report that there will be 51 TPACK-based sessions at the SITE 2011 conference in Nashville, Tennessee, USA, Tuesday, Monday, March 7 through Friday, March 11, 2011. We will be sending a list of each and all of these sessions in a special “TPACK Conference Edition” of the TPACK Newsletter late next week to assist your conference planning.

We’re also happy to report that there will be 12 TPACK-focuses sessions at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, Friday, April 8 through Tuesday, April 12, 2011. We will include specific information about these sessions in the upcoming special conference edition of this newsletter, too.

The Call for Participation in the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)’s annual conference (Sunday, June 26 – Wednesday, June 29, 2011 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA) specifically requested presentations that address educators’ TPACK by saying:

“We are looking for:

• Content that increases both the technical knowledge and the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of educators and teacher candidates, as well as the leadership skills of students and educators
• Systems, models, promising practices, and strategies for achieving digital-age learning in formal and informal learning environments, face to face and virtual
• Models of how to achieve the NETS and examples of the NETS in action
• Technical content that is appropriate for all levels of expertise, from beginner to advanced”

The next issue of this TPACK Newsletter will provide specific information about the 6 TPACK-based sessions that are scheduled for presentation at the ISTE conference, too.

7. TPACK Work in ProgressAt National-Louis University in Chicago (with additional campuses in Wisconsin and Florida), a TPACK faculty development project is in its third year. Funded by a grant from the Senate Faculty Development Committee (with additional funds from each department, plus the deans of the Colleges of Education and Arts and Sciences), the NLU TPACK project helps small communities of inquiry to identify shared needs, garner resources and training, and develop technology-enhanced lesson plans and units, including projects to enhance the professional development of NLU faculty and adjunct instructors. The TPACK concept serves as the conceptual framework for the project, helping teams to focus on the intersections of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. For more information, please contact Craig A. Cunningham, a member of the Technology in Education faculty, at craig.cunningham@nl.edu.

8. Other Types of TPACKOur online searches have surfaced TPCK/TPACK in both pharmacology and business, in addition to education.

TPCK is also an acronym for “Tosyl phenylalanyl chloromethyl ketone:”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tosyl_phenylalanyl_chloromethyl_ketone.PNG

(TPCK diagram)

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?doi=71466&hl=1&q=tpck (How TPCK protects injured brains in baby rats)

TPACK is also the name of a telecommunications company in Denmark:

“Since 2001, TPACK has been providing some of the world’s largest telecommunication equipment manufacturers with leading edge technology and solutions for efficient packet transport. Specifically, TPACK provides the chip solutions and the supporting software that implement the intelligence in telecom systems. TPACK’s experience and expertise in both data and telecom networks has proven to be decisive in TPACK’s success to date.”

http://www.tpack.com/about-tpack/company-overview.html

The TPACK company was acquired by Applied Micro in summer/fall 2010:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/preview/phoenix.zhtml?c=78121&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1473624&highlight=tpack

9. Learning and Doing More with TPACK
Interested in learning more about TPACK or getting more involved in the TPACK community? Here are a few ideas:

• Visit and contribute to the TPACK wiki at: http://tpack.org/

• Join the TPACK SIG at: http://site.aace.org/sigs/tpack-sig.htm

• Subscribe to the tpack.research, tpack.teaching, tpack.grants and/or tpack.future discussion lists at: http://site.aace.org/sigs/tpack-sig.htm

• Access the TPACK Learning Activity Types at: http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/

Feel free to forward this newsletter to anyone who might be interested in its contents.

Even better, have them subscribe to the TPACK newsletter by sending a blank email to sympa@lists.wm.edu, with the following text in the subject line: subscribe tpack.news FirstName LastName (of course, substituting their own first and last names for ‘FirstName’ and ‘LastName’ — unless their name happens to be FirstName LastName, in which case they can just leave it as is).

If you have a news item that you would like to contribute to the newsletter, send it along to: tpack.news.editors@wm.edu

Standard End-Matter If you have questions, suggestions, or comments about the newsletter, please send those to tpack.news.editors@wm.edu. If you are subscribed to the tpack.news email list, and — even after reviewing this impressive publication — you prefer not to continue to receive the fruits of our labors, please send a blank email message to sympa@lists.wm.edu, with the following text in the subject line: unsubscribe tpack.news

- Judi & Mark

…

for the SITE TPACK SIG leadership:

Judi Harris, Co-Chair, College of William & Mary

Mark Hofer, Co-Chair, College of William & Mary

Mario Kelly, Futon, Hunter College

Matt Koehler, Chaise Lounge, Michigan State University Punya Mishra, Recliner, Michigan State University

Last summer Matt and I created a couple of TPACK commercials for a video presentation we had been invited to make at ISTE in Denver. You can see the commercials here and here and the entire video here. Recently, Spyros Doukakis, a PhD candidate at the University of Aegean, Department of Primary Education, and also a secondary teacher of Mathematics at The American College of Greece, contacted us to let us know that he had added subtitles in Greek to one of the commercials! He also told us that he had been planning on translating and dubbing them into Greek – but for some reason felt that working on his PhD was more important! Really

So what we have below is a spoof-commercial created by a professor of Indian origin at an American university, starring a Turkish graduate student, subtitled by a graduate student in Greece! What an international production this is turning out to be. Mete Akcaoglu, a graduate student in our program, and the star of the video is on his way to international stardom! Enjoy.

From Ken Friedman & the PhD Design listserv:

The current issue of The Scientist has a story on an interactive film that helps research students and early career researchers to understand and navigate the perils of research misconduct.

Highlights: “The Lab is a choose-your-own-adventure story about an incident of apparent research misconduct. … At the outset, the viewer chooses one of four characters to follow: a grad student, a post doc, a PI, or a research integrity officer. Throughout the story, the viewer makes choices on behalf of this character, affecting the outcome. Make the right choices and misconduct is confronted and dealt with; make the wrong ones, and you’re bound for infamy when the misconduct is uncovered years later.”

The news-story is here: Misconduct and adventure

You can watch — and play — the film here: http://ori.hhs.gov/TheLab/

The film focuses on one lab in one field, but the issues and choices touch on the challenges of responsible research in many fields.

I spent a bit of time traversing the movie (from the point of view of the Post Doc) and I was impressed. The story line is complex, sophisticated and engrossing. It took a bit of effort for me to tear myself away… But I do think this is an important resource for all budding researchers, irrespective of the field they are in.

The International Conference on Indian Education: The Positive Turmoil. is being held at the India Habitat Center in New Delhi. This Habitat center is a rather cool building and, apart from academic conferences (I saw two different conferences going on at the same time), it also hosts open-air sculpture and art galleries. One of the galleries right near where the IEPT conference was being held was a photography exhibit by Sanjay Nanda. Sanjay is a graphic designer by profession and a passionate photographer in his spare time. He also runs IndiPix Gallery, what he described as “a space for contemporary art photography.” I can’t find an easy way to embed any of his photos here, so you will have to visit their website to check out Sanjay’s work. Trust me, it is will be worth your time.

May years ago I wrote an essay titled On becoming a website. It was about my experience on teaching online and I suggested somewhat facetiously that in order to be a good teacher online I needed to actually “become” the course website! I started the essay by describing the idea of a cyborg:

A cyborg is a cybernetic organism — a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction. It has been argued that we are all cyborgs now (Haraway, 1991). Be it a pacemaker installed in our hearts or a pair of contact lenses in our eyes, technologies are now an integral part of our bodies and our consciousness. … Of course these socially (and increasingly biologically) embedded technologies often become transparent and, in some sense, so deeply intertwined with our existence that we don’t even realize they exist (Brooks, 2002).

Now this idea of a cyborg was somewhat of a rhetorical move, to generate interest in the topic I was writing about. So imagine my surprise when I read the following paragraph.

They gave her The Device when she was only 2 years old. It sent signals along the optic nerve that swiftly transported her brain to an alternate universe—a captivating other world. By the time she was 7 she would smuggle it into school and engage it secretly under her desk. By 15 the visions of The Device—a girl entering a ballroom, a man dying on the battlefield—seemed more real than her actual adolescent life. She would sit with it, motionless, oblivious to everything around her, for hours on end. Its addictive grip was so great that she often stayed up half the night, unable to put it down.

When she grew up, The Device dominated her house: no room was free from it, no activity, not even eating or defecating, was carried on without its aid. Even when she made love it was the images of The Device that filled her mind. Psychologists showed that she literally could not disengage from it—if The Device could reach the optic nerve, she would automatically and inescapably be in its grip. Neuroscientists demonstrated that large portions of her brain, parts that had once been devoted to understanding the real world, had been co-opted by The Device.

What a terrible terrible story. How and why did the parents give the device to a 2 year old! Is this kind of brain damage reversible?

So what IS this device? Well turns out it is a book!

Go back and read the passage again, making that switch! How does that feel?

I had written earlier about Douglas Adams’ rules about technology

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.  (p. 95).

It seems to me that this quote, which incidentally is taken from an article in Slate Magazine, reviewing Sherry Turkle’s latest book, captures the manner in which new technologies are often seen to go against “the natural order of things.”

Whether we like it or not, we are all cyborgs now.

I just came across this sign on a wall in Bhubaneswar. Check it out, nothing less than “Tension free shiting!” All you have to do is dial a number!

Here is the sign cropped close

Here is the complete sign.

It is part of an advertisement for a packing and moving company. The painter droped the “f” in the word “shift!” I love the fact that this service is available through dialing a single phone number, from anywhere in the country and you can use any mode that you like to dial it in!