This was one of the most pleasant and professional interviews I have ever been involved in and I like how the final video has turned out. I think it is a pretty good introduction to not just the TPACK framework and our conceptualization of its development but also to our recent work on 21st century learning, creativity and trans-disciplinary learning. Enjoy.

I found out yesterday, through the magic of Google Alerts, the Bloomfield Hills AV team has released a video of that afternoon’s events. Here it is. I think they did a pretty good job of capturing, in around 30 minutes, all that occurred over a couple of hours that day. Sadly Vimeo does not let me embed the video so I am just providing a link to it here. Enjoy.

During the summer MAET courses, students in East Lansing, Michigan and Rouen, France completed a leadership tensions photography activity. Using the cognitive tools of patterning (recognizing, identifying and creating patterns) and embodied thinking (kinesthetic thinking or empathizing), students considered the tensions between seemingly contradictory ideas in education.  Following a small group discussion, the class used patterning to identify common themes and issues, creating a list of tensions that exist in educational leadership.  Each individual then chose one of those tensions and took photographs that visually depicted the tension, using a digital camera and editing software (often freely available software like Pixlr) to combine two or more images into one.  Through the utilization of embodied thinking, students adopted a concept of educational tensions and rendered a physical/kinesthetic illustration of it, using movement, balance, and the body.

Students illustrated a multitude of tensions that leaders in today’s educational world face, including online versus traditional learning, tradition versus innovation, competition versus collaboration, and support versus resistance.  Below are a few examples of student work.

This was an incredibly engaging project, that integrated the key ideas (leadership tensions) that were to be covered, with technology (digital cameras and image editing tools) and the key cognitive tools (of patterning and embodied thinking) in an open-ended and fun way. This is what we call TPACK in action!

If you are interested in exploring more examples of this project, please visit the following links.

• Rouen Leadership Tensions Examples
• East Lansing Leadership Tensions Examples

Mishra, P., & Kereluik, K. (2011). What 21st Century Learning? A review and a synthesis. Paper presented at SITE2011, Nashville TN.

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 a PDF of the publication here
• Download PDF of slides of the presentations from here…

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.

• Download PDF of the publication here
• A longer (unpublished) version can be found here

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.

TPACK Newsletter, Issue #10: May 2011

Welcome to the tenth edition of the (approximately quarterly) TPACK Newsletter! TPACK work is continuing worldwide. This document contains recent updates to that work that we hope will be interesting and useful to you, our subscribers.

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

Gratuitous Quote About Technology

Do you realize if it weren’t for Edison we’d be watching TV by candlelight?? - Al Boliska

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 Work in Progress
7. TPACK Newsletter Suggested Citation
8. Learning and Doing More with TPACK –. Un-numbered miscellaneous stuff at the end

1. TPACK Newsletter Update
The TPACK newsletter currently has 1104 subscribers! This represents a 3% increase during the last three months and a 56% increase since March 2010.

2. Recent TPACK Publications Below 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

Akkoc, H. (2011). Investigating the development of prospective mathematics teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge with regard to student difficulties: The case of radian concept. Research in Mathematics Education, 13(1), 75-76. doi: 10.1080/14794802.2011.550729 Retrieved from www.bsrlm.org.uk/IPs/ip30-3/BSRLM-IP-30-3-01.pdf

Abstract: This study investigates how two prospective mathematics teachers integrate technology into their lessons to address student difficulties. Prospective teachers took part in a teacher preparation program which aims to develop technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). As part of this program, prospective teachers participated in workshops which aimed to develop TPCK of derivative and function concepts. Following these workshops, prospective teachers conducted their own workshops during which they discussed student difficulties with various mathematical concepts such as limit, continuity, definite integral, probability and radian with their peers. They also discussed how these difficulties could be addressed during a lesson using technological tools. This paper particularly focuses on radian concept and investigates the development of two prospective mathematics teachers throughout the course in integrating technology into their lessons to address student difficulties with radian concept.

Allan, W. C., Erickson, J. L., Brookhouse, P., & and Johnson, J. L. (2010). Teacher professional development through a collaborative curriculum project – an example of TPACK in Maine. TechTrends, 54(6), 36-43, doi: 10.1007/s11528-010-0452-

Abstract: Maine’s one-to-one laptop program provides an ideal opportunity to explore conditions that optimize teacher integration of technology-focused curriculum into the classroom. EcoScienceWorks (ESW) is an ecology curriculum that includes targeted simulations and a code block programming challenge developed through an NSF-ITEST grant. The project was designed as a collaboration that included simulation software developers; middle school science teachers; the Maine laptop program; environmental educators; an external evaluator; and a lead organization experienced in teacher guided curriculum development. Thus, each of the elements of TPACK (technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge) worked together to produce the final ecology simulation-centered curriculum. In 2008-2009, the ESW curriculum became available statewide through the Maine laptop program. Partner teachers have transitioned their classrooms to more learning-centered environments through the use of technology and have become teacher leaders. The collaborative approach to technology focused curriculum development used in this project is a model for TPACK professional development.

Banasa, J.R. (2010). Teachers’ attitudes toward technology: Considerations for designing preservice and practicing teacher instruction. Community & Junior College Libraries, 16(2), 114-127. doi: 10.1080/02763911003707552

Abstract:To best design technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) related instruction for preservice teachers or for practicing teachers, community college librarians must have an accurate assessment of their audience’s attitudes towards technology. A summary, analysis, and excerpts from 225 student responses to a course reflection regarding attitude toward technology are shared. The course, Learning with Technology, was a required course in an online master in education degree program. Students were practicing teachers or certified education professionals. Results indicated the majority, 52%, had positive feelings about and were integrating technology into instruction, 28% had positive feelings but cited obstacles to integration, 13% were fully integrating technology, and 7% were not integrating technology at all. Common obstacles to technology integration included knowledge/skills, confidence, access, and time. Based on the findings, implications of and suggestions for the design of TPCK related instruction are shared.

Banister, S., & Reinhart, R. V. (2011). TPCK for impact: Classroom teaching practices that promote social justice and narrow the digital divide in an urban middle school. Computers in the Schools, 28(1), 5-26. doi: 10.1080/07380569.2011.551086 Retrieved from http://www.bgsu.edu/downloads/edhd/file91663.pdf

Abstract: U.S. schools have long struggled with what has been identified as the ?achievement gap.? While the debate ensues in regard to an explicit definition for this phenomenon, research overwhelmingly demonstrates that students of marginalized populations remain on the lower end of most measures of school success. Accordingly, advocates of social justice point to the disparities of resources, including quality teachers, for students in poverty. As a part of this movement, access to appropriate technological resources in schools has become an issue, commonly labeled the ?digital divide.? This study reviews evidence of teaching for social justice and impacting the digital divide through the analysis of classroom observations in one year at an urban middle school participating in school reform efforts.?

Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Tsai, C-C., & Tan, L. L. W. (2011). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers‘ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57(1), 1184-1193. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.007

Abstract:Within the field of educational technology, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) has been theorized as a seven-factor construct to describe teacher’s integration of information and communication technology (ICT) in their teaching. However, this framework has yet to be successfully validated through survey instruments. This paper examines the construct validity of a TPACK survey that was contextualized for the pedagogical approaches employed in a 12-week ICT course designed with reference to the TPACK framework for Singaporean primary school pre-service teachers. Using this framework, the researchers were able to uncover five of the seven TPACK constructs which were a better model fit as compared with several extant studies of TPACK surveys. Using these results, pre and post-course structural equation models were constructed to explain the relationships amongst the different constructs of teachers’ TPACK perceptions. It was found that pedagogical knowledge had a direct impact on TPACK at the beginning of the course. As teachers made connections between their technological knowledge and pedagogical knowledge to form technological pedagogical knowledge during the course, the direct relation between pedagogical knowledge and TPACK became insignificant where as the relations between pedagogical knowledge and technological pedagogical knowledge, and technological pedagogical knowledge and TPACK were strengthened. The comparison between the pre and post-course models also revealed that the pre-service teachers’ perceived relations between content knowledge and TPACK changes from insignificant to significant. The implications of these findings and suggestions to improve the construct validation of the TPACK framework are discussed in this paper.

Donnelly, D., McGarra, O. & O‘Reilly, J. (2011). A framework for teachers‘ integration of ICT into their classroom practice. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1469-1483. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.014

Abstract:When attempting to integrate any Information and Communications Technology (ICT) based resource into Post-Primary Schools (High Schools) many potential barriers must be considered. Importantly, many of these barriers revolve around the individual teacher and hence they are an important starting point in understanding the change process in schools. This work describes attempts to integrate an ICT-based resource (a Virtual Chemistry Laboratory) into some science teachers‘ practice within the Irish education system. From these experiences a working framework has been developed to describe teachers‘ level of ICT integration into their practice and the factors underpinning this. The framework raises important questions of how teachers may be effectively supported to move between descriptions within the framework. It also highlights the need for change attempts to incorporate mixed strategies for mixed teacher stances on ICT integration.

Doukakis, S., Koilias, C.,& Chionidou-Moskofoglou, M. (2011). An undergraduate primary education teaching practicum design and undergraduate primary teachers’ satisfaction on developing technological, pedagogical and mathematical knowledge. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies, 3(2-4), 180-195. Retrieved from http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/spyros-doukakis/document/4152213042/

Abstract uring the 2008-2009 spring semester, 25 fourth-year undergraduate primary teachers attended the compulsory course ‘Teaching Mathematics-Practicum Phase’. The course was organised so as to incorporate ICT and special mathematical scenarios in the teaching approaches of undergraduate primary teachers. This article presents this course’s satisfaction of participants as found in the research study. A set of powerful ordinal regression methods has been applied on a survey database. The most important results focus on the determination of the course’s weak and strong points, according to the MUSA methodology. The results show a high satisfaction level from the course. The global satisfaction level reaches 98% whereas partial (per criterion) satisfaction levels range from 90% to 97%, the lowest rate corresponding to the theoretical component of the course. These findings raise a number of research questions regarding ICT integration in undergraduate primary teachers’ teaching practice.

Jang, S.-J., & Chen, K.-C. (2010). From PCK to TPACK: Developing a transformative model for pre-service science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 553-564. doi: 10.1007/s10956-010-9222-y Retrieved from
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/f821fdffc8d376eeaeaa3113.html

Abstract:New science teachers should be equipped with the ability to integrate and design the curriculum and technology for innovative teaching. How to integrate technology into pre-service science teachers‘ pedagogical content knowledge is the important issue. This study examined the impact on a transformative model of integrating technology and peer coaching for developing technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service science teachers. A transformative model and an online system were designed to restructure science teacher education courses. Participants of this study included an instructor and 12 pre-service teachers. The main sources of data included written assignments, online data, reflective journals, videotapes and interviews. This study expanded four views, namely, the comprehensive, imitative, transformative and integrative views to explore the impact of TPACK. The model could help pre-service teachers develop technological pedagogical methods and strategies of integrating subject-matter knowledge into science lessons, and further enhanced their TPACK.

Koh, J. H. L., & Divaharan, S. (2011). Developing pre-service teachers’ technology integration expertise through the TPACK-Developing Instructional Model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 35-58. doi: 10.2190/EC.44.1.c

Abstract:This study describes the TPACK-Developing Instructional Model which prescribes an instructional process for developing pre-service teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) during …instruction [for using] information and communication technology (ICT) tools. This model proposes three phases for developing teachers’ TPACK through ICT instruction. The phases are: fostering teachers’ acceptance and technical proficiency; pedagogical modeling; and pedagogical application. An ICT instructional intervention designed with this model as its framework and its effects on the TPACK development of 74 pre-service teachers were examined. Qualitative analyses of their course reflection comments found that they predominantly developed Technological Knowledge and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge. More emphasis on subject-focused pedagogical modeling, product critique, and peer sharing may better develop their Technological Content Knowledge and TPACK. Future developments of the TPACK-Developing Instructional model are discussed.

Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2009). Three metacognitive approaches to training pre-service teachers in different learning phases of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(5), 465-485. doi: 10.1080/13803610903444550

Abstract:Our study investigated 3 metacognitive approaches provided during different phases of learning technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) in a Web-based learning environment. These metacognitive approaches were based on self-question prompts (Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003) which appeared in pop-up screens and fostered the Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) of pre-service teachers (n = 144) through 1 of the 3 learning phases (Zimmerman, 2000): “planning,” “action and performance,” and “evaluation.” Four measures (pre/post) were administered in the study: SRL self-report questionnaires in the contexts of pedagogical learning and teaching and TPCK in the comprehension and design lessons. Mixed quantitative and qualitative analyses showed that fostering students’ SRL through the “evaluation” phase was the most effective for the pre-service teachers’ perceived SRL in both the learning and teaching contexts and for their TPCK (comprehension and design lessons). Furthermore, students from the planning approach outperformed the students from the action approach in most of the SRL and TPCK measures.

Martin, O. (2011). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators [Review]. Learning, Media & Technology, 36(1), 91-93. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2011.549829

Mishra, P., Koehler, M., & Henriksen, D. (2011). The seven trans-disciplinary habits of mind: Extending the TPACK framework towards 21st century learning. Educational Technology, 51(2), 22-28.

Abstract:This article examines the concept of transformative learning, with a focus on the importance of trans-disciplinary thinking (cognitive skills that cross disciplines) and new technologies in creating 21st century learning and transformative teaching. The article introduces the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework as a way to develop the specialized knowledge, skills, and understanding that teachers must have to become effective classroom constructors of transformative learning experiences. The authors note seven cognitive tools needed for success in the new millennium, within this TPACK framework. To illustrate and describe these skills, they offer examples of how teachers can repurpose digital technologies to use these thinking skills toward building exciting transformative learning experiences, across a variety of subject matters. The authors explore the implications for research and practice.

Polly, D. (2011). Examining teachers‘ enactment of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in their mathematics teaching after technology integration professional development. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(1), 37-59. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/34610

Abstract:Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) has been advanced as a construct to describe teachers‘ understandings related to effectively teaching with technology. This study examined the development of TPACK of two teachers during their mathematics teaching after participating in a learner-centered professional development (LCPD) project designed to support technology integration. Inductive analyses of classroom observations and interviews indicate that both teachers were able to enact aspects of TPACK in their classroom. However, teachers‘ use of technology only developed students‘ higher-order thinking skills and conceptual understanding in limited ways. Implications for future professional development projects and the TPACK model are also discussed.?

Polly, D., McGee, J. R. & Sullivan, C. (2010). Employing technology-rich mathematical tasks to develop teachers‘ Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(4), 455-472. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/33276

Abstract:While technology has potential to improve the teaching and learning of mathematics, research indicates that teachers struggle in their efforts to implement technology-rich mathematical tasks in their classrooms. Effective technology integration in mathematics requires teachers to be able to apply their classroom knowledge related to mathematics content, pedagogies, educational technologies and the interplay between those aspects of knowledge. In recent years, Technological and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) has emerged as a construct to describe teachers‘ knowledge related to effectively integrating technology. In this paper, we use the framework to consider how professional development programs can develop teachers‘ TPACK through the exploration of technology-rich mathematical tasks.?

Salvado, D. F., Rolando, L. G. R., & Rolando, R. F. R. (2010). Aplicação do modelo de conhecimento tecnológico, pedagógico do conteúdo (TPCK) em um programa on-line de formação continuada de professores de Ciências e Biolog. Revista Electrónica de Investigación en Educación en Ciencias, 5(2), 31-43. Retrieved from http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract&id=689101

Abstract: This paper presents a description with quantitative results of the profile and participation of teachers in the online program for Biology teachers at CECIERJ Foundation in the state of Rio de Janeiro. Our main focus is to show the recurring pattern of teachers who participated in the different course models within the possibilities of technological, pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK), used integrated with or isolated from different courses. In addition, discuss the use of this knowledge base in teacher training programs in the areas of Sciences and Biology. In 2008 and 2009, there was a significant increase in the number of the participants who concluded and were approved and a decrease of 14.1% in the dropout rate. The reason for the increase in the participation rate is related to the changes implemented in the virtual environment of the courses. The approaches of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and technological, pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) probably attracted more teachers to participate. In contrast, just the pedagogical knowledge (PK) and content knowledge (PCK) models had a lower dropout rate. Although the TPCK model attracted more [teachers‘ participation] (60.2%), it had a higher rate of dropout, probably because it requires teachers to learn in a knowledge base that is different from what they are used to or have been trained in initially. The combined approach of technological, pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) has a strong theoretical background in international literature and demonstrates an importance in building a focused curriculum for the initial and continuing training of teachers.?

Tee, M. Y. & Lee, S. S. (2011). From socialisation to internalisation: Cultivating technological pedagogical content knowledge through problem-based learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 89-104. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/tee.pdf

Abstract:Recent studies on technology have shifted from the emphasis on technology skills alone to integrating pedagogy and content with technology – what Mishra and Koehler (2005) call technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Deeper understanding on how TPACK can be cultivated is needed. This design-based research explored how an improvised, problem-based learning approach guided by the SECI framework (socialisation, externalisation, combination, internalisation) can help in-service teachers to cultivate TPACK. Data were collected via self-progress surveys, reflections by the in-service teachers, student produced artifacts, records of overall course design, and log entries by the instructor. Based on the survey data, teachers believed that they had developed TPACK. By comparing the qualitative data from two groups, it was discovered that teachers became better positioned to use TPACK more fruitfully after their mental models moved towards Biggs‘s Level 2 and 3 approaches in teaching. The course created critical but safe opportunities for teachers to better understand that technology in itself is not likely to improve ineffective teaching practices; and, in selecting technology, teachers may have to reevaluate their teaching practices and to rethink the nature of the subject that they teach.?

Chapters

Spires, H., Zheng, M., & Pruden, M. (in press). New technologies, new horizons: Graduate student views on creating their technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). In K. Moyle & G. Wijngaards (Eds.), Student reactions to learning with technologies: Perceptions and outcomes. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Retrieved from
http://www.fi.ncsu.edu/assets/research_papers/new-literacies-collaborative/new-technologies-new-horizons-graduate-student-views-on-creating-their-technological-pedagogical-content-knowledge-tpack.pdf

Abstract:The purpose of this chapter is to present graduate students‘ views of their Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) development. These graduate students are also teachers. Data was collected using a mixed method approach founded on the TPACK Framework and social network analysis. Koehler and Mishra (2006) claim that effective teaching with technology requires TPACK, or an ability to integrate content, pedagogy and technology flexibly during the act of teaching. As part of a graduate course on new literacies and media, participants were required to design and implement lessons that incorporated a range of technologies, produce written reflections about their experiences, and engage in online interactions with participants in the class. Qualitative results from participants‘ written reflections revealed four themes relative to TPACK. Additionally, a social network analysis demonstrated a positive relationship between participants‘ views on their TPACK development and their interaction patterns within the online learning environment. This study shows that the TPACK framework can be a useful tool, giving educators a productive way to think about technology integration as they navigate the rapid changes prompted by emerging technologies.

Wentworth, N., Graham, C. R., & Monroe, E. E. (2009). TPACK development in a teacher education program. In L. T. W. Hin & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 level: Issues and challenges (pp. 823-838). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Retrieved from http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/chapter.aspx?titleid=35953

Abstract: The teacher education program at Brigham Young University (BYU) includes three stages of development in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Thompson & Mishra, 2007). The first stage consists of experience in a technology course with sections specific to early childhood education, elementary education, and secondary content areas. The next stage includes a series of methods courses in which instructors expand on the work of the introductory technology course. The third stage of technology development occurs during the final field experience. The candidates complete a Teacher Work Sample (TWS) (Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality, 2001) that must have a technology component. At each stage our candidates have consistent criteria for how technology should be appropriately used in active learning. These criteria are key to the lessons candidates develop that incorporate technology. This chapter describes each stage and how our program has worked to improve technology understanding of our candidates.?

3. Recent TPACK Presentations

Barrett, A. (2010, October). Patterns of technological pedagogical knowledge and self-efficacy in preservice teachers. Paper presented at the 2010 Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) International Convention, Anaheim, California.

Abstract:If perceived Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) is not accompanied by actual TPK, educational practice can be negatively impacted. This study measured preservice teachers‘ (N=97) TPK and associated self-efficacy. Responses were analyzed using MAPSAT (Frick, 1990) to find the frequency of relevant patterns. Preservice teachers early in their program were found to be over twice as likely to be overconfident in their TPK ability (high self-efficacy, low knowledge) than were those late in their program.?

Carbonara, D. (2010, October). Cyber learning: A curriculum development doctoral course using the TPCK model. Paper presented at the 2010 Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) International Convention, Anaheim, California.

Abstract:This presentation documents TPCK in a Cyber Learning environment. It explains the use of TPCK to Design, Develop and Implement a doctoral course in curriculum development. It articulates the use of AECT standards as the Content of the course and the use of a LMS to teach about that Content. This non-trivial presentation of TPCK in a Cyber Learning environment helps to illuminate the use of TPCK in higher education teacher preparation and formation programs.

Hu, C., & Fyfe, V. (2010, December). Impact of a new curriculum on pre-service teachers’ Technical, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Paper presented at Ascilite 2010 Conference, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/Ascilite%20conference%20proceedings%202010/Chun_Hu-concise.pdf

Abstract: This paper reports some preliminary findings of a formative evaluation on the impact of a new curriculum on pre-service teachers? technical, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). It discusses the design principles employed and its implementation process. A survey adapted from Schmidt et al. (2009) was administered at the beginning and completion of the course. The post-course survey showed increase in pre-service teachers? self-reported ratings in technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Implications are discussed.?

Jang, S.-J. (2011, April). Developing the TPACK of secondary science teachers using the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual International Conference, Orlando, Florida.

Abstract:Many studies related to the use of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) in educational settings have shown that IWB technology can result in enhanced presentations and in the development of student motivation and student performance. However, the relationship between the use of IWBs and Technological Pedagogical Content and Knowledge (TPACK) by teachers is yet to be fully investigated and understood. The purpose of this study was to integrate IWB technology and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers in real classrooms. An IWB-based peer coaching model was developed. Participants of this study included four in-service science teachers. Sources of data included written assignments, reflective journals and interviews. The results displayed three major findings. First, science teachers used IWBs as instructional tools to share their subject matter knowledge and to express students‘ understanding. Second, the IWBs helped the science teachers who encountered teaching difficulties in the traditional classroom better implement their representational repertoires and instructional strategies. Finally, the proposed model of integrating IWBs and peer coaching can develop the TPACK of science teachers. The research implications of this study are provided along with suggestions.?

Kaya, Z., Kaya, O. N., Yilayaz, O., Aydemir, S., & Karakaya, D. (2011, April). Exploring the pre-service science and technology teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) and classroom practices involving the topic of photosynthesis and cellular respiration. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual International Conference, Orlando, Florida.

Abstract:The purpose of this study was to explore the Pre-service Science and Technology Teachers’ (PSTs) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) and their teaching practices in real classroom settings involving the topic of photosynthesis and cellular respiration. This study also investigated the relationships among the components of PSTs’ TPCK and practical knowledge in middle school classrooms. 41 randomly selected PSTs (19 females and 22 males) in their final semester in a science teacher education program participated in the study. Data were collected from multiple sources, including open-ended questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, lesson plans, drawings for the PSTs’ TPCK and classroom observation protocol, video records and field notes for the PSTs’ teaching practices in middle school science classrooms. After exploring the PSTs’ TPCK, teaching practices of the PSTs in science classrooms in four public middle schools were investigated. Findings obtained from the data showed that PSTs were lack of sufficient conceptual knowledge and views on nature of science and hold general alternative conceptions. It was found that PSTs’ understandings of students’ learning difficulties and topic-specific technological knowledge were very low. Data related to the PSTs’ teaching practices in the middle school science classrooms indicated a success rate of about 42% – 57%.

Roberts, P. (2011, March). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in history education. Paper presented at the
Building Bridges for Historical Learning: Connecting Teacher Education and Museum Education Symposium, University of Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. Retrieved from  http://vimeo.com/18980418

Robertshaw, M. B. (2010, October). Teacher professional development: describing teacher Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge through the use of a rubric. Paper presented at the 2010 Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) International Convention, Anaheim, California.

Abstract:Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) is a framework to describe the knowledge teachers use when teaching with technology. Professional development workshops that help teachers to better teach with technology should aim to develop this knowledge, but in order to do there must be a way to measure TPACK. This paper describes a rubric developed to describe teachers‘ TPACK in the context of a workshop that helps teachers to teach with online learning resources.?

At the annual meeting of the Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE) in March 2011, the SITE TPACK SIG presented the first annual Thompson TPACK Paper Awards, named to honor Ann Thompson of Iowa State University. (More information about the award is online here: http://ctlt.iastate.edu/spotlight/?p=107). Awardees included:

• Aaron Doering, Charles Miller, & Cassie Scharber, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Designing with and for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Evolution of GeoThentic
• Candace Figg and Kamini Jaipal, Brock University, St. Catharine‘s, Ontario. Developing a Survey from a Taxonomy of Characteristics for TK, TCK, and TPK to Assess Teacher Candidates‘ Knowledge of TPACK?
• Mark Hofer, College of William & Mary, Neal Grandgenett, University of Nebraska-Omaha, Judi Harris, College of William & Mary, Kathy Swan, University of Kentucky. Testing a TPACK-Based Technology Integration Observation Instrument
• Karsten Krauskopf, Carmen Zahn, & Friedrich Hesse Knowledge Media Research Center, Tuebingen, Germany. Leveraging the Affordances of YouTube: Pedagogical Knowledge and Mental Models of Technology Affordances as Predictors for Pre-Service Teachers‘ Planning for Technology Integration
• Irina Lyublinskaya & Nelly Tournaki, CUNY College of Staten Island, NY. The Effects of Teacher Content Authoring on TPACK and on Student Achievement in Algebra: Research on Instruction with the TI-Nspire Handheld
• Maggie Niess, Emily van Zee, Henry Gillow-Wiles, & Nancy Staus Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR. Advancing K-8 Teachers‘ STEM Education for Teaching Interdisciplinary Science and Mathematics Teaching With Technologies?

The professional development company  Powerful Learning Practice facilitated a series of online PD sessions for teachers and administrators about TPACK in multiple content areas called  TPACK Fridays. Sessions addressed TPACK and ISTE‘s NETS in specific content areas, and were scheduled between April 2010 and February 2011.

4. Recent TPACK-Related Dissertations

Guzey, S. S. (2011). Science, technology, and pedagogy: Exploring secondary science teachers’ effective uses of technology. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 71(10), (AAT 3422550).

Abstract: Technology has become a vital part of our professional and personal lives. Today we cannot imagine living without many technological tools such as computers. For the last two decades technology has become inseparable from several areas, such as science. However, it has not been fully integrated into the field of education. The integration of technology in teaching and learning is still challenging even though there has been a historical growth of Internet access and available technology tools in schools (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2006). Most teachers have not incorporated technology into their teaching for various reasons such as lack of knowledge of educational technology tools and having unfavorable beliefs about the effectiveness of technology on student learning. In this study, three beginning science teachers who have achieved successful technology integration were followed to investigate how their beliefs, knowledge, and identity contribute to their uses of technology in their classroom instruction. Extensive classroom observations and interviews were conducted. The findings demonstrate that the participating teachers are all intrinsically motivated to use technology in their teaching and this motivation allows them to enjoy using technology in their instruction and keeps them engaged in technology use. These teachers use a variety of technology tools in their instruction while also allowing students to use them, and they posit a belief set in favor of technology. The major findings of the study are displayed in a model which indicates that teachers’ use of technology in classroom instruction was constructed jointly by their technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge; identity; beliefs; and the resources that are available to them and that the internalization of the technology use comes from reflection. The study has implications for teachers, teacher educators, and school administrators for successful technology integration into science classrooms.?

Hastings, T. A. (2010). Factors that predict quality classroom technology use. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 71(02), (AAT 3393088).

Abstract: Despite technological advancements intended to enhance teaching and learning in the 21st century, numerous teacher and school factors continue to impede quality classroom technology use. Determining the effectiveness of educational technology is challenging and requires a detailed understanding of multifaceted, complex, contextual relationships. The purpose of this correlational study was to identify factors that predict quality classroom technology use and inform educators about effective technology integration. The researcher analyzed both Technology-Related (Risk-taking Behaviors and Comfort with Technology, Perceived Benefits of Using Technology in the Classroom, Beliefs and Behaviors about Classroom Technology Use, Teacher Support for Technology Use, Teacher Technology Proficiency, and Technology-Related Professional Development) and Non-Technology-Related (Teacher Self-Efficacy, Teaching Philosophy, Teaching Professionalism: Hours Beyond Contract, and Teaching Professionalism: Years Teaching Experience) variables in regard to Teacher, Student, and Overall Technology Use. Five research questions were developed to investigate factors of quality classroom technology use.

This study relied primarily upon two frameworks to identify factors that predict and a method of measuring quality classroom technology use. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) is a conceptually-based theoretical framework for understanding the complex relationships between Technology, Pedagogy, and Content that pertain to classroom technology use. In addition, the study also utilized a framework, the Tiers of Technology Integration into the Classroom Indicators (TTICI), which was developed by the Washington State Technology Integration into the Curriculum Working Group (2005). The researcher applied the TTICI framework in order to generate technology integration scores, based upon levels (low, moderate, high) of quality classroom technology use.

Two online surveys were administered to 280 K-12 public school teachers in Northwest Ohio. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all five research questions and inferential statistics, including correlation and multiple regression, t-test of independent samples, and an ANOVA were calculated for research questions 3-5. The study revealed that Technology-Related factors generated better models in predicting technology use than Non-Technology-Related factors. The factors that best predict weighted technology use were: (1) Beliefs and Behaviors about Classroom Technology Use; (2) Technology Proficiency in Productivity Software, and (3) Perceived Benefits of Using Technology in the Classroom. A few, culminating themes have emerged from the literature review and data analysis of the results. The study concludes that: (1) teachers, in general, are still not using technology effectively; (2) technology-related professional development is essential to promoting quality technology use; (3) measuring classroom technology use is a complex, multifaceted process; and (4) educators must become reflective practitioners in an effort to promote quality classroom technology use.

McCrory, M. R. (2010). An exploration of initial certification candidates’ TPACK and mathematics-based applications using touch device technology. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 72(05), (AAT 3447134).

Abstract: This qualitative research study employed a multiple-case study approach to describe the experiences of a group of Initial Certification Candidates (ICCs) as they participated in explorations of readings and third-party applications (apps) run on touch screen technology devices. The group of ICCs was comprised of two Undergraduate Teacher Candidates (UTCs) that were in the student teaching semester of the secondary education program and one Graduate Teacher Candidate (GTC) that was an alternate route teacher placed in a high-needs area as part of a graduate-level program. The explorations were designed to augment the ICCs’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) as they progressed through the six-week long study. The researcher found that each of the ICCs experienced some development of their TPACK even though their perceptions differed on whether the readings or the app explorations were most beneficial to their development. There were also differences in the experiences of the UTCs and the GTC as the GTC, a more experienced teacher, preferred the app explorations over the readings. Alternatively, the UTCs favored the readings and the pedagogical methods that the readings provided them. The ICCs also indicated that they would prefer to use touch technology in their classroom. Future directions for further research are given.

Scott, L. C. (2009). Through the wicked spot: A case study of professors’ experiences teaching online. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 70(11), (AAT 3379753).

Abstract: Due to the exponential growth in demand for online courses, there is a need to better understand how to prepare faculty to successfully teach in the online environment. Based on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, this study examined how two professors with different levels of online teaching experience integrated technology, pedagogy, and content into their online courses. In addition, connections between TPACK and the Concerns-Based Adoption Model were discovered. This two-case study included questionnaires, document analysis, and screen-capture elicitation–a new method for observing online courses. Extensive online teaching experience was not found to be necessary for achieving TPACK. A more important factor was professors’ understanding of how to use the technology to support their content in the online environment.?

Wells, E. C. (2009). Michigan State University Extension educators’ perceptions of the use of digital technology in their work. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 71(02), (AAT 3381427).

Abstract: This research study examined Michigan State University Extension educators’ perceptions of the use of digital technology in their work. It used a mixed method of research which included a mailed survey and interviews of selected respondents. A census survey using Dillman’s Total Design method was sent to 290 field staff of Michigan State University Extension. Of these, 272 completed and returned the survey instrument for a 94% rate of return. Semi structured interviews were conducted with 15 of the respondents to provide in-depth qualitative data to enrich the understanding of the issues for the researcher. The mailed survey instrument was examined for validity by a panel of experts and pilot tested on scale items to assess reliability. The mailed survey included questions on access to technology both at work and at home, preparation for the use of technology, actual use of technology, usefulness and ease of use, confidence and comfort in use and general and technical support for the use of technology. Low, medium and high total use respondent were compared and analyzed. Results show that although Extension Educators consider themselves to be well prepared to use technology and said it was highly useful to them in their work, most use of technology was limited to e-mail, word processing, file attachments and cell phones. Only a small minority use web technology, wikis or had published educational materials on a website or the MSUE portal. Staff sometimes furnished their own digital technology tools if they thought they were highly useful. Barriers to use of newer technologies were sited as lack of access, lack of support, lack of time to learn new technologies. Low users sometimes said they would only use technology if it was required and they preferred one-on-one tutoring to learn how to use technology. Low users recognized that they were themselves a barrier to the use of technology. Medium users said clientele preferred face-to-face education and would not use technology. They often viewed technology as “somebody else’s problem”. High users were the only group to use web based digital technology and they were able to integrate the three spheres of Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK model of technology use; expertise in technology, pedagogy and content. High users were more apt to be self taught, client oriented and to have a grasp of the affordances of various technology applications. They preferred advanced classes on web page design, as well as photo and video editing and production. Recommendations were to provide local and regional training which includes practical ways to use technology to enhance programming, identify regional sources of support, integrate technology use into the MSUC culture and encourage the use of technology by highlighting creative solutions to use and providing opportunities for playful use. Better access must be provided and technology support should be easily accessible. Further research recommendations include case studies of individual counties, case studies of high users, research on difference by programming area and the development of documented technology solution to programming needs which could be accessed by educators looking for ideas.?

Wilson, M. (2011). Teachers’ professional growth: The blending of technology, pedagogy and content. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 72(05), (AAT 3444791).

Abstract: The integration of technology into content area teaching while taking into account state standards is a continuing challenge for secondary teachers. To address this challenge, six high school teachers participated in one-on-one tutoring sessions conducted by the researcher. The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), which posits that teachers add technology into their practice by blending it with content and pedagogy, served as the theoretical framework and guided implementation of the project. During the one-on-one tutoring sessions, which occurred weekly in hour-long sessions for a five- to eight-week period, teachers selected the focus of the training sessions. To assess teacher perceptions of efficacy quantitative data were gathered prior to and following the intervention using an on-line survey tool. Although pre- to post-intervention scores on the survey increased, the difference was not significant. With respect to the qualitative data four themes emerged. First, there were specific processes and patterns that emerged within the sessions related to the TPACK framework. Teachers selected either technology or content to initiate sessions. Teachers did not begin sessions with high yield pedagogical strategies as a focus. Second, one-on-one tutoring fostered an initial sense of community, and as the project progressed, a community of practice emerged. Third, challenges emerged related to technology and high yield pedagogical strategies. At times technology did not work or teachers expressed there was too much to grasp and apply to their practice. Additionally, the appropriate applications of high yield instructional strategies also presented challenges to participants. Fourth, based on their participation in the project, teachers expressed an increased sense of efficacy with respect to conducting their work. The discussion was focused on how teachers created a community of practice to support their professional growth, which influenced efficacy for teaching as they became increasingly effective in blending technology, pedagogy and content.

5. Other TPACK Resources

• Claire Kilbane, an associate professor at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio (USA), created and posted a delightful video introducing TPACK entitled TPACK 101 (http://vimeo.com/16291486).
• A clever stop-motion video about TPACK was posted on YouTube by ?YoNameTho? on May 16, 2011:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hWulnjwdsc. (If you are the creator of this piece, please message us at tpack.news.editors@wm.edu so that we can give you credit for your contribution in the next newsletter.)
• An insightful and thought-provoking blog entry about TPACK and its future was posted by Ian Mergard, a preservice high school teacher studying at the University of Canberra in Australia.
• As first announced in issue #8 of the TPACK Newsletter, Tae Shin at the University of Central Missouri and Punya Mishra & 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 SITE TPACK SIG meeting.)

6. TPACK Work in Progress

Charoula Angeli and  Nicos Valanides are currently accepting manuscripts for potential publication in an upcoming special issue on Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in the Journal of Educational Computing Research. The call can be found here: http://jrnledcompresearch.com/index.php/jecr/announcement/view/3
[They] would be happy to receive your manuscripts.

Teaching Teachers for the Future http://www.altc.edu.au/ttf/ (See TPACK link near the top of the page.)

“This substantial and innovative $7.8m national Teaching Teachers for the Future (TTF) project, financed by DEEWR through the ICT Innovation Fund (ICTIF) under the Digital Strategy for Teachers and School Leaders strategy, specifically targets systematic change in the Information and Communication Technology in Education (ICTE) proficiency of graduate teachers across Australia.

The project team is led by the 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.

The project focuses on enabling pre-service teachers to achieve and demonstrate (upon graduation) competence in the effective and innovative use of ICT in education to improve student learning. It aims to achieve this through the systematic embedding of an ICTE dimension in:

- pre-service teacher education curriculum, pedagogies, assessment, professional experience,

- university classroom and self-study resources,

- the national program accreditation framework and the Graduate Teacher Standards, and

- national professional learning networks of ICT and curriculum methods experts within and across the Institutions.”

Henrico County Schools [in Virginia, USA have] adopted “TPACK as the framework for professional development and 21st century learning in the Henrico County Schools System. Henrico County is one of the largest and earliest districts to pioneer and implement a one-to-one initiative. They have adopted this model as [a] conceptual framework to guide their progress towards …21st century learning.  The following video will set the stage to provide insight into how this school district uses technology for relevant and real-world learning.” Source: Using TPACK as a Framework for Tech PD, Integration and Assessment. by Lisa Nielsen http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com/2011/03/using-tpack-as-framework-for-tech-pd.html (From the Tech & Learning TL Advisor Blog)

The Instructional Technology Standards that were proposed by the  Georgia Professional Standards Commission‘s Instructional Technology Task Force in December 2010 were based upon TPACK. See the proposed standards online here:  http://www.gapsc.com/policies_guidelines/documents/Instructional_Technology_Standards.pdf

7. TPACK Newsletter Suggested Citation

Thanks to Lisa Winebrenner, who wrote to suggest that we suggest a citation format for you academic types‘ who might want to cite something that appears in this humble virtual publication. Our reading of the most recent (6th edition) of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association suggests that the citation should look like this:

Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (Eds.). (2011, May 21). TPACK newsletter issue #10: May 2011 [Electronic mailing list message]. Retrieved from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/research/tpck/newsletter-archive/

8. 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 taxonomies at:  http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/
• Access two tested TPACK assessment instruments at: http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/Assessments
Please 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:

Candace Figg, Co-Chair, Brock University
Mark Hofer, Co-Chair, College of William & Mary
Judi Harris, Wing Chair, College of William & Mary
Mario Kelly, Futon, Hunter College
Matt Koehler, Chaise Lounge, Michigan State University
Punya Mishra, Recliner, Michigan State University

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.

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!

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.

Click here to view the embedded video.

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)

Click here to view the embedded video.

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

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.

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

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.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I am heading off to India tomorrow and will be gone for approximately two weeks. The main reason for this trip is to attend the International Conference on Indian Education: The Positive Turmoil in New Delhi. I am scheduled to present and act as a resource person for a Round Table on Reforms in Teacher Education. I think this will be an extremely interesting conference and I look forward to learning a lot, as well as getting to meet some interesting people.

I will also be going to  Bangalore to meet with people at the Azim Premji Foundation (I had blogged about a recent visit by the CEO’s the Foundation here, and you can find out more about what they do in this news story). We are putting the final touches on a collaboration between the College of Education at Michigan State with the upcoming Azim Premji University. This is an exciting new initiative for the Foundation and I am glad that we (here at MSU) can be a part of it.

So I would request you to take a moment to go ahead and vote for her. It’s really easy. You can send an SMS or use Skype-SMS and send “WOLF” (without the quotes) to 07950 080 667 (if you are calling from within UK) or +44 7950 080 667 if from outside UK.

That’s it. Its that easy.

To see all the finalists, check out the Learning Without Frontiers 2011 Award Finalists and here is a link to Leigh’s info on their website.

So what are you waiting for? Vote for Leigh – send WOLF to 07950 080 667 (+44 7950 080 667 NON-UK)

Voting ends midnight UK time on January 4th, so hurry.

Thanks in anticipation