Punya Mishra’s Web

The interest in the TPACK framework has led to a upsurge in ways of measuring TPACK development. Matt, Tae Shin and I recently published a survey paper on different ways of measuring TPACK, abstract and title given below.

I was particularly pleased with the title we came up with for the chapter. How often do you get a chance to reference one of your favorite poems in an academic article. [See here for the poem by Elizabeth Barrett Browning that served as an inspiration for our title.] Incidentally, there is another inside joke buried somewhere in the chapter – but I will leave that for you to discover

Title: Koehler, M. J., Shin, T.S., & Mishra, P. (2011). How do we measure TPACK? Let me count the ways. In R. N. Ronau, C.R. Rakes, & M. L. Niess (Eds.). Educational Technology, Teacher Knowledge, and Classroom Impact: A Research Handbook on Frameworks and Approaches. Information Science Reference, Hershey PA.

Abstract: In this chapter we reviewed a wide range of approaches to measure Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). We identified recent empirical studies that utilized TPACK assessments and de- termined whether they should be included in our analysis using a set of criteria. We then conducted a study-level analysis focusing on empirical studies that met our initial search criteria. In addition, we conducted a measurement-level analysis focusing on individual measures. Based on our measurement- level analysis, we categorized a total of 141 instruments into five types (i.e., self-report measures, open-end questionnaires, performance assessments, interviews, and observations) and investigated how each measure addressed the issues of validity and reliability. We concluded our review by discussing limitations and implications of our study.

Incidentally, this handbook has a bunch of really interesting pieces – see here for more details about the book and the chapters.

I recently received this email:

Dear Mr. Mishra,

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Alphabets in cracks
• Faces we see

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

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

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

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

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

take care ~ punya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy!

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

My friend and colleague Leigh Wolf forwarded me this article on Edward Tufte: The Many Faces (And Sculptures) Of Edward Tufte. I have been a fan of information design guru Edward Tufte’s work for years (decades?). I love his emphasis on clarity and simplicity in presenting information. I love the fact that he designs and publishes his own books (so that he can have full control over each and every aspect of the presentation). What I didn’t know of was his playful artistic side. It turns out that ET (as he is known) is also an artist, crafting giant metal sculptures in his “back yard” (if you can call the hundreds of acres that stretch behind his house a “back yard!”).

Over the past few years I have been thinking quite hard about the idea that creative people are not creative in just one area but rather tend to play within and across multiple disciplines or areas. Robert and Michele Root-Bernstein have in their book Sparks of Genius often talked about how the most creative scientists are polymaths, often having artistic and other interests that go beyond their immediate professional interests. In fact they argue, and I would tend to agree with them, that creativity cannot be forced into one box or domain. Creative individuals are curious about everything and often engage in creative activities in multiple areas, though they may specialize in just one area (usually the domain they are most known for).

This is true for the most creative people I know. For instance, consider Douglas Hofstadter (best known for his book Godel, Escher & Back and is work in Artificial Intelligence) dabbles in everything from mathematics to music, wordplay to art. Similarly Scott Kim (best know as a puzzle game designer) creates ambigrams and composes music, plays the drums and teaches mathematics using dance!

In my own way I have tried to do the same. Everything I do, from creating ambigrams to teaching, from photography to developing keynote presentations, from being a parent to advising students on their research, seems to me to be connected and inter-woven. I think my success as a researcher and scholar (to whatever extent I have been successful) derives from this “dabbling” across disciplines.

What is sad, however, is how much such “dabbling” is frowned upon. Through high-school and college, through graduate school and even as a faculty member, I have been advised, always by by well-meaning people, to focus, to find my niche, to become an expert on one thing. I have resisted it, mainly because knowing just one thing, seems, at least to me, such an impoverished way of being.

And I understand why I have received the advice I have. We live in a specialized world. A world where expertise is valued.  And an expert, after all, is someone who knows more and more about less and less. There is no space for dabbling in this world of.

But I wonder about that. I have a friend who is a successful professor of civil engineering. Turns out, that as he was growing up, what he really wanted to be, was a chef! I haven’t had a chance to talk to him about this but I wonder how his vision of being a chef influences what he does as a researcher and a teacher? Does it contribute (in some subconscious manner) to his work? Or has he suppressed it completely?

Either way I see it as a tragedy, in the first case because we haven’t developed a way of speaking of these influences, and in the second case because a possible, fruitful career was nipped in the bud.

The sad thing is that I am seeing school do the same thing to my kids, in fact to most kids I know. NCLB has not helped either. Don’t get me wrong. This is not an argument for some form of dilletantism (dabbling for the sake of dabbling). Not at all. What I am recommending (thanks to the Roob-Bernstein’s for this term) is polymathy. One of my students, Danah Henriksen, is currently working on a dissertation on looking for polymathy in teachers. As she says:

“Polymathy” may be thought of as an informed enthusiasm for more than one field of knowledge or expertise, or excellence in several realms that might seem distant from each other.  It has been suggested that what makes polymaths so successful and fluidly creative is an ability to cross-pollinate ideas and information.  People who open their minds to, and who learn from, multiple knowledge areas can apply new information and unique ways of thinking from one discipline into another.

This for me is the biggest reason for supporting such playing around in multiple areas. These experiences at the fringes (so to speak) of our professional lives, provide us with newer ways of being in the world. They allow us to see the world in new ways. They allow us to question things the field may have taken for granted. Just as Tufte says at the end of the piece, my goal, is to “make people see a little differently.” Turns out one of the best and easiest ways of doing so is by seeing through different disciplinary eyes.

We need to provide better opportunities for our students to do the same.

Martin Gardner, 1914 – 2010

Martin Gardner died five days ago. Gardner was an influential writer about mathematics and was one of the greatest influences on me (and my friends) as I was growing up. His recreational mathematics column was the main reason I subscribed to the Scientific American back in high school. A few years ago a couple of my high-school friends wrote a mathematical novel (see my posting about Suri & Bal’s A Mathematical Ambiguity) and the high point for them was the fact that Martin Gardner agreed to write a blurb for the back cover. (My point of pride was that I was thanked in the acknowledgments page, putting me cheek-by-jowl with Martin Gardner!).

More personally, it was through Gardner’s writings that I was introduced to authors like Douglas Hofstadter, Raymond Smullyan, Scott Kim and James Randi — people who in turn ended up becoming immense influences on my thinking and way of looking at the world.

Martin Gardner, through his writing, his sense of humor and playfulness, his emphasis on rationality as a tool for understanding the world, his love of mathematics and learning, will always be with me. I know that in some  powerful, deep and fundamental way, he made me who I am today.

I just got back from an extended trip to California (San Jose and San Diego). I will be posting a lot more about this trip but for now here are the slides from a symposium on “Strategies for teacher professional development of TPACK” organized by Joke Voogt of Twente University. The symposium consisted of 4 different presentations by faculty and graduate students from three different universities.

You can access a pdf of the proposal here and a copy of the slides here.

• Introduction to the symposium Joke Voogt, (Twente University)
• Technology integration in the science teacher preparation program in Kuwait: Becoming TPACK competent through design Ghaida Alayyar, Petra Fisser & Joke Voogt (Twente University)
• Developing TPACK by Design Punya Mishra, Matt Koehler, Tae Seob Shin, Leigh Graves Wolf & Mike DeSchryver (Michigan State University)
• Developing TPACK through teacher design teams: The case of pre-service mathematics teachers in Ghana Douglas Agyei & Joke Voogt (Twente University)
• The development of an instrument to assess teacher development of TPACK Denise Schmidt, Evrim Baran, Ann Thompson (Iowa State University), Punya Mishra, Matt Koehler, & Tae Shin (Michigan State University)

More details of the symposium can be found on Petra Fisser’s blog, here, here and here. Note: Petra blogs in Dutch but in an age of Google Translate how much of an issue is that!

The math-po (and sci-po) stream keeps flowing. Math Mama Writes, who started the whole math-poetry movement has some more on her blog, and here is Erin Nash with some really beautiful biological poetry. And of course, here’s her husband Sean Nash having his students writing poetry too. Of course let’s not forget my daughter Shreya (who sort of started this whole thing) and her sci-po’s at her blog Uniquely Mine.

Below are some thoughts about math-poetry – but you can ignore all that and scroll right down to the poem: The infinity of primes!

Math art by durentu

Through all this I have been plugging away at my math poetry. I know the original challenge was to write something to motivate students to learn math (and I did write one along those lines). But more interesting to me has been this theme I have picked up, which is of writing proofs as poetry. I know many people have described mathematics in poetic terms but I am trying something slightly different here. I am trying to explain theorems (as in these couple of instances, see here, here, here and here) and speficially in the poem included below, I am actually trying to construct a mathematical proof in rhyming verse.

Read the rest of this entry »

Image credit: eoliene_pe_campii

Mathematical Beauty: A limerick
Punya Mishra, Jan 27, 2010

Doesn’t it just gladden your heart to see

These games we can play with infinity?

How can one stay aloof

From the elegance of a proof

And remain immune to mathematics’ subtle beauty?

I recently received an email from a teacher in Poland, seeking advice for a curriculum outline for their Design Technology Section. They said, and I quote:

Unfortunately, I have minimal experience with the subject as a teacher or as a student in my younger years, consequently, I have little background as to what a DT class should look like.

As you might guess I’m struggling trying to put together some sort of DT curriculum for our Middle School.

Our small school does not not have any kind of fabrication equipment so our DT class is currently heavy on IT design aspects….(web design, research on a topic and devise a solution, book creation,etc… )

The specific request was for”some useful and practical information that I can implement fairly easily.”

Is this what design is? by StephenMitchell on Flickr

As I crafted the response I realized that (given my lazy self) that it would make a good blog post. So here is what I wrote back:

Read the rest of this entry »

The other day, for one reason or another, I did a Google search for the word “recursion.” According to Wikipedia, recursion

… in mathematics and computer science, is a method of defining functions in which the function being defined is applied within its own definition; specifically it is defining an infinite statement using finite components.

This is a screen shot of what Google gave me as a result of my search: (Click on the image for a larger version).

Look carefully at what Google suggests. It says.

Did you mean: recursion

The exact same word that I had searched for… For a moment or two I thought I had found a glitch in Google’s suggestion mechanism… but it suddenly hit me, that this was exactly what recursion meant! If I clicked on that link I would be taking the first step into an endless cycle, an infinite loop, which would end only when I “got it.”

This has been an inside joke amongst programmers for a while. Wikipeda provides one example from a hypothetical dictionary that goes as follows:

Recursion

If you still don’t get it, see: “Recursion”.

So in some sense Google provides a “working definition” of the word – that explains it better than just reading a definition in a dictionary. How cool is that. I think it is little games like this one that make Google so much fun to use.

(I must add that this is not a new discovery. The Wikipedia page about recursion does mention this Google trick – but it was new to me!)

A tangent, a line and a circle
A math poem

Image credit: chrstphre (on Flickr)

A point outside a circle,
shoots out two lines
one heading for the center
the other more feline
smoothly kisses the curve
That delicate swerve
of the ball and then, abruptly
turns to the center,
making an angle
and meets the first
which went on straight
To thus form a triangle.

The angle formed by the tangent
And the other line, the radius
the mathematical mind sees
is exactly 90 degrees!

And funnily enough, it doesn’t matter
where the initial point is, the starter
Where ever it may be
(as long as it is outside the circumference)
The angle will always be 90!
Did that make sense?

A poem on the fact that a tangent to a circle is perpendicular to the radius drawn to the point of tangency. See image below

Image from ETC, an online service of Florida’s Educational Technology Clearinghouse

I guess ’tis the season of Math-Po’s! Sue VanHattum, whose challenge started all this, commented on my recent Math-Po (Math-Po (Mathematical Poetry): Goldbach’s Conjecture) by providing an example of her own writing, a poem titled Imaginary Numbers Do the Trick. That piece so inspired me that I spent the next hour (and a good part of a faculty meeting), writing one on the same idea. A close read of both these poems (hers and mine) will reveal that I was more than inspired… some phrases and words from Sue’s work insinuated themselves into my pre-frontal cortex and ended up in my poems. As they say, plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery. Read, The Mathematical i, after the cartoon…

Read the rest of this entry »

My previous post (Poetry, Science & Math, OR why I love the web) mentioned a challenge by Sue VanHattum of “Math Mama Writes” to “write a little kids’ poem … and that tells of the beauty of math, or, that mentions math and challenge, both in a positive way.” Well, I got inspired and took a part of my lunch break today to write something up. I am not sure it technically fits Sue’s challenge but here it is none the less. [If you are interested in learning more about the history and mathematics behind Goldbach's Conjecture, one of the oldest unsolved problems in mathematics, check Goldbach's Conjecture on Wikipedia.]

Goldbach’s Conjecture
Goldbach, a mathematician, serious and stern
Many years ago noticed a pattern
He wrote, to Euler, the math genius
Here is something, he said, to excite us!

I have seen, he scribbled, with my imagination
That every even digit
(except two, which doesn’t fit)
Can be broken into a partition
Of two primes which add
To the original even digit
(Now, Euler, don’t fidget!)
But isn’t that totally rad!

Now since that day this simple thesis
Remains just that, a hypothesis
Forcing number lovers to lose their slumber
As they try to prove, primes in pairs can add up to any even number.

(Two is the exception, as we said before
Which is, come to think of it, a bit of a bore).

You can see an original of the letter that Goldbach wrote to Euler at mathisgoodforyou.com.

A 5th grade science assignment, transformed. A rant about Mother Goose. A math poetry challenge!  How did that come to be? And what does that have to do with loving the Interwebs? Read on…

I had written earlier about how my 10 year-old daughter had been writing poems on science (Scientific Poems or Sci-Po’s for short). It all started with an extra-credit assignment she needed to do for her science class, and a need, I perceived, to keep her blog (Uniquely Mine) up-to-date. She has quite a few written now. For instance here is one about a news item about scientists finding dinosaur eggs (and other dino-stuff) in India (Cluster of dinosaur eggs found in southern India), and here’s the poem:

Read the rest of this entry »

I had written earlier about the idea of “postdictable” which was defined as something that is “surprising initially, but then understandable with a bit of thought.” It lies at the spot between predictability and total chaos. The movie Sixth Sense is postdictable in the best sense of the world. Good teaching I believe needs to be postdictable. That is what keeps us engaged, keeps us waiting for more, the payoff as it were. And best of all, once all the pieces are in, we can’t wait to go back and review everything again, to see just how beautifully the whole thing holds together. There is a strong aesthetic component to this – a sense of wholeness, closure, elegance, and inevitability. Good poems have this quality, as do mathematical theorems. A well crafted lecture or a lesson plan has this quality as well. In my mind these ideas are closely tied to the Dewey’s idea of experience and to the idea of design. Hopefully I will have a chance to explore these connections in a later post but for now, here are a couple of commercials that I think were postdictable in a really cool kind of way.
Read the rest of this entry »

My daughter, whose creative exploits have been featured here before (for instance see her design for a math-music game), now has a blog, titled Uniquely Mine. It features original writing (poems, stories) by her. Do check it out. You can find regular updates on this blog via the beauty of RSS feeds on the right column (just scroll down).

The one piece by Shreya I would like to draw attention to is a story titled Obtuse can be right. She wrote this as a part of a fourth grade assignment, and it is pretty cool, with interesting geometry-related wordplay. Enjoy.

My friend Gaurav Bhatnagar (whose doggerel on ambigrams is featured on my blog as well) gave it high praise in his facebook update, saying, “This is a masterpiece. Highly recommender (sic!). As good as Asimov’s short shorts.” I haven’t had a chance to see Asimov’s short shorts but I guess they are cool!

Anybody who knows me (and/or reads this blog) will know of my love of issues related to representation (see all postings under that category). So I am always looking out for new and interesting representations. An lovely example sent to me by Patrick Dickson is website titled Information is beautiful. This site, and much of the work showcased there is the creation of David McCandless, a free-lance information designer. He describes his interests as being in “how designed information can help us understand the world, cut through BS and reveal hidden connections, patterns and stories underneath.”

For instance check out If Twitter was a community of 100 people

An example of how just visualizing and representing data can change one’s prior conception of a idea can be found at How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb (sort of).

The one that made the best connection to me personally was Caffeine & Calories.

Enjoy.

I just came across these lovely visual mathematical proofs.

For instance consider the following sequence:
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + … = 1

and then see the following image on the blog!!

How cool is that!!!!

I had posted about something similar earlier (see visualizing mathematics).

Note: Before someone gets technical on me, I should admit that these are not “proofs” in the rigorous mathematical sense of the term, but they do provide visual evidence / explanation that helps us understand the underlying patterns.

I also recommend the blog (http://www.billthelizard.com/) on which these “proofs” appeared for a bunch of other interesting stuff about mathematics and programming.

I love how these interconnected pipes called the Intertubes lead to serendipitous discoveries. Here are two videos, the first I went looking for, and the second, fell into my lap, so to speak, due to YouTubes related videos section.

The video I went looking for was based on a delightful book I had picked up at a garage sale a few years ago. “The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics” is a little book (20 pages or so) with an intriguing story-line and its geometrical illustrations. The main character is a straight line who is in love with a dot – but sadly she is more attracted to a wild, unruly squiggle. How the simple line develops his talents and wins the love of the dot is told through whimsical (and mathematically sound) illustrations.

I learned later that the famous animator Chuck Jones had made this into a short film. Here it is (thanks to YouTube).

This is just a wonderful example of how mathematics and art, perception and recognition, creativity and design can come together. This book (and the movie) speak to me at so many different levels. What is most amazing is the ability we humans have to see purpose and meaning in the simplest of lines and curves. So much of art and science depend on this ability to perceive / construct patterns.

Nowhere is this more beautifully (and humorously) illustrated than in this other video I discovered. Written and narrated by Mel Brooks (yes THE Mel Brooks) this animated short film, The Critic, takes a different interpretive stance (crankier and edgier) than the previous narration. That this short animation captures, powerfully how we as humans both seek, and question, the meanings of the patterns we see around us.

I just finished reading parts of Sheri Turkle’s latest book, Simulation and its discontents, and the parallels to what she is writing about and Mel Brook’s Critic are quite strong. The cranky one man in the short recognizes or “sees” meaning is some of the abstract images he sees on the screen and yet he questions their value. The scientists and designers quoted in Turkle’s book echo some of the same concerns.

What is amazing is that the Mel Brooks short was made in 1963, the Chuck Jones movie was made in 1965 and Turkle’s book was published just this year, in 2009!

Matt Koehler and I just published an article in Learning & Leading with Technology, the membership magazine of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).

The complete citation is as follows:
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2009, May). Too Cool for School? No Way! Learning & Leading with Technology, (36)7. 14-18. [PDF download].

This article includes a few examples of work done by my students as a part of a doctoral seminar. I had given them an assignment titled, How can a technology become an educational technology? and the work of three of them made it to the paper. I had written previously about Noah’s idea for using microblogging in the classroom (see here, here & most recently here). I haven’t blogged about the other two (though I have discussed them in presentations I have made) so it is good to have them represented here. Paul’s idea was to use specialized search engines (particularly visual search engines) to help students understand the idea of inter-textuality (the idea that texts often refer to each other in complex and intricate ways to create webs of meaning). Erik Byker, on the other hand, looked at how freely available DJ software can be used to teach mathematical concepts such as ratios, fractions, and percentages. Cool stuff!

The CITE Journal had a recent special issue devoted to TPACK. You can access the special issue (edited by Judi Harris and Matt Koehler) here or individual articles below.
Read the rest of this entry »

I recently blogged (here and here) about the experiment conducted by students in Italy that allowed them to use publicly available NASA audio recordings from the moon landings to determine the distance between the earth and the moon. I bit more online research led to me to the original paper published on arXiv. arXiv is described as an “e-print service in the fields of physics, mathematics, non-linear science, computer science, quantitative biology and statistics” and is hosted and supported by Cornell University. Reading the paper led me to a writing this posting, since i see this as one of the best examples of the TPACK framework in use that I have come across.

I provide the abstract and a link to the original paper (in pdf format) below and follow that with my thoughts.
Read the rest of this entry »

A followup to my previous posting about the Italian kids calculating the distance to the moon using recordings from the Apollo Space program.

As I read the story on the technology Review website, I came to the comments made by readers. One stuck out. This is what somebody had said:

Wow, they took the speed of light and multiplied by 2.62 then divided by 2. Interesting method of doing it, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist for sure.

By focusing on the surface aspect of the math this person misses the point of the story almost completely. Misses, it I may add by almost the distance from the Earth to the moon. Read the rest of this entry »

For one reason or another, I have three consecutive posts regarding the earth and sun and moon – i.e. the local area in the solar system. I had just completed my previous postings (on on seeing through eclipses and measuring the radius of the earth) when I came across this news story (h/t Geekpress): School kids measure distance to the Moon Read the rest of this entry »

While searching for information for my previous posting on using eclipses to see, I came across an interesting paper that provided yet another way of figuring out the shape of the Earth.

Lynch, D.K. (2005). Turbulent ship wakes: further evidence that the Earth is round. Applied Optics, 44(27). 5759 – 5762.

First some context, see this image below:

View aft (south): ship’s wake extending to southern horizon (20050802a11).
Photo credit: B. Cuthbertson

I have come across some new TPACK related videos/podcasts (either on youtube or elsewhere) that I feel may be worth sharing.
Read the rest of this entry »

Here is a cool video about a “a mechanical, binary adding machine that uses marbles to flip the bits” – in other words a computer made of wood, that works at a pace that we can grasp! Marvelous. (HT: Collision Detection). Check out the video:

A fascinating series of illusions to reveal just how complicated a phenomenon perception is. I was particularly impressed by the “rubber hand” illusion.

And then, from Gizmodo, comes the Yoshimoto cube. Words are not enough to describe what this mind-bending object can do, you just have to watch the video.
Read the rest of this entry »