Punya Mishra’s Web

TPACK Newsletter, Issue #11:October 2011

Welcome to the eleventh edition of the (approximately quarterly) TPACK Newsletter! TPACK work is continuing worldwide, and is appearing in an increasing diversity of publication, conference, and professional development venues. 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
Is it a fact – or have I dreamt it – that, by means of electricity, the world of matter has become a great nerve, vibrating thousands of miles in a breathless point of time?—Nathaniel Hawthorne

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. Recent TPACK-Related Professional Development
6. Other TPACK Updates
7. TPACK Work in Progress
8. TPACK Newsletter Suggested Citation
9. Learning and Doing More with TPACK –. Un-numbered miscellaneous stuff at the end

1. TPACK Newsletter Update
The TPACK newsletter currently has 1191 subscribers! This represents an 8% increase during the last five months and a 68% increase since the March SITE 2010 conference.

2. Recent TPACK Publications
Below are recent TPACK publications that we know about: 43 articles and 10 chapters(!). If you know of others that were published within the past several months, please let us know (tpack.news.editors@wm.edu).

Articles

Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134–143.

Abstract: This exploratory study investigated the relationship between measures of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and the self-efficacy beliefs of preservice teachers about technology integration. Within a single-group, pretest–posttest design, a correlational analysis identified several knowledge domains in the TPACK model that the researcher found to have a significant and positive correlation with self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration. A multiple regression analysis of pretest and posttest data indicated a change over time in the predictive relationship between the measures of knowledge in TPACK domains and self-efficacy beliefs. Findings from the study illustrate the changing nature of the complex relationship between knowledge and self-efficacy beliefs and highlight the potential areas of knowledge in TPACK domains that influence preservice teachers‘ beliefs about technology integration.?

Abbitt, J. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 281–300.

Abstract: Many research efforts are underway that focus on developing the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2007; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) as a lens through which to observe the role of technology in teacher knowledge. This review of literature examines the development of the TPACK framework with a particular focus on assessing TPACK in the context of preservice teacher preparation programs. In an effort to highlight the emerging instruments and methods currently available for use with this specific group, this study provides an overview of instruments and methods as well as a discussion of the challenges, purposes, and potential uses of these tools for TPACK-based evaluation of preservice teacher preparation experiences.?

Adcock, L. & Bolick, C. (2011). Web 2.0 Tools and the evolving pedagogy of teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2), 223-236. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/35970

Abstract: Teacher educators are constantly revisiting and revising their teacher education programs. Historically, research, educational policy, and accreditation requirements have been the impetus for renewal in teacher education. For the past 20 years, technology innovation has played an increasingly significant role in rethinking teacher education. This paper discusses recent changes in a social studies teacher education program and the role Web 2.0 tools played in helping to rethink pedagogy.?

An, H., Wildera, W. & Limb, K. (2011). Preparing elementary pre-service teachers from a non-traditional student population to teach with technology. Computers in the Schools, 28(2), 170-193. doi: 10.1080/07380569.2011.577888

Abstract: This article documents the development of a two-stage curriculum intended to improve elementary teacher candidates‘ understanding of technology integration. Most students in the program came from low-income districts and lacked technology experience. The first stage of the curriculum consisted of a prerequisite basic technology skills course offered by the Computer Science Department. This was then followed by an online educational technology course offered by the College of Education. The objectives of the authors in this article are twofold. The first is to describe the rationale, procedures, and design of a two-stage curriculum, as a pedagogical model for teaching elementary teacher candidates to teach with technology, with the goal of preparing a new generation of teachers who are capable and comfortable applying a broad range of advanced technologies to meet the learning needs of their students. The second objective is to share the authors’ findings from the evaluation, which employed mixed methodologies, after the students completed the online educational technology course. The results showed that an online educational technology course contributed to the candidates‘ development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and improved their attitudes and beliefs on their technology integration practices.?

Archambault, L. (2011). The practitioner’s perspective on teacher education: Preparing for the K-12 online classroom. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 19(1), 73-91.

Abstract: Little is known about the population of educators who teach online, especially with relationship to preparation from their teacher education programs. This article discusses the results of a national survey of K-12 online teachers from across the nation to ascertain how prepared they felt they were with regard to three key areas: technology, pedagogy, and content, including combinations of these domains, as described by the technological pedagogical content knowledge framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Overall, K-12 online teachers indicated that they felt the most prepared in the areas of pedagogy, content, and pedagogical content. They felt least prepared in the areas of technology, including technological pedagogical knowledge, technological content knowledge, and technological pedagogical content knowledge. Implications for the field of teacher education are discussed, including the need to more fully integrate technology within the coursework and field experiences of teacher candidates, and the need to create courses, or specific modules within existing courses, to address topics of importance to virtual teaching.?

Bos, B. (2011). Professional development for elementary teachers using TPACK. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2). Retrieved from
http://www.citejournal.org/vol11/iss2/mathematics/article1.cfm

Abstract: Teacher preparation for the 21st century deserves a front-end approach to addressing the use of technology in the learning environment. To study the effect of instructing with technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK), teachers were asked to apply pedagogical, mathematical, and cognitive fidelity to technology used in an instructional unit they were designing. Initial results indicated that teachers were conflicted by a conceptual approach to technology use. Through clarifying and defining pedagogy, mathematics, and cognitive fidelity within the TPACK framework, teachers became more aware of the misuse of instructional technology, what attributes of technology lead to conceptual development, and integration of meaningful technology into instructional units. TPACK, with fidelity carefully defined, creates a research-based model by adding the qualifying features needed to maximize the potential of technology in the classroom. The purpose of this study is to look at the knowledge structures of TPACK and examine them in designing instruction units.?

Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A.(2010). A framework for Web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177-198.

Abstract: This paper describes an approach to conceptualising and performing Web 2.0-enabled learning design. Based on the Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge model of educational practice, the approach conceptualises Web 2.0 learning design by relating Anderson and Krathwohl’s Taxonomy of Learning, Teaching and Assessing, and different types of constructive and negotiated pedagogies to a range of contemporary Web 2.0-based learning technologies. The learning design process can then be based upon the extent to which different Web 2.0 technologies support the content, pedagogical, modality and synchronicity requirements of the learning tasks. The model is resilient to the emergence of new Web 2.0 tools, as it views technology as only a mediator of pedagogy and content with attributes to fulfill the needs of the learning episode. A range of possible use cases, categorisations and examples are offered to illustrate the learning design concepts and processes, in order to promote more savvy and expedient application of Web 2.0 technologies in learning and teaching contexts.

Bowers, J. & Stephens, B. (2011).Using technology to explore mathematical relationships: A framework for orienting mathematics courses for prospective teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(4), 285-304.

Abstract: The technological revolution that has finally permeated K-12 education has direct implications for modern teacher educators whose ‘Hippocratic oath’ is to best prepare future teachers for twenty-first-century classrooms. The goal of this article is to suggest that the heart of sound technological implementation is to encourage students to use whatever tools are available to explain the mathematical relations that underlie what they observe on the screen. We suggest ways in which Mishra and Koehler’s construct of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge may be customized to provide a framework for guiding prospective teachers’ efforts to develop and assess lesson plans that use technology in novel and effective ways. Data are presented in the form of two contrasting case studies to illustrate the differing degrees to which prospective mathematics teachers leveraged technology to teach themselves and their future students to explain the mathematics behind various topics.?

Chuang, H-H, & Ho, C-J. (2011). An investigation of early childhood teachers‘ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in Taiwan. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 12(2), 99-117. Retrieved from http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract&id=782294&recNo=6&toc=1&uiLanguage=en

Abstract: This study aimed to investigate technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of early childhood teachers in Taiwan. Quantitative Data was collected from a sample of 335 in-service early childhood teachers in Taiwan. The instrument was translated and adapted from Schmidt et al. (2009) TPACK survey instrument with added items to fit the early educational context in Taiwan. Data analysis methods included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and MANOVA. Findings from the study were summarized as follows: (a) The development of early childhood teachers? pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) were the best among the seven knowledge sub domains in TPACK.(b)The number of years of teaching experience was significantly positively correlated with early childhood teachers? pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Besides, early childhood teachers with over ten years of teaching experience had better self-assessed pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) than those teachers with less than ten years of teaching experience. (c) A significant positive correlation was found between pedagogical knowledge (PK), and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and age; however, a significant negative correlation existed with technology knowledge (TK) and age. Older early childhood teachers? self-assessed pedagogical knowledge (PK) was better than younger teachers while the young early childhood teachers had a better self-assessed technology knowledge (TK) (d) Early childhood teachers with a frequency of using information technology above 20 hours a week had better self-assessed technology knowledge (TK) and technological content knowledge (TCK) than those with a frequency under 5 hours a week Recommendations were also provided based on the findings from this study.?

Demir, S. (2011). Two inseparable facets of technology integration programs: Technology and theoretical framework. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 7(2), 75-88. Retrieved from http://www.ejmste.com/v7n2/EURASIA_v7n2_Demir.pdf

Abstract: This paper considers the process of program development aiming at technology integration for teachers. For this consideration, the paper focused on an integration program which was recently developed as part of a larger project. The participants of this program were 45 in-service teachers. The program continued for four weeks and the conduct of the program was video-recorded. Along with the video-records, the content of the program and the tools employed to document participants‘ development were analyzed. The analyses were performed on the basis of four components of integration program: objectives, content, teaching-learning situations and assessment. During the analyses, theoretical framework on which the program was based and the technology employed during the program was also evaluated. Based on this evaluation, this paper argues that in the process of both design and conduct of integration programs the technology employed during the program implementation as well as the theoretical framework which informs the use of technology during the program implementation need to be considered carefully. The paper provides evidence that technology and theoretical framework are two inseparable facets of both design and conduct of integration programs and a true understanding of the benefits of these programs could only be achieved through the consideration of these two along with the four components of any integration program.?

de Olviera, J. M. (2010). Pre-service teacher education enriched by technology-supported learning environments: A learning technology by design approach. Journal of Literacy & Technology, 11(1/2), 89-109.

Abstract: Many teacher educators are now concerned about how to scaffold student teachers in the development of the literacy demands of the digital age. The present paper presents a descriptive account of a learning technology by design approach to teacher education, which basically addresses this problem. It draws on a technological pedagogical content knowledge framework to conceptualize what it means learning to teach in the digital age and presents an educational experience, the subject New Technologies Applied to Education, taught in a pre-service teacher education program. The results of this subject approach show that the students’ semiotic production is an evidence that when learners are motivated, their capacity to learn is not limited by teachers’ capacity to teach. It is suggested pre-service teacher education should prepare future teachers not only to consume, but also to produce and distribute semiotic resources, taking a more active and critical role in their learning process.

Ehrke, J. (2011). The efficacy of mobile computing platforms: A case study(Abilene Christian University Connected Mobile Learning Fellows 2011 Research Reports). Retrieved from http://www.acu.edu/technology/mobilelearning/Research/index.html

Abstract: Over the next decade, it is anticipated that mobile learning technologies will significantly impact the future of the graphing calculator platform. The impact of integrated devices (devices which blend productivity, social media, and computing) on educational design in mathematics remains largely unexplored. In this study, we analyze the results of a fall 2010 focused comparison of two sections of a first-year, general education mathematics course. Student performance data and student perceptions of usability are compared across two platforms: the SpaceTime™ mobile computing app and the Texas Instruments™ TI-8x series of graphing calculators. Pedagogical implications of the case study results are viewed and discussed as an integration of action-research within the TPACK framework.?

George, M. A. (2011). Preparing teachers to teach adolescent literature in the 21st century. Theory Into Practice, 50(3), 182-189.

Abstract: Written primarily for other English teacher educators, this article explores one university professor’s attempt to reflect on, review, and revise the content, pedagogy, and assessments utilized to teach a graduate course in adolescent literature to preservice and in-service teachers. The new and improved course is designed to simultaneously build content, pedagogical, curricular, and technological pedagogical content knowledge in English teachers.

Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953-1960.

Abstract: The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework is increasing in use by educational technology researchers around the world who are interested in issues related to technology integration. Much that is good can be found in the TPACK framework; however considerable theoretical work needs to be done if TPACK research is to cohere and constructively strengthen the field of educational technology. This paper uses criteria for theory building as a lens for examining the TPACK framework. Specific weaknesses are identified, which in turn suggest areas needing theoretical development. This paper calls for researchers to increase emphasis on using research findings to constructively build common definitions and understandings of the TPACK constructs and the boundaries between them.

Haciomeroglu, E. S., Bu, L., Schoen, R. C., & Hohenwarter, M. (2011). Prospective teachers’ experiences in developing lessons with dynamic mathematics software. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 18(2), 71-82.

Abstract: This study sought to examine the development of prospective secondary mathematics teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as they worked individually and in small groups to develop and present lessons with dynamic mathematics software. In a three-semester long study, data were collected from 68 prospective secondary mathematics teachers enrolled in methods courses through their written reflections, lesson plans, and classroom observations. Our results suggest that the prospective teachers’ perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with technology were enriched as a result of their participation in course activities. We discuss pedagogical implications for these results in a final section.?

Hammond, T. C. & Manfra, M. M. (2009). Technology integration. Social Studies Research & Practice, 4(3), 139-150.

Abstract: Social studies educators have displayed an interest in student-created multimedia, including digital documentaries. The research community has responded with a small but growing body of studies, but the literature to date has not explored students’ perspectives on these assignments. This study combined classroom observations, document analysis, and student interviews to examine students’ views of technology, the curriculum, and their final products. The findings reveal that students come to technology-based, content-driven assignments with prior conceptions of both the technology and the content. These expectations shape student actions and transform the assignment, in some cases surpassing curricular expectations. Evidence from students’ products, classroom observations, and interview data, however, also suggest that student agency was limited by the classroom reality of mimetic learning. The results of this study have various implications for teacher educators and educational researchers interested in leveraging technology to improve learning. They must acknowledge the dynamic nature of classroom interaction and the impact student choices have on Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Technology integration occurs in the operational curriculum, often in unpredictable ways. Based on our study we know that student preconceptions and desires impact the learning goals. By better under-standing the role of student agency, teachers can plan for instruction that uses digital history to effectively teach content.?

Hardy, M. D. (2010). Facilitating growth in preservice mathematics teachers’ TPCK. National Teacher Education Journal, 3(2), 121-138.

Abstract: The X-Tech Project was intended to enhance preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge as well as their perceptions of that knowledge. Findings indicated not only that the Project attained that goal but that practically-oriented methods that meet many of the participants’ technology related needs are productive avenues for facilitating such learning. Use of a variety of resources to explore problems relevant to the level at which participants will teach, planning technology-infused lessons, and critiquing technological resources appear to be particularly beneficial.?

Jaipal, K., & Figg, C. (2010). Unpacking the “Total PACKage”: Emergent TPACK characteristics from a study of preservice teachers teaching with technology. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 18(3), 415-441.

Abstract: Four preservice teachers participated in a school-based collaborative initiative where they were supported by two university faculty members, a school board technology consultant and a master’s student to integrate technology into teaching practice. Preservice teachers planned and taught technology-enhanced lessons during a seven-week practice-teaching block at two K-8 schools. This article proposes a framework that outlines particular characteristics for supporting preservice teachers’ effective integration of technology into classroom practice. The characteristics emerged from a cross-case analysis of data sources from the four participants. Data sources included pre and post focus group interviews, individual interviews, planning and support sessions, lesson plans, and observations of preservice teachers’ classroom practice. A framework is proposed that expands understandings of the current Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model (Koehler & Mishra, 2008) for classroom practice.?

Khan, S. (2011). New pedagogies on teaching science with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232. doi: 10.1007/s10956-010-9247-2

Abstract: Teaching science with computer simulations is a complex undertaking. This case study examines how an experienced science teacher taught chemistry using computer simulations and the impact of his teaching on his students. Classroom observations over 3 semesters, teacher interviews, and student surveys were collected. The data was analyzed for (1) patterns in teacher-student-computer interactions, and (2) the outcome of these interactions on student learning. Using Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) as a theoretical framework, analysis of the data indicates that computer simulations were employed in a unique instructional cycle across 11 topics in the science curriculum and that several teacher-developed heuristics were important to guiding the pedagogical approach. The teacher followed a pattern of ?generate-evaluate-modify? (GEM) to teach chemistry, and simulation technology (T) was integrated in every stage of GEM (or T-GEM). Analysis of the student survey suggested that engagement with T-GEM enhanced conceptual understanding of chemistry. The author postulates the affordances of computer simulations and suggests T-GEM and its heuristics as an effective and viable pedagogy for teaching science with technology.?

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Bouck, E. C., DeSchryver, M., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Wolf, L. G. (2011). Deep-play: Developing TPACK for 21st century teachers. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(2), 146-163. doi: 10.1504/IJLT.2011.042646 Retrieved from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/publications/koehler.et.al.ijlt2011.pdf

Abstract: A key complication facing teachers who seek to integrate technology in their teaching is the fact that most technologies are not designed for educational purposes. Making a tool an educational technology requires creative input from the teacher to re-design, or maybe even subvert the original intentions of the designer. The learning technology by design (LT/D) framework has been proposed as being an effective instructional technique to develop deeper understanding of technological pedagogical content knowledge. In this paper we expand our description of the LT/D technique to develop what we call a deep-play model for teacher professional development. The deep-play model integrates: a) pedagogy for key 21st century learning skills; b) content that cuts across disciplines with trans-disciplinary cognitive tools; c) technology by the creative repurposing of tools for pedagogical purposes.

Kukkonen, J., Kärkkäinen, S., Valtonen, T., & Keinonen, T. (2011). Blogging to support inquiry-based learning and reflection in teacher students’ science education. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 31,73-84.

Abstract: This study aims to clarify primary school teacher students’ experiences about the use of blogs in the context of a science course which includes collaborative inquiry-based approaches and a field trip. Teacher students were asked to design and conduct a small inquiry and report the phases of the process in a blog and then write their ideas about inquiry-based teaching and learning in it. The inquiry process was loosely scaffolded by linking the blogs together. The students were also asked to fill in a questionnaire of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), in order to acquire insight into their views on the scaffolding needed for their own inquiry process, as well as the role of scaffolding in the inquiry method in primary school. The findings showed that after discussing them with each other, teacher students were able to formulate personally meaningful problems for their investigation. Teacher students investigated multidisciplinary elements and learned about different phases of the inquiry and the blogs enabled them to follow the process of others. Teacher students’ information retrieval and processing skills developed throughout the inquiry and aided them in other teacher education courses, also giving them a firm foundation and confidence in accessing and applying information as life-long learners.

Li, H. (2010). Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators. International Journal of Continuing Education & Lifelong Learning, 2(2), 119-120.

Abstract: The article reviews the book “Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators,” edited by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) Committee on Innovation and Technology.

McGrath, J., Karabas, G., & Willis. J. (2011). From TPACK concept to TPACK practice: An analysis of the suitability and usefulness of the concept as a guide in the real world of teacher development. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 1-23. Retrieved from http://www.sicet.org/journals/ijttl/issue1101/1_Willis.pdf

Abstract: This paper describes the TPACK model and how it was used to guide the design and development of a school district‘s teacher development program that was funded by a grant from the New York State Department of Education. The usefulness of the TPACK model as a framework for teacher development projects was evaluated using interviews of teachers who participated in a project. The results indicate that TPACK is a very powerful and appropriate model when used as a framework for such projects. Even critiques and recommendations made by teachers were often expressions of TPACK basic principles or assumptions that highlighted where the project could have better met TPACK ideals. However, TPACK does not appear to be a model that can be used as a single source of conceptual guidelines. The interview data highlighted important, even crucial, aspects of a project that are not directly addressed by the TPACK model. Chief among these were logistical issues, the need to consider principles of adult learning and diffusion models when designing development projects, and the crucial importance of building and supporting social/professional networks.

Mouza, C. (2011). Promoting urban teachers‘ understanding of technology, content, and pedagogy in the context of case development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(1), 1–29.

Abstract: This study investigated the potential of a professional development program centered on case development to help urban teachers: (a) integrate technology with content and pedagogy and (b) cultivate habits of reflection required to learn from practice. Qualitative analysis revealed that case development helped teachers develop an understanding of the nuanced relationships among technology, content, and pedagogy and engage in the type of reflection that enables learning from practice. Nevertheless, variability existed in the ways that teachers applied new knowledge to practice. Factors that influenced teachers‘ learning and practice included beliefs about students, prescribed curricula, and lack of resources.”

Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299-317.

Abstract: Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) presents a dynamic framework for describing teachers’ knowledge required for designing, implementing, and evaluating curriculum and instruction with technology. TPACK strategic thinking includes knowing when, where, and how to use domain-specific knowledge and strategies for guiding students’ learning with appropriate information and communication technologies. Multiple visual and verbal descriptions reflect evolving recognitions of teacher educators and educational researchers as they have struggled to respond to the challenges in describing and developing teachers’ TPACK. This extensive reflection maps the historical acceptance of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) with the emerging views of and challenges with TPACK. A review of empirical progress in the investigation of TPACK serves to illuminate potential insights, values, and challenges for directing future educational implementations designed to identify a teacher’s learning trajectory in the development of a more robust and mature TPACK for supporting them in teaching with current and emerging technologies.”

Oster-Levinz, A., & Klieger, A. (2010). Online tasks as a tool to promote teachers‘ expertise within the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 354-358. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.024 Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042810000649

Abstract: In the Information Communication Technology (ICT) era, teachers will have to wisely use the online environment in order to realize a new pedagogy. We developed a digital indicator for examining the extent to which technological knowledge is integrated with pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). This indicator is used to examine online tasks developed by teachers in different subjects over time. It enables quantitative measurement of the integration of technological knowledge with content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge and thus affords a measure for the extent of integration. The digital indicator can be used to plan online tasks as well as for the teachers to test their own professional development in integrating technology in teaching. Use of the digital indicator can be implemented when training student teachers as well as in in-service training for teachers. Fifty-three online tasks developed by 14 high school teachers in different subjects were evaluated between 2001 and 2007. Evaluation of the online tasks was performed quantitatively using the digital evaluation instrument after it was validated and its reliability was examined. We examined the change and progress which took place in the integration of technological knowledge with pedagogical content knowledge over time as well as the contribution of guidance to the teachers‘ professional development for integration of technology in teaching. The findings indicate that the effect of time, which is expressed by the acquisition of experience, contributes to the integration of the technological knowledge with the teachers‘ pedagogical content knowledge. The findings also indicate that guidance plays a significant role in the implementation of the integration of technological knowledge with the teachers‘ pedagogical content knowledge. We recommend that correct integration of TPACK should be emphasized when planning professional development for teachers in the field of online tasks. We also recommend the development of models for teachers‘ professional development for integration of technology in teaching, with reference to the teachers‘ professional knowledge, i.e. their pedagogical content knowledge. The best ways for integrating the technological knowledge must be examined, such that the focus will not be on learning technological tools, but rather on the integration of pedagogy in technology. It is necessary to start from the field of knowledge and the teaching methods appropriate for this particular field of knowledge, and there to integrate technology. Optimal integration will lead to a change in teaching, to relevance for the students and to meaningful learning.

Özgün-Koca, S. A., Meagher, M., Edwards, M. T. (2011). A teacher’s journey with a new generation handheld: Decisions, struggles, and accomplishments. School Science and Mathematics, 111(5), 209-224. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00080.x

Abstract: In this technology-oriented age, teachers face daily decisions regarding the use of advanced digital technologies—graphing calculators, dynamic geometry software, blogs, wikis, podcasts and the like—to enhance student mathematical understanding in their classrooms. In this case study, the authors use the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model in conjunction with a five-stage developmental model, which can be used to describe growth in TPACK to describe the initial attempts of a teacher, Jane, to develop TPACK as she learns and attempts to integrate an advanced teaching technology into her classroom, namely the TI-Nspire graphing calculator. The study tracks her struggles to reconcile some traditional beliefs about how students learn with her desire to be responsive to what she perceives as affordances of advanced digital technologies. Main data collection methods were journal writing, observations, document analysis, and interviews. Using the five-stage developmental model, we saw that this experience helped Jane to move among different stages. This study showed that the TPACK model with the five-stage developmental model can be a beneficial tool for researchers to study teachers’ professional growth and is also a valuable tool for teachers to reflect on their own growth.?

Özmantar, M. F., Akkoç, H., Bingölbali, E., Demir, S., & Ergene, B. (2010). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ use of multiple representations in technology-rich environments. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 19-36.

Abstract: In this paper, we examine the development of pre-service mathematics teachers’ use of multiple representations during teaching in technology-rich environments. The pre-service teachers took part in a preparation program aimed at integration of technology into teaching mathematics. The program was designed on the basis of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) framework; and the mathematical content chosen for the program was the concept of derivative. The pre-service teachers’ development was scrutinized in terms of their knowledge of representations, of connections established among the representations, and of the aspects of derivative emphasized by these connections. On the basis of our analyses we argue that any attempt to prepare pre-service teachers for effective use of technology in teaching mathematics needs to explicitly focus on the functions of multiple representations in tandem with the mathematical content under consideration. We discuss the educational implications of the study in designing and conducting of the preparation programs related to the successful integration of technology in teaching mathematics.?

Pamuk, S. (2011), Understanding preservice teachers’ technology use through TPACK framework. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00447.x

Abstract: This study discusses preservice teachers’ achievement barriers to technology integration, using principles of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) as an evaluative framework. Technology-capable participants each freely chose a content area to comprise project. Data analysis based on interactions among core components of TPACK revealed that participants struggled with developing new knowledge. Lack of pedagogical experience limited development of appropriate technology integration approaches. Creating new knowledge bases based on different teaching components can be difficult for preservice teachers because it requires a deep understanding of core knowledge and interpretation of the teaching context and its dynamics. Developing pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is an important factor in overall technology integration; teachers must make it a priority to acquire PCK before integrating technology. In preservice teacher education, PCK development must be supported with actual teaching experience. We believe that the results of the study may provide valuable insight with respect to proper focus on technology integration and recognizing limitations and challenges within TPACK principles to both those who teach technology integration and those who design TPACK-based activities.?

Polly, D. (2011). Developing students’ higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) through technology-rich tasks. Educational Technology, 51(4), 20-26.

Abstract: Technology has been shown to positively influence student learning when students explore technology-rich tasks that simultaneously require them to use higher- order thinking skills (HOTS), such as analyzing or evaluating information or creating new representations of knowledge. Educational technology researchers have posited that in order for teachers to effectively integrate technology, teachers need a set of knowledge components referred to as Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK). This article examines the overlap between technology-rich tasks that develop HOTS and TPACK in the context of formal school settings. Implications for research and practice related to implementing technology-rich tasks and developing teachers’ TPACK are also discussed.?

Polly, D. (2011). Developing teachers’ Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) through mathematics professional development. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 18(2), 83-96.

Abstract: In recent years, educational technologists have advanced the construct Technological and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) to describe teachers’ knowledge related to effectively integrating technology. In this paper, I use the TPACK framework to examine elementary school teachers’ experience in a year-long professional development program, where participants used technology to explore mathematical tasks and were charged with integrating technology-rich tasks in their own classrooms. Participants were observed repeatedly during the school year when they reported their intent to use pedagogies from the professional development. While both participants integrated technology in their classroom, and displayed evidence of TPACK, their enacted pedagogies did not completely align to the pedagogies emphasized during professional development. Implications and suggestions for supporting and researching teachers’ development of TPACK are also shared.

Polly, D. (2011). Examining how the enactment of TPACK varies across grade levels in mathematics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teaching, 30(1), 37-59.

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.?

Sahin, I. (2011). Development of survey of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 97-105.

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to develop a survey of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). The survey consists of seven subscales forming the TPACK model: 1) technology knowledge (TK), 2) pedagogy knowledge (PK), 3) content knowledge (CK), 4) technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), 5) technological content knowledge (TCK), 6) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and 7) TPACK. This study is conducted in five phases: 1) item pool, 2) validity and reliability, 3) discriminant validity, 4) test-retest reliability, and 5) translation of the TPACK survey. To examine language equivalence, both Turkish and English versions of the TPACK survey are administered to preservice teachers studying English language education. It is determined the questionnaire meets the language equivalence. Results demonstrate the TPACK survey is a valid and reliable measure.?

Salinas, C., Bellows, M. E. & Liaw, H. L. (2011). Preservice social studies teachers‘ historical thinking and digitized primary sources: What they use and why. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2), 184-204. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/36223

Abstract: In this qualitative case study the authors explored secondary social studies preservice teachers‘ abilities to discern the digitized primary resources available to them for historical thinking instruction. The emerging analysis highlights the development of these young teachers‘ knowledge and understandings of digitized resources as they relate to historical thinking via a pragmatic meter and their pedagogical content knowledge. Using the teacher cognition scholarship of Shulman (2004), the study suggests that the preservice teachers‘ enumerated knowledge sources are vital in tracing teachers’ decisions.?

Schul, J. E. (2010). The mergence of CHAT with TPCK: A new framework for researching the integration of desktop documentary making in history teaching and learning. THEN: Technology, Humanities, Education & Narrative, 7,9-25.

Abstract: The description of the integration of desktop documentary making into a history classroom requires a research model or heuristic capable of capturing students’ interactions with various mediating agents, including their history teacher. This article claims that a mergence of Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) with Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) provides a model sufficiently dynamic to describe how students making documentaries draw upon their teacher’s instruction, the software’s history making operations, and other resources while engaged in the compositional process.?

Schul, J. E. (2010). Necessity is the mother of invention: An experienced history teacher’s integration of desktop documentary making. International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning, 6(1), 14-32.

Abstract: Desktop documentary making elicits a new and unique way of doing history, and an examination into its integration into classroom instruction is warranted. This qualitative study explored one experienced teacher’s integration of desktop documentary making into a secondary history classroom. In addition to examining the teacher’s instructional practices, the compositional practices of five of this teacher’s students were investigated in order to illuminate the teacher’s integration of desktop documentary making as it related to history teaching and learning. Data were collected and coded to summarize the emergent themes. The findings reveal that the teacher’s integration of desktop documentary making complimented and enhanced inquiry-based practices already present in his classroom.?

Swan, K. & Hofer, M. (2011). In search of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Teachers’ initial foray into podcasting in economics. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(1), 75-98.

Abstract: In this paper, we report on work with eight practicing ninth grade social studies teachers to determine how they chose to integrate podcasting to help their students build on their economic literacy, which includes building both economic concepts and skills. The study is rooted in an interpretivist research paradigm, using the Council for Economic Education’s National Voluntary Content Standards in Economics (1997) and Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) theory of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) to frame data generation, analysis, and the reporting of results. We found that teachers demonstrated strong technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) but a lack of technological content knowledge (TCK) in the design and implementation of the podcasting projects. We argue that the lack of teachers’ content-based rationale for podcasting is a function of the universal nature of some digital tools, such as podcasting, in contrast to more specialized tools, such as computer simulations.?

Toth, E. E. (2009). Virtual inquiry in the science classroom: What is the role of Technological Pedagogial Content Knowledge? International Journal of Information & Communication Technology Education, 5(4), 78-87. doi: 10.4018/jicte.2009041008

Abstract: The article presents a study conducted to assist teachers in their development of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for classroom inquiry in the college introductory biology classrooms or high school biology, as relevant to the selection and use of technological tools. The study examines previous research including inquiry learning that is defined as the coordination of designing experiments and asking questions, the characteristics of educational software tools that support learning effectively and the pedagogical content knowledge. The results show that when it comes to supporting inquiry learning, all software tools are not created equal, thus previous research studies report contradictory findings of effectiveness.?

Valtonena, T., Pontinena, S., Kukkonena, J., Dillona, P., Väisänena, P., & & Hacklina, S. (2011). Confronting the technological pedagogical knowledge of Finnish net generation student teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 3-18. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2010.534867

Abstract: The research reported here is concerned with a critical examination of some of the assumptions concerning the ‘Net Generation’ capabilities of 74 first-year student teachers in a Finnish university. There are assumptions that: (i) Net Generation students are adept at learning through discovery and thinking in a hypertext-like manner (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2001); and (ii) when they enter the teaching profession, members of this generation will be able to transfer these characteristics into their teaching practices (Prensky, 2001). The research is formulated around an extended framework for student teachers’ technological pedagogical knowledge. The students designed learning modules incorporating the use of information and communication technology (ICT). The learning modules were subjected to document and artefact analysis incorporating concept-driven coding. Supplementary data were collected through a questionnaire concerned with the students’ adoption of new technologies. The findings suggest that assumptions about Net Generation student teachers’ abilities to adopt and adapt ICT in their teaching are highly questionable and that greater attention should be given to the development of their technological pedagogical knowledge.?

Vidoni, K.; Lady, S. Assay., L., & Ewing-Taylor, J. (2010). Nevada Pathway Project: Preparing 21st century principals. Principal Leadership, 11(3), 64-67.

Abstract: The article focuses on features and benefits of the Pathway to Nevada’s Future Pathway project. The project has two goals namely to change classroom experiences through the use of technology and to create professional development resources for administrators and teachers. The project reportedly utilizes a framework technology integration based on the convergence of technological, pedagogical and content knowledge of teachers.?

Voogt, J. M., Alayyar, G. M., & Fisser, P. (2011). ICT integration through design teams in science teacher preparation. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(2), 125-145.

Abstract: In this study, the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework is used to prepare students in the science teacher preparation program at the Public Authority of Applied Education and Training in Kuwait. Students worked in small design teams and were coached by technology, pedagogy, and content experts, to find a technological solution for a pedagogical problem that a teacher normally faces. In design teams, students blended content, pedagogy, and information and communication technology (ICT) to design a learning environment enhanced with ICT. Data was collected on students’ attitudes towards ICT and teamwork, their ICT skills, and their perception of their TPACK development. Pre-service teachers’ need for support and the criteria for that support were assessed. The findings indicated that students gained higher results in TPACK and ICT skills, and had a positive attitude toward ICT and toward working in design teams.?

Wilson, E., & Wright, V. (2010). Images over Time: The intersection of Social Studies through technology, content, and pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 10(2), 220-233.

Abstract: In this study, the authors examined the intersections between technology, pedagogy, and content through two social studies teachers’ development from preservice to in-service teaching. Qualitative data were collected during their teacher education programs, student teaching experiences, and 5 years into their in-service teaching. Teacher narratives illustrate the connections between technology, pedagogy, and content in these teachers’ social studies classrooms. The researchers note the complexity of technology integration and recommend that teacher educators support and promote opportunities for continuing education and professional development in teachers’ growth of technological pedagogical content knowledge.?

Zhan, Y., & Ren, Y. (in press). An empirical study on improving mathematics preservice reachers‘ TPACK. Journal of China Educational Technology.May be retrievable from http://www.oriprobe.com/journals/zgdhjy.html

Abstract: (translated): In 2006, Mishra and Koehler proposed the concept of TPACK which is a new framework of teacher knowledge for teaching by technology effectively. Basing on the researches aboard, this paper is about an empirical study of TPACK in China. The research addressed the question of ?what kind of course is helpful in improving preservice teachers‘ TPACK?? while choosing preservice teachers who were studying mathematics teaching in a university in Shanghai as the research sample. The course we designed applied a ?Learning by Design? and self-questioning strategies. A TPACK scale for mathematics teachers was developed by referring to the scales of Schmidt and Archambault. The pre-post scales data shows participants‘ TPACK improved after taking the course.

Chapters

Bell, L., Juersivich, N., Hammond, T. C., & Bell, R. L. (2012). The TPACK of dynamic representations. 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(pp. 103-135). doi: 10.4018/978-1-60960-750-0.ch005

Abstract: Effective teachers across K-12 content areas often use visual representations to promote conceptual understanding, but these static representations remain insufficient for conveying adequate information to novice learners about motion and dynamic processes. The advent of dynamic representations has created new possibilities for more fully supporting visualization. This chapter discusses the findings from a broad range of studies over the past decade examining the use of dynamic representations in the classroom, focusing especially on the content areas of science, mathematics, and social studies, with the purpose of facilitating the development of teacher technological pedagogical content knowledge. The chapter describes the research regarding the affordances for learning with dynamic representations, as well as the constraints—characteristics of both the technology and learners that can become barriers to learning—followed by a summary of literature-based recommendations for effective teaching with dynamic representations and implications for teaching and teacher education across subject areas.?

Hammond, T. C., Alexander, R. C., & Bodzin, A. M. (2012). Assessment in authentic environments: Designing instruments and reporting results from classroom-based TPACK research. 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(pp. 32-57). doi: 10.4018/978-1-60960-750-0.ch003

Abstract: The TPACK framework provides researchers with a robust framework for conducting research on technology integration in authentic environments, i.e., intact classrooms engaged in standards-aligned instruction. Researchers who wish to identify the value added by a promising technology-supported instructional strategy will need to assess student learning outcomes in these environments; unfortunately, collecting valid and reliable data on student learning in classroom research is extremely difficult. To date, few studies using TPACK in K-12 classrooms have included student learning outcomes in their research questions, and researchers are therefore left without models to guide their development, implementation, and analysis of assessments. This chapter draws upon the literature and our own research and assessment experiences in technology-integrated, standards-aligned classroom instruction to give examples and advice to researchers as they develop, analyze, and write up their observations of student learning outcomes. In particular, we focus on standard items, specifically multiple choice items, as an accepted (if limited) method for assessing student understanding. We seek to fill an existing gap in the literature between assessment advice for educational psychologists (who typically work outside of classroom settings) and advice given to teachers (who have lower thresholds for issues such as validity and reliability). Classroom researchers will benefit from this advice to develop, validate, and apply their own objective assessments. We focus on the content areas of science and social studies, but this advice can be applied to others as well.?

Hu, C. (2012). Creating an environment for pre-service teachers to develop Technical Pedagogical and Content Knowledge. In T. Le & Q. Le (Eds.), Technologies for Enhancing Pedagogy, Engagement and Empowerment in Education: Creating Learning-Friendly Environments(pp. 115-128). doi: 10.4018/978-1-61350-074-3.ch010

Abstract: This chapter reports a teacher education program in applying the framework of TPACK to the design of its ICT curriculum: the design principles employed, its implementation and a formative evaluation. A survey adapted from Schmidt et al. (2009) was administered at the beginning and completion of the course. The post-course survey showed an increase in pre-service teachers‘ self-reported ratings in all three types of knowledge, namely technological knowledge, technological pedagogical knowledge, and technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Although a majority (53.1%) of the pre-service teachers favored the approach of learning technology through engaging in design projects, many suggested that more structured instruction would benefit their learning.?

Johnston, C. J. & Moyer-Packenham, P. S. (2012). A model for examining the criteria used by pre-service elementary teachers in their evaluation of technology for mathematics teaching. 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(pp. 200-227). doi: 10.4018/978-1-60960-750-0.ch009

Abstract: Multiple existing frameworks address aspects of teachers‘ knowledge for teaching mathematics with technology. This study proposes the integration of several frameworks, including TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), MKT (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008), and technology evaluation criteria (Battey, Kafai, & Franke, 2005) into a new comprehensive model for interpreting teachers‘ knowledge of the use of technology for teaching mathematics: the T-MATH (Teachers‘ Mathematics and Technology Holistic) Framework The study employed quantitative and qualitative methods to examine 144 pre-service elementary teachers‘ evaluations of technology for future mathematics teaching. The proposed model and its application to this group of pre-service teachers suggest that there are multiple dimensions to understanding teachers‘ knowledge of uses of technology for mathematics teaching, and that teachers‘ self-identified evaluation criteria reveal the dimension in which their knowledge resides. Understanding teachers‘ progressions through these dimensions may provide insights into the types of experiences that support teacher development of the knowledge necessary to teach mathematics using appropriate technologies.?

Koehler, M. J., Shin, T. S., & Mishra, P. (2012). 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(pp. 16-31). doi: 10.4018/978-1-60960-750-0.ch002

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 determined 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.?

Lee, J. K., & Manfra, M. M. (2012). TPACK vernaculars in Social Studies research. 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(pp. 158-175). doi: 10.4018/978-1-60960-750-0.ch007

Abstract: To address the myriad effects that emerge from using technology in social studies, we introduce in this chapter the concept of vernaculars to represent local conditions and tendencies, which arise from using technology in social studies. The chapter includes three examples of TPACK vernaculars in social studies. The first explores a theoretical TPACK vernacular where Web 2.0 technologies support social studies and democratic life. The second example is focused on a three-part heuristic for seeking information about digital historical resources from the Library of Congress. Example three presents personalized vernacular TPACK developed by teachers planning to use an online gaming website called Whyville. Research and theorizing on vernacular forms of TPACK in social studies can aid teachers as they reflect on their own experiences teaching with technology.?

Lyublinskaya, I. & Tournaki, N. (2012). The effects of teacher content authoring on TPACK and on atudent achievement in algebra: Research on instruction with the TI-Nspire™ handheld. 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(pp. 295-322). doi: 10.4018/978-1-60960-750-0.ch013

Abstract: A year-long PD program was provided to four NYC integrated algebra teachers. The PD comprised of teacher authoring of curriculum that incorporated TI-Nspire™1 technology. Teacher TPACK levels were measured through a TPACK Levels Rubric, created and validated by the authors. The rubric was used to assess the teachers‘ written artifacts (lesson plans and authored curriculum materials) and observed behaviors (PD presentations and classroom teaching through observations). Results indicated that, first teachers‘ TPACK scores for written artifacts paralleled those of PD presentations. Second, the classroom teaching was either at the same level or lower than written artifacts. Third, teachers did not improve with every lesson they developed; instead, their scores vacillated within the two or three lower TPACK levels. Finally, the students taught by the teachers with higher TPACK level had higher average score on the NYS Regents exam and higher passing rates.?

Miller, T. K. (2012). A theoretical framework for implementing technology for mathematics learning. 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(pp. 251-270). doi: 10.4018/978-1-60960-750-0.ch011

Abstract: This chapter details a theoretical framework for effective implementation and study of technology when used in mathematics education. Based on phenomenography and the variation theory of learning, the framework considers the influence of the learning context, students‘ perceptions of the learning opportunity, and their approaches to using it upon measured educational outcomes. Elements of the TPACK framework and the CTFK model of teacher knowledge are also addressed. The process of meeting learning objectives is viewed as leading students to awareness of possible variation on different aspects, or dimensions, of an object of mathematical learning.?

Niess, M. L. (2012) Teacher knowledge for teaching with technology: A TPACK lens. 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(pp. 1-15). doi: 10.4018/978-1-60960-750-0.ch001

Abstract: Technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) is a dynamic lens that describes teacher knowledge required for designing, implementing, and evaluating curriculum and instruction with technology. TPACK strategic thinking incorporates knowing when, where, and how to use domain-specific knowledge and strategies for guiding students‘ learning with appropriate digital, information, and communication technologies. This chapter maps historical responses to the question of the knowledge that teachers need for teaching amid the emerging views of and challenges with TPACK. A review of empirical progress serves to illuminate potential insights, values, and challenges for directing future research designed to identify a teacher‘s learning trajectory in the development of a more robust and mature TPACK for teaching with current and emerging information and communication technologies.?

Piro, J. M. & Marksbury, N. (2012). Technologizing teaching: Using the WebQuest to enhance pre-service education. 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(pp. 228-250). doi: 10.4018/978-1-60960-750-0.ch010

Abstract: With the continuing shift of instructional media to digital sources occurring in classrooms around the world, the role of technology instruction in the pre-service curriculum of K-12 teachers is acquiring increasing salience. However, barriers to its inclusion continue to exist. In this chapter we focus on a model of hybridity designed to embed technology instruction into pre-service education. This model is known as the WebQuest and involves the development of a technology-driven learning activity that scaffolds the building of skills in content, pedagogy, and technology integration in pre-service teachers. We discuss data from an exploratory project conducted within a class of graduate pre-service teachers experiencing instruction in creating a WebQuest, and offer some preliminary findings. We place these results within a larger perspective of the CFTK and TPACK frameworks and their application to issues germane to pre-service teacher education.?

3. Recent TPACK Presentations

Di Blas, N., Paolini, P. & Torrebruno, A. (2010). Digital storytelling at school: Does the TPCK model explain what‘s going on? In J. Sanchez & K. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2010 (pp. 2239-2248). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/p/35880

Abstract: From year 2006, thousands of students (aged between 5 and 18 years) and hundreds of teachers have taken part in PoliCultura, an initiative by HOC-LAB of Politecnico di Milano calling Italian schools to create multimedia ?narratives?. A number of user studies show that relevant and substantial educational benefits are achieved thanks to this program. On the ground of the collected evidences, as well as of data from previous experiences with educational 3D-multiuser environments, this paper aims at raising a theoretical question: what is the role of the ?Technical Knowledge? of the teachers in a successful technology-based learning experience? Does the TPCK model provide an adequate explanation? From our experience, Technical Knowledge, in fact, seems to play a different role with respect to Content or Pedagogy Knowledge.?

Galstaun, V., Kennedy-Clark, S. & Hu, C. (2011). The impact of TPACK on pre-service teacher confidence in embedding ICT into the curriculum areas. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 3439-3448). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/p/38352

Abstract: This paper presents the preliminary findings of two case studies in which a TPACK framework was used to embed information and communication technologies (ICT) into curriculum areas. TPACK is a strategy that emphasises the interconnectivity between content, pedagogy and technology. The first case study involved a cohort of 216 postgraduate pre-service teachers in an ICT in education unit of study, and the second case study involved 18 undergraduate and postgraduate pre-service teachers majoring in science education. Data presented in this paper was collected from pre- and post-tests. The results of the pre- and post-test analysis indicate that there was a significant change in pre-service teachers‘ self-reported ability and confidence in selecting, evaluating and using ICT within a subject area. Overall, the preliminary analysis of data in these case studies supports the use of a TPACK framework to embed ICT within curriculum areas.?

Goldstein, O., Waldman, N., Tesler, B., Shonfeld, M., Forkush-Baruch, A., Mor, N., Zelkovich, Z., Heilweil, I., Kozminsky, L. & Zidan, W. (2011). Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) integration by teacher educators in Israeli colleges of education: The current state of affairs, 2008-2009. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 152-159). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/p/37859

Abstract: This study examines the current state of ICT integration by faculty members in Israeli Colleges of Education using combined quantitative and qualitative research methods. Findings reflect significant progress in ICT implementation in teaching by faculty in comparison to the previous decade: what was perceived then as innovative—using Office tools, online resources and e-mail—is now routine practice. Most faculty members implement these basic ICT uses. However, only few use technology to bring about change in their teaching methods. Most important goals in the current situation are: (a) further expanding faculty involvement in ICT integration in teaching and (b) developing innovative pedagogical approaches best suited to respond to the demands of the Information Era.?

Hollingsworth, M. & Gunn, T. (2011). Learning in the 21st century: High school completion for FNMI students. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 1683-1688). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/p/38088

Abstract: High school completion for Aboriginal Canadians is well below that of non-Aboriginal Canadians. Non-completion has deep consequences for individuals, families, and communities. Students who do not feel a sense of community and are not engaged in their school experience tend not to complete. Contemporary research suggests changes are necessary to address the needs of living in the 21st Century and to increase high school completion rates. These goals may be addressed through common strategies. Intended as a means of increasing student engagement and building a deeper sense of community in learning settings, the current research explores implementing TPACK planning, Web 2.0 technologies, and 21st Century Learning with Aboriginal student populations. Quantitative and qualitative data are collected in this two-year study. Initial anecdotal evidence suggests promising preliminary outcomes. As the study progresses, the data will help provide an understanding of the role of these strategies in leading to high school completion.?

Juniu, S. (2011). Educational Technology: Pedagogical tools in Physical Education. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 2200-2208). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/p/38166

Abstract: Building on Shulman’s (1987) idea of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), teachers‘ subject and pedagogical knowledge requires an understanding of the relationship of these elements, rather than thinking of them in isolation. In order to teach in a given discipline, the teacher must have the knowledge on the subject, the understanding of the teaching strategies to represent this content, the knowledge of the learners‘ characteristics, and the knowledge of the educational context (i.e. gymnasium). In taking up this discussion, this presentation examines the TPACK framework as a way to prepare physical educators to integrate technology in the teaching and learning process and to understand how to represent subject matters with technology in pedagogically ways. The approach is to reflect on the pedagogical actions and on the subject matter when designing successful, technology integrated projects in physical education.?

Kafyulilo, A., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2011, May). ICT use in science and mathematics teacher preparation: Developing pre-service teachers’ TPACK. Paper presented at the E-Learning Africa conference, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Presentation slides retrieved from
http://www.slideshare.net/Vangidunda/tpack-elearning-africa-2011

Abstract: None

Lai, T.l. & Lin, H.F. (2011). A case study of the differences between experienced and in-experienced math teachers’ TPACK. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (PP. 3051-3055). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/38294

Abstract: While using technology in the classroom has been advocated in the field for decades, teachers using technology in classrooms is not pervasive. Studies have found that for in-service teachers, merely providing short-term, one-shot technology training workshops may not be sufficient. Teachers need to learn how to use specific content-based technologies in the classroom. Based on Mishra and Koehler‘s Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, this study explored the difference between an experienced teacher and an inexperienced middle school math teacher‘s TPACK, and factors that influence high school math teachers‘ TPACK in general. Four experienced and inexperienced high school math teachers were interviewed for their knowledge and experiences of using technology teaching geometrics. Qualitative data analysis techniques were applied to analyze the differences between experienced and inexperienced math teachers‘ TPACK.

Lane, J. (2011). Preparing teachers of the future: A national initiative to integrate ICT in teacher education in Australia. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 451-456). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from  http://www.editlib.org/p/37904

Abstract: This paper shares a journey of innovation and change to integrate ICT in Teacher Education Courses in a School of Teacher Education in Australia. It is linked to two initiatives, The Teaching Teachers for the Future Project (TTF), led by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) and Curriculum 2012, a university- based curriculum reform project. Thirty-seven Australian Universities are currently involved in the larger TTF project. It is anticipated this project will impact on 55,000 student teachers in Australia. The TTF project team includes the Australian Council of Deans of Education, the Australian Institute for Teachers and School Leaders, Education Services Australia and the Australian Council for Computers in Education. The new initiatives to integrate ICT and the main barriers to curriculum change are described. The paper has relevance for those wanting to improve Teacher Education, and renew teaching in Tertiary Institutions to include 21st Century Technologies.?

Liu, S.H. (2011). Differences between enrolled in an integrated course and did not in TPACK and technology integration for preservice teachers. In Proceedings of Global TIME 2011 (pp. 171-176). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/37074

Abstract: Technology integration is increasingly important for preservice teachers. However, preservice teachers still lack sufficient understanding due to isolated courses in teacher education programs. This study aims to explore the differences between preservice teachers who enrolled in an integrated course and those who did not in technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) and technology integration implementation during participating in school-based field practice. The integrated course, consisting of various teaching tasks about TPACK, was arranged as an elective course. One year afterward, 401 preservice teachers, including 159 preservice teachers who enrolled in the integrated course, were invited to fill out a validated questionnaire. The analytical results, by applying ANOVA and t-test statistical methods, indicate that the integrated course is effective for promoting preservice teachers‘ knowledge and implementation about technology integration, while teaching fields which they majored in as students do not differ.?

Liu, S. H. (2011). Modeling pre-service teachers‘ knowledge of, attitudes toward, and intentions for technology integration. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 3350-3355). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from  http://www.editlib.org/p/38335

Abstract: The study, which combines TAM and TPACK, examines the direct and indirect effects of knowledge of technology integration on pre-service teachers‘ attitudes toward technology use (ATU) and intention to integrate technology (IIT) while teaching. Structural equation modeling was applied to model the relationships in a set of latent variables. In total, 470 pre-service teachers preparing for a school-based field practice were invited to fill out a validated questionnaire. Analytic results reveal that TPACK affects pre-service teachers‘ ATU, and IIT while teaching. Study findings also indicate that pre-service teachers can combine diverse knowledge obtained from teacher education courses to use technology positively and intentionally to optimize student learning. I recommend that an adequate fit between TPACK and technology integration can serve as a base model for future studies of the ability pre-service teachers to integrate technology and teaching for pre-service teachers.?

Maor, D. & Roberts, P. (2011). Does the TPACK framework help to design a more engaging learning environment? In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 3498-3504). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from  http://www.editlib.org/p/38360

Abstract: This paper describes an attempt to design an e-learning course within a framework that combines theoretical underpinnings with pedagogy and content knowledge. It focuses on how a university lecturer can facilitate learning that integrates pedagogical and technological knowledge. The Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework enables new ways of thinking about technology integration and emphasizes the intersection of these three domains: technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Students‘ involvement in a blended learning course and their reflections were examined to provide a picture of the synergy or lack thereof in relation to this framework. This paper offers a look at the intersections of the TPACK domains to consider how the use of Web 2 technologies in teaching complement the other domains. It also describes how students assessed the combination of the technological, pedagogical and content knowledge domains in their learning experiences.

McCann, K. (2011). Increasing interactivity across the islands: A case study analysis of interactive whiteboards in the classroom. In S. Barton et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2011 (pp. 681-684). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/37246

Abstract: This study aspires to describe the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) and practices of current educators as they integrate interactive whiteboards (IWBs) across various educational settings. Participants in this study are educators who have taken part in a formal, IWB-centered professional development course. Through the lenses of the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM) and change theory, this research seeks to identify insights and implications for changes in instruction and learning, as well as strategies for longer-term professional development, instructional design and support for practitioners in the field. This paper hopes to serve as a prospectus, and thus, a springboard for a doctoral dissertation and research in an effort to further investigate these case-specific issues and characteristics.

Mumcu, F. K. ve Usluel, Y. K. (2010, April). Teknolojik pedagojik içerik bilgisi modeline göre B?T’in ö?renme-ö?retme sürecine entegrasyonuyla ilgili ölçek geli?tirme çal??mas? [A scale development study of integration of ICT into learning and teaching process according to TPACK]. Paper presented at the Tenth International Educational Technology Conference (IETC), ?stanbul, Turkey. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/Papers/in/Scale_Development

Abstract: This study aims to develop a scale about integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) into learning and teaching process under technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) model. For this aim, a scale was developed by researchers and applied to 327 teachers from 21 primary schools in Ankara, capital of Turkey. In order to find out validity and reliability of the scale, confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach Alpha coefficient were used. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the TPACK scale consists of 15 items and four sections, and the scale is at an acceptable degree of goodness of fit. As a result of analysis according to TPACK model, 4 items were identified as technological knowledge; 4 items were identified as technological content knowledge; 4 items were identified as technological pedagogical knowledge; and 3 items were identified as technological pedagogical content knowledge. Cronbach‘s coefficient of reliability in the analysis was examined and found to be .96. On the basis of factor scores, Cronbach‘s coefficients are .86 for technological knowledge, .85 for technological content knowledge, .93 for technological pedagogical knowledge and .91 for technological pedagogical content knowledge.?

Oster-Levinz, A. & Klieger, A. (2011). Does developing online tasks draw teachers nearer to interrelated knowledge (TPACK)?. In S. Barton et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2011 (pp. 696-701). AACE. Retrieved from  http://www.editlib.org/p/37249

Abstract: Teachers have to wisely use the online environment in order to realize a new pedagogy. In this paper we will discuss the knowledge required of teachers when integrating technology in teaching – TPACK, and a digital indicator we developed for the evaluation of the teachers’ different types of knowledge: pedagogical knowledge, technological knowledge and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). We examined 53 online tasks developed by teachers over seven years, where some of the teachers received guidance and accompaniment in the development of the tasks. The findings refer to the professional development of the teachers which took place in these fields. We found that online tasks that teachers develop can comprise a measure for examining the extent of integration of technological knowledge with content knowledge and with pedagogical knowledge.?

Valanides, N. & Angeli, C. (2011, July). Thinking critically about technology from an educational perspective: Implications for developing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Workshop presented at the 13th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of European Ideas (ISSEI), Nicosia, Cyprus. Abstract retrieved from
http://issei2012.haifa.ac.il/Valanides.htm

Abstract: Many thinkers have, from antiquity to the present, expressed serious reservations about the role of technology in education and its possibly destructive effects on the cognitive capabilities of the individual. Others have responded to ongoing technological advances either with unreserved enthusiasm or with qualified endorsement. This workshop aims to explore possibilities of thinking about technology as a Janus-faced operation, i.e., as a human-made reality that can work in both enabling and disabling directions and whose role depends on the ability of human beings to harness technology to enabling rather than disabling learning purposes. The educational cultivation of critical thinking and teachers‘ competence to teach with technology, namely their technological pedagogical content knowledge will be discussed as such possibilities for thinking about the seamless integration of technology in teaching and learning. Within this framework, the workshop organizers welcome papers from a variety of educational perspectives. For instance, philosophical-educational contributions may cover the ground from ancient conceptions of criticality (e.g. Socratic examined life) to contemporary philosophical treatments of technology (e.g. Heidegger’s critique of technological thought and intervention). Pedagogical discussions of critical thinking and technological pedagogical content knowledge may supply the workshop with a more applied and classroom-oriented perspective on understanding technology. Science education contributions may map new developments in educational employment of scientific and technological outlooks on life and the world.

Ward, C. L. (2011, June). The development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in instructors using Quality Matters training & rubric.Paper presented at a Regional Conference of the Quality Matters Program, Columbus, Ohio. Abstract retrieved from http://www.qmprogram.org/files/Regional%20Conference%20downloadable%201.pdf

Abstract: The need for online offerings at colleges and universities requires a new skill set for the instructors asked to develop quality content in new learning environments. This study explores the impact that the QM training, rubric and peer collaboration model have in helping instructors construct new knowledge in the areas of TPACK (Technological, Pedagogical, Content Knowledge), a conceptual framework that describes the dynamic relationship needed between technology, pedagogy and content.

4. Recent TPACK-Related Dissertations

Baert, H. (2011). The integration of technology within physical education teacher education: Perceptions of the faculty (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (AAT 3459854).

Abstract: In 2008, the national Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) standards included a more integrated approach to teaching pre-service teachers about technology and stated that teacher candidates should be able to plan and implement technology infused learning experiences that meet lesson objectives. With the inclusion of the 2008 standards, PETE faculty have the task to create instruction that effectively integrates technology. This study investigated the preparedness for technology integration of 198 teacher educators within nationally recognized PETE programs. The study utilized survey research design to identify current technologies used, analyze current level of technology proficiency in relationship to the level of integration, identify factors that aid or hinder the technology infusion process and examine approaches PETE programs use to integrate technology within PETE programs. Roger`s Diffusion Theory (2003) and the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) were used as theoretical guides. Results indicated low proficiency and integration levels. On average, proficiency levels were that of basic use of technology and integration levels indicated that PETE professors were aware of the use of technology but often did not integrate it or teach it to the students. In addition, the level of proficiency predicted integration levels significantly. Computer technologies, pedometers and heart rate monitor were tools most often integrated within PETE programs. PETE teacher educators expressed concerns related to the abundance of technologies as well as the limited availability and accessibility of technologies both at the PETE level and within K-12 schools. The results and literature suggest PETE faculty can enhance technology integration by developing a clear vision of technology integration, creating a technology plan, constructing teaching technology labs, and encouraging faculty-practitioner collaboration. In light of the 2008 national PETE standards, the results suggest that both the national and regional associations as well as PETE administrators should explore various professional development models in the area of both using technology (improving proficiency levels) as well as teaching effective teaching strategies related to technology (enhancing integration levels). Crucially, strategies where technology can assist in the enhancement of the overall quality of PE, in both PETE and K-12 PE, should be the main focus.

Forssell, K. (2011). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Relationships to learning ecologies and social learning networks(Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University). Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/~forssell/dissertation/

Abstract: Improving learning experiences for all students is the ultimate goal of research in technology use in education. With more availability and better usability of technology in schools, the potential for teachers to use digital tools in schools is greater than ever. However a key factor determining whether new technologies are adopted is the extent to which teachers know how to use them to support students’ learning. The special knowledge of how technologies can support students’ learning of subject area content is known as technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). This study explored the relationship of accomplished teachers’ TPACK confidence to their use of technology with students and to their teaching and learning contexts. In an online survey, 307 National Board Certified teachers provided information about the frequency and breadth of their computer use with students; their use of computers in their personal lives; the school, classroom, and personal resources available to them for learning; and the people in their learning networks supporting their learning to use new technologies for teaching. Although the representativeness of the sample was limited and the measures self-reported, they provided rich opportunities to discover relationships and suggest avenues for supporting teacher learning of new technologies. Analyses showed that these accomplished teachers’ confidence in their knowledge of how to use new technologies for teaching was different from their confidence in using technologies more generally. Further, TPACK confidence related to student use of computers in the classroom. No associations were found between TPACK confidence and age, gender, grade levels, subject areas, or student populations. However, confidence in teaching with technology did relate to measures of the teachers’ learning resources. More varied learning resources and more productive social learning networks were associated with higher TPACK confidence. Three key types of support provided by learning partners — learning together, posing challenges, and connecting the teacher to others to learn from — were significantly more common among high-TPACK teachers. Findings in this study point to ways we might further understand, and subsequently increase, teacher confidence in using new technologies to support student learning. Several questions are raised for future research: Do learning resources lead to confidence in knowledge, or does confidence lead to awareness of existing resources? To what extent can TPACK be measured without first assessing the teacher’s PCK? And how might we develop survey measures that reliably capture the complexity of technological pedagogical content knowledge? Understanding TPACK and the conditions under which it develops is an important field of research, as we strive to help teachers learn to use new technologies effectively to support powerful student learning.

Hervey, L. G. (2011). Between the notion and the act: Veteran teachers’ TPACK and practice in 1:1 settings (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (AAT 3463705). Available: http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/6799/1/etd.pdf

Abstract: The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework is a nuanced lens to study teachers’ 21st century professional knowledge and practice (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Veteran teachers in 1:1 settings have not been the focus in TPACK research. In this mixed-methods study, veteran teachers were surveyed to determine their self-reported technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Qualitative data included teachers’ videotaped lessons, interview transcripts and field notes. Discussion highlights the need for a valid and reliable instrument to measure secondary teachers’ TPACK, the value of a priori coding to illuminate TPACK, and generational challenges veteran teachers face while practicing in 1:1 settings.?

Ivy, J. T. (2011). Secondary mathematics teachers’ perceptions of their integration of instructional technologies (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (AAT 3461290).

Abstract: This qualitative research study explored the beliefs and practices regarding integrations of instructional technologies by seven secondary mathematics teachers. The researcher conducted an initial interview, a classroom observation, and a follow-up interview with each participant. Participants also submitted sample lessons and completed a TPACK Development Model Self-Report Survey. The interviews and observations were analyzed using deductive analysis, using the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Development Model to assess technology-related practices. Through responses to the TPACK Development Model Self-Report Survey, the participants revealed their perceptions of their practices and beliefs regarding technology integration. These perceptions were compared to the researcher’s analysis of interviews, observations, and lesson samples. The researcher found that the participants perceived themselves to have much higher TPACK levels than indicated by other data collected. There was also a noted lack of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) among participants with low TPACK, which indicated that their teaching practices limited technology integration. Pressures from standardized testing and interactions with colleagues were common factors noted to support technology integration. Pressures from standardized testing, however, tended to result in graphing calculator integration for computations and other rote uses. The researcher also noted that participants were largely unable to differentiate between instructional technologies and non-instructional technologies. Participants erroneously reported presentation tools, such as LCD projectors, as instructional technology. Most participants lacked a vision for integrating technology as a tool for learning mathematics. Instead, many participants felt that technology posed a threat to the learning process. One participant, however, was a notable exception to these statements. Individual cases and the emergent themes are discussed.?

Landry, G. A. (2010). Creating and validating an instrument to measure middle school mathematics teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee – Knoxville). Retrieved from  http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/720

Abstract: Due to the pervasiveness of technology, the role and preparation of teachers as they strategically use technology for teaching mathematics needs to be examined. Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) is a framework for knowledge as teachers develop meaningful learning experiences for their students while integrating strategic use of technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The purpose of this study was to develop a survey for measuring mathematics teachers‘ Mathematical Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (M-TPACK). The survey measures the domains of mathematics content, pedagogy and technology. This mixed methods study first examined middle school mathematics teachers‘ TPACK through the use of an existing survey (Schmidt et al., 2009). Interviews were conducted to determine the availability and use of technology in middle school mathematics classrooms, and teachers‘ strategic use of available technology for mathematics instruction. Finally, a survey measuring M-TPACK was developed to specifically measure teachers‘ mathematical TPACK. Grandgenett (2008) asks for more concentration on helping teachers to imagine ?possibilities? for using various approaches and strategies for integrating technology in mathematics instruction. This study presents important findings and supports the need for mathematics teachers‘ professional development to reconceptualize the role of technology in mathematics instruction. By using the developed M-TPACK Survey, teacher educators and administers can use information about teachers‘ knowledge and beliefs concerning technology to enhance teacher education programs and plan professional development. The survey developed from this study can be used for stakeholders as they determine the needs of mathematics teachers, move the concept of TPACK beyond theory and toward practice, and move toward offering appropriate technology experiences to enhance strategic mathematics instruction.?

Riales, J. W. (2011). An examination of secondary mathematics teachers’ TPACK development through participation in a technology-based lesson study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (AAT 3461312).

Abstract: This qualitative research study used a layered case study (Patton, 2002) to examine the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) of a group of inservice secondary mathematics teachers as they participated in a technology-based lesson study. Using the TPACK Development Model (Niess, 2009) as a lens, this dissertation examines interactions of the group members during lesson study meetings as well as individual case studies of four of the six participants. Data were gathered from initial surveys, initial and post-interviews, initial and post-classroom observations, writing prompts, and transcriptions of lesson study group meetings. Data were analyzed to determine the TPACK development levels for different themes of the model at different stages during the lesson study process. Thick descriptions are provided of actions and quotes from the participants that exemplified various TPACK development levels. Findings indicated that the design and purpose of technology-based lesson study provided participants opportunities to practice actions from the higher levels of the TPACK Development Model during the lesson study. Based on classroom observations, half of the participants demonstrated practices that indicated increases in TPACK development levels following the lesson study. Those participants with less experience with technology in their educational backgrounds demonstrated greater positive changes. Participant responses to interview questions and writing prompts indicated that experiencing learning with technology and observing students. thinking served to prompt changes in their own practices.

(The following dissertation came to our attention recently, even though it was defended five years ago. It is one of only two TPACK-related dissertations defended in 2006 that we have found; the two earliest TPACK-based dissertations, we believe.)

Rodriguez, J. C. (2006). Weaving technology in the design of learning experiences in world language teacher education: The development of a cognitive tool, an instructional device and an exploration (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (AAT 3243835).

Abstract: This dissertation constitutes a first step toward improving our understanding of how better and more sophisticated uses of technology in the context of world language teacher education (WLTE) can be achieved. This work includes (a) the design and development of a prototype of a cognitive tool intended to support the design of language learning experiences; (b) an article that advocates project-based learning (PBL) as a powerful instructional device to support sophisticated learning experiences in WLTE; and (c) the exploration of conceptual and interactual aspects of said cognitive tool. Chapter 2, “Project-based learning: A promising pathway to technology integration in world language teacher education” proposes a taxonomy of complex WLTE tasks. This article discusses how some of the possibilities that PBL offers can be operationalized in WLTE and argues that providing preservice language teachers experiences with and exposure to sophisticated pedagogical interventions, such as the ones supported by PBL, can improve the integration of technology into the design of language learning activities. As this article shows, PBL is suitable to take full advantage of the complexity of WLTE to immerse preservice teachers in rich design experiences that integrate technology. However, implementing PBL in WLTE poses many challenges. Technology tools that facilitate the conceptualization, creation and management of projects may help in the implementation of PBL in WLTE. Chapter 3, “Postcards from the Mind: Designing language learning experiences with technology,” is a design-based research study that explores a prototype of such tool. This research gives us some insights into the cognitive processes involved in the design of language learning experiences. The cognitive processes identified included (a) the activation of composite forms of knowledge, such as pedagogical-content knowledge (PCK) and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK), which have been hypothesized to be a prerequisite for the effective integration of technology into learning experiences; (b) the iterative consideration of general pedagogical guidelines; and (c) the application of a mental model to the design of language learning experiences. Interactual and conceptual aspects of the tool that did or did not support the users’ cognitive processes are discussed. Findings from this study have implications for WLTE and interface design.?

5. Recent TPACK-Related Professional Development

Mark Fijor, a professional development provider in the Arlington Heights, Illinois school district, has created a  rich and thoughtful set of blog posts that explain how his district is using TPACK-based ideas and practices district-wide in professional development efforts this year. In his first post, he explains:

…our district has done a phenomenal job of providing teachers and students with access to technology. In addition, our teachers are exposed to a wide variety of tools through in-services and conferences outside of the district. However, with this access and knowledge comes the idea of overexposure. Teachers are finding there are many different tools available for a task, and because of this, many are unsure of which is the best tool. Teachers are free to explore on their own and use a variety of tools, but this is limited to those who are truly interested about learning on their own and experimenting. When these tools are shared with staff, many of the teachers are left to wonder the tools apply to what they are doing in the classroom, or are overwhelmed by the amount of resources available.

It is from these dilemmas that I have developed a framework and a series of guidelines that address the idea of systemic technology integration. In meeting with teachers and administrators from various districts and experience levels, I believe that the following series of post will address many of the concerns and problems with technology integration in schools.?

ITEN, the Inter-American Teacher Education Network, sponsored a Webinar about TPACK on August 19, 2011. Dina Rosen, from Kean University, spoke about: “TPACK and Developmentally Appropriate Technology Use.” The purpose of the Webinar was:

“To introduce, illustrate and discuss two key frameworks for effective technology integration, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and Developmentally Appropriate Technology Use (DATU). TPACK is a framework that describes the nature of knowledge required by teachers for Technology integration in their teaching. DATU is a framework for using technology with young learners, preschool through third grade.”

A recording of the Webinar is available online here

Candace Marcotte, a middle school English teacher, created a practical and detailed YouTube video called Grammar 2.0 to share (with other teachers) how she makes the learning of grammar interactive for her students.

Lara Ervin, a research assistant at Stanford University, used these slides to help her to teach a professional development workshop at San Jose State University in June 2011: Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge: Rethinking the Role of Technology in K-12 Classrooms

6. Other TPACK Updates

Tech & Learning magazine named our own Punya Mishra (Michigan State University) and Ann Thompson (Iowa State University) as two of the ?10 Most Influential People in Ed Tech for 2011? as selected by the publication‘s ?readers and advisors? in June.  Read the article here. Congratulations to Ann and Punya!

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 am extremely proud of what we do as a part of our Master’s in Ed Tech (MAET) program. It is a unique program and over the years we have worked hard to make it a multi-faceted and unique experience for your students. Over the next few weeks I (with some help from doctoral student Laura Terry) will be posting examples of the excellent work our students do in this program. (See here for the first post about representing educational tensions with photography.)

The design of our program is very carefully thought through—driven both by powerful theoretical ideas grounded in the pragmatics of teaching and learning. Just this week I found out that a paper we had written about the kinds of activities we do in the MAET program just got published. If you are interested in teacher education and teacher professional development or specifically in the MAET program please check out:

Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., Bouck, E. C., DeSchryver, M., Kereluik, K., Shin, T.S., Wolf, L.G. (2011). Deep-Play: Developing TPACK for 21st Century Teachers. International Journal of Learning Technology, Vol. 6, No. 2. 146-163. 

Abstract: A key complication facing teachers who seek to integrate technology in their teaching is the fact that most technologies are not designed for educational purposes. Making a tool an educational technology requires creative input from the teacher to re-design, or maybe even subvert the original intentions of the designer. The learning technology by design (LT/D) framework has been proposed as being an effective instructional technique to develop deeper understanding of technological pedagogical content knowledge. In this paper we expand our description of the LT/D technique to develop what we call a deep-play model for teacher professional development. The deep-play model integrates: (a) pedagogy for key 21st century learning skills; (b) content that cuts across disciplines with trans-disciplinary cognitive tools; (c) technology by the creative repurposing of tools for pedagogical purposes.

Please let me know if you would like a copy of the paper.

Matt Koehler just created a webpage that tracks the citations of our original TCRecord article, as reported by Google Scholar, in real time. The reference is as follows:

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge.Teachers College Record 108 (6), 1017-1054.

You will note that in this paper we call the framework TPCK (not TPACK). That came much later. At this time Google Scholar indicates that there are over 550 citations to this article. Additionally, curve gives no signs of flattening off. It is a cool piece of php programming and makes us feel good too!

I am including a screen shot of chart below, but for the continually updated page you will need to go to Matt’s website.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back in 2009, Judi Harris, Matt Koehler and I published in a piece in the Journal of Research on Technology in Education. That article has now been included in a book, titled: Considerations on Technology & Teachers: The Best of JRTE, edited by Lynne Schrum, and published by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).

Here’s a link to the table of contents [pdf] as well as to the introduction and the first chapter [pdf].

Our original chapter and abstract is as follows.

Harris, J., Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2009). Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Learning Activity Types: Curriculum-based Technology Integration Reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. [pdf]

In this paper we critically analyze extant approaches to technology integration in teaching, arguing that many current methods are technocentric, often omitting sufficient consideration of the dynamic and complex relationships among content, technology, pedagogy, and context. We recommend using the technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) framework as a way to think about effective technology integration, recognizing technology, pedagogy, content and context as interdependent aspects of teachers’ knowledge necessary to teach content-based curricula effectively with educational technologies. We offer TPACK-based “activity types,” rooted in previous research about content-specific activity structures, as an alternative to existing professional development approaches and explain how this new way of thinking may authentically and successfully assist teachers’ and teacher educators’ technology integration efforts.

I had previously posted about it here.

Kristen Kereluik, Matt Koehler and I just published an article in The California Reader: A publication of the California Reading Association. The complete citation and abstract is as follows:

Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2010, Winter). On learning to subvert signs: Literacy, Technology and the TPACK framework. The California Reader, 44, 2, (12-18). [PDF download].

This paper discusses new literacy practices that can be enabled through the creative repurposing of digital technologies. We frame the discussion within the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework. TPACK is a form of knowledge that teachers need to have in order to successfully integrate technology in their teaching.  TPACK argues for the idea of teachers as designers of curriculum, who repurpose existing technical tools for pedagogical purposes. Finally we offer a set of implications of this approach for teacher preparation programs.

We start the paper with two examples that were first reported on this blog. The first is from Michael Hughes, a graduate of our MAET program, who had something he does with his 6th grade students and the second has to do with Sean Nash (of Nashworld fame) and an activity he gave students in his advanced biology class – reported here.

As I have been blogging over the years I am finding more and more examples of this kind of bi-directional influence, academic texts end up on my blog (edited or unedited) and my blogging informs the my academic writing! I had expected the former to happen, in fact the broader dissemination of my academic writing was part of the reason I started this blog in the first place. What I had not expected was to see my blogging contributing to my academic writing.

Camille Dempsey, a professional development consultant in instructional technology, education, arts and leadership as well as a doctoral candidate in in the Leadership and Instructional Technology Program at Duquesne University has been ” investigating TPACK in conjunction with IT & visual art” and shared a recent presentation she and her colleague made at the Pennsylvania Art Education Association Conference.

Dempsey, J. C. & Linaberger, M. (2010, October). Art in the digital garden: Cultivating best practices in technology integration and art. Pennsylvania Art Education Association Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The slides are available at http://artseducator20.wikispaces.com/PAEA+2010

(Note, you may have to scroll down a bit to see the slides).

Back in March of this year, Joel Colbert (friend and former chair of the AACTE Innovation and Technology Committee) spent a few hours working together on a document that AACTE was going to put out. Yesterday, at the meeting of the NTLS meeting in Washington DC, I found out that the report is out. You can find the report titled 21st Century Knowledge and Skills in Educator Preparation. This eschoolnews article will also tell you more: Groups urge updates to teacher preparation programs. As the article says:

The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) are calling on teacher education programs to update their curricula to better prepare future teachers to integrate 21st-century skills into their instruction.

The groups released a paper on Sept. 23 seeking to establish a shared vision for infusing digital-age knowledge and skills into teacher preparation programs and spark a meaningful discussion among higher-education leaders about how to implement this vision.

I have mixed feelings about this report – even though I am thanked at the end (along with other members of the Innovation & Technology Committee). I saw my task as being taking a document that already existed and ensure that some of the key work done by the committee (such as the work around TPACK and the handbook) would be addressed in the report. So it was a task circumscribed and limited in critical ways. As some of my other writing (here on the blog and at other venues) suggests, I have a somewhat different perspective on what we mean by 21st Century Skills (starting even with my dislike of that term) and what it would even mean…  but that is neither here nor there. The report is here, take a look, and let me know what you think.

I just came across an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education titled, 10 tips on How to Write Less Badly [H/T Geekpress]. It is not that I agreed with every point being made there but a couple of them (To become a writer, write!; Find a voice, don’t just get published) really connected with my personal experience. The comments at the end of the article add a few good ideas as well… overall, an article well worth reading, particularly for graduate students who are still working on developing the routine and on finding their own voice.

Just found out about a review of the Handbook of TPACK by Dorian Stoilescu and Douglas McDougall for the Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology (2009). You can read the full review here. Overall a positive review, with some pertinent criticism, particularly regarding the lack of references to current research in TPACK. Here’s a quote from the last paragraph.

Overall, it remains a solid approach, written by prominent professors in different fields of education, offering a consistent perspective about integrating technology in various contexts of teaching. This book gives us the feeling that, by using TPCK, the use of computers in education might finish its prolonged period of childhood that made practitioners and researchers uneasy in educational technology, and start shaping more significant roles.

TPACK Newsletter, Issue #7.1:
Special SITE & AERA Conference Issue

March-April 2010

Welcome to the seventh edition of the TPACK Newsletter, published four times each year between September and April. If you are not sure what TPACK is, please surf over to http://www.tpack.org/ to find out more.

Gratuitous Quote About Technology

“For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three.”  ~Alice Kahn

In This Issue

-1.      Gratuitous Quote About Technology
0. In This Issue (–> You are here)
1. Update on Newsletter
2.        TPACK SIG Meeting at SITE 2010 in San Diego
3.        Recent TPACK Publications & Presentations
4.        Recent TPACK-Related Dissertations
5.        TPACK at California Council on Teacher Education Spring Conference
6.        Coming up: TPACK at SITE
7.        Coming up: TPACK at AERA
8.        TPACK Work in Progress
9.        New Hybrid Ph.D. Program at Michigan State (Connecting with TPACK)
10.      Learning and Doing More with TPACK
–.         Un-numbered miscellaneous stuff at the end

1. Update on Newsletter

The TPACK newsletter currently has 707 subscribers!  In addition to being a palindromic number, this also represents a 9.2% increase in membership during the last two months.

Many thanks to those of you who sent in corrections so quickly to version 7.0 of his newsletter! We have incorporated them in this 7.1 edition.

2. TPACK SIG Meeting at SITE 2010 in San Diego

The TPACK SIG meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 31 from 8 – 9 AM in the Marina 3 room at the SITE Conference 2010 in San Diego, California. Please mark your calendars. More information about TPACK-related papers and presentations at SITE can be found below.

There are some leadership opportunities in the SIG that may be of interest to members (faculty and graduate students). We hope to welcome many at the meeting. We look forward to seeing you there.

3. Recent TPACK Publications & Presentations
Below are several recent TPACK publications and presentations that we know about. If you know of others that were shared within the past several months, please let us know (tpack.news.editors@wm.edu).

Articles/Chapters

• Blanchard, M. R., Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2010). Grounded tech integration: Science. Learning & Leading With Technology, 37(6). 32-34.
• Figg, C. & McCartney, R. (2010). Impacting academic achievement with student learners teaching digital storytelling to others: The ATTTCSE digital video project. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol10/iss1/languagearts/article3.cfm
• Grandgenett, N., Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Grounded tech integration: Math. Learning & Leading With Technology, 37(3), 24-26.
• Groth, R., Spickler, D., Bergner, J., & Bardzell, M. (2009). A qualitative approach to assessing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 9(4), 392-411. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss4/mathematics/article1.cfm
• Hardy, M. (2010). Enhancing preservice mathematics teachers’ TPCK. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(1), 73-86. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/33136
• Kramarski, B. & Michalsky, T. (in press). Preparing preservice teachers for self-regulated learning in the context of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Learning and Instruction. Doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.05.003
• Lee, M. H. & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1-21. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/d510480505435104/
• Pan, N., Lau, H., Lai, W. (2010). Sharing e-learning innovation across disciplines: An encounter between engineering and teacher education. Electronic Journal of e-Learning. 8(1). Retrieved from http://www.ejel.org/Volume-8/v8-i1/v8-i1-art-4.htm
• Tanti, M., & Moran, W. (2009). Warts and all: Integrating ICT in teacher training. International Journal of Learning, 16, 641-655.
• Van Olphen, M., Hofer, M., & Harris, J. (2009-10). Grounded tech integration: Languages. Learning & Leading With Technology. 37(4), 26-28.
• Wang, Q. (2009). Guiding teachers in the process of ICT integration: Analysis of three conceptual models. Educational Technology,
  49(5), 23-27. Retrieved from http://qywang.myplace.nie.edu.sg/Publications.htm
• Whitehouse, P., McCloskey, E., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2009). Online pedagogy design and development: New models for 21^st century online teacher professional development. In J. O. Lindberg & A. D. Olofsson (Eds.), Online learning communities and teacher professional development: Methods for improved education delivery (pp. 247-262). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Young, C., Hofer, M., & Harris, J. (2010). Grounded tech integration: English Language Arts. Learning & Leading With Technology, 37(5), 28-30.

Presentation(s)

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

4. Recent TPACK-Related Dissertations

The following TPACK-based dissertations have been released recently. There may be more… (and if so, you know whom to contact with that information

• Chase, E. (2009). Extension educators’ perceptions of the use of digital technology in their work. Michigan State University, Lansing, MI. AAT 3381427
• Nathan, E. J. (2009). An examination of the relationship between preservice teachers’ level of technology integration self-efficacy (TISE) and level of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). University of Houston, Houston, TX. AAT 3388727
• Sheffield, C. C. (2009). A multiple case study analysis of middle grades social studies teachers’ instructional use of digital technology with academically talented students at three high-performing middle schools. University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. AAT 3394182

5. TPACK at California Council on Teacher Education Spring Conference

The annual meeting of the California Council on Teacher Education (March 25 – 27, in San Jose) has a strong TPACK thematic focus. There will be keynote presentations and panel discussions led by TPACK regulars like Punya Mishra, Judi Harris, Glen Bull and Mario Kelly. http://www.ccte.org/conferences/

6. Coming up: TPACK at SITE 2010

Here is a list of presentations related to TPACK at the SITE conference at San Diego, March 29 – April 1. There are 34 papers, presentations, poster sessions and symposia related to TPACK that will be included in this conference. Please note the SIG meeting at 8 – 9 am on Wednesday, 3/31/10 as well. Specific locations and times for the presentations can be found on the SITE Conference Web site.

We have tried to capture all of the entries but if we missed yours (or one that you know about), do let us know (tpack.news.editors@wm.edu).

Tuesday, March 30

• SITE’s Digital Fabrication Initative Glen Bull, University of Virginia, USA; Gary Marks, SITE, USA; Nick Sanham, Aspex, UK; Willy Kjellstrom, University of Virginia, USA
• Digital Skills as a Basis for TPCK Leikny Ogrim, Oslo University College, Norway

Wednesday, March 31

• The Decision-Making Processes of Preservice Teachers as They Integrate Technology Charles R. Graham, Brigham Young University, USA; Nicolette Burgoyne, Brigham Young University, USA; Jered Borup, Brigham Young University, USA
• Differentiating TPACK Development: Using Learning Activity Types with Inservice and Preservice Teachers Mark Hofer, College of William and Mary, USA; Judith Harris, College of William and Mary, USA
• Strategies for Teacher Professional Development of TPACK, Part 1 & 2 Joke Voogt, University of Twente, Netherlands; Ann Thompson, Iowa State University, USA; Punya Mishra, Michigan State University, USA; Petra Fisser, University of Twente, Netherlands; Ghaida Allayar, Public Authority of Applied Education and Training, Kuwait; Douglas Agyei, University of Cape Coast, Ghana; Matthew Koehler, Michigan State University, USA; Tae Seob Shin, Michigan State University, USA; Leigh Graves Wolf, Michigan State University, USA; Mike DeSchryver, Michigan State University, USA; Denise Schmidt, Iowa State University, USA; Evrim Baran, Iowa State University, USA
• Raising the Bar for 21st Century Teacher Preparation Mark Warner, Kennesaw State University, USA; Cherry Steffen, Kennesaw State University, USA; Jim Cope, Kennesaw State University, USA
• Developing a Game-based Learning Environment in Classrooms: A Conceptual Model Wen-Hsiung Wu, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Science, Taiwan; Wei-Fan Chen, The Pennsylvania State University, USA
• A Case Study of Investigating Preservice Mathematics Teachers’ Initial Use of the Next-Generation TI-Nspire Graphing Calculators with Regard to TPACK Orhan Curaoglu, Middle East Technical University, Turkey; Lingguo Bu, Florida state University, USA; Lydia Dickey, fsu, USA; Hyewon Kim, fsu, USA; Recep Cakir, Amasya university, Turkey
  
• Using Online Videos in the Science Methods Classroom as Context for Developing Preservice Teachers’ Awareness of the TPACK Components Richard Hechter, University of Manitoba, Canada; Lynette Phyfe, University of Manitoba, Canada
• “Bit by Bit Putting it All Together” How a Holistic View of Assessment Changed Our Perception of the TPACK Framework Colleen Sexton, Governors State University, USA; Michael Gordon, Governors State University, USA; Kathleen Hickey, Governors State University, USA
• Reconsidering the T and C in TPACK: Repurposing Technologies for Interdisciplinary Knowledge Kristen Kereluik, Michigan State University, USA; Punya Mishra, Michigan State University, USA; Matthew Koehler, Michigan State University, USA
• Advancing K-8 Mathematics and Science Teachers Knowledge for Teaching with Technology through an Online Graduate Program Margaret Niess, Oregon State University, USA; Henry Gillow-Wiles, Oregon State University, USA
• Testing a TPACK-Based Technology Integration Assessment Rubric Judi Harris, College of William & Mary, USA; Neal Grandgenett, University of Nebraska at Omaha, USA; Mark Hofer, College of William & Mary, USA
• Aspiring to Reach 21st Century Ideals: Teacher Educators’ Experiences in Developing Their TPACK Mia Kim Williams, University of Northern Colorado, USA; Teresa Foulger, Arizona State University, USA; Keith Wetzel, Arizona State University, USA
  
• Auditing the TPACK Competence and Confidence of Australian Teachers: The Teaching With ICT Audit Survey (TWictAS) Peter Albion, University of Southern Queensland, Australia; Romina Jamieson-Proctor, University of Southern Queensland, Australia; Glenn Finger, Griffith University, Australia
• The Validation of an Instrument Measuring TPACK Nicolette Burgoyne, Brigham Young University, USA; Charles R. Graham, Brigham Young University, USA; Richard Sudweeks, Brigham Young University, USA
• Concerns-Based Conceptual Change: A Theory of Change for Teacher Education Philip Molebash, Loyola Marymount University, USA
• Expanding the Practice-Based Taxonomy of Characteristics of TPACK Kamini Jaipal, Brock University, Faculty of Education, Canada; Candace Figg, Brock University, Canada
• Taking TPACK to the Classroom: Teacher Candidates Get ‘Handy’ for Class Candace Figg, Brock University, Canada; Jenny Burson, LeTourneau University, USA

Thursday, April 1

• Measuring TPACK in a Preservice Teacher Education Course Utilizing a Blended Model of Instruction Rob Horgan, Queen’s University, Canada
• Coding Pre-Service Teacher Lesson Plans for TPACK Kristen Kereluik, Michigan State University, USA; Greg Casperson, Michigan State University, USA; Mete Akcaoglu, Michigan State University, USA
• Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A Content Analysis of 2006-2009 Print Journal Articles Mario Kelly, Hunter College, City University of New York, USA
• Values, Beliefs, and Perspectives: Teaching Online within the Zone of Possibility Created by Technology Kathryn Dirkin, CMU, USA; Punya Mishra, MSU, USA
• Using TPACK as a Model for School Development Kirsti Engelien, Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo, Norway; Kjersti Stundal, Gjerdrum secondary school, Norway
• TPACK as Shared, Distributed Knowledge Hæge Nore, Akershus University College, Faculty of Technical and Vocational Teacher Education, Norway; Kirsti L. Engelien, University of Oslo, Department of Teacher Education and School Development, Norway; Monica Johannesen, Oslo University College, Faculty of Education and International Studies, Norway
• Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge for Music TeachersWilliam Bauer, Case Western Reserve University, USA
• Storytelling as a Strategy for Integrating Technologies into the Curriculum: An Empirical Study with Post-Graduate Teachers Clara Coutinho, Minho University – Braga – Portugal, Portugal
• Pre-Service Teacher Technology Integration: The Team-Taught Cohort Model and TPACK Grace Ward, University of Maine Farmington, USA; Theresa Overall, University of Maine Farmington, USA

Friday, April 2

• Must Technology Take Place in Mathematics and Science Pedagogy? – What Do Chinese Educators Think? Kun Shao, Webster University, USA
• Observational Measures of Technological, Pedagogical, Content Knowledge (TPACK) in the Integration of Laptop Computers in Elementary Writing Instruction Julie Mueller, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada
• Hong Kong Home Economics Teachers’ Preparedness for Teaching with Technology Kitty Ho, University of Southern Queensland, Hong Kong; Peter Albion, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
• Student Engagement with the Authoring of Digital Media in Sixth Grade History Curby Alexander, University of Illinois at Springfield, USA
• Preparing Foreign Language Teachers to Implement a Technology-Rich Curriculum JungJin Kang, Michigan State University, USA; Xiaopeng Ni, Michigan State University, USA; Guofang Li, Michigan State University, USA
• Examining the Validity of the TPACK Framework From the Ground Up: Viewing Technology Integration Through Teachers’ Eyes. M Brooke Robertshaw, Utah State University, USA; Ronald B. Gillam, Utah State University, USA

7. Coming up: TPACK at AERA 2010

The annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association is scheduled for April 30 – May 4 in Denver, Colorado. TPACK will be well represented there, with approximately 12 presentations (that we could find) related to the construct.  They are:

(Symposia)

Perspectives on TPACK
Chair: Gerald A. Knezek (University of North Texas)
Discussant: Ann D. Thompson (Iowa State University)

• Exploring the nature of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge using Factor Analysis Deanna Archambault (Arizona State University), Joshua H. Barnett (Arizona State University)
• Lost and found in Translation: A TPACK Survey of Mid-Career Teacher Beliefs and Practice Lisa G. Hervey (North Carolina State University)
• Measuring the TPK Component of TPACK: An Alternative to Self-Assessment Andrew Frederick Barrett (Indiana University)
• Knowledge Growth in Teaching Mathematics-Science with Technology: Moving PCK to TPACK in Online Professional Development Maggie L. Niess (Oregon State University), Emily H. Van Zee (Oregon State University), Tina L. Johnston (Oregon State University), Henry Gillow-Wiles (Oregon State University)

Innovative Pathways to the Development of Teacher Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Empirical Accounts From Preservice and In-Service Teachers
Chair: Chrystalla Mouza (University of Delaware)
Discussant: Ann Thompson (Iowa State University)

• Evidence of TPACK in Preservice Graduates’ Rationales for Future Technology Use Joan E. Hughes (University of Texas-Austin)
• Preservice Teachers’ Technology Integrated Planning: Contrasting Quality and Instructional Variety by Development Approach Mark J. Hofer (College of William & Mary), Neal Grandgenett (University of Nebraska-Omaha), Judith B. Harris (College of William & Mary), Karen Work Richardson (College of William & Mary)
• Using Classroom Artifacts to Judge Teacher Knowledge of Reform-Based Instructional Practices that Integrate Technology in Mathematics and Science Classrooms Maggie L. Niess (Oregon State University)
• Effects of Practice-Based Professional Development on Teacher Learning in Technology Integration Chrystalla Mouza (University of Delaware)
• GeoThentic: Designing and Assessing with Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Aaron Doering (University of Minnesota), Cassandra Scharber (University of Minnesota)

(Individual Papers)

• Developing TPACK in Mathematics Instruction. Andrew B. Polly (University of North Carolina-Charlotte)
• Using TPACK Without Knowing It: Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Instructional Technology in Social Studies. Erik Jon Byker (Michigan State University)
• The Continuing Development, Validation, and Implementation of a TPACK Assessment for Preservice Teachers Denise A. Schmidt (Iowa State University), Evrim Baran (Iowa State University), Ann D. Thompson (Iowa State University), Matthew J. Koehler (Michigan State University), Punya Mishra (Michigan State University), Tae Seob Shin (Michigan State University)

8. TPACK Work in Progress

Bob Isaacson, who works in the Faculty Development Division in the U.S. Army’s Defense Language Institute, shared a draft of a paper that he’s working on at present with us. It uses TPACK to describe “Training Requirements for Foreign Language Teaching Online.” In the paper, Bob concludes, “The TCPK construct can provide a conceptual framework for faculty development specialists to develop training that will enable foreign language teachers to make the transition from traditional face-to-face teaching to online distance teaching using both best pedagogical practices for teaching foreign languages at a distance and existing technology resources and tools.” If you would like to communicate with Bob about his work, please email him.

9. New Hybrid Ph.D. Program at Michigan State (Connecting with TPACK)

The idea of TPACK is deeply grounded in practice. Keeping this in mind, and in order the develop the next generation of TPACK-fluent scholars and researchers, the Educational Psychology and Educational Technology program at Michigan State University is now offering a hybrid doctoral program focused on the evolving roles of technology in learning. This cohort-based, blended program (which combines online coursework with intensive summer classes on campus) is designed for bright, established professionals currently working in K-12 schools, universities, policy centers, and research institutions who want to earn a Ph.D. while continuing in their current positions. The goal is to bring together a cohort of practitioners, using the powerful collaborative tools we now have, to create, explore and share; to engage in dialogue and dissent; to critique and conduct research; and to experiment with new technologies, new pedagogies and new content. To find out more about this program please click on the following links:

The official program Web site:

• http://edtechphd.com/

A few other Web sites/ blog posts that describe the program in greater detail:

• http://tinyurl.com/edtechphd1
• http://tinyurl.com/edtechphd2
• http://tinyurl.com/msutechphd

10. 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
• Join and contribute to the TPACK Google group at: http://groups.google.com/group/tpack/
• Review and provide feedback on 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 If you are interested in volunteering to help run the newsletter (we need help!), send email 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, Matt, Mario, and Punya

Judi Harris, Chair, College of William & Mary
Matt Koehler, Vice-Chair, Michigan State University
Mario Kelly, Futon, Hunter College
Punya Mishra, Recliner, Michigan State University

I recently received an email from Debra Bourne, IT Coordinator at St. Paul’s International College in Australia informing me about some work related to TPACK being done in Queensland. Specifically she mentioned a paper to be presented at the upcoming Australian Computers in Education Conference. Here is a link to the article and a copy of the abstract (I think the last sentence of the abstract captures a very important idea). However, don’t read the abstract read the full paper

Jamieson-Proctor, R., Finger, G. & Albion, P. (2010). Auditing the TPACK Capabilities of Final Year Teacher Education Students: Are they ready for the 21st Century? Australian Computers in Education Conference 2010 (ACEC 2010: Digital Diversity):. Melbourne,   Australian Council for Computers in Education.  Available URL: http://acec2010.info/sites/acec2010.info/files/proposal/%5Buid%5D/acec2010final.pdf (accessed 22 Feb 2010)

Abstract: The expectations for teacher education graduates having appropriate information and communication technology (ICT) capabilities to meet the challenges of learning and teaching in the 21st century are widely accepted. However, it should not be assumed that tomorrow’s teachers will enter their profession with those ICT capabilities. The conceptual framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology, 2008) was used to guide the study undertaken in 2009 of final year students in two Universities in Queensland, Australia. The findings are compared with those reported in an earlier study (Watson et al., 2004) which found that there was a limited band of applications with which the participants expressed high levels of competence. Importantly, high percentages of participants perceived themselves to have no competence with applications such as multimedia development, visual thinking software and digital video editing which could be particularly stimulating for learning outcomes in their future students. Furthermore, participants’ self-perception of their confidence to integrate ICT into student learning also revealed that the percentage of participants who rated themselves as having no or limited confidence with particular integration examples was of concern.    This paper provides a summary of some of the findings of the TPACK capabilities of the student teachers studied in 2009, which reveal important insights to inform the review and design of teacher education programs to more directly address TPACK capabilities. The study suggests that teacher education programs tend to have been designed using Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) (Shulman, 1986, 1987) where students undertake studies in a range of curriculum (content, disciplinary) courses, pedagogy courses, and professional studies (practicum, Internship) courses, and this is now insufficient as TPACK capabilities are needed.

Image Credit Leeks

As readers of the blog know, Matt Koehler and I work together quite a lot. In fact we just rotate author-order in our papers since it is hard to keep track of individual contributions. (I would like to claim that the cool ideas are mine – but again he is bigger and stronger than me so I don’t often do that, at least not any more.) We are also huge fans of Douglas Adams and his Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy trilogy (which consists of 4 books, something that makes perfect sense if you have ever read Adams). Anyway, a bunch of years ago we decided that we needed to act on our love for this man, and his writings, by citing him in an academic paper. To our great pride, we did it! In fact we started the article with a citation to Adams.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hot off the press:

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D.,  Mishra, P.,  Koehler, M.J. & Shin, T. S. (2010). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123 – 149.

Abstract: Based in Shulman’s idea of Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) has emerged as a useful frame for describing and understanding the goals for technology use in preservice teacher education. This paper addresses the need for a survey instrument designed to assess TPACK for preservice teachers. The paper describes the survey development process and results from a pilot study on 124 preservice teachers. Data analysis procedures included Cronbach’s alpha statistics on the TPACK knowledge domains and factor analysis for each domain. Results suggest that, with the modification and/or deletion of 18 of the survey items, the survey is a reliable and valid instrument that will help educators design longitudinal studies to assess perservice teachers’ development of TPACK. (Keywords: TPACK, instrument development, preservice teachers)

TPACK Newsletter, Issue #6, January/February 2010

Welcome to the sixth edition of the TPACK Newsletter, with 642 subscribers (representing a 13% increase during the past 2.5 months), now appearing twice each fall and spring semester. If you are not sure what TPACK is, please surf over to www.tpack.org to learn more.

Gratuitous Quote about Technology
“Technology presumes there’s just one right way to do things and there never is.”  ~Robert M. Pirsig

0. In this Issue:
-2. Introductory Blurb
-1. Gratuitous Quote about Technology
0. In This Issue (You are here.)
1. Recent Journal Articles and Conference Papers about TPACK
2. Recent TPACK-Related Dissertations
3. Join a Fireside Chat about TPACK
4. TPACK @ SITE 2010 Conference
5. TPACK Handbook Reviews
6. The Future is Now … So Now What?
7. Learning and Doing More with TPACK
–. Un-numbered miscellaneous stuff at the end

Read the rest of this entry »

I recently received the following email:

Sir, I was reading the article in Wikipedia on ‘Samarangana Sutradhara’ (King Bhoja’s treatise on Architecture). I was of the impression that there is no translation of the work in English. Though the article says that there is a translation by you of the work, the list of your works and publications on your webpage does not include any such work. Kindly let me know if you have indeed translated the treatise. If so kindly let me know how I can access a copy.

The fact that I had translated this ancient Sanskrit treatise came as a surprise to me.

Read the rest of this entry »

My friend, Martin Oliver, over at the London Knowledge Lab sent me the following link about a TPACK related publication that appeared in the International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, aka IJEDUICT. (Boy, that’s a long name for a journal, and I dare you to pronounce the acronym.) As it turns out, I was not acquainted with this journal. A quick browse showed that it had a strong international authorship and readership. Sadly most of my publications (with a few exceptions) have been in US journals, and doubly sadly, most authors published in US journals are from US universities. This is so parochial and a pity because there is a lot that we can all learn from each other, especially in a field like Ed Tech.

Any a bit of TPACK-searching on the journal website led to three separate mentions (technically there are two since one of the mentions was in an editorial describing an article in that very issue that utilized the TPACK framework). Anyway, for the record here are the citations (and links).
Read the rest of this entry »


Welcome to the fourth edition of the TPACK Newsletter, now with 494 subscribers (representing a 36% increase during the last four months!), and appearing bimonthly between August and April. If you are not sure what TPACK is, please surf over to www.tpack.org  to learn more. 


Gratuitous Quote about Technology

"My theme for philanthropy is the same approach I used with technology: to find a need and fill it.”
- An Wang

In this Issue:
-2. Introductory blurb
-1. Gratuitous Quote about Technology

0. In this issue (You are here.)

1. Recent TPACK Articles
 
2. TPACK-in-a-text(book)
 3. (Sort of) Recent TPACK Articles

 4. Recent TPACK Presentations

 5. TPACK Podcasts

 6. TPACK Research in Progress

 7 TPACK Professional Development
8. Recently Completed TPACK-based Dissertations & Theses
 9. Learning and Doing More with TPACK
–. Un-numbered miscellaneous stuff at the end

1. Recent TPACK Articles

TPACK was a “Top Story” on August 26, 2009 in both eSchoolNews and eCampusNews! A feature article (“TPACK explores Effective Ed-Tech Integration”) written by senior editor Laura Delaney explained TPACK and its components in considerable detail, plus one way of helping teachers to develop TPACK: using curriculum-based learning activity types. Punya, Matt, Judi, Mark Hofer, and Karen Richardson were interviewed and provided the content for the feature stories.

Hot off the press! Judi Harris & Mark Hofer’s Feature and Learning Connections articles are appearing in the September/October 2009 issue of Learning & Leading with Technology. “’Grounded’ Technology Integration: Planning with Curriculum-Based Learning Activity Types” introduces a TPACK-based approach to technology integration during instructional planning, and “’Grounded’ Technology Integration Using Social Studies Learning Activity Types” illustrates how to do this in the social studies. Watch future 2009-2010 issues of L&L for more Learning Connections articles about math, world languages, science, K-6 literacy, and English language arts activity types, written with collaborators Neal Grandgenett, Marcela van Olphen, Meg Blanchard, Denise Schmidt, and Carl Young.

This summer, Judi, Punya & Matt published an overview of TPACK, emphasizing the roles of content and technological content knowledge, and how to help teachers to develop it, in the Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 41, no. 4, PP. 393-416. The article is entitled, “Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Curriculum-based Technology Integration Reframed.”

A few months earlier, Hyo-Jeong So (Nanyang Technological University) and Bosung Kim (University of Missouri) published the results of a study that “examined perceived difficulties and concerns that pre-service teachers encountered when applying their knowledge on technology, pedagogy and content to design a technology integrated lesson.” They utilized a collaborative lesson design similar to Matt & Punya’s Learning by Design approach to developing TPACK. The article, “Learning About Problem-based Learning: Student Teachers Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge,” was published in the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), PP. 101-116. A .PDF of the article is available for your perusal.

2. TPACK-in-a-text(book)

Candace Figg (Brock University) and Jenny Burson (LeTourneau University) are pleased to announce a new arrival: their TPACK-based preservice text, Designs for UnPacking Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A Handy Guide for Teaching with Technology, which will be released on September 5, 2009 by Soleil Publishing. Additional information about the book, including sample pages and a table of contents, is available online.

3. (Sort of) Recent TPACK Articles

Two recent issues of Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE) featured articles on TPACK. In a special issue devoted to TPACK (volume 9, issue 1), six articles appeared:

TPACK:  A Framework for the CITE Journal
G. Bull & L. Bell

Mathematics Teacher TPACK Standards and Development Model
M. L. Niess, R. N. Ronau, K. G. Shafer, S. O. Driskell, S. R. Harper, C. Johnston, C. Browning, S. A. Özgün-Koca, & G. Kersaint

Teaching Science with Technology: Case Studies of Science Teachers’ Development of Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge 
S. S. Guzey & G. H. Roehrig

Strategies for Preparing Preservice Social Studies Teachers to Integrate Technology Effectively: Models and Practices
T. Brush & J. W. Saye

What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge? 
M. J. Koehler & P. Mishra

Examining TPACK Among K-12 Online Distance Educators in the United States
L. Archambault & K. Crippen

In volume 9 issue 2 of CITE, three TPACK-based articles appeared:

Mathematics Teachers’ Development, Exploration, and Advancement of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in the Teaching and Learning of Algebra 
S. Richardson

Giving, Prompting, Making: Aligning Technology and Pedagogy Within TPACK for Social Studies Instruction
T. C. Hammond & M. M. Manfra

Enhancing TPACK With Assistive Technology: Promoting Inclusive Practices in Preservice Teacher Education
M. T. Marino, P. Sameshima, & C. C. Beecher

4. Recent TPACK Presentations

Maggie Niess (Oregon State University) will present a paper entitled “Mathematics Teacher TPACK Standards and Revising Teacher Preparation” at the 10^th International Conference of The Mathematics Education Into the 21^st Century Project, “Models in Developing Mathematics Education,” which will take place on September 11-17, 2009 in Dresden, Saxony, Germany.

Bill Bauer, the Director of Music Education at Case Western Reserve University, will be presenting “Music Teachers and Technology: The TPACK Framework" at the Society for Music Teacher Education’s 2009 Symposium on Music Teacher Education: Enacting Shared Visions, September 10-12, 2009 at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

There were several TPACK-based sessions at the National Educational Computing Conference (NECC) in Washington, DC in late June 2009:

• Teresa Foulger and Maureen Gerard (Arizona State University) presented the results of their study, “Making the Ideal Real: Reciprocal Mentoring and Technology in Preservice Education.” A .pdf of their paper is

  available online for your perusal.

• Judi Harris and Mark Hofer presented a Spotlight Session entitled, “Developing TPACK: Teachers’ Technology Integration Knowledge in Action.”
  A video of that presentation is
  available online, as well as the slides that they used (.mov

  file) during the talk.

• A sold-out workshop, “School 2.0 and Understanding by Design,”
  presented by Chris O’Neal and Donna Herold, was co-sponsored by ISTE, ASCD,
  the Central Susquehanna Intermediate School District and the US Department
  of Education. Punya noted in his blog that the talk tied together UbD ideas

  with TPACK (starting at about 14:50) in an interesting way. A recording of the workshop is
  archived for viewing.

We learned about a fascinating paper about helping teachers to develop TPSK – technological pedagogical statistical (and probability) knowledge – that was presented at the 2009 Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education in February. A .pdf of the paper, “Preparing to Teach Mathematics with Technology: Lesson Planning Decisions for Implementing New Curriculum,” written by Sarah Ives, Hollylynne Lee, and Tina Starling (North Carolina State University) is available online for your perusal.

Last but certainly not least, we discovered presentation slides by Dan Maas, Chief Information Officer for the Littleton Public Schools in Colorado, which interpret TPACK vis-à-vis 21^st-century technologies. An entry in Dan’s blog explains that these slides supported a reflective exercise for educators that focused on “inspired writing.”

5. TPACK Podcasts

"Understanding TPCK," one of the "Teaching in the 21st Century" series of weekly podcasts for teachers, was posted recently by the Maine School Administrative District 75. The podcast explains TPACK and provides examples of TPACK in practice, in which 21^st technologies were repurposed creatively for educational use. For example, in Bill’s English class students used Twitter to create microblogs to discuss the books that they’re studying.  This podcast was created in response to Matt & Punya’s feature article in the May issue of Learning & Leading with Technology, “Too Cool for School? No Way! Using the TPACK Framework: You Can Have Your Hot Tools and Teach with Them, Too.” All podcasts in the series are produced and edited by students in MSAD 75’s middle and high school.

A thoughtful and thorough podcast prepared by Ruben Puentedura for the Maine Learning Technology Initiative Fall Teacher 2008 Leader Institutes was shared recently by Lydia Leimback in her blog, "Teacher Tech." Dr. Puentedura introduces and explains two conceptual models that can be used together: TPACK and SAMR. SAMR stands for Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition, which focus upon the roles that digital technologies play in changing the nature of students’ learning, when compared to the use of more traditional technologies for the same or similar learning activities. Illustrative examples of higher education courses are provided to show how TPCK and SAMR can work together in designs for students’ learning. A transcribed version of the podcast is also available.

6. TPACK Research in Progress

Julie Mueller (Wilfrid Laurier University) is currently examining pre- and post- questionnaire, interview, and observation data generated with teachers, administrators, and students as part of an elementary school-initiated laptop integration project, using TPACK as her theoretical framework.   The preliminary results of this study suggest that teachers do indeed consider all of the components of TPACK when planning and providing instruction, but they are not always integrated.  In addition to identifying behavioral measures of TPACK (which Julie feels are much-needed at present in TPACK research), student outcomes will be used to measure the impact of the laptop integration.  Julie hopes to present the results of this project at SITE 2010. 

Ghaida Alayyar, a doctoral student at the University of Twente working with her supervisors, Drs. Petra Fisser and Joke Voogt, is studying the use of TPACK as a framework to change the nature of preservice science education in Kuwait. Joke writes, “The current curriculum for prospective student- teachers in Kuwait is characterized by a teacher-centered approach and only has an optional course on basic technology applications. The content of the new course is based on the ideas of TPACK. In the first phase of the study (currently underway) a group of 50 science students is designing elementary science technology applications in small groups (3-4 persons). They are coached by subject matter, pedagogical and technology experts. …In the second phase of the study, a new group of prospective students will be involved, with part of the coaching happening via a Web-based support system. Data about student-teachers’ TPACK competencies will be collected before and after the course with the TPACK survey developed by Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Koehler, Mishra & Shin.”

Are you researching TPACK? Please consider adding a description of your research methods to the TPACK wiki’s “Researching TPACK” section and/or sending us a brief overview of your ongoing work to share in this newsletter.

7. TPACK Professional Development

As mentioned in the first TPACK Newsletter (January 2009), Craig Cunningham reports that the faculty at National-Louis University in Chicago were involved in a Faculty Senate-funded TPACK faculty development project during the 2008-2009 academic year.  In the project, small groups of teacher-education and subject-matter faculty worked with technology “experts” from the faculty to develop ways to integrate technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge.  The various groups worked on topics such as using video to teach interviewing techniques, using Web cameras to conduct live chats with science experts, and ways to better use interactive whiteboards.  Faculty enthusiasm for the project at the end of the year led to the submission of a renewal grant for 2009-2010, which was recently awarded!  The second year of the project will continue the work of the first year, with the addition of a monthly series of TPACK-based seminars designed to increase faculty expertise across the university.   For more information, please contact arlene.borthwick@nl.edu or craig.cunningham@nl.edu.

8. Recently Completed TPACK-based Dissertations & Theses

Chauser, J. (2009).  Instruction 2.0: Effective education for the 21st century. Master’s thesis, National University.

In this thesis, Jacqueline describes the design and implementation of a professional development course for teachers. Building on the TPACK framework, the course encourages an integrated approach to using technology for instruction and respects the interconnectedness of the three knowledge bases required for such integration.

Richardson, K. W. (2009). Looking at/looking through: Teachers planning for curriculum-based learning with technology. Doctoral dissertation, College of William & Mary.

The literature related to teacher planning practices is, for the most part, several decades old. As such, it fails to take into consideration both the proliferation of digital technologies in schools, as well as new frameworks for understanding teachers’ knowledge. This interpretivist study drew upon the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) to study teachers’ lesson planning processes. Specifically, it focused upon 12 fifth, sixth and seventh grade content area teachers from three southeastern U.S. School districts as they planned for and used digital technologies during lessons in their classrooms. Participating teachers had a variety of professional experiences and placements and had participated in educational technology professional development. They were interviewed about the processes they used to plan instruction, focusing upon how they determined which technologies might be used. In addition, sample technology-infused lessons were observed to see how the plans were put into action.

Terpstra, M. A. (2009). Developing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Preservice teachers’ perceptions of how they learn to use educational technology in their teaching.  Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

This study uses activity theory and current conceptions of knowledge for teaching content with technology to analyze the working knowledge and experience of a group of seven preservice teachers in order to yield insights into how preservice teachers learn to teach with technology. Findings showed that the preservice teachers exhibited more TK than TPK and TPACK. A developmental trajectory of learning to teach with technology is suggested that takes into account knowledge exhibition and breadth.

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
• Join and contribute to the TPACK Google group at: http://groups.google.com/group/tpack/
• Review and provide feedback on 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, please send it to: tpack.news.editors@wm.edu 



If you are interested in volunteering to help run the newsletter (we need help!), send email 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 


Have a great new school year, everyone!  We’ll be back in late October with issue #5 of the TPACK Newsletter.



- Judi, Matt, Mario, and Punya



Judi Harris,                   Chair, College of William & Mary

Matt Koehler,               Vice-Chair, Michigan State University

Mario Kelly,                 Futon, Hunter College

Punya Mishra,              Recliner, Michigan State University

The Institute of Education, University of London is organizing a series of seminars on New forms of doctorate i.e. the manner in which multimodality and e-learning are influencing the nature and format of doctoral theses in Education and the social sciences.

This is a topic of great interest to me and I spent a bit of time browsing through some of these presentations. There is a lot to learn here. One thing that stood out for me is just how influenced by technology and cultural/historical context the Ph.D. thesis / dissertation really is. Several of the presentations, make this point. In fact, the entire symposium series is predicated on some version of this idea.

One presentation that really stood out for me, particularly given some of the discussions that are going on in my department is by Prof. Carol Costley Institute for Work Based Learning, Middlesex University.. Below is a brief description of her presentation followed by a copy of her slides (sadly there is no audio track).

On the distinction (if any) between doctorates which are research qualifications and those which are qualifications in advanced practice.
Since the early 1990’s work based learning (WBL) has been developing in UK universities within subject disciplines and also outside disciplinary frameworks as a field of study in it own right. Both forms of WBL (as a mode of study and as a field of study), have developed pedagogies that have moved away from more traditional approaches. In some part this can be attributed to the mature adult community who are attracted to part-time courses that incorporate study into their work rather than a learning experience unrelated to working life. However, the developing pedagogies also relate to a wider, more transdisciplinary reflection of a knowledge-based society.

Following the successful institution of WBL ‘taught’ degrees at Bachelor and Master levels the natural progression was to introduce work-based doctorates. Professional doctorates had already started to increase in the UK and in the late 1990’s the Doctorate in Professional Studies sometimes called Professional Practice (DProf. sometimes called Prof D.) was introduced. The DProf is aimed at the actual work activities and circumstances of people engaged in high-level professional practice. Candidates already have considerable expertise in their work and their work-based research and development projects are likely to draw upon knowledge from a range of fields and also on tacit and professional knowledge. The Candidates’ situatedness outside the academic sphere brings about a balance of activity, focus and control between the academic and the professional environments.

Drawing mainly on the DProf., the presentation explores how postgraduate WBL works in higher education and there is some consideration of its academic underpinning (Costley and Stephenson 2008). There is discussion concerning generic assessment criteria; the structure of the doctoral programme; the kinds of research and development projects undertaken by the candidates; and the learning and teaching processes which are ‘essentially concerned with the individual and their own practice’ (Scott et al 2004).

I had written recently about TPACK being the top story on eSchoolNews (see TPACK is top story on eSchoolNews or go directly to the article: TPACK explores effective ed-tech integration). What I didn’t realize at that time is that there were actually three stories about TPACK, one in August that I had blogged about and two in Septmber. The two that I had missed were actually more interesting to me personally since they dealt with the manner in which the TPACK framework was actually being used in schools. Both these stories deal with the manner in which the San Diego Unified School District is embracing the idea of TPACK as a key piece of their strategy to transform how their students are taught.

These two other articles (also written by Senior Editor Laura Devaney) are titled (a) San Diego explores effective ed-tech integration through TPACK: New professional development model focuses on the intersection of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge; and (b) Reinventing education: As schools nationwide examine new federal priorities, San Diego unveils a five-year plan to transform the way students are taught

This news makes me extremely happy, for the simple reason that this means that our ideas have moved beyond graduate school curricula, beyond research articles, beyond doctoral dissertations into actual practice. This is every educational researcher’s dream. Here are some key quotes from these articles.

The San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) has embraced a concept called Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in its professional development model, to ensure that the smart use of technology drives every aspect of classroom teaching and learning.

As technology becomes an increasingly important tool for teaching and learning, this relatively new concept, which focuses on how educators can integrate technology effectively into their instructional practices, is making its way into pre-service and in-service teacher education programs.

TPACK is based on the work of Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler, both associate professors of educational technology in the College of Education at Michigan State University.

Here’s another:

“We worked closely with the [district] Educational Technology department to design a professional development program that is all-encompassing,” LaGace said. “When you look at the TPACK model, it gets around to improving the whole classroom experience. … It puts the focus not on teaching teachers how to turn on a Promethean Activboard, but why to turn it on.”

Why turn it on? What a profound question, and one that hopefully will be asked by every teacher in San Diego.

Can you guess why I love my job?

Candace Figg & Jenny Burson have just released a book titled: Designs for Unpacking Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), making this the second textbook that utilizes the TPACK framework. You can find out more about the Figg & Burson book by going to its website, here; and about the previous textbook by going here.

I haven’t had a chance to read the book as of yet, but from one of the pdfs on the site this is what I could find:

The book introduces you to instructional design for tech-enhanced lessons based on research about teacher knowledge. The knowledge a teacher needs in order to teach has been summarized as the combination of understanding about pedagogy and the content area so that the teacher understands how to use pedagogy in that particular content area (Shulman, 1986). In the last few years, that model has been expanded to include technology, so that a teacher who understands how to teach with technology understands the pedagogy for teaching with the tool and learning with the tool in that content area (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)—called Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). This book presents the practical applications of what TPACK looks like in daily classroom practice so teachers new to teaching with technology can successfully plan and implement lessons that are tech-enhanced. Therefore, in-depth lesson plans for five models of teaching (Direct Instruction, Direct Instruction using Cooperative Groups in Centers or Concept Mapping, Project-Based Learning, Problem-Based Learning in Collaborative Groups, and DGI) are presented so teachers new to teaching will see exactly how to write up a tech-enhanced lesson. As well, there are a dozen other lesson designs suggested to demonstrate how to sequence activities within these models of teaching.

We had said this before, and maybe it needs to be said again:

The fact that an idea ends up in a textbook means not just that it has been accepted by the field but also that the idea is no longer considered controversial or worthy of debate. A feeling of mustiness comes in the air… A gain in authority goes hand in hand with a rise in sterility and a loss of flexibility. Ideas in textbooks seem to somehow end up as being bullet points, lacking the suppleness and evocative richness of the original ideas. Becoming part of the establishment has its risks.

Maybe it is time for Matt Koehler and me to begin a rebellion against narrow, ivory-tower, academic frameworks that try to contain the complexity of educational technology integration in three overlapping circles

TechTrends is a leading journal for professionals in the educational communication and technology field and is the official publication of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). The current issue has 5 articles devoted to the TPACK framework (including one by yours truly with Matt and Kristen Kereluik). I am providing titles and key quotes from each (with a link to the article written by us).

Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking Back to the Future of Educational Technology. TechTrends, 53, 5. p. 48-53.

The TPACK framework emphasizes the role of teachers as decision makers who design their own educational technology environments as needed, in real time, without fear of those environments becoming outdated or obsolete. Using this approach, teachers do not attend to specific tools, but instead focus on approaches to teaching that endure through change in technologies, content, or pedagogies. Teachers with flexibility of thought, a tolerance for ambiguity, and willingness to experiment can combine traits that perfectly design and tailor their own educational content, pedagogical, and technological environments.

David Passig recently wrote on the topic of melioration, or “the competence to borrow a concept from a field of knowledge supposedly far removed from his or her domain, and adopt it to a pressing challenge in an area of personal knowledge or interest” (2007)… According to Passig, melioration is a skill that affords teachers the flexibility to experiment with a vast array of technologies to meet their specific educational needs. Novel frameworks and concepts like TPACK and Passig’s melioration are starting to look at educational technology in a new way. These new perspectives focus on overarching cognitive skills, competencies, and creativity rather than technical understanding and functional knowledge of specific technologies

Read the rest of this entry »

Just discovered a podcast on TPACK (titled Understanding TPCK) at the msad75mltinews website. It appears to be based on the article (Too cool for school) that was recently published in Learning & Leading with Technology.

One minute design ideas…

I had posted something similar here (from Bic to vase).

There is something deeper here than just cool design ideas though. What this video highlights is improvisation, creativity and a sense of play to repurpose artifacts for purposes other than what they had been designed for. In fact some of these designs find a use for what most of us would regard as trash.

It is this creative repurposing that is critical in this new world of teaching and technology (Technology Integration 2.0 and the TPACK framework). Teachers often look for the perfect technological solution to pedagogical problems they face. The fact is that there is no such perfect solution. In fact I argue that there is nothing like an educational technologies. Most technologies we regard as being educational in nature were not designed for this purpose. And yet, everything from a Excel spreadsheet to a Wiki; a GPS device to Audacity can serve as an educational technology, if appropriately repurposed! The sooner teachers realize that we live in a world where nothing is an educational technology…. and yet, everything has the potential to be. the better if will for all.

Scott McCloud over at Dangerously Irrelevant in his most recent post asks “Are our training efforts helping educators or enabling codependence?” This is a great question and one that all teacher educators with an interest in technology need to confront. I have always struggled with this – and varying levels of success in my own teaching (and in the MAET program I now direct). As he suggests what is needed is to develop a “willingness to probe, investigate, and experiment … [to] learn and master the tools.

It seems to me that videos such as this one highlight exactly the kind of free-form creativity we need to encourage in teachers: the ability to see a side-table in an old magazine, and a vase in a bic pen. It is only through similar creative repurposing that technologies can become educational technologies.

P.S. A key aspect of creative repurposing has to do with looking at the world with new eyes! Check out this movie titled SURFACE or Veja Du assignment on this very site.

Those of you who have been following this blog know, over the past few months I have made a few short videos with my kids. The ones I am most proud of are a set of three made around the words Explore, Create, Share (you can see them all here). There were great fun to make, and have turned out pretty nicely, if I say so myself

These videos have a few things in common. First, they are short (the longest is a minute long) and involve minimal post production, if any. Second, they always focus on a specific word and attempt to express the meaning of the word through video. Third, each video ends with that word represented in some creative, interesting way.

The other day, while talking with Leigh Wolf, I realized that there was no reason why we could not share the joy of making something like this with others. Why not solicit similar videos from other people? One thought led to another and this competition is the result. The rules of the competition are simple – building on the similarities described above.

1. Each video MUST have a core theme that can be captured in a word (or two). We recommend choosing evocative words related to learning and technology (like design, innovation, invent and so on).
2. The video MUST be original i.e. don’t just copy and re-edit someone’s idea, or footage. This is NOT a mashup of existing video.
3. The video should be short (30 seconds to a minute, no more) with minimal editing or post-production.
4. Each video should end with the thematic word represented in some fashion (see the original videos Explore, Create, Share to see how this works).
5. The video MUST use one of the music clips available for download below. These clips were composed specifically for this competition by Sonny Mishra, a freelance musician from Seattle. [Music Clip 1 | Music Clip 2]
6. Once you have created a video, upload it to the web (say YouTube) and send me the link. Please DO NOT send me actual movie files.

A jury consisting of myself, Leigh Wolf, Soham & Shreya (the two people who helped make the first three) and Sonny (the music composer) will judge these movies and nominate the winner. The winner will receive a copy of Robert and Michele Root-Bernstein’s book Sparks Of Genius: The Thirteen Thinking Tools Of The World’s Most Creative People, autographed by the authors, Robert & Michele Root-Bernstein! How cool is that!!

Do let me know if you have any questions about this competition. Enjoy!

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!