Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The TPACK-P Framework for Science Teachers in a Practical Teaching Context

  • Chapter
Development of Science Teachers' TPACK

Abstract

TPACK refers to the knowledge construct that teachers rely on to facilitate their instruction with technology. In order to decompose what constitutes this knowledge construct, researchers have proposed and validated frameworks from different perspectives or for different purposes. However, no one has tried to develop a working model of TPACK within an actual teaching context such as science. Therefore, we recruited experts and experienced science teachers to participate in panels and used the Delphi survey technique to collect their ideas and develop consensus for the framework of TPACK-Practical (TPACK-P) that reflects how teachers applied TPACK while teaching science in their classrooms. A total of eight knowledge dimensions were identified as critical contributions to science teachers’ TPACK-P; 17 indicators were generated to further define the specifics of these knowledge dimensions. This framework of TPACK-P will give novice science teachers ideas about expert science teachers’ technology-infused instructional practices and inform science teacher educators about critical technological aspects that should be facilitated in science teacher education programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–1662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, L. M., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K–12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atjonen, P., Korkeakoski, E., & Mehtalainen, J. (2011). Key pedagogical principles and their major obstacles as perceived by comprehensive school teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 17(3), 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, S. W. (1983). The Delphi method: Formulating and refining group judgements. Journal of the Human Sciences, 2(2), 111–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, S. (2008). A conceptual analysis of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, O., van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 947–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbecq, A. L., van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Despotović-Zrakić, M., Marković, A., Bogdanović, Z., Barać, D., & Krčo, S. (2012). Providing adaptivity in Moodle LMS courses. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 326–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers’ decision making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 467–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on learning to teach. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 63–91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrahy, D. A., Kulinna, P. H., & Cothran, D. J. (2005). Voices from the trenches: An exploration of teachers’ management knowledge. Journal of Educational Research, 99(1), 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), PCK and science education (pp. 3–17). New York: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1993). Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: A year-long assessment. Science Education, 77(1), 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum based TPACK development. In C. D. Maddux (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99–108). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008–1015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2005). The importance of pedagogical content knowledge in assessment for learning practices: A case study of a whole school approach. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding 6th graders’ problem solving in technology-enhanced science classrooms: A qualitative case study. Instructional Science, 39(3), 255–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S., & Layman, J. W. (1992). Microcomputer-based laboratories in the science classroom. In F. Lawrenz, K. Cochran, J. Krajcik, & P. Simpson (Eds.), Research matters to the science teacher. Manhattan, KS: National Association of Research in Science Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubicek, J. P. (2005). Inquiry-based learning, the nature of science, and computer technology: New possibilities in science education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1), Winter. Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/149/142

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1999). The promise of educational psychology: Learning in the content areas. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McEwan, H., & Bull, B. (1991). The pedagogic nature of subject knowledge. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 316–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNair, S. (2004). “A” is for assessment. Science and Children, 42(1), 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). In H. Quinn, H. A. Schweingruber, & T. Keller (Eds.), A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otero, V. K. (2006). Moving beyond the ‘get it or don’t’ conceptions of formative assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 247–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rink, J. E. (2002). Teaching physical education for learning. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segall, A. (2004). Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: The pedagogy of content/The content of pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teasley, S. D., & Rochelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tho, S. W., & Hussain, B. (2011). The development of a microcomputer-based laboratory (MBL) system for gas pressure law experiment via open source software. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 7(1), 42–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J., Christensen, W., & Wittmann, M. (2011). Preparing future teachers to anticipate student difficulties in physics in a graduate-level course in physics, pedagogy, and education research. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 7(1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.010108.

  • Tigelaar, D. E. H., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2004). The development and validation of a framework for teaching competencies in higher education. Higher Education, 48(2), 253–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turoff, M. (1970). The design of a policy Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2(2), 149–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meji, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students’ learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdi, M. P., Johnson, J. T., Stock, W. A., Kulhavy, R. W., & Whitman-Ahern, P. (1997). Organized spatial displays and texts: Effects of presentation order and display type on learning outcomes. Journal of Experimental Education, 65(4), 303–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H.-K., Lin, Y.-F., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2013). Effects of representation sequences and spatial ability on students’ scientific understandings about the mechanism of breathing. Instructional Science, 41(3), 555–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, Y.-F., Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, H.-K., Hwang, F.-K., & Lin, T.-C. (2014). Developing and validating technological pedagogical content knowledge-practical (TPACK-practical) through the Delphi survey technique. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 707–722. doi:10.1111/bjet.12078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, W. H., & Hogben, D. (1978). An experimental study of the Delphi technique. Education Research Perspective, 5, 57–62.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Ying-Shao Hsu & Hsin-Kai Wu

  2. Science Education Center, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Yi-Fen Yeh

Authors
  1. Ying-Shao Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi-Fen Yeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hsin-Kai Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying-Shao Hsu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Institute of Science Education National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Ying-Shao Hsu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hsu, YS., Yeh, YF., Wu, HK. (2015). The TPACK-P Framework for Science Teachers in a Practical Teaching Context. In: Hsu, YS. (eds) Development of Science Teachers' TPACK. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-441-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation