Skip to main content

Rubrics of TPACK-P for Teaching Science with ICTs

  • Chapter
Development of Science Teachers' TPACK

Abstract

Advances in information communication technologies (ICTs) have diversified teacher instruction. The appropriateness of representation selections and learning activity designs involving ICTs is determined by teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge-practical (TPACK-P), a knowledge construct transformed and reinforced through different tasks in teaching. This study developed rubrics for evaluating preservice teachers’ TPACK-P, according to the proficiency levels and features identified by in-service teachers. We collected lesson plans and microteaching video clips of seven preservice teachers in order to verify the rubrics and explore how their TPACK-P was demonstrated in lesson plans and microteaching. Results revealed that the preservice teachers’ performances on lesson planning and microteaching were similar, with discrepancies of +/− 1 level on the rubrics. Their performances on teaching with ICTs were comparatively better in curriculum design and enactment than on assessment. It may not be difficult for preservice teachers to implement ICTs, but the real challenges are to use ICTs with considerations of students, content, and pedagogy. Teacher education programs are advised to pay attention to how meaningfully ICTs are used to support instruction, rather than simply counting the number of times ICTs are used.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
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

  • Abbitt, J. T. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice teachers as ICT designers: An instructional design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 21(4), 292–302.

    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, 55(1), 154–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, N. (2007). Microteaching: What is it that is going on here? Linguistics and Education, 18, 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhard, J. (2003). Physics learning and microcomputer based laboratory (MBL): Learning effects of using MBL as a technological and as a cognitive tool. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, G. Fassoulopoulos, E. Hatzikraniotis, & M. Kallery (Eds.), Science education research in the knowledge based society (pp. 313–321). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breslyn, W. J., & McGinnis, R. (2011). A comparison of exemplary biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics teachers’ conceptions and enactment of inquiry. Science Education, 96(1), 48–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: 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 

  • Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2010 (pp. 3833–3840). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, R. C. (1989). Developing a procedural model for the practice of microteaching. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED313340)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., Chai, C. S., & Koh, J. H. L. (2012). Fostering pre-service teachers’ TPACK towards student-centered pedagogy. In P. Resta (Ed.), Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 3915–3921). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Metcalf, K. (1993). Critical factors in on-campus clinical experiences: Perceptions of preservice teachers. Teaching Education, 5(2), 163–174.

    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 

  • Mitchem, K., Wells, D. L., & Wells, J. G. (2003). Effective integration of instructional technological evaluating professional development and instructional change. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(3), 399–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(3), 40–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouza, C. (2003). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 272–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulhall, P., & Gunstone, R. (2008). Views about physics held by physics teachers with differing approaches to teaching physics. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 435–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niess, M. L. (2012). Teacher knowledge for teaching with technology: A TPACK lens. In R. Ronau, C. Rakes, & M. L. Niess (Eds.), Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and approaches (pp. 1–15). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston, C., et al. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., Kauchak, D. P., Pendergrass, R. A., Keogh, A. J., et al. (1990). Teaching strategies: A guide to better instruction (3rd ed.). Lexington, KY: Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauline, R. (1993). Microteaching: An integral part of a science methods class. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4(1), 9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., et al. (2006). PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44(18), 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pineau, E. L. (1994). Teaching is performance: Reconceptualizing a problematic metaphor. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, A. L. (1995). Stages in learning new technology: Naïve adult email users. Computers & Education, 25(4), 173–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

    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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yi-Fen Yeh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix: Lesson Plan Exemplar (Case 4)

Appendix: Lesson Plan Exemplar (Case 4)

Theme: classical mechanics

Topic: static friction and dynamic friction

Target students: Grade 9

Duration: 45 min

Curriculum: handouts for junior high school students

Tools: tablet PCs, projectors

Learning objectives:

1. Get students to be interested in the content (i.e., friction)

2. Let students find answers from the experiments

Content analysis:

1. Motivate students to learn physics by displaying videos and referring to similar cases in daily life situations

2. Teach students by making connections between subject content and experiment results

Presentation of the concept of friction (15 min)

[1] Display a commercial video about tires. Familiarize students with the course topic by asking them what the commercial tries to convey. The commercial shows that a man suddenly depresses the brakes in his car once he sees a car rolling into the road. Later, he gets angrily out of the car and tries to argue with the law-breaking driver

[2] Ask students: Why can the brakes stop the moving car within such a short distance? Why can someone running not stop him/herself within such a short distance? [Q1] (Assume that students have some experience being in a car that stops quickly upon depression of the brakes, even if the car is moving at a speed as high as 20 km/h. If they do not have related experiences, students should be able to imagine that a runner at the same speed could not stop him/herself as quickly. These questions are expected to arouse students’ curiosity.)

Experiments of friction coefficients (30 min)

[3] Display a news clip that shows a scooter rider’s dangerous ride on nonfriction tiles. Ask students: Why did the scooter slide less on the asphalt road and more in the “dangerous zone”? [Q2]

[4] Students with different levels of background knowledge may make teaching more challenging. For Q1, students might point out that the treads on tires and shoes have similar functions. They could attribute the fact that fast runners are unable to stop within a short distance to the runner only wearing two shoes (cars have four tires) or that human legs have less strength than a car engine. If so, point out what is lacking in the students’ answers and help them to modify their answers. The experiment of friction coefficient measurement with the tablet PCs should be used once the students are able to offer good answers to Q1

[5] If the students cannot answer Q1, move to Q2. Students are assumed to be able to figure out the question regarding tiles. Make a connection between the tiles and the friction coefficient measurement experiment for the students. (Note: This section follows up with presentations of the definitions of static friction, dynamic friction, and friction coefficient. After acquiring definitions of terms related to friction, students will be told in the next course to use their tablet PCs to measure friction coefficients. They will also be told to bring small-sized items [i.e., palm sized] of different materials.)

[6] Display the video about a racing scooter making a curve (resource 4). Guide students to wonder: Why can a racing scooter lean on its wheels, but a regular scooter cannot? [Q3] (It is common to see dangerous riding behaviors like biking without using hands to hold the handlebars, carrying objects that are bigger or longer than the motor, or riding scooters with two feet standing on the pedals. Why are there no cases of riders’ leaning on their regular scooters?)

[7] Guide students to conduct the experiment of measuring friction with their tablet PCs. Start the APP called tangent MU1. Place an item (clothes or lightweight strips) on the top of the tablet PC. Then try to place items of different shapes (e.g., rectangle logs, little balls) on the tabletop and see at what angle the tablet tilts to make the item on the tabletop begin to slide

[8] Put 2–3 students in a group (small groups make discussions in experiments easier). For testing bigger items that are not easily measured on a tablet (e.g., wood chunks), one person from the group can hold the item, making the desired angle between the chunk and the floor, and place the tablet on the chunk. The other person can place the item to be measured on the tablet. They can set different angles between the item and the floor by lifting or lowering it. Friction coefficients can be calculated by pressing the function key marked “Setting” in the APP. Students can keep records of the coefficients by trying different items and angles

[9] Each group can measure different items, and they can then obtain an average coefficient from measuring the same item 3–5 times. All of the coefficients should be displayed on the blackboard for students to use in making comparisons. Students should here be asked again: Why can the racing motorbikes lean on their wheels but not the regular ones? [Q4] Hint to the students to refer back to the data; they will be expected to be able to point out different friction coefficients between racing tires and regular tires and find higher coefficients on the racing tires. (Some students may point out that it’s the surface of the floor that makes the friction coefficients different. The teacher should remind students that the racing tracks and regular roads are all paved with asphalt, and paving techniques probably don’t contribute to any major differences.)

[10] We can top-glue wood chunks and make an experiment for the students if they are interested in racing tires. The teacher can explain that the racing tires are slick tires, and the tires will heat up and melt if the racing motor passes at a high speed. That would make the tire surface seem like the glue topping

[11] Use PPT to synthesize the main points for students

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Yeh, YF., Chien, SP., Wu, HK., Hsu, YS. (2015). Rubrics of TPACK-P for Teaching Science with ICTs. In: Hsu, YS. (eds) Development of Science Teachers' TPACK. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-441-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics