TPACK design scaffolds for supporting teacher pedagogical change
Many empirical studies show that teachers have difficulty designing technology-integrated lessons for student-centered learning. Supporting teachers to change their pedagogical practice is a challenge faced in teacher professional development for technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). This study describes how teachers’ conceptions of pedagogical change can be supported through the use of different kinds of TPACK design scaffolds—a meaningful learning rubric, lesson design heuristics and TPACK Activity Types. The impact of these design scaffolds on the TPACK confidence and lesson design confidence of 47 teachers and instructors who were attending a graduate course in educational technology were assessed through pre and post course surveys. Expert ratings of technology-integrated lesson plans designed at the beginning and end of the course were also used to determine the extent of pedagogical change enacted. It was found that these design scaffolds had positive effects on teachers’ TPACK confidence and were useful for helping the teachers to articulate pedagogical change in their lesson designs. Participants’ feedback for improving the TPACK design scaffolds as well as guidelines for using these to support pedagogical change through TPACK professional development programmes are discussed.
KeywordsTPACK Pedagogical change Technological pedagogical content knowledge Teacher education
This paper is based on data collected in research project Developing teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for 21st Century Learning (TPACK-21CL) Through Design Thinking (OER5/13/KHL), funded by the Education Research Funding Programme, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. The views expressed in this paper are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent the views of NIE.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.
- AACTE. (2008). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. Oxon: Routledge.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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Christodoulou, A. (2016). Theoretical considerations of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (pp. 11–33).Google Scholar
- Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Education Technology and Society, 16(2), 31–51.Google Scholar
- Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Tsai, C. C., & Tan, L. W. L. (2011). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57(1), 1184–1193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Harris, J. B. (2016). Inservice teachers’ TPACK development: Trends, models, and trajectories. In M. C. Herring, M. J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knoweldge (TPACK) for educators (2nd ed., pp. 191–206). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Harris, J. B., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. J. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric. In C. D. Maddux, D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (Eds.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2010 (pp. 323–331). USA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education.Google Scholar
- Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. (2012). Learning activity types wiki. Retrieved from http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/.
- Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. A. H. Stevenson & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
- Howland, J. L., Jonassen, D., & Marra, R. M. (2013). Meaningful learning with technology (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Higher Education.Google Scholar
- Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Figg, C. (2015). A case study of a TPACK-based approach to teacher professional development: Teaching science with blogs. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 161–200.Google Scholar
- Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Huang, Y. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Exploring the relationship between pre-service teachers’ perceptions of efficacy for technological pedagogical content knowledge and efficacy for ICT design thinking. Paper presented at the AECT International Conference on the Frontier in e-Learning Research Taichung, Taiwan.Google Scholar
- Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2010). Preparing preservice teachers for self-regulated learning in the context of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: the design process demystified. Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
- Niess, M. L. (2007). Developing teacher’s TPCK for teaching mathematics with spreadsheets. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 18(4), 2238–2245.Google Scholar
- Rodriguez, A. J. (2004). Teachers’ resistance to ideological and pedagogical change: Definitions, theoretical framework, and significance. In Preparing mathematics and science teachers for diverse classrooms (pp. 17–32). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Tai, S.-J. D. (2015). From TPACK-in-action workshops to classrooms: CALL competency developed and integrated. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 139–164.Google Scholar