Advertisement

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

  • Ying-Shao HsuEmail author
  • Yi-Fen Yeh
  • Hsin-Kai Wu

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.

Keywords

Preservice Teacher Science Teacher Content Knowledge Pedagogical Content Knowledge Teacher Education Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cochran, S. W. (1983). The Delphi method: Formulating and refining group judgements. Journal of the Human Sciences, 2(2), 111–117.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Cox, S. (2008). A conceptual analysis of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delbecq, A. L., van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953–1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008–1015.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. Mayer, R. E. (1999). The promise of educational psychology: Learning in the content areas. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McEwan, H., & Bull, B. (1991). The pedagogic nature of subject knowledge. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 316–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McNair, S. (2004). “A” is for assessment. Science and Children, 42(1), 18–21.Google Scholar
  36. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Otero, V. K. (2006). Moving beyond the ‘get it or don’t’ conceptions of formative assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rink, J. E. (2002). Teaching physical education for learning. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  42. Segall, A. (2004). Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: The pedagogy of content/The content of pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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.
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Turoff, M. (1970). The design of a policy Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2(2), 149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Young, W. H., & Hogben, D. (1978). An experimental study of the Delphi technique. Education Research Perspective, 5, 57–62.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Science Education CenterNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations