Applying TPACK-P to a Teacher Education Program

  • Yi-Fen YehEmail author
  • Fu-Kwun Hwang
  • Ying-Shao Hsu


We propose a teacher community called the learning module design team (LMDT) in which preservice teachers, in-service teachers, and science education researchers work together to enhance each other’s TPACK-Practical (TPACK-P). Within the teacher community, in-service teachers designed physics learning applications (APPs) and learning modules with their TPACK-P; preservice teachers then tested the APPs and implemented them into their microteaching. Designing these APPs and learning modules allow in-service teachers in the community to refine their TPACK-P, while implementing these artifacts develops preservice teachers’ TPACK-P. A professor who was also a physics teacher educator and science education researcher played the role of a facilitator, ensuring within- and between-group communication. Besides elaborating upon each other’s TPACK-P, the LMDT developed a total of 12 android APPs on multitouch tablets to help students better understand physics concepts such as spring resonance, slingshot physics, and friction. This chapter presents the design principles, functions, and features of the 12 APPs; it also describes how these teachers collaborated with each other within the community.


Preservice Teacher Science Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge Experienced Teacher Learning Module 
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.


  1. Abdal-Haqq, I. (1996). Making time for teacher professional development. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED400259).Google Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baxter, G. P. (1995). Using computer simulations to assess hands-on science learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(1), 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang, C.-Y., Chien, Y.-T., Chang, Y.-H., & Lin, C.-Y. (2012). MAGDAIRE: A model to foster pre-service teachers’ ability in integrating ICT and teaching in Taiwan. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 983–999.Google Scholar
  6. Chang, K. E., Chen, Y. L., Lin, H. Y., & Sung, Y. T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1486–1498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Koning, B. B., & Tabbers, H. K. (2011). Facilitating understanding of movements in dynamic visualizations: An embodied perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 501–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to design online learning environments and professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eylon, B., Ronen, M., & Ganiel, U. (1996). Computer simulations as a tool for teaching and learning: Using a simulation environment in optics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(2), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 69–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1993). Teaching with analogies: A case study in grade 10 optics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1291–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lord, B. (1994). Teachers’ professional development: Critical colleagueship and the role of professional communities. In N. Cobb (Ed.), The future of education: Perspectives on national standards in education (pp. 175–204). New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar
  18. Marshall, P., Hornecker, E., Morris, R., Dalton, N. S., & Rogers, Y. (2008). When the fingers do the talking: A study of group participation with varying constraints to a tabletop interface. Proceedings of the of IEEE Tabletops and Interactive Surfaces (pp. 33–40) (Tabletop ‘08).Google Scholar
  19. Mayer, R. E. (1999). The promise of educational psychology: Learning in the content areas. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. McFarlane, A., & Sakellariou, S. (2002). The role of ICT in science education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mock, K. (2004). Teaching with tablet PC’s. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20(2), 17–27.Google Scholar
  23. Monaghan, J. M., & Clement, J. (1999). Use of a computer simulation to develop mental simulations for understanding relative motion concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 921–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Newmann, F. M., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  25. Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., & Wieman, C., & LeMaster, R. (2006). PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44(18), 18–23.Google Scholar
  26. Piper, A. M., O’Brien, E., Morris, M. R., & Winograd, T. (2006). SIDES: A cooperative tabletop computer game for social skills development. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work. Banff, Canada: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  27. Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Podolefsky, N. S., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2006). Use of analogy in learning physics: The role of representations. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 2(2), 020101-1-10.Google Scholar
  29. Reid, D. J., Zhang, J., & Chen, Q. (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rick, J., Harris, A., Marshall, P., Fleck, R., Yuill, N., & Rogers, Y. (2009). Children designing together on a multi-touch tabletop: An analysis of spatial orientation and user interactions. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 106–114). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  31. Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sandholtz, J., & Reilly, B. (2004). Teachers, not technicians: Rethinking technical expectations for teachers. Teachers College Record, 06(3), 487–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58(9), 858–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1057–1060.Google Scholar
  37. Wang, J.-Y., Wu, H.-K., Chien, S.-P., Hwang, F.-K., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2015). Designing applications for science learning: Facilitating high school students’ conceptual understanding by using tablet PCs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(4), 441–458.Google Scholar
  38. Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching physics using PhET simulations. The Physics Teacher, 48(4), 225–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. WISE – v4 Web-Based Inquiry Science Environment. (1996–2013). Homepage. Retrieved from
  40. 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
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zacharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 792–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: An effort to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 120–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zacharia, Z., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students’ conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics, 71(6), 618–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations