Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An implementation study of a TPACK-based instructional design model in a technology integration course

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was (a) to develop an instructional design model for preservice teachers’ learning of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in multidisciplinary technology integration courses and (b) to apply the model to investigate its effects when used in a preservice teacher education setting. The model was applied in a technology integration course with fifteen participants from diverse majors. Data included individual participants’ written materials and TPACK survey responses, group lesson plans, and the researchers’ field notes. The data analysis results revealed that: (1) the participants had difficulties understanding pedagogical knowledge (PK), which hindered their learning of integrated knowledge of TPACK and (2) their learning of TPACK was the combination rather than the integration of PK, technological knowledge, and content knowledge. Suggestions and implications for refining the model and future research possibilities are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Stand-alone courses refer to the courses that are not provided under specific methods or content courses or field experience courses for teacher candidates.

  2. The assumption of this study was that preservice teachers should well understand the meaning of the three core domains (TK, PK, and CK) and then they can relate the understanding to integrative knowledge—the integrated domains of TPACK (e.g., PCK, TPK, TCK, and TPACK).

  3. CK was defined as the knowledge that a teacher possesses for a deep understanding of her/his subject and the content standards of the subject. An example of CK given to participants: The knowledge of the events that led to Civil War.

  4. PK was defined as the knowledge that a teacher possesses to understand and address students’ learning needs. An example of PK: Group discussion.

  5. Technologies can be used as supportive tools in any subject area or topic for efficiency purposes. However, in this study, we emphasized effective use of technology for student learning than efficient use of technology for teachers.

References

  • Angeli, C. (2005). Transforming a teacher education method course through technology: Effects on preservice teachers’ technology competency. Computers & Education, 45(4), 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association for Educational Communications and Technology (2012). AECT Standards, 2012 version. Retrieved June 26, 2014 from http://ocw.metu.edu.tr/pluginfile.php/3298/course/section/1171/AECT_Standards_adopted7_16_2.pdf.

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U., Ponte, I., Juelich, C., Viera, A., Schenker, J., & AACE. (2002). Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 123–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. S., & Falba, C. J. (2002). Integrating technology in elementary preservice teacher education: orchestrating scientific inquiry in meaningful ways. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(4), 303–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández, M. L. (2005). Exploring “lesson study” in teacher preparation. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th PME International Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 305–310). Melbourne.

  • Fernández, M. L. (2010). Investigating how and what prospective teachers learn through microteaching lesson study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 351–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, R. C., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). Measuring the TPCK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güler, C., & Altun, A. (2010). Teacher trainees as learning object designers: Problems and issues in learning object development process. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 9(4), 118–127.

  • Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). What is instructional design? In R. A. Reiser & J. A. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 16–25). Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, G. E. (2010). Technology’s achilles heel: Achieving high-quality implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 231–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjalmarson, M. A., & Diefes-Dux, H. A. (2008). Teacher as designer: A framework for the analysis of mathematical model-eliciting activities. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 2(1), 57–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2008). ISTE Standards. Retrieved June 26, 2014 from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-T_PDF.pdf.

  • Jang, S. J., & Chen, K. C. (2010). From PCK to TPACK: Developing a transformative model for preservice science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 553–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, S. J., Guan, S. Y., & Hsieh, H. F. (2009). Developing an instrument for assessing college students’ perceptions of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 596–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Developing a technological pedagogical content knowledge framework for science education: Implications of a teacher trainers’ preparation program. Proceedings of the Informing Science & IT Education Conference (In SITE 2010) (pp. 597–607). Cassino, Italy.

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26.

  • Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62, 129–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2005). Learning by design. Melbourne: Victorian Schools Innovation Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., & Keller, J. M. (2011). Towards technology integration: The impact of motivational and volitional email messages. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(1), 91–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., Kim, M., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, & technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved June 26, 2014 from http://217.160.35.246/fqs-texte/2-00/2-00mayring-e.pdf.

  • Merriam, S. B. (1995). What can you tell from an N of 1? Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4, 51–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2007). The future of instructional design: the proper study of instructional design. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed., pp. 336–341). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2009). First principles of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr (Eds.), Instructional design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III). New York: Routledge Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2008). Educational technology in teacher education programs for initial licensure. Retrieved June 26, 2014 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008040.pdf.

  • National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2003). Standards for science teacher preparation. Retrieved June 26, 2014 from http://www.nsta.org/preservice/docs/NSTAstandards2003.pdf.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polly, D., McGee, J. R., & Sullivan, C. (2010a). Employing technology-rich mathematical tasks to develop teachers’ technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(4), 455–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010b). Evidence of impact: transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 863–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahin, I. (2011). Development of survey of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 97–105.

    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 

  • Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Koehler, M. J., Shin, T, & Mishra, P. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Paper presented at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April 13–17, San Diego, California.

  • Seel, N. M. (2003). Model-centered learning and instruction. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 59–85.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., Jeong, A. C., Spector, J. M., Seel, N. M., & Johnson, T. E. (2009). Model-based methods for assessment, learning, and instruction: Innovative educational technology at Florida State University. In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon, & R. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (p. 61). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J., Tilya, F., & Van den Akker, J. (2009). Science teacher learning for MBL-supported student-centered science education in the context of secondary education in Tanzania. Journal of Science and Education and Technology, 18, 428–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M., Linn, M. C., Ammon, P., & Gearhart, M. (2004). Learning to teach inquiry science in a technology-based environment: A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolcott, H. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, F. S., Ho, J., & Hedberg, J. G. (2006). Teachers as designers of learning environments. Computers in the Schools, 22(3/4), 145–157.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Career and Information Studies, The University of Georgia, 217 River’s Crossing, 850 College Station Road, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Chia-Jung Lee & ChanMin Kim

Authors
  1. Chia-Jung Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. ChanMin Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chia-Jung Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, CJ., Kim, C. An implementation study of a TPACK-based instructional design model in a technology integration course. Education Tech Research Dev 62, 437–460 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9335-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9335-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation