Synthesis of survey questions that accurately discriminate the elements of the TPACK framework
AbstractA number of validated survey instruments for assessing technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) do not accurately discriminate between the seven elements of the TPACK framework particularly technological content knowledge (TCK) and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK). By posing simple questions that assess technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TK, PK and CK) the logical associations forming the TPACK framework can be used to synthesise TPK, TCK survey items that are inherently valid. This process can further be applied to constructing TPACK survey questions that agree closely with those from validated surveys.
Albion, P. R., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Finger, G. (2010). Auditing the TPACK confidence of Australian pre-service teachers: the TPACK confidence survey (TCS). 21st International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE 2010)
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.
Finger, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., Cavanagh, R., Albion, P., Grimbeek, P., Bond, T., . . . Lloyd, M. (2013). Teaching Teachers for the Future (TTF) Project TPACK Survey: Summary of the key findings. Australian Educational Computing (Vol. 27, pp. 13-25).
Jaikaran-Doe, S. & Doe, P.E. (2014) Assessing technological pedagogical content knowledge of engineering academics in an Australian regional university. Austalian Journal for Engineering Education. Submitted for publication.
Jordan, K. (2014). ACEC2014 Adapting an instrument to measure teacher TPACK. Paper presented at the ACEC2014 Now it's personal - Innovating Education, Adelaide, South Australia. http://acec2014.acce.edu.au/sites/2014/files/ACEC2014 Conference Proceedings.pdf
Koehler, M. J., Shin, T. S., & Mishra, P. (2012). How do we measure TPACK? Let me count the ways. In R. N. Ronau, R. C.R & Niess. M.L (Eds.), Educational Technology, Teacher Knowledge, and Classroom Impact: A Research Handbook on Frameworks and Approaches. (pp. 16 - 31). Hershey, PA, USA: Information Science Reference.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, J. M. (2008). Introducing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York City.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. doi: DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
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.
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 42(2), 123.
Shulman. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking News: TPCK becones TPACK! Jpurnal of comuting in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38, 64.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge – a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109-121. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).