2009_harris_mishra_koehler.pdf

7272019 2009_Harris_Mishra_Koehlerpdf

httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2009harrismishrakoehlerpdf 125

JRTE 419830804983081 393991251416

Teachersrsquo Technological Pedagogical

Content Knowledge and Learning Activity TypesCurriculum-based Technology

Integration Reframed

Judith HarrisCollege of William amp Mary

Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler Michigan State University

Abstract In this paper we critically analyze extant approaches to technology integration in teach-ing arguing that many current methods are technocentric often omitting sufficient con-sideration of the dynamic and complex relationships among content technology peda-

gogy and context We recommend using the technology pedagogy and content knowledge(TPACK) framework as a way to think about effective technology integration recogniz-

ing technology pedagogy content and context as interdependent aspects of teachersrsquo knowl-edge necessary to teach content-based curricula effectively with educational technologiesWe offer TPACK-based ldquoactivity typesrdquo rooted in previous research about content-specificactivity structures as an alternative to existing professional development approaches andexplain how this new way of thinking may authentically and successfully assist teachersrsquoand teacher educatorsrsquo technology integration efforts (Keywords technological pedagogi-cal content knowledge learning activity types technology integration TPACK TPCK)

INTRODUCTION

Studies of Kndash12 teachersrsquo instructional applications of educational technolo-gies to date show many to be pedagogically unsophisticated they are limited inbreadth variety and depth and are not well integrated into curriculum-basedteaching and learning (Groff amp Mouza 2008 Levin amp Wadmany 2008 Rus-sell OrsquoDwyer Bebell amp Tao 2007 Zhao Pugh Sheldon amp Byers 2002) Ina 20-year retrospective on US educational technology policy Culp Honeyand Mandinach (2003) describe a mismatch between educational technol-ogy leadersrsquo visions for technology integration and how most practitionersuse digital tools Researchers emphasize technology uses that support inquirycollaboration and reformed practice whereas many teachers tend to focus onusing presentation software learner-friendly Web sites and management tools



devices (p 31) which ldquotransform the nature of a subject at the most fundamen-tal levelrdquo (p 47) Tese authors suggest that such technology-based curriculartransformation happens only in those few content areas (eg music literacyand art) that are ldquolargely defined by the media they userdquo (Harris 2008 p 47)

We argue that this discrepancy between a vision of transformative uses of

educational technologies and the more prevalent efficiency and extension ap-plications can be traced to the nature of how technology use in classrooms hasbeen conceptualized and supported Five general approaches dominate currentand past technology integration efforts

Software-focused initiatives1 One of the earliest examples of software-focused technology integration approaches was in mathematical learningand general problem-solving skill development through studentsrsquo useof the programming language Logo Later software-based integrationattempts made use of integrated learning system (ILS) software which

provides individualized instruction while tracking studentsrsquo learningneeds and progressDemonstrations of sample resources lessons and projects 2 eachers oftendemand classroom-based and student-tested examples of appropriatetechnology use Given this proclivity it is not surprising that there is a wide range of sources (such as magazine articles books Web sites andconference presentations) that recommend curriculum-based lessonsprojects and online resources that teachers have used successfully Un-derlying this effort is the assumption that successful use of instructional

plans and educational resources is easily transferable among differentclassroomsTechnology-based educational reform efforts 3 Tese larger-scale oftengrant-funded projects such as Applersquos Classrooms of omorrow (ACO)10-year initiative (Sandholtz Ringstaff amp Dwyer 1997) are usuallyorganized around new visions for learning and teaching that are realizedthrough novel uses of educational technologies Projects are implementedprimarily through systemic planning and intensive professional develop-ment efforts supported by the acquisition of hardware and softwareStructuredstandardized professional development workshops or courses4

Large-scale professional development initiatives such as Tinkfinity andPBSrsquo eacherLine are prestructured options that are adopted locally or byschool district region or state Some like Tinkfinity are structured ascascading professional development where the parent organization trainsdistrict regional or state-level trainers who in turn offer the prepackagedprofessional development to groups of teachers in their own jurisdictionsOthers like eacherLine license a wide variety of professional develop-ment courses to districts regions or states so that teachers can pursuethem in more individualized ways

Technology-focused teacher education courses5 eacher education institu-tionsmdasheither collegesuniversities or districtsregions working alone orcollaborativelymdashoffer educational technology courses to teachers deliv-



Tough different from each other these approaches tend to initiate and or-ganize their efforts according to the educational technologies being used ratherthan studentsrsquo learning needs relative to curriculum-based content standardseven when their titles and descriptions address technology integration directlyTese approaches are in Papertrsquos terms ldquotechnocentricrdquo (Papert 1987) becausethey begin with technologiesrsquo affordances and constraints and the skills neededto operate them then later attempt to discern how they can be integratedsuccessfully into content-based learning at different levels Te comparatively weak and relatively sporadic instances of technology integration in most Kndash12content areas suggest that such approaches are inadequate at best Tougheducational technology leaders have been calling for content-based pedagogi-cally forward-thinking technology integration for more than a decade (egFisher Dwyer amp Yokum 1996 Means amp Olson 1997 Roblyer Edwards ampHavriluk 1997) professional development for teachers still emphasizes and isorganized according to technologiesrsquo affordances and constraints (eg Fried-hoff 2008)

We argue that the greatest weakness of such technocentric approaches is thatthey have typically given short shrift to two key domains content and peda-gogy Te five approaches outlined above demonstrate implicit assumptions thatthe kinds of professional knowledge required of teachers for technology integra-tion are the same irrespective of whether one is teaching middle school sciencehigh school social studies or elementary language arts Tis approach ignoresthe variation inherent in different forms of disciplinary knowledge and inquiryas well as the varied pedagogical strategies that are most appropriate for teach-ing this content Different disciplines have differing organizational frameworksestablished practices ways of acknowledging evidence and proof and approach-es for developing knowledge (Koehler amp Mishra 2008) Moreover knowledgeof these disciplinary attributes is necessary but not sufficient without knowledgeof the appropriate pedagogical strategies to use in each content area Success-ful technology integration also recognizes the manner in which the myriad andever changing contextual realities of the classroom and school influence whatteachers do and what students learn (AACE Committee on Innovation ampechnology 2008)

echnology integration approaches that do not reflect disciplinary knowledgedifferences the corresponding processes for developing such knowledge andthe critical role of context ultimately are of limited utility and significance asthey ignore the full complexity of the dynamic realities of teaching effectively with technology Understanding that introducing new educational technologiesinto the learning process changes more than the tools usedmdashand that this hasdeep implications for the nature of content-area learning as well as the peda-gogical approaches among which teachers can selectmdashis an important and oftenoverlooked aspect of many technology integration approaches used to date

In this paper we introduce one approach PACK-based learning activ-



understandings of technology pedagogy content and context Before describ-ing this approach in detail we offer a brief description of the parameters ofteacher knowledge and its interrelated components using the TPACK 1 frame-

work

TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

983080TPACK983081

Considerable interest has surfaced recently in using the notion of techno-logical pedagogical content knowledge (Mishra amp Koehler 2006 Koehler ampMishra 2008) as a framework to understand teachersrsquo knowledge required foreffective technology integration TPACK emphasizes the connections amongtechnologies curriculum content and specific pedagogical approaches dem-

onstrating how teachersrsquo understandings of technology pedagogy and contentcan interact with one another to produce effective discipline-based teaching

Figure 1 Te PACK Framework and Its Knowledge Components (Adapted from Koehler amp Mishra 2008)



with educational technologies In this framework (see Figure 1) there are threeinterdependent components of teachersrsquo knowledgemdashcontent knowledge (CK)pedagogical knowledge (PK) and technological knowledge (K)mdashall framed within and influenced by contextual knowledge

Equally important to this framework and particularly relevant to the argu-

ment we put forth in this article are the interactions among these bodies ofknowledge represented as pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) technologicalcontent knowledge (CK) technological pedagogical knowledge (PK) andtechnological pedagogical content knowledge (PACK) In the following sec-tions we will explore each of these types of knowledge with particular emphasison the intersections among technology pedagogy and content knowledge

Content Knowledge (CK)

Content knowledge is knowledge about the subject matter that is to be

learned or taught including for example middle school science high schoolhistory undergraduate art history or graduate-level astrophysics Knowledgeand the nature of inquiry differ greatly among content areas and it is criticallyimportant that teachers understand the disciplinary ldquohabits of mindrdquo appropri-ate to the subject matter that they teach As Shulman (1986) noted contentincludes knowledge of concepts theories ideas organizational frameworksmethods of evidence and proof as well as established practices and approachestoward developing such knowledge in a particular discipline In the case of artappreciation for example such knowledge would include knowledge of art

history famous paintings sculptures the influence of artistsrsquo historical andsocial contexts as well as knowledge of aesthetic and psychological theories forunderstanding and evaluating art Te cost of teachers having an inadequatecontent-related knowledge base can be quite prohibitive students can developand retain epistemologically incorrect conceptions about and within the con-tent area (Bransford Brown amp Cocking 1999 Pfundt amp Duit 2000)

Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)

Pedagogical knowledge is deep knowledge about the processes and practices

of teaching and learning encompassing educational purposes goals valuesstrategies and more Tis is a generic form of knowledge that applies to studentlearning classroom management instructional planning and implementationand student assessment It includes knowledge about techniques or methodsused in the classroom the nature of the learnersrsquo needs and preferences andstrategies for assessing student understanding A teacher with deep pedagogicalknowledge understands how students construct knowledge and acquire skills indifferentiated ways as well as how they develop habits of mind and dispositionstoward learning As such pedagogical knowledge requires an understanding ofcognitive social and developmental theories of learning and how they apply tostudents in the classroom



difficult Keeping up to date with technological developments can easily be-come overwhelming to time-starved teachers Tis also means that any defini-tion of technology knowledge is in danger of becoming outdated by the timethis text has been published Tere are however ways of thinking about and working with technology that can apply to all technological tools regardless of when they emerged In that sense our definition of K is similar to the notionof Fluency of Information echnology (ldquoFInessrdquo) as proposed by the Com-mittee on Information echnology Literacy of the National Research Council(NRC 1999) Te committee argues that FIness goes beyond traditionalnotions of computer literacy to require that people understand informationtechnology broadly enough to apply it productively at work and in their ev-eryday lives FIness therefore requires a deeper more essential understandingand mastery of technology for information processing communication andproblem solving than does the traditional definition of computer literacy Alsothis conceptualization of K does not posit an ldquoend staterdquo but rather assumesK to be developmental evolving over a lifetime of generative interactions withmultiple technologies

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

Pedagogical content knowledge is the intersection and interaction of peda-gogy and content knowledge PCK is consistent with and similar to Shulmanrsquos(1986) conceptualization of teaching knowledge applicable to a specific content

area It covers essential knowledge of teaching and learning content-basedcurricula as well as assessment and reporting of that learning An awareness ofstudentsrsquo prior knowledge alternative teaching strategies in a particular disci-pline common content-related misconceptions how to forge links and connec-tions among different content-based ideas and the flexibility that comes fromexploring alternative ways of looking at the same idea or problem and moreare all expressions of pedagogical content knowledge and are essential to effec-tive teaching

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)echnological pedagogical knowledge is an understanding of how teachingand learning change when particular technologies are used Tis includes know-ing the pedagogical affordances and constraints of a range of technological toolsand resources as they relate to disciplinarily and developmentally appropriatepedagogical designs and strategies Developing PK requires building an un-derstanding of the potential benefits and limitations of particular technologiesas they can be applied within particular types of learning activities as well asthe educational contexts within which these technologically supported activities

function best An important aspect of PK is the creative flexibility with available toolsi pl i t th f p ifi p d i l p p C id



classroom and is therefore usually under the control of the teacher its locationand use impose a particular physical order upon the classroom determining theplacement of tables chairs and therefore students thus framing the nature ofstudentndashteacher interaction Yet it would be incorrect to say that there is onlyone way that whiteboards can be used One has only to compare the use of a whiteboard in a brainstorming session in a design studio to see a rather differenttechnological application In this context the whiteboard is not controlled by asingle individual Rather it can be used by anybody on the collaborating teamand in this situation it becomes the point around which discussion and thenegotiation and construction of meaning occurs

Te flexible use of tools becomes particularly important because most popularsoftware programs are not designed for educational purposes Software such asthe Microsoft Office Suite (Word PowerPoint Excel Entourage and MSNMessenger) is designed for use in business environments Web-based technolo-gies such as blogs and podcasts are designed for purposes of entertainmentcommunication and social networking eachers therefore must have theknowledge and skills that allow them to appropriate technologies for pedagogi-cal purposes so that they can use Excel for example to help children organizeand analyze data and they can create podcasts as ways to share constructedknowledge with others Tus PK must include a forward-looking creativeand open-minded seeking of technological application not for its own sake butfor the sake of advancing student learning and understanding

A large proportion of technology-based learning activities that have beendeveloped in the past to illustrate technology integration through their lackof emphasis upon content and pedagogy illustrate an incomplete and com-paratively superficial form of PK Examples include recommendations foruse of generic strategiesmdashsuch as keypals telefieldtrips (Rogers Andres Jackamp Clausen 1990) bloggingjournaling preparing PowerPoint presentationsbuilding Web sites and podcastingmdashwithout incorporating acknowledgedPCK and PK Such generic (and technocentric) strategies are described typicallyin content- and context-neutral terms assuming that each would work just as well within any content area at any grade level and in any classroom

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)

echnological content knowledge (CK) includes an understanding of themanner in which technology and content influence and constrain one anotherIn planning for instruction content and technology are often considered sepa-rately It is assumed that developing content is what content experts do (iehistorians develop history and physicists develop physics) whereas technologistsdevelop technologies (eg hypertexts or overhead projectors) and technology

integration strategies When we think of subject matter that students studyin school we often do not think of curriculum contentrsquos relationships to thedigital and nondigital technologies that learners and teachers use Historically



manipulation of information and ideas in novel and fruitful ways Using newtechnologies (or existing technologies in new ways) can prompt fundamentalchanges in the nature of the disciplines themselves Roentgenrsquos discovery of x-rays for example changed both diagnostic processes and the nature of knowl-edge in medicine Te carbon-14 dating technique similarly revolutionizedthe field of archeology Consider also how the advent of the digital computerchanged the nature of physics and mathematics work placing a greater empha-sis upon the role of simulation in understanding phenomena

Effective teaching requires developing an understanding of the manner in which subject mattermdashspecifically the types of content-based representationsthat can be constructed within and across disciplinesmdashcan be changed by theuse of different technologies eachers must understand which technologies arebest suited for addressing which types of subject-matter and how content dic-tates or shapes specific educational technological uses and vice versa We iden-tify three ways in which technology and content have related to one another

First the advent of new technology has often changed fundamentally what weconsider to be disciplinary content In addition to the examples above considerhow the discovery of radiation changed the way we understand the evolutionof life whereas the invention of hypertext transfer (HP) and other Internetprotocols dramatically changed the ways in which we work and communicateContent (be it physics or engineering or sociology) shapes new technologies andoffers new uses for existing technologies while at the same time the affordancesand constraints of technologies shape how this content is represented manipu-lated and applied

Second technology is not neutral with regard to its effects upon cognitionDifferent technologies (or media) engender different mindsets or ways of think-ing (Koehler Yadav Phillips amp Cavazos-Kottke 2005 Mishra Spiro amp Fel-tovich 1996) Every new technologymdashfrom the telephone to the camera to thedigital computermdashhas had its effects on human cognition For example the ad-vent of moveable type and printing in the 15th century was followed by a seriesof dramatic changes in all aspects of social cultural political and scientific lifein Europe and eventually most of the rest of the world Many of the effects ofthe invention and diffusion of print can be traced to certain specific propertiesof print media Print created texts that were mobile immutable presentableand readable and these properties led to fundamental changes in human cogni-tion (Latour 1990) Tey helped to ensure that discussions could be carriedbeyond the conversational arena that predominated in the oral cultures of thetime Tese print objects allowed ideas to be transported and shared withoutchange so that they could be encountered in consistent ways that mutableoral retellings would typically disallow A similar changemdashthough this timetoward increased flexibility and connectivitymdashcan be seen in the emergence of Web-based texts that are nonlinear unbounded and dynamic Tis is especiallyapparent in the so-called ldquoWeb 20rdquo technologies that foster communal and



heart as a pump or the brain as an information-processing machine is justone of the ways technologies have provided new perspectives for understand-ing phenomena Tese representational and metaphorical connections are notsuperficial Considering the brain as akin to a clay tablet for example offers avery different view of cognition and learning than considering it similar to aninformation-processing machine Having these metaphors and analogies as partof a general cultural consciousness influences how technologies are appropriatedfor teaching and learning

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Underlying truly effective and highly skilled teaching with technology weargue is technological pedagogical content knowledge PACK is differentfrom knowledge of its individual component concepts and their intersections It

arises instead from multiple interactions among content pedagogical techno-logical and contextual knowledge PACK encompasses understanding andcommunicating representations of concepts using technologies pedagogicaltechniques that apply technologies appropriately to teach content in differen-tiated ways according to studentsrsquo learning needs knowledge of what makesconcepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress concep-tual challenges knowledge of studentsrsquo prior content-related understanding andepistemological assumptions along with related technological expertise or lackthereof and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing

understanding to help students develop new epistemologies or strengthen oldones PACK is a form of professional knowledge that technologically andpedagogically adept curriculum-oriented teachers use when they teach

Many aspects of these ideas are not new As Shulman (1986) and others haveargued teachersrsquo knowledge for effective practice requires the transformation ofcontent into pedagogical forms What has been overlooked in most cases wesuggest are the critical roles that technology can play For example Shulman writes that developing PCK requires teachers to find ldquothe most useful formsof representation of [the subject arearsquos] ideas the most powerful analogies il-

lustrations examples explanations and demonstrationsmdashin a word the waysof representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible toothersrdquo (p 9)

It is interesting to note here that each of the components described byShulmanmdashrepresentations analogies examples explanations and demon-strationsmdashare constrained constructed and defined in critical ways by theaffordances and constraints of the digital and nondigital technologies used toformulate and represent curriculum-based content In one sense there is nosuch thing as pure content pure pedagogy or pure technology It is important

for teachers to understand the complex manner in which all three of thesedomainsmdashand the contexts in which they are continually formedmdashco-existco-constrain and co-create each other



teacher every course or every pedagogical approach Rather a solutionrsquos successlies in a teacherrsquos ability to flexibly navigate the spaces delimited by contentpedagogy and technology and the complex interactions among these elementsas they play out in specific instructional situations and contexts Ignoring thecomplexity inherent in each knowledge componentmdashor the complexities of therelationships among the componentsmdashcan lead to oversimplified solutions oreven failure eachers need to develop fluency and cognitive flexibility not justin each of these key domainsmdashcontent technology and pedagogymdashbut also inthe manners in which these domains interrelate so that they can effect maxi-mally successful differentiated contextually sensitive learning

Developing the Interacting Components of TPACK

How are teachers to acquire an operational understanding of the complex re-

lationships among content pedagogy technology and context As noted earliertypical approaches to technology-related professional development are basedupon assumptions that it may be enough to just expose teachers to particulareducational technologies and possible curriculum-based uses of those tools andresources Approaches that teach only skills (technology or otherwise) are insuf-ficient Learning about technology is different than learning what to do with itinstructionally eaching technology skills (the in the model above) in isola-tion does little to help teachers develop knowledge about how to use technologyto teach more effectively (PK) its relationship to disciplinary content (CK)

or how to help students meet particular curriculum content standards while us-ing technologies appropriately (PACK) in their learning

Using the PACK framework to frame the development of teachersrsquo knowl-edge does not necessitate a rigid or algorithmic adherence to a single approachto technology integration For example one teacher interested in integratingtechnology in history may consider use of primary sources available on theInternet while another may choose to have students develop hypertexts thatreveal multiple cause-effect relationships among related historical events Onemathematics teacher may choose to provide data sets that students represent with graphs and charts created with spreadsheet software while another maychoose to help her students to discover data patterns represented by the chang-ing slope of a sine wave as it is constructed and altered dynamically with agraphing calculator Tus the development and demonstration of teachersrsquoPACK knowledge requires flexibility and fluencymdashnot just with curriculum-based content but also with pedagogy technology and contextmdashrememberingthat each influences the other in pervasive ways

In speaking of Shulmanrsquos notions of PCK Beyer Feinberg Pagano and

Whitson (1989) suggested that PCK ldquoimplicitly denies the legitimacy even asa matter of conceptual convenience of the forced disjuncture between thoughtand action and content and methodrdquo (p 9) We would argue that this denial



model PACK is a framework for teacher knowledge and as such it may behelpful to those planning professional development for teachers by illuminat-ing what teachers need to know about technology pedagogy and content andtheir interrelationships Te PACK framework does not specify how thisshould be accomplished recognizing that there are many possible approaches toknowledge development of this type Koehler amp Mishra (2005) have exploredlearning-by-design approaches to the development of PACK Here we suggesta different approach to PACK-based professional development for teachersthat foregrounds pedagogical content knowledge as it shapes and is shaped bythe particular affordances and constraints of using different digital and nondigi-tal educational technologies to assist studentsrsquo curriculum-based learning

USING LEARNING ACTIVITY TYPES TO DEVELOP AND APPLY

TPACK

o help teachers to develop and use PACK in ways that attend to the par-ticular demands of different subject matter domains we suggest that an im-portant first step is creating awareness of the range of possible learning activitytypes (Harris amp Hofer 2006 Harris 2008) within a particular content areamatching them to multiple ways that both digital and nondigital technologiescan be used to support each type of learning activity After determining thecontent and process goals for a particular lesson project or unit teachers canthen select from among the full range of activity types in that particular content

area combining the types selected in ways that are congruent with studentsrsquostandards-based differentiated learning needs and preferences Tis approach isbased on an empirical assumption that maximally appropriate and effective in-struction with technology is best planned considering studentsrsquo content-relatedlearning needs and preferences primarily selecting and applying technologiesonly in service of that curriculum-based learning

Te acknowledged focus in this approach to planning instruction is on con-tent-based (and content-specific) pedagogy which is facilitated by judiciouslyselected and implemented technologies Tis emphasis is in accordance with the

situated event-structured and episodic nature of teachersrsquo knowledge (Putnamamp Borko 2000) Moreover given that most teachers distinguish learning activi-ties primarily by curriculum content (Stodolsky 1988) and curriculum contentis rooted in academic disciplines (Shulman 1986) that are epistemologically (ifnot ontologically) distinct a pedagogically focused approach to assisting the de-velopment of teachersrsquo PACK-in-action in the classroom should emphasize thedifferences among learning activities in different content areas rather than theirsimilarities In this way it becomes easier for teachers to match particular activi-ties to specific content-based learning goals and standards and more impor-

tant to interpret and implement these activities in ways that are congruent withthe disciplinary roots of the discipline-based content that students are learning



content knowledge Tey are a ldquofriendlierrdquo interpretation of the ldquoactivity struc-turesrdquo revealed in social semiotic discourse analyses of classroom interactionsand later studied in science and mathematics classrooms (eg Lemke 1987 Windshitl 2004) Activity structures are comprised of ldquoactivity segmentsrdquo which were first examined and explicated by ecological psychologists Activ-ity segments are the individual parts of a lesson each of which has a particularfocus format setting participants materials duration pacing cognitive levelgoals and level of student involvement Activity structures are combinations ofactivity segments that are recognizable to and used by teachers when planninginstruction (eg ldquoKWL activitiesrdquo) (Stodolsky 1988) For example the firstcommonly cited activity structure in educational literaturemdashMehanrsquos (1979)I-R-E (teacher initiation student reply teacher evaluation) sequencemdashemergedfrom the study of classroom-based discourse

In another example Windschitl (2004) identifies several activity structures when recommending pedagogical practice for science labs defining the term asfollows

Te term ldquoactivity structurerdquo is borrowed from the socioculturaltheorists meaning a set of classroom activities and interactions thathave characteristic roles for participants rules patterns of behaviorand recognizable material and discursive practices associated withthem ldquoaking attendancerdquo ldquohaving a discussionrdquo and ldquodoing an ex-perimentrdquo could all be considered activity structures While the termldquoactivitiesrdquo refers to specific phenomena occurring in classrooms thestructures underlying these are more general and applicable acrossmultiple contexts (p 25)

Polman (1998) sees activity structures functioning on both classroom andschool levelsmdashand beyond o him predominant activity structures are culturaltools that perpetuate and standardize communication patternsmdashand thereforeinteraction norms and expectationsmdashprimarily according to teachersrsquo memo-ries of dominant discourse patterns from their own school-related childhood

experiences Some activity structures therefore can represent a mismatchbetween teachersrsquo and studentsrsquo differing socioculturally based expectations forteacherndashstudent and studentndashstudent interaction (eg preferences for competi-tive or collaborative schoolwork) and therefore should be selected in as student-centered a way as possible When a paradigmatically new teaching approachis attempted Polman argues as there isnrsquot an ldquoobvious set of well-establishedcultural tools to structurehellip interactionrdquo (p 4) teachersrsquo resulting confusionand resistance can undermine educational reform efforts We believe a similarphenomenon can occur when a new technology is introduced Te resultingconfusion and resistance can similarly undermine the process and goals of thelearning activity For this reason we advocate conscious identification expli-



Lemke (1987) applied the notion of recurring discourse structures to thesocial semiotics of science education more broadly noting that every actionin the classroom has both interactional and thematic meaning Tat meaningunfolds according to Lemke within two independent discourse structuresactivity structures and thematic structures Activity structures are ldquorecurringfunctional sequences of actionsrdquo (p 219) and thematic structures are familiar ways of speaking about a topic such as the curriculum-based focus of a unit orlesson (Windschitl 2004) Lemkersquos underlying assertion is that meaning cannotbe separated from action the structure of curriculum content therefore cannotbe separated from the structure of content-related learning activities Given thesimilar underlying assumptions of the interdependence of PACKrsquos conceptualcomponents described earlier we argue that tool and resource usemdashboth digitaland nondigitalmdashcan similarly not be separated from contenttheme and activity

structure Terefore PACK-related activity types for teachersrsquo use should beconceptualized and presented in terms of their specific disciplinary discoursesand in conjunction with their technological affordances Given the content-based nature of activity structures (Stodolsky 1988) and teachersrsquo experienceteaching in specific content areas using PACK-based activity types representsa promisingmdashand decidedly nontechnocentricmdashapproach to professional de-velopment in technology integration

Cultivating Use of Activity Types

Several educational researchers have examined the intentional cultivation anduse of activity structures in professional development for teachers Kolodner ampGray (2002) for example proposed a system of ldquoritualizedrdquo learning activitystructures to assist learning and teaching in project-based science work Te au-thors recommended ritualizing activity structures at both strategic and tacticallevelsmdashthat is in sequencing both the steps for participating in a particular typeof learning activity and the order of activities that comprise a project or unitTeir activity structures are specific to the science-related skills that each helpsstudents to develop For example there are three different types of presentations

included presentations of ideas of experimental results and of experiences withmultiple solutions to similar problems Kolodner amp Gray discovered thatmdashcon-trary to expectations that naming too many different activity structures wouldoverwhelm students and teachersmdashsuch fine-grained differentiation actuallyassisted both learners and instructors in knowing what to expect from and howto participate in each activity type plus how the activity is connected to thedevelopment of content-specific processes and goals

Polmanrsquos (1998) 2-year classroom-based study sought to document a project-based alternative to the traditional I-R-E activity structure He discovered and

named a B-N-I-E structure used in a middle school science class in whichstudents ldquobidrdquo by suggesting topics that they would like to research then ldquonego-



ldquoevaluationrdquo from the teacher on their work Te evaluation results then formedthe basis for a new recursion of the B-N-I-E sequence as the students revisedand continued their learning

Polmanrsquos (1998) research continued as he then tested the B-N-I-E activitystructure in a different disciplinemdashhistory He found that the structure couldbe modified to accommodate another curriculum area but the adaptation mustinvolve choices ldquoalong the dimensions of act (what) and agency (how)rdquo (p 22)because the nature of inquiry and expression in different disciplines differ inessential waysmdashfor example between a lab report and an historical narrativePolmanrsquos work with the same activity structure in two disparate disciplinesdemonstrates the discipline-specific (not transdisciplinary) nature of activitystructures and types

How are activity structurestypes connected to larger school-based social pro-

fessional and organizational structures and networks if they are indeed linkedDuring an in-depth study of science education practices in Japan Linn Lewissuchida and Songer (2000) compared the presence and use of science activ-ity structures in multiple classrooms o their surprise they found the activitystructures to be consistently present and similarly described by both studentsand teachers Te Japanese participants framed the structures in terms of whatstudents do during each science-related learning experience Te researchershypothesized that the highly collaborative nature of Japanese teacher interac-tions may have yielded the similarities in descriptions and discussions Yet

contrary to popular US perceptions ldquoJapanese teachers ultimately choose theinstructional approaches they will use in the classroomrdquo but ldquoshared researchlessons may offer opportunities for teachers to collectively build and refine not just instructional techniques but also norms about what is good instructionrdquo(p 11) Tis points to an essential feature of successful use of activity structurestypes as instructional planningdesign tools As Linn et al recommend they arebest used flexibly and in the context of active teacher discourse communities toldquoenable deep coherent instructionrdquo (p 4)

Matching Activity Types Content and Technologiesechnologiesrsquo affordances create opportunities for both enhancing exist-

ing learning activity types and creating new ones Effective teaching requiresknowledge of both the activity structurestypes that are appropriate for teach-ing specific content and the manners in which particular technologies can beutilized as part of the lesson project or unit design What happens when a newlearning activity type is used without conscious attention to all aspects of thePACK framework In the following section we examine WebQuests as one

example of a comparatively new activity structure made possible (and by someaccounts ldquogone viralrdquo) by the advent of the WebWebQuests are inquiry-oriented activities in which some or all of the informa-



not a trivial task In response to a widespread misapplication of this activitystructure Dodge (2001) published and promoted ldquofive rules for writing a great WebQuestrdquo As he described

A quick search of the Web for the word WebQuest will turn up

thousands of examples As with any human enterprise the qualityranges widelyhellip Some of the lessons that label themselves Web-Quests do not represent the model well at all and are merely work-sheets with URLs (p 7)

Dodge and March originally intended the WebQuest to be an inquiry-basedactivity that requires studentsrsquo use of information found online at analysissynthesis and evaluation levels (Dodge 1995) applicable to any content areaand most grade levels With posted evaluation standards now available andencouraged for teachersrsquo use (Dodge Bellofatto Bohl Casey amp Krill 2001) WebQuestsrsquo creators are hopeful that a greater proportion of newly created WebQuests will reflect the purposes for and types of learning originally con-ceptualized Yet we wonder whether this content-neutral activity type is by vir-tue of its technological (Web-based) emphasis prone to instructional applica-tion that is mismatched both pedagogically and in terms of disciplinary content with its original intent and design Te same could be suggested for the othertechnology-based learning activity types mentioned earlier keypals telefield-trips bloggingjournaling educational podcasting and more If teaching andlearning are conceptualized and characterized in action by teachers primarilyaccording to content matter (Stodolsky 1988) then the design of professionaldevelopment for teachersmdashincluding the ways that learning activity types aredelineated and usedmdashshould be similarly organized within content areas whilestill considering the concomitant relationships among content technologypedagogy and context

Sample Activity Types

Using content foci as cognitive organizers for professional learning teach-

ers can learn to recognize differentiate discuss select among combine andapply PACK-based activity types in curriculum standards-based instructionalplanning By planning with activity types teachers can function as designersin time-efficient ways that accommodate the crowded and pressured nature oftheir daily schedules

As an example consider a taxonomy of PACK-related learning activity typesdeveloped for the social studies Harris and Hofer (2006 in press) identified 42distinct learning activity types from structural analyses of social studies learningactivities used in classrooms and reported in curriculum research pedagogical

journals andor social studies methods texts Te activity types are divided into13 knowledge-building and 29 knowledge-expression structures Knowledge-ex-pression activity types were further divided into activities that emphasize either



Table 1 Knowledge-Building Activity Types

Activity Activity Description Compatible Technologies

Read Text Students extract information from textbooks

historical documents census data etc

Books Web browsers CD-

ROM document viewers

View

Presentation

Students gain information from teachers guest

speakers and their peers

Presentation software note

taking tools audiovideo

recorders whiteboards

concept mapping software

View Images Students examine both still and moving (video

animated) images

Imageanimationvideo

editing and display software

Listen to

Audio

Students listen to recordings of speeches music

radio broadcasts oral histories and lectures

Web sites MP3 players

podcasts radio tape

players CD players

Group

Discussion

In small to large groups students engage in

dialogue with their peers

Discussion forums blogs

wikis chatrooms

Field Trip Students travel to physical or virtual sites

connected with the curriculum

Video virtual reality

systems online museums

galleries and exhibitions

Simulation Students engage in paper-based or digital

experiences which mirror the complexity and

open-ended nature of the real world

Virtual reality Web sites

simulation software

animations

Debate Students discuss opposing viewpoints with theirpeers

Discussion forums e-mailchat

Research Using a variety of sources students gather

analyze and synthesize information

Traditional and online

books encyclopedias and

journals Wikipedia

Conduct an

Interview

Face to face on the telephone or via e-mail

students question someone on a chosen topic

Telephone VOIP (eg

Skype) e-mail chatrooms

Artifact-

Based

Inquiry

Students explore a topic using physical or virtual

artifacts

Artifact kits online muse-

ums and exhibitions video

games

Data-Based

Inquiry

Using print-based and digital data available

online students pursue original lines of inquiry

Web sites online databases

WebQuests

Historical

Chain

Students sequence print and digital documents

in chronological order

Web sites primary sources

(paper-based and virtual)

timeline software

Historical

Weaving

Students piece together print and digital

documents to develop a story

Story construction

software concept mapping

software word processors

storyboard tools

Historical Students explore print-based and digital Web sites primary sources



Table 2 Convergent Knowledge Expression Activity Types

Activity Activity Description Compatible echnologies

Answer

Questions

Students respond to questions posed by

the teacher peers or the textbook

Discussion boards wikis white-

boards quiz and polling software

textbooksCreate a

imeline

Students develop a visual representation

of sequential events

Data mapping software timeline


software

Create a

Map

Students label existing maps or produce

their own

Cartographic software Google-

Maps drawing software

Complete

Charts

ables

Students fill in teacher-created charts

and tables or create their own

Excel or other data process-

ing software concept mapping

software

Complete

a Review

Activity

Students engage in some format of

question and answer to review course

content

Courseware quiz and polling

software wikis

ake a est Students demonstrate their knowledge

through a traditional form of assessment

Quiz software survey software

Note Based on Harris amp Hofer 2006 in press

is appropriate for use with each activity type Rather particular applications of

specific technologies based on their affordances should be selected carefully tomatch the activity type(s) under consideration Tere are three genres of learn-ing activity types in the social studies that can be supported by varied uses oftechnology

ypically completed first in a social studies project unit or series of connect-ed lessons knowledge-building activity types are those in which students buildcontent-related understanding through information-based processes Te namesand brief descriptions of each of the 13 knowledge-building social studies activ-ity types along with a list of compatible technologies appear in able 1

Most often scheduled to follow knowledge-building activities Harris andHofer describe knowledge expression activity types for the social studies as thosethat help students deepen their understanding of content-related concepts usingvarious types of communication Convergent knowledge expression activitiesask students to create respond to or complete structured representations ofprior knowledge building able 2 summarizes the names and definitions ofeach of the six identified convergent knowledge expression activity types andthe technologies that are used most appropriately for each

Finally divergent knowledge expression activity types in social studies are

described as those that help students to extend their content-related under-standing via alternative forms of communication able 3 (pages 410ndash411)



Table 3 Divergent Knowledge Expression Activity Types


Written Knowledge Expression

Write an Essay Students compose a structured

written response to a prompt

Word processing wikis blogs


Write a Report Students author a paper from a

teacher or student derived topic



Generate an

Historical

Narrative

Using historical documents and sec-

ondary source information students

develop their own story of the past

Primary sources timeline software

concept mapping software word

processors

Craft a Poem Students create poetry connected with

course contentideas

Word processing software wikis

blogs

Create a Diary Students write from a first-hand per-

spective about an event from the past

Word processing concept map-

ping primary and secondary

sources (paper based and virtual)

Visual Knowledge Expression

Create an

Illustrated Map

Students use pictures symbols and

graphics to highlight key features in

creating an illustrated map

Cartographic software graphics

editing software clip art stock art

GoogleMaps

Create a

PictureMural

Students create a physical or virtual

mural

Multimedia editing and graphics

tools

Draw aCartoon

Students create a drawing or carica-ture of a content-based concept

Drawingpainting software hand-held drawing tools

Conceptual Knowledge Expression

Develop a

Knowledge

Web

Using teacher- or student-created

webs students organize information

in a visualspatial manner

Concept mapping software wikis

brainstorming aids interactive

whiteboards

Generate

Questions

Students develop questions related to

contentconcepts

Word processing wikis Google

Docs

Develop a

Metaphor

Students devise a metaphorical

representation of a content-based

topicidea

Image banks graphics editors

multimedia authoring tools

Product-Oriented Knowledge Expression

Produce an

Artifact

Students create a 3D or virtual artifact CADCAM software virtual real-

ity creation software

Build a Model Students develop a mental or physical

representation of a course concept

process

Modeling simulation

construction graphics software

multimedia production tools

Design anExhibit

Students synthesize and describe keyelements of a topic in a physical or

virtual exhibit

Presentation software wordprocessing Web authoring tools

graphics tools



Note that each of these 42 social studies activity types as they have been de-scribed briefly here do not privilege one particular type or class of educationaltechnology nor do they recommend a particular pedagogical approach in keep-ing with the situated and flexible aspects of the PACK framework describedearlier in this article Instead we acknowledge that different combinations of

pedagogical strategies and technologies each with unique affordances and con-straints are appropriate for different discipline-based curricula differentiatedstudent learning needs and preferences and different contextual realities

Our goal in identifying and sharing activity types and the manner in whichspecific technologies are used more (or less) appropriately with each is to helpteachers become aware of the full range of possible curriculum-based learningactivity options and the different ways that digital and nondigital tools supporteach Tis can help teachers (and teacher educators) efficiently select amongcustomize and combine activity types that are well matched to both studentsrsquo

differentiated learning needs and preferences and classroom contextual reali-ties such as computer access and class time available for learning activity work



Product-Oriented Knowledge Expression (Continued)

Create a Game Students develop a game in paper or

digital form to help themselves andother students learn content

Word processors imaging tools

Web authoring softwarespecialized game-making software

Create a Film Using some combination of still

images motion video music and

narration students produce their own

movie

Multimedia recording and editing

tools and software

Participatory Knowledge Expression

Do a

Presentation

In oral or multimedia format

students share their understanding

with others

Presentation software multimedia

authoring tools video and audio

editing suites

Engage in

Historical Role

Play

Students portray historical figures Presentation software multimedia

captureediting software

Do a

Performance

Students develop a live or recorded

performance (oral music drama

etc)

Word processing storyboarding

software videoaudio editing tools

Engage in

Civic Action

Students write to government

representatives or engage in some

other form of civic action

Word processing Web site design

blogs wikis e-mail

Table 3 (Continued)



activity-type (and technology) selections in close visual peripheries so that allare considered concurrently albeit with differing emphases at different timesand under different conditions (Harris 2008)

It is important to note that using these lists of activity types and technologicalaids should not be seen as the total process of instructional planning Effectiveplanning for studentsrsquo learning is not merely an activity-by-activity endeavorbecause curriculum-based units projects and sequences are much more thanthe sums of their respective parts and their effective use requires related but dis-tinct types of pedagogical content and technological expertise Describing howuse of activity types is integrated into instructional planning overall and whatthe accompanying mechanisms of that holistic planning process are is unfortu-nately beyond the scope of this article Interested readers can track forthcomingpublications that address the use of PACK-based activity types in instructionalplanning by visiting the Learning Activity ypes Wiki periodically at httpactivitytypeswmwikisnet

CONCLUSION

Because teachersrsquo PACK is not limited to a particular approach to teachinglearning or even technology integration it is important that PACK-basedprofessional development for teachers be flexible and inclusive enough to ac-commodate the full range of teaching philosophies styles and approaches One way to ensure that flexibility is to share the full range of curriculum-based activ-ity types within each discipline area encouraging teachers to select among thembased on perceived appropriateness and advantage with reference to studentsrsquolearning needs and preferences and to engage in this selectioncombinationprocess each time they plan a new lesson project or unit

Given that the first taxonomy of content-specific PACK-based activity typeshas been tested comparatively recently and that it refers to just one curriculumcontent area it is clear that much more work in this line of inquiry needs tobe done Activity type taxonomies for other Kndash12 curriculum content areasmdash which will have been developed and posted by the time this article is in printfor elementary literacy mathematics science secondary English and world

language learning in addition to the social studies activity types describedhere2mdashshould be tested and refined according to what teachers and teacher ed-ucators discover and recommend when using them Also teachersand research-ers should compare the efficacy of studentsrsquo learning that was planned usingcontent-based activity types with instruction planned in more content-neutraltechnologically focused ways Tey should similarly explore and compare theefficacy of other PACK-based professional development models such as thelearning-by-design approach mentioned earlier and the creation of additionalmodels is encouraged

Te continual evolution of technology pedagogy and content often bringsnew learning activity types to light Tis means that activity-type taxonomies



are not static entities but rather continually evolving as we develop new tech-nologies new ways of representing content and new ways of helping differentstudents learn it Given the ever evolving nature of educational research andpractice and of TPACKrsquos defining elements it is clear that what we face is atonce a tall order and an appealing opportunity to continue to invent revise

expand update test and otherwise explore the ways in which we understandand help teachers to develop TPACK Due to the emergent and interdependentnature of this particular type of professional applied knowledge this can bebest accomplished as a collaborative endeavor among content experts educa-tional technology developers educational researchers and pedagogical practitio-ners We invite our readers to join us in this worthy endeavor

Contributors

Judith Harris is a professor and the Pavey Family Chair in Educational

Technology in the School of Education at the College of William amp Mary Herresearch and development focus on curriculum-based educational technologyprofessional development for teachers telementoring including professionallearning and support for new teachers online and the curriculum-based devel-opment of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (AddressSchool of Education College of William and Mary 226 Jones Hall Ukrop Way Williamsburg VA 23187-8795 Phone 7572212334 E-mail judihar-riswmedu)

Punya Mishra is an associate professor of educational psychology and edu-

cational technology in the College of Education at Michigan State UniversityHis research focuses on cognitive aesthetic and social aspects related to thedesign and use of computer-based learning environments Mishra and Koehlerdeveloped the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCKTPACK)framework first published in 2005 (Address Educational Psychology amp Edu-cational Technology 509A amp B Erickson Hall Michigan State University EastLansing MI 48824 Phone 5173537211 E-mail punyamsuedu)

Matthew Koehler is an associate professor of educational psychology and edu-cational technology in the College of Education at Michigan State University

His research focuses on understanding the affordances and constraints of newtechnologies the design of technology-rich innovative learning environmentsand the professional development of teachers Mishra and Koehler developedthe technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCKTPACK) frameworkfirst published in 2005 (Address Educational Psychology amp Educational Tech-nology 509A amp B Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing MI48824 Phone 5173539287 E-mail mkoehlermsuedu)

References

AACTE Committee on Innovation amp Technology (Ed) (2008) Handbook oftechnological pedagogical content knowledge for educators New York Routledge



Bransford J D Brown A L amp Cocking R R (Eds) (1999) How peoplelearn Brain mind experience and school Washington DC National Acad-emy Press

Culp K M Honey M amp Mandinach E (2003) A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy Washington DC US Department ofEducation Office of Educational echnology Retrieved February 20 2007from httpwwwnationaledtechplanorgparticipate20yearspdf

Dodge B (1995) Some thoughts about WebQuests Retrieved February 202007 from httpwebquestsdsueduabout_webquestshtml

Dodge B (2001) FOCUS Five rules for writing great WebQuests Learning ampLeading with Technology 28 (8) 6ndash9 58 Retrieved February 20 2007 fromhttpwwwisteorgAMemplatecfmSection=May16ampemplate=Mem-bersOnlycfmampContentID=7702

Dodge B Bellofatto L Bohl N Casey M amp Krill M (2001) A rubric forevaluating WebQuests Retrieved February 20 2007 from httpwebquestsdsueduwebquestrubrichtml

Fisher C Dwyer D C amp Yocam K (Eds) (1996) Education and technol-ogy Reflections on computing in classrooms San Francisco Jossey-Bass

Friedhoff J R (2008) Reflecting on the affordances and constraints of tech-nologies and their impact on pedagogical goals Journal of Computing ineacher Education 24 117ndash122

Groff J amp Mouza C (2008) A framework for addressing challenges to class-

room technology use AACE Journal 16 (1) 21ndash46Harris J B (2008) PACK in inservice education Assisting experiencedteachersrsquo planned improvisations In AACE Committee on Innovation ampechnology (Eds) Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge foreducators (pp 251ndash271) New York Routledge

Harris J amp Hofer M (2006 July) Planned improvisations Technology-supported learning activity design in social studies Session presented at the Na-tional Educational Computing Conference 2006 San Diego CA RetrievedNovember 19 2008 from httpcenteruoregoneduISENECC2006

programsearch_results_detailsphpsessionid=13514149Harris J amp Hofer M (2008 June) Truly technologically integrated planning

for teaching and learning Session presented at the National Educational Com-puting Conference 2008 San Antonio X Retrieved July 27 2008 fromhttpcenteruoregoneduISENECC2008programsearch_results_detailsphpsessionid=42063550ampselection_id=42863643amprownumber=6ampmax=6ampgopage=

Harris J amp Hofer M (in press) Instructional planning activity types asvehicles for curriculum-based PACK development In C Maddux (Ed)

Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 Chesapeake VA Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education



Koehler M J amp Mishra P (2008) Introducing PACK In AACE Com-mittee on Innovation amp echnology (Eds) Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp 3ndash29) New York Routledge

Koehler M J Yadav A Phillips M M amp Cavazos-Kottke S (2005) Whatis video good for Examining how media and story genre interact Journal ofEducational Multimedia and Hypermedia 14 (3) 249ndash272

Kolodner J L amp Gray J (2002 April) Understanding the affordances ofritualized activity for project-based classrooms Paper presented at the Interna-tional Conference of the Learning Sciences Seattle WA Retrieved February14 2009 from httpwwwccgatecheduprojectslbdpdfsactivitystructurespdf

Latour B (1990) Drawing things together In M Lynch amp S Woolgar (Eds)Representations in scientific practice (pp 19ndash68) Cambridge MA MI Press

Lemke J L (1987) Social semiotics and science education Te American Journal of Semiotics 5 (2) 217ndash232Levin amp Wadmany R (2008) eachersrsquo views on factors affecting effec-

tive integration of information technology in the classroom Developmentalscenery Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 16 233ndash263

Linn M Lewis C suchida I amp Songer N (2000) Beyond fourth-gradescience Why do US and Japanese students diverge Educational Researcher 29 (3) 4ndash14

McCormick R amp Scrimshaw P (2001) Information and communications

technology knowledge and pedagogy Education Communication and Infor-mation 1(1) 37ndash57Means B amp Olson K (1997) Technology and education reform Office of Edu-

cational Research and Improvement Contract No RP91-172010 Washing-ton DC US Department of Education Retrieved February 3 2003 fromhttpwwwedgovpubsSERechnologytitlehtml

Mehan H (1979) Learning lessons Social organization in the classroom Cam-bridge MA Harvard University Press

Mishra P amp Koehler M J (2006) echnological pedagogical content knowl-

edge A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge TeachersCollege Record 108 (6) 1017ndash1054

Mishra P Spiro R J amp Feltovich P (1996) echnology representation ampcognition In H von Oostendorp (Ed) Cognitive aspects of electronic text processing (pp 287ndash306) Norwood NJ Ablex Publishing Corporation

National Research Council (1999) Being fluent with information technologyliteracy Computer science and telecommunications board commission onphysical sciences mathematics and applications Washington DC National Academy Press

Papert S (1987) A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future Retrieved February 20 2007 from httpwwwpapertorgarticlesAC-



Polman J L (1998 April) Activity structures for project-based teaching andlearning Design and adaptation of cultural tools Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association San Diego CARetrieved February 14 2009 from httpwwwericedgovERICDocsdataericdocs2sqlcontent_storage_010000019b80170e26pdf

Putnam R amp Borko H (2000) What do new views of knowledge andthinking have to say about research on teacher learning Educational Research-er 29 (1) 4ndash15

Roblyer M D Edwards J amp Havriluk M A (1997) Integrating educationaltechnology into teaching Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Rogers A Andres Y Jacks M amp Clausen (1990) Keys to successfultelecomputing Te Computing eacher 17 (8) 25ndash28

Russell M OrsquoDwyer L M Bebell D amp ao W (2007) How teachersrsquo usesof technology vary by tenure and longevity Journal of Educational ComputingResearch 37 393ndash417

Sandholtz J H Ringstaff C amp Dwyer D C (1997) eaching with technol-ogy Creating student-centered classrooms New York eachers College Press

Shulman L (1986) Tose who understand Knowledge growth in teachingEducational Researcher 15 (2) 4-14

Stodolsky S S (1988) Te subject matters Classroom activity in math and socialstudies Chicago Te University of Chicago Press

Windschitl M (2004) What types of knowledge do teachers use to engage learnersin ldquodoing sciencerdquo Paper commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences Washington DC Board of Science Education Retrieved February 20 2007from httpwww7nationalacademiesorgboseMWindschitl_comissioned_paper_6_03_04_HSLabs_Mtgpdf

Zhao Y Pugh K Sheldon S amp Byers J L (2002) Conditions for class-room technology innovations eachers College Record 104 (3) 482ndash515





devices (p 31) which ldquotransform the nature of a subject at the most fundamen-tal levelrdquo (p 47) Tese authors suggest that such technology-based curriculartransformation happens only in those few content areas (eg music literacyand art) that are ldquolargely defined by the media they userdquo (Harris 2008 p 47)

We argue that this discrepancy between a vision of transformative uses of

educational technologies and the more prevalent efficiency and extension ap-plications can be traced to the nature of how technology use in classrooms hasbeen conceptualized and supported Five general approaches dominate currentand past technology integration efforts

Software-focused initiatives1 One of the earliest examples of software-focused technology integration approaches was in mathematical learningand general problem-solving skill development through studentsrsquo useof the programming language Logo Later software-based integrationattempts made use of integrated learning system (ILS) software which

provides individualized instruction while tracking studentsrsquo learningneeds and progressDemonstrations of sample resources lessons and projects 2 eachers oftendemand classroom-based and student-tested examples of appropriatetechnology use Given this proclivity it is not surprising that there is a wide range of sources (such as magazine articles books Web sites andconference presentations) that recommend curriculum-based lessonsprojects and online resources that teachers have used successfully Un-derlying this effort is the assumption that successful use of instructional

plans and educational resources is easily transferable among differentclassroomsTechnology-based educational reform efforts 3 Tese larger-scale oftengrant-funded projects such as Applersquos Classrooms of omorrow (ACO)10-year initiative (Sandholtz Ringstaff amp Dwyer 1997) are usuallyorganized around new visions for learning and teaching that are realizedthrough novel uses of educational technologies Projects are implementedprimarily through systemic planning and intensive professional develop-ment efforts supported by the acquisition of hardware and softwareStructuredstandardized professional development workshops or courses4

Large-scale professional development initiatives such as Tinkfinity andPBSrsquo eacherLine are prestructured options that are adopted locally or byschool district region or state Some like Tinkfinity are structured ascascading professional development where the parent organization trainsdistrict regional or state-level trainers who in turn offer the prepackagedprofessional development to groups of teachers in their own jurisdictionsOthers like eacherLine license a wide variety of professional develop-ment courses to districts regions or states so that teachers can pursuethem in more individualized ways

Technology-focused teacher education courses5 eacher education institu-tionsmdasheither collegesuniversities or districtsregions working alone orcollaborativelymdashoffer educational technology courses to teachers deliv-










work


983080TPACK983081































































TPACK



















































View

Presentation








animated) images

Imageanimationvideo


Listen to

Audio




podcasts radio tape

players CD players

Group

Discussion




wikis chatrooms










simulation software

animations







journals Wikipedia

Conduct an

Interview



Telephone VOIP (eg


Artifact-

Based

Inquiry


artifacts



games

Data-Based

Inquiry




WebQuests

Historical

Chain





timeline software

Historical

Weaving



Story construction



storyboard tools






Answer

Questions





textbooksCreate a

imeline





software

Create a

Map


their own



Complete

Charts

ables





software

Complete

a Review

Activity



content


software wikis
























Generate an

Historical

Narrative






processors


course contentideas


blogs







Create an

Illustrated Map






GoogleMaps

Create a

PictureMural


mural


tools

Draw aCartoon




Develop a

Knowledge

Web






whiteboards

Generate

Questions


contentconcepts


Docs

Develop a

Metaphor



topicidea




Produce an

Artifact





process

Modeling simulation



Design anExhibit


virtual exhibit


graphics tools

















movie


tools and software


Do a

Presentation



with others



editing suites

Engage in

Historical Role

Play



Do a

Performance



etc)



Engage in

Civic Action





blogs wikis e-mail

Table 3 (Continued)





CONCLUSION









Contributors







References



























































work


983080TPACK983081































































TPACK



















































View

Presentation








animated) images

Imageanimationvideo


Listen to

Audio




podcasts radio tape

players CD players

Group

Discussion




wikis chatrooms










simulation software

animations







journals Wikipedia

Conduct an

Interview



Telephone VOIP (eg


Artifact-

Based

Inquiry


artifacts



games

Data-Based

Inquiry




WebQuests

Historical

Chain





timeline software

Historical

Weaving



Story construction



storyboard tools






Answer

Questions





textbooksCreate a

imeline





software

Create a

Map


their own



Complete

Charts

ables





software

Complete

a Review

Activity



content


software wikis
























Generate an

Historical

Narrative






processors


course contentideas


blogs







Create an

Illustrated Map






GoogleMaps

Create a

PictureMural


mural


tools

Draw aCartoon




Develop a

Knowledge

Web






whiteboards

Generate

Questions


contentconcepts


Docs

Develop a

Metaphor



topicidea




Produce an

Artifact





process

Modeling simulation



Design anExhibit


virtual exhibit


graphics tools

















movie


tools and software


Do a

Presentation



with others



editing suites

Engage in

Historical Role

Play



Do a

Performance



etc)



Engage in

Civic Action





blogs wikis e-mail

Table 3 (Continued)





CONCLUSION









Contributors







References













































































































TPACK



















































View

Presentation








animated) images

Imageanimationvideo


Listen to

Audio




podcasts radio tape

players CD players

Group

Discussion




wikis chatrooms










simulation software

animations







journals Wikipedia

Conduct an

Interview



Telephone VOIP (eg


Artifact-

Based

Inquiry


artifacts



games

Data-Based

Inquiry




WebQuests

Historical

Chain





timeline software

Historical

Weaving



Story construction



storyboard tools






Answer

Questions





textbooksCreate a

imeline





software

Create a

Map


their own



Complete

Charts

ables





software

Complete

a Review

Activity



content


software wikis
























Generate an

Historical

Narrative






processors


course contentideas


blogs







Create an

Illustrated Map






GoogleMaps

Create a

PictureMural


mural


tools

Draw aCartoon




Develop a

Knowledge

Web






whiteboards

Generate

Questions


contentconcepts


Docs

Develop a

Metaphor



topicidea




Produce an

Artifact





process

Modeling simulation



Design anExhibit


virtual exhibit


graphics tools

















movie


tools and software


Do a

Presentation



with others



editing suites

Engage in

Historical Role

Play



Do a

Performance



etc)



Engage in

Civic Action





blogs wikis e-mail

Table 3 (Continued)





CONCLUSION









Contributors







References































































































View

Presentation








animated) images

Imageanimationvideo


Listen to

Audio




podcasts radio tape

players CD players

Group

Discussion




wikis chatrooms










simulation software

animations







journals Wikipedia

Conduct an

Interview



Telephone VOIP (eg


Artifact-

Based

Inquiry


artifacts



games

Data-Based

Inquiry




WebQuests

Historical

Chain





timeline software

Historical

Weaving



Story construction



storyboard tools






Answer

Questions





textbooksCreate a

imeline





software

Create a

Map


their own



Complete

Charts

ables





software

Complete

a Review

Activity



content


software wikis
























Generate an

Historical

Narrative






processors


course contentideas


blogs







Create an

Illustrated Map






GoogleMaps

Create a

PictureMural


mural


tools

Draw aCartoon




Develop a

Knowledge

Web






whiteboards

Generate

Questions


contentconcepts


Docs

Develop a

Metaphor



topicidea




Produce an

Artifact





process

Modeling simulation



Design anExhibit


virtual exhibit


graphics tools

















movie


tools and software


Do a

Presentation



with others



editing suites

Engage in

Historical Role

Play



Do a

Performance



etc)



Engage in

Civic Action





blogs wikis e-mail

Table 3 (Continued)





CONCLUSION









Contributors







References






















































Answer

Questions





textbooksCreate a

imeline





software

Create a

Map


their own



Complete

Charts

ables





software

Complete

a Review

Activity



content


software wikis
























Generate an

Historical

Narrative






processors


course contentideas


blogs







Create an

Illustrated Map






GoogleMaps

Create a

PictureMural


mural


tools

Draw aCartoon




Develop a

Knowledge

Web






whiteboards

Generate

Questions


contentconcepts


Docs

Develop a

Metaphor



topicidea




Produce an

Artifact





process

Modeling simulation



Design anExhibit


virtual exhibit


graphics tools

















movie


tools and software


Do a

Presentation



with others



editing suites

Engage in

Historical Role

Play



Do a

Performance



etc)



Engage in

Civic Action





blogs wikis e-mail

Table 3 (Continued)





CONCLUSION









Contributors







References































































Generate an

Historical

Narrative






processors


course contentideas


blogs







Create an

Illustrated Map






GoogleMaps

Create a

PictureMural


mural


tools

Draw aCartoon




Develop a

Knowledge

Web






whiteboards

Generate

Questions


contentconcepts


Docs

Develop a

Metaphor



topicidea




Produce an

Artifact





process

Modeling simulation



Design anExhibit


virtual exhibit


graphics tools

















movie


tools and software


Do a

Presentation



with others



editing suites

Engage in

Historical Role

Play



Do a

Performance



etc)



Engage in

Civic Action





blogs wikis e-mail

Table 3 (Continued)





CONCLUSION









Contributors







References


































































movie


tools and software


Do a

Presentation



with others



editing suites

Engage in

Historical Role

Play



Do a

Performance



etc)



Engage in

Civic Action





blogs wikis e-mail

Table 3 (Continued)





CONCLUSION









Contributors







References






















































CONCLUSION









Contributors







References






















































Contributors







References


















































2009_harris_mishra_koehler.pdf

Documents