This study examined the initial learning trajectories of 13 upper elementary teachers as they developed technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) while participating in a 7-month professional development program focused on integrating technology into their classroom practice. The program was collaborative and non-prescriptive: teachers worked on self-chosen summer projects with flexible support from a university-based partner. A descriptive multicase study design was employed to track teachers' learning progressions. Data included interviews, surveys, digital artifacts, and researchers' notes and memos. During the program, teachers developed varying degrees of TPACK. Analyses distilled six initial TPACK learning trajectories.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
2.
BurbankM. D., & KauchakD. (2003). An alternative model for professional development investigations into effective collaboration.Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 499–514. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00048-9.
3.
ChaiC. S., KohJ. H. L., & TsaiC. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers' development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK).Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63–73.
4.
CobbP. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development.Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20.
5.
CobbP., & BowersJ. S. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice.Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.
6.
Darling-HammondL., Chung WeiR., AndreeA., RichardsonN., & OrphanosS. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad.Palo Alto, CA: National Staff Development Council.
DoeringA., HughesJ., & HuffmanD. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking about technology?Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 342–361.
9.
DoeringA., VeletsianosG., ScharberC., & MillerC. (2009). Using the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to design online learning environments and professional development.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319–346.
10.
GaretM. S., PorterA. C., DesimoneL., BirmanB. F., & YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. doi: 10.3102/00028312038004915.
11.
GrahamC. R., BurgoyneN., CantrellP., SmithL., ClairL. S., & HarrisR. (2009). TPACK development in science teaching: Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers.Tech Trends, 53(5), 70.
12.
GreenoJ. G. (2003). Situative research relevant to standards for school mathematics. In KilpatrickJ., MartinW. G., & SchifterD. (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 304–332). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
13.
GuzeyS. S., & RoehrigG. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers' development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge.Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 25–45.
14.
HarrisJ., MishraP., & KoehlerM. (2009). Teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.
15.
HughesJ., KerrS., & OomsA. (2005). Content-focused technology inquiry groups: Cases of teacher learning and technology integration.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 367–379.
16.
KoehlerM. J., & MishraP. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation, and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (tpck) for educators (pp. 3–29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
KoehlerM. J., MishraP., & YahyaK. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology.Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762.
19.
KramarskiB., & MichalskyT. (2009). Three metacognitive approaches to training pre-service teachers in different learning phases of technological pedagogical content knowledge.Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(5), 465–485.
20.
KuhnD. (1995). Microgenetic study of change: What has it told us?Psychological Science, 6, 133–139.
21.
KuhnD., & PeaseM. (2010). The dual components of developing strategy use: Production and inhibition. In WatersH.S., & SchneiderW. (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use and instruction (pp. 135–159). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
MishraP., & KoehlerM. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
24.
MishraP., & KoehlerM. J. (2008). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, March 24-28.
25.
MishraP., & KoehlerM. J. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using the TPACK framework: You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too.Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14–18.
26.
MouzaC. (2009). Does research-based professional development make a difference? A longitudinal investigation of teacher learning in technology integration.Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1195–1241.
27.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2010a). Educational technology in public schools: Fall 2008 (NCES Publication No. 2010034). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010034.pdf.
28.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2010b). Teachers use of educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009 (NCES Publication No. 2010040). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010040.pdf.
PenuelW., FishmanB., YamagushiR., & GallagherL. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation.American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
31.
PrenskyM. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants.On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
32.
PutnamR. T., & BorkoH. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher,, 29(1), 4–15.
33.
RichardsonS. (2009). Mathematics teachers' development, exploration, and advancement of technological pedagogical content knowledge in the teaching and learning of algebra.Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 117–130.
34.
SandholtzJ. H., RingstaffC., & DwyerD. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
35.
SchrumL. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers.Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83–90.
36.
ShavelsonR. J. (2009). Reflections on learning progressions. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, June 2009, Iowa City, IA.
37.
ShulmanL. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
38.
SieglerR. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children's thinking.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
StakeR. (1985). The art of case study research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
42.
WilsonS. M., & BerneJ. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development.Review of Research in Education (24), 173–209. doi:10.3102/0091732X024001173.
43.
YinR. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
YoungsP., & KingM. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity.Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643–670.
