We introduce Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) as a way of representing what teachers need to know about technology, and argue for the role of authentic design-based activities in the development of this knowledge. We report data from a faculty development design seminar in which faculty members worked together with masters students to develop online courses. We developed and administered a survey that assessed the evolution of student- and faculty-participants' learning and perceptions about the learning environment, theoretical and practical knowledge of technology, course content (the design of online courses), group dynamics, and the growth of TPCK. Analyses focused on observed changes between the beginning and end of the semester. Results indicate that participants perceived that working in design teams to solve authentic problems of practice to be useful, challenging and fun. More importantly, the participants, both as individuals and as a group, appeared to have developed significantly in their knowledge of technology application, as well as in their TPCK. In brief, learning by design appears to be an effective instructional technique to develop deeper understandings of the complex web of relationships between content, pedagogy and technology and the contexts in which they function.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlumenfeldP. C.MarxR. W.SolowayE., & KrajcikJ. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37–40.
2.
BlumenfeldP. C.SolowayE.MarxR.KrajcikJ.GuzdialM., & PalincsarA. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369–398.
3.
BromleyH. (1998). Introduction: Data-driven democracy? Social assessment of educational computing. In BromleyH. & AppleM. (Eds.), Education, technology, power (pp. 1–28). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
4.
BrownA. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
5.
BrownA. L., & CampioneJ. C. (1996). Guilded discovery in a community of learners. In McGillyK. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
6.
BrownA. L., & Duguid (1991). Organisational learning and communities of practice: Towards a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organisational Science, 2(1), 40–57.
7.
BrownJ. S.CollinsA., & DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
8.
BruceB., & LevinJ. (1997). Educational technology: Media for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 79–102.
9.
BruceB. C. (1993). Innovation and social change. In BruceB. C.PeytonJ. K., & BatsonT. (Eds.), Network-based classrooms (pp. 9–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CarrA. A.JonassenD. H.LitzingerM. E., & MarraR. M. (1998). Good ideas to foment educational revolution: The role of systematic change in advancing situated learning, constructivism, and feminist pedagogy. Educational Technology, 38(1), 5–14.
11.
CarverS. M.LehrerR.ConnellT., & EricksonJ. (1992). Learning by hypermedia design: Issues of assessment and implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 385–404.
CohenJ. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press.
14.
Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
15.
DeweyJ. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Perigree.
16.
DeweyJ., & BentleyA. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon.
17.
FenstermacherG. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. In Darling-HammondL. (Ed.), Review of research in education, Vol. 20 (pp. 3–56). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
18.
GibsonJ. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
HandlerM. G., & StrudlerN. (1997). The ISTE foundation standards: Issues of implementation. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13(2), 16–23.
20.
HarelI., & PapertS. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–32.
HickmanL. (1990). John Dewey's pragmatic technology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
23.
HughesJ. E. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 377–402.
24.
KafaiY. (1996). Learning design by making games: Children's development of design strategies in the creation of a complex computational artifact. In KafaiY. & ResnickM. (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world (pp. 71–96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25.
KafaiY. B., & ResnickM. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26.
KeatingT., & EvansE. (2001, April). Three computers in the back of the classroom: Pre-service teachers' conceptions of technology integration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
27.
KoehlerM. J., & MishraP. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102.
28.
KoehlerM. J.MishraP.HersheyK., & PeruskiL. (2004). With a little help from your students: A new model for faculty development and online course design. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25–55.
29.
KoehlerM. J.MishraP., & YahyaK. (2004). Content, pedagogy, and technology: Testing a model of technology integration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 2004, San Diego.
30.
KoehlerM. J.MishraP.YahyaK., & YadavA. (2004). Successful teaching with technology: The complex interplay of content, pedagogy, and technology. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Atlanta, GA. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
31.
LehrerR. (1993). Authors of knowledge: Patterns of hypermedia design. In LajoieS. & DerryS. J. (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 197–227). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
LundebergM. A.BerglandM.KlyczekK., & HoffmanD. (2003). Using action research to develop preservice teachers' beliefs, knowledge and confidence about technology. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(4). Retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://ncolr.uidaho.com/jiol/archives/2003/spring/toc.asp
33.
Margerum-LeysJ., & MarxR. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A study of student teacher/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 427–462.
34.
MarxR. W.BlumenfeldP. C.KrajcikJ. S., & SolowayE. (1997). Enacting project-based science: Challenges for practice and policy. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341–358.
35.
MishraP., & KoehlerM. J. (2003). Not “what” but “how”: Becoming design-wise about educational technology. In ZhaoY. (Ed.), What teacher should know about technology: Perspectives and practices (pp. 99–122). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
36.
MishraP., & KoehlerM. J. (In press a). Introduction. To appear in MishraP., KoehlerM. J., & ZhaoY. (Eds.), Faculty development by design: Integrating technology in higher education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
37.
MishraP., & KoehlerM. K. (In press b). Designing learning from day one: A first day activity to foster design thinking about educational technology. Teachers College Record.
38.
MishraP., & KoehlerM. J. (In press c). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record.
39.
MishraP.SpiroR., & FeltovichP. (1996). Technology representation, and cognition: The prefiguring of knowledge in cognitive flexibility in hypertexts. In van OostendorpH. & de MulA. (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of electronic text processing (pp. 287–305). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
40.
PapertS. (1991). Situating constructionism. In PapertS. and HarelIs. (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
41.
PeaR. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In SalomonG. (Ed.). Distributed cognitions (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
PerkinsD.N. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43.
PeruskiL., & MishraP. (2004). Webs of activity in online course design and teaching. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 12(1), 37–49.
44.
RoschelleJ., & ClanceyW. J. (1992). Learning as social and neural. Educational Psychologist, 27(4), 435–453.
45.
RosenblattL. N. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
46.
RothW.-M. (1995). Authentic school science. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
47.
RoupR.GalS.DraytonB., & PfisterM. (Eds.). (1993). LabNet: Toward a community of practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
48.
ShulmanL. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
49.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
50.
WiseA. (2000). The future of the teaching profession. In The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (Eds.), Log on or lose out: Technology in 21st century teacher education (pp. 219–224). Washington, D.C.: AACTE Publications.
51.
YoungM. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 43–58.
