Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2013-3
A Universally Designed for Learning (UDL) Infused Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Practitioners' Model Essential for Teacher Preparation in the 21st Century
This article challenges educational computing researchers and teacher educators to consider a merger between universal design for learning and technological pedagogical content knowledge to create a practitioners' model to prepare teachers to graduate with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to teach the full spectrum of learners. Presently, these models are being developed on parallel tracks because of the existing bifurcated system of general (regular) and special education. The two models together would create a cohesive, comprehensive, theoretical model for the preparation of 21st century teachers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbittJ. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among pre-service teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134–143.
2.
AdamsonS. I.BanksD.BurtchM.CoxF.IIIJudsonE.TurleyJ. B. (2003). Reformed undergraduate instruction and its subsequent impact on secondary school teaching practice and student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 939–957. doi: 10.1002/tea.10117
3.
American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE). (2002). Preparing teachers to work with students with disabilities: Possibilities and challenges for special and general teacher education. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 12, 2004 from http://www.aacte.org
4.
American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE). (2008). The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
AngeliC.ValanidesN. (2005). Pre-service teachers as ICT designers: An instructional design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 21(4), 292–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00135x
6.
AngeliC.ValanidesN. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers and Education, 52, 154–168. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
7.
BabellD. (2005, July). Technology promoting student excellence: An investigation of the first year of 1:1 computing in New Hampshire middle schools. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Education Computing Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
8.
BanduraA. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184.
9.
BanduraA. (2002). Growing primacy of human agency in adaptation and change in the electronic era. European Psychologist, 7(1), 2–16.
10.
BeckerH. J. (2000). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 1(2), 274–293. Charlottesville, VA: AACE. Retrieved July 7, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/10730
11.
Benton-BorghiB. H. (2006). Teaching every student in the 21st century: Teacher efficacy and technology. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, United States. Retrieved from Proquest Digital Dissertations Database (AAT3226460).
12.
Benton-BorghiB. H.ChangY. (2010, February). Achieving inclusivity and equity for diverse student populations: Increasing teacher efficacy to teach every student using universal design for learning principles. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Conference of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), Atlanta, GA.
13.
Benton-BorghiB. H.ChangY. (2012). Critical examination of candidates' diversity competence: Rigorous and systematic assessment of candidates' efficacy to teach diverse student populations. The Teacher Educator, 47(1), 29–44. doi: 10.1080/08878730.2011.632472
ChaiC. S.KohJ. H. LingTsaiC.Lee Wee TanL. (2011). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57(1), 1184–1193. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.007.
16.
CoxS.GrahamC. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: Using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60–69.
17.
DavisL. (1995). Constructing normalcy. In DavisL. (Ed.), The disability studies reader (pp. 9–28). New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
DavisL. (1997). The disability studies reader. New York, NY: Routledge.
19.
DavisL. (2002). Bending over backwards. New York, NY: New York University Press.
20.
EdyburnD. L. (2005). Technology enhanced performance. Special Education Technology Practice, 7(2), 16–25.
21.
EdyburnD. L. (2006). Assistive technology and mild disabilities. Special Education Technology Practice, 8(4), 18–28.
22.
EdyburnD. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 33–41.
23.
ElliotL.FosterS.StinsonM. (2003). A qualitative study of teacher's acceptance of a speech-to-text transcription system in high school and college classrooms. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(3), 45–49.
24.
EnglertC. S.ManaloM.ZhaoY. (2004). I can do it better on a computer: The effects of technology enabled scaffolding on young writers' competition. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(1), 5–21.
25.
ErtmerP. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
26.
ErtmerP. A.Ottenbreit-LeftwichA. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 4(3), 255–284.
27.
FisherD.FreyN.ThousandJ. (2003). What do special educators need to know and be prepared to do for inclusive schooling to work?Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(1), 42–50. doi: 10.1177/088840640302600105
28.
GrahamC. R.BurgoyneN.CantrellP.SmithL.St. ClairL.HarrisR. (2009). TPACK development in science teaching: Measuring the TPACK confidence of in-service science teachers. Tech Trends, 53(5), 70–79.
29.
GuskeyT. R. (2001). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Research, 81(1), 41–47.
30.
GuskeyT. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(¾), 381–391.
31.
HahnH. (1985). Introduction: Disability policy and the problem of discrimination. American Behavioral Science, 28(3), 293–318. doi: 10.1177/000276485028003002
32.
HahnH. (2002). Academic debates and political advocacy: The U.S. disability movement. In BarnesC.OliverM.BartonL. (Eds.), Disability studies today (pp. 162–189). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
33.
HarrisJ.GrandgenettN.HoferM. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric. In MadduxC. D.GibsonD.DodgeB. (Eds.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education (pp. 323–331). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education.
34.
HarrisJ.HoferM. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In MadduxC. D., (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education (pp. 99–108). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education.
35.
HartshorneR.FerdigR. E.DawsonK. (2005). Preparing current and future teachers to teach with technology: An examination of school-university collaboration. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 109–117.
36.
HasselbringT. S.GoinL. I. (2004). Literacy instruction for older struggling readers: What is the role of technology. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 20(2), 123–144. doi: 10.1080/10573560490262073
HoferM.GrandgenettN.HarrisJ.SwanK. (2011). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration observation instrument. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4352–4359). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved July 7, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/37015
39.
HoldenH.RadaR. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers' technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 343–367.
40.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (2004). Retrieved June 11, 2011 from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://idea.ed.gov/.
41.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2002). National Education Technology Standards for Teachers. Retrieved June 11, 2011 from http://www/iste/org.
42.
JimenezT. C.GrafV. L.RoseE. (2007). Gaining access to general education: The promise of universal design for learning. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 41–54.
43.
JohnsonM.CooleyN. (2001). What we know about: Supporting new models of teaching and learning through technology. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction, No. ED455223).
44.
Kleinhammer-TramillJ. (2003). An analysis of federal initiatives to prepare regular education to serve students with disabilities: Dean's grants, regi, and beyond. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(3), 230–245. doi: 10.1177/088840640302600310
45.
KumarS.VigilK. (2011). The net generation as pre-service teachers: Transferring familiarity with new technologies to educational environments. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 144–151.
46.
KvavikR. B. (2005). Convenience, communications, and control: How students use technology. In OblingerD. G.OblingerJ. L. (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 7.1–7.20). Retrieved June 11, 2011 from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen
47.
LeeY.VailC. O. (2005). Computer-based reading instruction for young children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(1), 5–18.
48.
LintonS. (1998). Claiming disability. New York, NY: New York University Press.
49.
MarinoM. T.SameshimaP.BeecherC. C. (2009). Enhancing TPACK with assistive technology: Promoting inclusive practices in pre-service teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 186–207. Retrieved July 27, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/30279
50.
MirandaH.RussellM. (2011). Predictors of teacher-directed students' use of technology in elementary classrooms: A multilevel SEM approach using data from the USEIT study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 301–323.
51.
MishraP.KoehlerM. J. (2006). Technological, pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
52.
MishraP.KoehlerM. J.KereluikK. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48–53.
53.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2010). The condition of education 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Services.
54.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2011). The Nation's Report Card: U.S. History 2010 (NCES 2011-468). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
55.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom. Washington, DC: Author.
56.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2001). NCATE unit standards. Washington, DC: Author.
57.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington, DC: Author.
58.
NiessM. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technological pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.2006
PollyD.MimsC.SheperdC. E.FethiI. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow's teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 863–870.
62.
RobertsG. J. (2001). General education and special educators' attitudes toward the inclusion of students with mild/moderate disabilities. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, United States. Retrieved July 26, 2005 from Proquest Digital Dissertations (AAT3038695).
63.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 67–70.
64.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
65.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (Eds.). (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
66.
RoseD. H.MeyerA.HitchcockC. (2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
67.
RussellM.BebellD.O'DwyerL. (2003). The use, support, and effect of instructional technology study: An overview of the USEIT study and the participating districts (Report #1). Boston, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative. Retrieved June 11, 2011 from http://www.bc.edu/research/intas/library/useitreports.shtml
68.
RussellM.BebellD.O'DwyerL.O'ConnorK. (2003). Teacher's belief about and use of technology: Enhancing the use of technology for new and veteran teachers (Report #5). Boston, MA: Boston College, Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative. Retrieved July 7, 2011 from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/library/useitreports.shtml
69.
RussellM.O'DwyerL. M.BebellD.TaoW. (2007). How teachers' uses of technology vary by tenure and longevity. Journal of Education al Computing Research, 37(4), 393–417. doi: 10.2190/EC.37.4.d
70.
SchmidtD. A.BaranE.ThompsonA. D.MishraP.KoehlerM. J.ShinT. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for pre-service teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.
71.
ShippenM. E.CritesS. A.HouchinsD. E.RamseyM. I.SimonM. (2005). Pre-service teachers' perceptions of including students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28(2), 92–99.
72.
ShulmanL. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
73.
SpoonerF.BakerJ. N.HarrisA. A.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.BrowderD. M. (2007). Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and Special Education, 28(2), 108–116. doi: 10.1177/07419325070280020101
74.
ThompsonA. D.MishraP. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK!Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38–64.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 7, 2011 from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
78.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the Internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectations. Washington, DC: Author.
79.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
80.
WellsJ.LewisL. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2005 (NCES 2007-020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved June 11, 2011 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/s007020.pdf
81.
ZhaoY.FrankK. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology use in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–84. doi: 10.3102/00028312040004807
