You are here:

The Second Prototype of the Development of a Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Based Instructional Design Model: An Implementation Study in a Technology Integration Course
ARTICLE

, , University of Georgia, United States

CITE Journal Volume 14, Number 3, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This study presents a refined technological pedagogical content knowledge (also known as TPACK) based instructional design model, which was revised using findings from the implementation study of a prior model. The refined model was applied in a technology integration course with 38 preservice teachers. A case study approach was used in this implementation study. Data were collected from the participants’ discussion worksheets and lesson plans, along with associated artifacts and the researchers’ field observation notes. Data analysis results revealed that (a) preservice teachers’ had an entry-level understanding of TPACK through discussions on the meaning of TPACK and evaluations of technology-integrated teaching examples; (b) designing several technology-integrated lesson plans improved preservice teachers’ teaching-related knowledge and facilitated their TPACK learning; and (c) preservice teachers’ use of technology was more teacher centered than student centered. Findings, suggestions, and future research possibilities are also discussed.

Citation

Lee, C.J. & Kim, C. (2014). The Second Prototype of the Development of a Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Based Instructional Design Model: An Implementation Study in a Technology Integration Course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 297-326. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 27, 2023 from .

© 2014 Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goal–Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: McKay.
  2. Castillo, J.J. (2009). Quota sampling. Retrieved from the Explorable Psychology Experiments website: http://explorable.com/quota-sampling
  3. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
  4. Ellsworth, J.B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. New York, NY: ERIC ClearingHouse on Information and Technology.
  5. Gagné, R.M., Wager, W.W., Golas, K.C., & Keller, J.M. (2005). Principles of instructional design. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
  6. Gustafson, K.L., & Branch, R.M. (2002). What is instructional design? In R.A. Reiser& J.A. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 1625).
  7. Hall, G.E., Dirksen, D.J., & George, A.A. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: Levels of use. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
  8. Jang, S.J., Guan, S.Y., & Hsieh, H.F. (2009). Developing an instrument for assessing college students’ perceptions of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 596–606.
  9. Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & The Learning by Design Group. (2005). Learning by design. Melbourne, AUS: Victorian Schools Innovation Commission in association with Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd. 318
  10. Kim, C., Kim, M., Lee, C., Spector, J.M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85.
  11. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94-102.
  12. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
  13. Lee, C.J., & Kim, C. (2014). An implementation study of a TPACK-based instructional design model in a technology integration course. Educational Technology Research and Development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 437-460.
  14. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved from http://217.160.35.246/fqs-texte/2-00/2-00mayring-E.pdf
  15. Merrill, M.D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.
  16. Merrill, M.D. (2009). First principles of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth& A. Carr (Eds.), Instructional design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. 3). New York, NY: Routledge Publishers.
  17. Merriam, S.B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  18. Merriam, S.B. (1995). What can you tell from an N of 1?: Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4, 51-60.
  19. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  20. National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Educational technology in teacher education programs for initial licensure (U.S. Department of Education Report No. NCES 2008-040). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008040.pdf
  21. Plomp, T. (2007). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp& N. Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp. 9-35). Enschede,
  22. Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Koehler, M.J., Shin, T, & Mishra, P. (2009, April). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and
  23. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
  24. Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Introducing education design research. In J.V.D. Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 3–7). New York, NY: Routledge.
  25. Wolcott, H. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  26. Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4thed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Author Notes Chia-Jung Lee University of Georgia Email: clily@uga.edu ChanMin Kim University of Georgia Email: chanmin@uga.edu Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education is an online journal. All text, tables, and figures in the print version of this article are exact representations of the original. However, the original article may also include video and audio files, which can be accessed on the WorldWide Web at http://www.citejournal.org

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections