better understand the associated teaching methodologies and benefits of ... need to have a coherent knowledge about cont
DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE IN PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS THROUGH MICROTEACHING VIA INQUIRY BASED INTERACTIVE PHYSICS COMPUTER ANIMATIONS Mehmet Fatih Tasar, Gazi University, Turkey Betül Timur, Gazi University, Turkey
1. Introduction The turn of the 21st century marked the beginning of a much common and widespread use of computer technologies in science classrooms and practically everywhere else because personal computer hardware with ever higher capacities became affordable to larger populations and applications with enhanced visual characteristics were created with lesser effort not only by computer experts but also by science educators. Although not sufficient for all teachers, several initiatives and efforts emerged in order to help science teachers to better understand the associated teaching methodologies and benefits of Computer Assisted Teaching (CAT) in science. Using technology in science classes requires teacher competences in technology. Teachers need to have a coherent knowledge about content, pedagogy and technology. Pre-service and in-service science teachers need to develop technological pedagogical content knowledge of the most effective ways to teach various science concepts, principles, and now how to create a technology rich environment. 2. Science Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) Technological pedagogical content knowledge (now known as TPCK or TPACK) has become a commonly referenced conceptual framework of teacher knowledge for technology integration within teacher education. TPCK is described as complex interaction of content, pedagogy and technology and discussion of successful integration of technology into instruction (Koehler & Mishra, 2008). In recent years researchers described TPCK within the framework Schulman’s (1987, 1986) description of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). According to Schulman (1986, p.9) PCK “goes beyond the knowledge of subject matter per se to the dimension of subject matter knowledge for teaching” and PCK is the connection and relation of pedagogy and content knowledge. Table 1 shows PCK conceptualizations of ten scholars.
1
Table 1 Components of pedagogical content knowledge from different conceptualizations (Vandirel, Verloop & Vos, 1998; Park & Oliver, 2008)
Pedagogy
Context
Subject Matter
Assessment
Media
Instructional strategies and representations
Curriculum
Student understanding
Purposes for teaching a subject matter
Scholars
Knowledge of
Schulman(1987)
d
PCK
d
PCK
u
u
d
d
d
Tamir (1988)
u
PCK
PCK
PCK
u
PCK
d
u
d
PCK
PCK
PCK
PCK
u
u
d
u
u
u
PCK
u
PCK
PCK
u
PCK
u
u
Grossman (1990) Marks (1990) Smith and Neale (1989) Geddis et al. (1993) Fernandez et al. (1995) Magnusson et al. (1999) Hasweh (2005)
PCK
PCK
u
PCK
u
u
d
u
u
u
PCK
PCK
PCK
u
u
u
u
u
PCK
u
PCK
u
u
PCK
PCK
u
PCK *
PCK
PCK
PCK
u
PCK
u
u
u
PCK
PCK
PCK
PCK
u
PCK
PCK
PCK
PCK
PCK PCK u PCK u u PCK Loughran et al. (2006) PCK: Author(s) included this subcategory as a component of PCK d: Author(s) placed this subcategory outside of PCK as a distinct knowledge base for teaching. u: Undiscussed subcategories * Researchers in science education refer to this component as one’s“orientation toward teaching”
PCK
PCK
PCK
Researchers conceptualized PCK in the domain of teaching with technology under different schemes: “Margerum-Lays and Marx (2003) referred to PCK of educational technology, Slough and Connell (2006) used the term technological content knowledge, and Mishra and Koehler (2006) suggested the term technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) – a comprehensive term that has prevailed in the literature” (as referred to and cited in Angeli & Valanides, 2009, p.155). TPCK can be described as how teachers understand educational technologies and PCK interacts with technology to produce effective teaching with technology. Some scholars emphasis that TPCK is more than simply interaction knowledge of pedagogy, technology and technology domains. In more specific detail, Niess (2005) elaborated on TPCK extending Grossman’s (1990) four central components of PCK. Niess proposed that teachers exhibit TPCK when they demonstrate an overarching concept of what it means to teach a particular subject in which technology is integrated into learning; knowledge of instructional strategies and representations for teaching specific topics with technology; knowledge of students’ understandings, thinking, and learning with technology in a particular subject; and knowledge of curricula and curriculum materials that integrate technology with learning in specific subject area (Niess, 2005). Conceptualization of TPCK by Niess was adapted Magnusson, Krajcik and Borko’s (1999) conceptualization of PCK. In this study we will focus on five components of TPCK; 1. Purposes and goals of teaching a specific content with technology (Orientation to teaching with technology) (OTTE) 2. Knowledge of instructional strategies and representations for teaching specific topics with technology ;(ISTE) 2
3. Knowledge of students’ understandings, thinking, and learning with technology in a particular subject ;(SUTE) 4. Knowledge of curricula and curriculum materials that integrate technology with learning in the subject area (CUTE) 5. Knowledge of assessment with technology (ASTE) Formal analysis of the qualitative data was conducted using the framework of TPCK as a guide.
Figure 1. An expanded model of TPCK (adapted from Koehler and Mishra, 2006; conceptialization of TPCK Magnusson et. al. 1999)
3. Aim of the Study This study is conducted to explore the development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) of sophomore pre-service science teachers in a computer course during 2010 spring term through microteaching. 4. Research questions 1. What is the perceived confidence level of pre-service science teachers’ related to the four TPCK constructs before and after microteaching (i.e., TK, TPK, TCK, TPCK)? 2. What changes in components of technological pedagogical content knowledge occur as pre-service teachers participate in microteaching? 5. Methodology In order to determine pre-service science teachers' development of TPCK both quantitative and qualitative research methods was used in this study. This research is a multiple case study based on a mixed methods research design. One-group pretest-posttest design was used to examine the TPCK development. The quantitative data was collected by “TPACK in Science Survey (TPACKSS)” developed by Graham, Burgoyne, Cantrell, Smith, Clair and Harris (2009). The survey adapted to Turkish and its Cronbach’s alpha was calculated .95. It was administered to 38 pre-service 3
science teachers as pre and post tests. Quantitative data were triangulated by pre-post interviews, observations during microteaching, artifacts (lesson plans, microteaching feedback surveys (consist of open ended questions), and technology enriched science modules) of 8 pre-service science teachers.
38 pre-service science teachers
Pre-treatment Data 1. TPACKSS 2. Interviews
Micro-Teaching
Post-treatment Data 1. TPACKSS 2. Interviews
Development of TPCK
During MT’s Data Obtained through 1. Observations 2. Artifacts
Figure 2. Formulation of the research study in terms of quantitative and qualitative data collection
During computer course microteaching (MT) was used to examine the development of TPCK of pre-service science teachers’. In micro teaching 8 pre-service science teachers taught 6th, 7th and 8th grade “Force and Motion” units and its topics from the primary curriculum via inquiry based interactive physics computer animations (IBIPCA). Class size of pre-service science teachers (N=38) participated in the study in their senior years. During MT the class is grouped into small groups and each group has a computer in order to run the module. Teaching to a group of students enrolled in a primary curriculum subjects provide a situated learning environment for the pre-service science teachers to experience teaching with technology. The MT took place 8 weeks. Microteaching The microteaching focused the pre-service teachers on gaining teaching experience in teaching physics with technology. The pre-service teachers were expected to develop a science module which includes interactive animations about their physics topic, teach (videotaping the instruction) their lessons to their peers, and take reflections on the lessons using the videotapes from their peers and the instructor. All pre-service teachers made lesson plans before microteaching.
Picture 1 Animation about springs (1st), Pre-service teacher is microteaching (2nd), Sample Modules (3rd, 4th)
4
6. Findings To address the question of perceived confidence level of pre-service science teachers’ related to the four TPCK constructs they were asked, “How would you rate your own confidence related to task associated?” as a pre and post test. Thirty-one items along the areas of technological knowledge (TK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), technological content knowledge (TCK), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) of these areas were asked, and the scale for answering consisted of 5 points of confidence. Table 1 Descriptive statistics for all items on the pre- and post-survey as well as mean increase for each item.
Survey Items (N=38) TPCK1 TPCK2 TPCK3 TPCK4 TPCK5 TPCK6 TPCK7 TPCK8 Average TPK1 TPK2 TPK3 TPK4 TPK5 TPK6 TPK7 Average TCK1 TCK2 TCK3 TCK4 TCK5 Average TK1 TK2 TK3 TK4 TK5 TK6 TK7 TK8 TK9 TK10 TK11 Average
Pre-Survey Mean SD 2.74 .98 3.00 .87 3.37 .94 3.32 .99 3.29 .96 3.34 .99 3.18 .95 3.11 .95 3.17 3.47 1.08 3.39 .97 3.26 1.18 3.40 1.03 3.50 1.08 3.42 .89 3.24 1.08 3.38 3.13 1.21 2.87 1.38 2.82 1.33 3.16 1.48 2.98 1.46 2.99 4.00 1.27 4.08 1.02 3.56 1.16 3.53 1.22 3.42 1.15 3.03 .99 3.16 1.15 3.61 1.05 2.95 1.04 2.48 1.13 2.71 .90 3.32
Post-Survey Mean SD 3.63 .49 3.79 .53 3.58 .64 3.69 .62 3.77 .49 3.66 .58 3.71 .61 3.58 .76 3.67 3.66 .58 3.69 .62 3.79 .58 3.76 .54 3.84 .64 3.89 .46 3.84 .68 3.78 3.39 .68 3.55 .69 3.55 .69 3.55 .55 3.42 .55 3.49 4.08 .63 4.11 .56 3.92 .54 3.90 .65 4.08 .59 3.76 .49 3.68 .62 3.68 .57 3.87 .58 3.40 .75 3.39 .68 3.81
Post-Pre Mean .89 .79 .21 .37 .48 .32 .53 .47 .51 .19 .30 .53 .36 .34 .47 .60 .40 .36 .68 .73 .39 .44 .72 .08 .03 .36 .37 .66 .73 .52 .07 .92 .92 .68 .49
5
4 3,5
3,81
3,78
3,67
3,49
3,38 3,17
3,32
2,99
3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5
0,72 0,51
0,4
0,49
0 Figure 3 Average mean of pre-survey, post-survey, and increase in TPCK confidence (n=38).
For each of the survey items descriptive statistics including means and standard deviations calculated. Table 1 shows mean increase and pre mean minus post mean for each item. The data from the survey indicates that pre-service students have low TPCK confidence at the beginning and after microteaching pre-service students have high level of TPCK confidence. TK confidence increased greatest followed by TCK, TPCK and TCK. This finding indicates and reinforces that knowledge of TK is foundational knowledge of TPCK framework. In TPCK framework technological knowledge (TK) is knowledge about using technologies such as computers, mobile phones, technological content knowledge (TCK) is preparing representations with technology in order to explain a specific concept or principle, technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) is giving instructions by using technology for motivating learners, and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) is making representations with technology in order to explain a specific concept or principle and also using it in an instruction for facilitating learning with special instructional methods. Also from the responses of pre-service students to survey, second highest score was TPK confidence that means pre-service teachers know how to incorporate technology and pedagogy as well. Vice versa, TCK confidence of pre-service teachers was the lowest. This finding is supported by quantitative data; pre-service teachers asserted during the interviews they don’t know how to incorporate technology and content.
6
Table 2 Results of Paired-Sample t-Tests for Factors of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Sub-survey (N=38) Pre-TPCK Post-TPCK Pre-TPK Post-TPK Pre-TCK Post-TCK Pre-TK Post-TK Pre-Survey Post-Survey
Mean 25.34 29.39 23.68 26.47 14.95 17.47 36.50 41.87 100.47 115.21
SD 5.70 3.27 5.57 2.78 5.48 2.71 6.93 3.07 18.50 8.59
t
df
p
ES
4.23
37
.000*
0.325
3.37
37
.002*
0.234
6.07
37
.016*
0.498
5.37
37
.000*
0.438
5.39
37
.000*
0.439
*Significant at the. 05 level.
Pre and post means values were calculated for four TPCK constructs. For the paired sample t-test, results indicate significant increase for all constructs (see table 2). This means preservice science teachers TPCK confidence improved as compared to pre test. Effect sizes included in Table 2 were calculated for all significant results and are in a generalized form as the ratio of t2/ t2 + (n1+n2 – 2). Effect sizes of approximately .01 are considered to be small, while .06 are moderate and .14 or above are large (Büyüköztürk, 2002, p. 45). In this study calculated effect size is large (ES>.14) for sub-scales and for whole the survey and sub-surveys. To address the question of changes in technological pedagogical content knowledge occur as pre-service teachers participate in microteaching qualitative data was used. Pre and post interviews, observations during microteaching and artifacts (lesson plans, microteaching feedback surveys, and technology enriched science modules) were analyzed according to five components of TPCK. 1. Purposes and goals of teaching a specific content with technology (Orientation to teaching with technology) (OTTE) We analyzed the interviews, videos, microteaching feedback surveys and lesson plans of 8 pre-service teachers to find out why pre-service science teachers use technology while they are teaching physics subjects. At pre interviews pre-service science teachers asserted that they don’t tend to use technology when teaching a physics subject. Because they think using technology requires special competences. Also most of the interviewed students asserted that they hadn’t been taught any physics subject with technology before. Also, before their microteaching they asserted that they hadn’t come up any educational software or animation about physics. In conclusion, at the pre interviews they couldn’t tell the aim of technology for teaching physics. At the post interviews they asserted that, using technology for teaching physics is to make subjects tangible and to make students active participation. One pre-service student told about the aim of using technology for teaching physics; 7
When I teach acceleration, my aim is to use technology to make abstract subject concentrate. Also when I used my module as teaching acceleration, my other aim is to make acceleration clearer to students with active participation of students by interactive computer animations. Also in their microteaching feedback surveys they asserted the aim of the technology is to facilitate abstract subjects to students’ understanding. 2. Knowledge of instructional strategies and representations for teaching specific topics with technology ;(ISTE) At pre interviews all 8 pre-service teachers asserted that technology is an instructional strategy for teaching physics. They do not use any instructional strategies while instructing with technology. One of the reasons for this can be that; they are not used to learn any physics subject with technology. One pre-service student asserted that; When I am using technology in my instruction for instance when I am using a power point presentation, according to me making a presentation during instruction is an instructional strategy. So I don’t use any instructional strategies while I am instructing with technology. Moreover, during their microteaching pre-service teachers used different kinds of instructional strategies with technology. For instance they especially used inquiry-based teaching strategy while they are instructing. Also they asserted at the post interviews, active learning instructional strategies should be used in order to support active student participation in physics, when teaching a physics subject with technology. At microteaching feedback surveys they gave different kind of instructional strategies for using with technology during instruction as; discussion, brain storming, question and answer methods. 3. Knowledge of students’ understandings, thinking, and learning with technology in a particular subject ;(SUTE) This component of TPCK means knowledge of students’ learning difficulties with technology. In microteaching pre-service teachers focus on their teaching rather than their peers understandings, thinking, and learning. In the interviews they asserted that students have learning difficulties with mass and weight, work and energy, force and pressure, float and remain in suspense, gravitational potential energy and potential energy. However, when pre-service teachers’ were asked to define these words at the interviews they had also difficulties when they are defining the meaning of these words. In addition when they were instructing these words in microteaching to their peers most of them memorized or read the meaning of these words from the presentation. These means learning difficulties are resistive to change. 4. Knowledge of curricula and curriculum materials that integrate technology with learning in the subject area (CUTE) At the pre interviews pre-service teachers asserted that they don’t know any curriculum materials in physics to integrate with technology. Most of them used to prepare power point 8
presentations but they have not experienced to teach any science topic with technology. Also they asserted that they haven’t come up against any educational software or animation, simulation about any science topic. But after microteaching they created interactive modules which include animations, videos, and simulations. At microteaching feedback surveys they asserted that pre-service teachers have to have technological competences to integrate technology in their instruction. But during their university education they didn’t have any lesson or training about how to integrate technology into science curriculum. Additionally they asserted that teaching physics with technology is enjoyable, easy and permanent. 5. Knowledge of assessment with technology (ASTE) At the pre interviews pre-service teachers asserted that they know traditional and alternative assessment but they don’t know how to do an assessment with technology. On the other hand, in their modules they made interactive test, puzzles, and games to asses students. During microteaching most of pre-service teachers’ made competitions as an assessment and used interactive test, puzzles, and games as an assessment tool. In addition, at microteaching feedback surveys most of the pre-service teachers asserted that assessing students with technology especially with interactive games is very enjoyable and motivational. In conclusion, quantitative data supported that pre-service science teachers’ knowledge of; goals of teaching a specific content, addressing students’ difficulties and misconceptions, instructional strategies and methods, curricular materials and assessment of a particular concept with technology developed during the semester. 7. Conclusions There was significant improvement between pre and post scores on all of the TPACK constructs computer self-efficacy belief. According to the paired-samples t-test, results indicate a significant increase for all constructs of TPCK. Also qualitative data supported that pre-service science teachers’ knowledge of; addressing students’ difficulties and misconceptions, instructional strategies and methods, curricular materials and assessment of a particular concept with technology developed during the semester. In consequence, it is ascertained that TPK, TCK and TK are interrelated with TPCK and must be investigated together with TPCK. Also, this study indicates that it is possible to design suitable technology rich environments to address, and develop, pre-service teachers’ knowledge components suggested by the TPCK framework. Nevertheless, science teacher preparation programs need to consider guiding student teachers to develop technological competences, to combine technology, pedagogy and technology before graduation.
9
Acknowledgements: This study was financed by 7th Framework of European Union Research Projects EC contract GA 234870 S-TEAM (Science Teacher Education Advanced Methods).
References Angeli, C. & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52, 154168. Büyüköztürk. Ş. (2002). Sosyal bilimler için very analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem-A Yayıncılık. Enochs, L. G., Riggs, I. M., & Ellis, J. D. (1993). The development and partial validation of microcomputer utilization in teaching efficacy beliefs instrument in a science setting. School Science and Mathematics, 93(5), 257–263. Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK Development in Science Teaching: Measuring the TPACK Confidence of Inservice Science Teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70-79. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Eds.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for teaching and teacher educators (pp. 3-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509 -523. Park, S. & Oliver, J.S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38 (3), 261-284. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. Riggs, I. M., & Enochs L. G. (1990). Toward The Development of an Elementary Teachers’ Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument. Science Education. 74 (69), 625637. Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N. & De Vos, W. (1998). developing science teachers’pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35 (6), 673-695.
10
