A turn toward specifying validity criteria in the measurement of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 129-148

  Cavanagh, Robert F ^a   Koehler, Matthew J ^b  

^a CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Measurement; Reliability; Technological pedagogical content knowledge framework; TPACK; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897533015     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2013.10782616     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2. Andrich, D. (1978a). Application of a psychometric rating model to ordered categories which are scored with successive integers. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2(4), 581-594. doi:10.1177/014662167800200413
3. Andrich, D. (1978b). Rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561-573. doi:10.1007/BF02293814
4. Andrich, D. (1978c). Scaling attitude items constructed and scores in the Likert tradition. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38(3), 665-680. doi:10.1177/001316447803800308
5. 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 and Education, 52(1), 154-168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
6. Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers and Education, 55(4), 1656-1662. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.009
7. nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Cavanagh, R. F. (2011a). Establishing the validity of rating scale instrumentation in learning environment investigations. In R. F. Cavanagh, & R. F. Waugh (Eds.), Applications of Rasch measurement in learning environments research (pp. 77-100). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
9. Cavanagh, R. F. (2011b). Confirming the conceptual content and structure of a curriculum framework: A Rasch Rating Scale Model approach. Curriculum Perspectives, 31(1), 42-51.
10. Cavanagh, R. F. (2012). Associations between the classroom learning environment and student engagement in learning: A Rasch model approach. Paper presented at the meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education: Sydney, Australia.
11. Doering, A., Scharber, C., Miller, C., & Veletsianos, G. (2009). GeoThentic: Designing and assessing with technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 316-336. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss3/socialstudies/ article1.cfm
12. Doig, B., & Groves, S. (2006). Easier analysis and better reporting: Modeling ordinal data in mathematics education research. Mathematics Education Review Journal, 18(2), 56-76. doi:10.1007/BF03217436
13. Finger, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., Cavanagh, R., Albion, P., Grimbeek, P., Bond, T., Fitzgerald, R., Romeo, G., & Lloyd, M. (2012). Teaching teachers for the future (TTF) project TPACK survey: Summary of the key findings. Paper presented at ACEC2012: ITs Time Conference, Perth, Australia. Available at: http://bit.ly/ACEC2012-Proceedings
14. Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953-1960. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0360131511000911
15. Graham, C., Cox, S., & Velasquez, A. (2009). Teaching and measuring TPACK development in two preservice teacher preparation programs. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 4081-4086). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved August 19, 2013, from http://www.editlib.org/p/31297
16. Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers' development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 25-45. AACE. Retrieved August 18, 2013 from http://www.editlib.org/p/29293
17. Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-Based Technology Integration Assessment Rubric. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3833-3840). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved August 18, 2013, from http://www.editlib.org/p/33978
18. Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2012). Using structured interviews to assess experienced teachers' TPACK. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 4696-4703). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/40351
19. Hawthorne, G., Mouthaan, J., Forbes, D., & Novaco, R. W. (2006). Response categories and anger measurement: Do fewer categories result in poorer measurement? Development of the DAR5. Social Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiology, 41(2), 164-172. doi:10.1007/s00127-005-0986-y
20. Jamieson-Proctor, R., Finger, G., Albion, P., Cavanagh, R., Fitzgerald, R., Bond, T., & Grimbeek, P. (2012). Teaching Teachers for the Future (TTF) project: Development of the TTF TPACK survey instrument. Paper presented at ACEC2012: ITs Time Conference, Perth, Australia. Available at: http://bit.ly/ACEC2012-Proceedings
21. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Technology and Innovation (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). London: Routledge.
22. Koehler, M. J., Shin, T. S., & Mishra, P. (2011). How do we measure TPACK? Let me count the ways. In R. N. Ronau, C. R. Rakes, & M. L. Niess (Eds.), Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and approaches (pp. 16-31). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
23. Kulas, J. T., & Stachowski, A. A. (2001). Respondent rationale for neither agreeing nor disagreeing: Person and item contributors to middle category endorsement intent on Likert personality indicators. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 254-262. doi: 10.1016/j. jrp. 2013.01.014
24. Linacre, J. M. (2009). Winsteps (Version 3.68) [Computer Software]. Beaverton, OR: Winsteps. com.
25. Medical Outcomes Trust Scientific Advisory Committee. (1995). Instrument review criteria. Medical Outcomes Trust Bulletin, 3, 1-4.
26. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741-749. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50. 9.741
27. Messick, S. (1998). Test validity: A matter of consequences. Social Indicators Research, 45(4), 35-44. doi:10.1023/A:1006964925094
28. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
29. Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 1-15. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918 (99) 00050-5
30. Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: MESA Press.
31. th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
32. RUMMLab. (2007). RUMM2020 Rasch Uni-dimensional Measurement Models. RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd.
33. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004
34. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. Retrieved from http://hepg.org/her/abstract/461
35. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.
36. Shernoff, D. J. (2010). The experience of student engagement in high school classrooms. Saarbrucken, Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing.
37. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
38. nd ed.). Alexandra, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
39. Wilson, M. (2010). Constructing measures: An item response approach. New York: Routledge.
40. Wolfe, E. W., & Smith, E. V. (2007a). Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using rasch models: Part I-instrument development tools. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8(1), 97-123. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17215568
41. Wolfe, E. W., & Smith, E. V. (2007b). Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: Part II-validation activities. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8(2), 294-234. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17440262
42. Young, A., & Cavanagh, R. F. (2011). An investigation of differential need for psychological services across learning environments. In R. F. Cavanagh & R. F. Waugh. (Eds.), Applications of Rasch measurement in learning environments research (pp. 227-244). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. ISBN 978-94-6091-491-1.