Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration refrained

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 393-416

  Harris, Judith ^a   Mishra, Punya ^b   Koehler, Matthew ^b  

^a The College of William and Mary   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Learning activity types; Technological pedagogical content knowledge; Technology integration; TPACK; TPCK

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008776609     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. AACTE Committee on Innovation & Technology (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators. New York: Routledge.
2. Beyer, L. E., Feinberg, W, Pagano, J. A., & Whitson, J. A. (1989). Preparing teachers as p rofessionals: The role of educational studies and other liberal disci-plines. New York: Teachers College Press.
3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.)- (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Acad-emy Press.
4. Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2003). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved February 20, 2007, from http://www.nationaledtechplan.org/participate/20years.pdf
5. Dodge, B. (1995). Some thoughts about WebQuests. Retrieved February 20, 2007, from http://webquest.sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html
6. Dodge, B. (2001). FOCUS: Five rules for writing great WebQuests. Learning & Leading with Technology, 28(8), 6-9, 58. Retrieved February 20, 2007, from http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Mayl6&Template=/Mem-bersOnly.cfm&ContentID=7702
7. Dodge, B., Bellofatto, L., Bohl, N., Casey, M., & Krill M. (2001). A rubric for evaluating WebQuests. Retrieved February 20, 2007, from http://webquest. sdsu.edu/webquestrubric.html
8. Fisher, C., Dwyer, D. C, & Yocam, K. (Eds.). (1996). Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9. Friedhoff, J. R. (2008). Reflecting on the affordances and constraints of technologies and their impact on pedagogical goals. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24, 117-122.
10. Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACEJournal, 16(1), 21-46.
11. Harris, J. B. (2008). TPACK in inservice education: Assisting experienced teachers’ planned improvisations. In AACTE Committee on Innovation & Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 251-271). New York: Routledge.
12. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2006, July). Planned improvisations: Technology-supported learning activity design in social studies. Session presented at the National Educational Computing Conference 2006, San Diego, CA. Retrieved November 19, 2008, from http://center.uoregon.edu/ISTE/NECC2006/program/search_results_details.php?sessionid=13514149
13. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2008, June). Truly technologically integrated planning for teaching and learning. Session presented at the National Educational Computing Conference 2008, San Antonio, TX. Retrieved July 27, 2008, from http://center.uoregon.edu/ISTE/NECC2008/program/search_results_details.php?sessionid=42063550&selection_id=42863643&rownumber=6&max=6&gopage=
14. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (in press). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In C. Maddux (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
15. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design edu-cational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge, fournal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
16. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK. In AACTE Com-mittee on Innovation & Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological peda-gogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 3-29). New York: Routledge.
17. Koehler, M. J., Yadav, A., Phillips, M. M., & Cavazos-Kottke, S. (2005). What is video good for? Examining how media and story genre interact. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(3), 249-272.
18. Kolodner, J. L., & Gray, J. T. (2002, April). Understanding the affordances of ritualized activity for project-based classrooms. Paper presented at the Interna-tional Conference of the Learning Sciences, Seattle, WA. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/projects/lbd/pdfs/activitystructures.pdf
19. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representations in scientific practice (pp. 19-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Lemke, J. L. (1987). Social semiotics and science education. The American Journal of Semiotics, 5(2), 217-232.
21. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16,233-263.
22. Linn, M., Lewis, C., Tsuchida, I., & Songer, N. (2000). Beyond fourth-grade science: Why do U.S. and Japanese students diverge? Educational Researcher, 29(3), 4-14.
23. McCormick, R., & Scrimshaw, P. (2001). Information and communications technology, knowledge, and pedagogy. Education, Communication and Information, 1(1), 37-57
24. Means, B., & Olson, K. (1997). Technology and education reform. Office of Edu-cational Research and Improvement, Contract No. RP91-172010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Retrieved February 3, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/SER/Technology/title.html
25. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowl-edge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
27. Mishra, P., Spiro, R. J., & Feltovich, P. (1996). Technology, representation & cognition. In H. von Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognitive aspects of electronic text processing (pp. 287-306). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
28. National Research Council. (1999). Being fluent with information technology literacy. Computer science and telecommunications board commission on physical sciences, mathematics, and applications. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29. Papert, S. (1987). A critique oftechnocentrism.in thinking about the school of the future. Retrieved February 20, 2007, from http://www.papert.org/articles/AC- ritiqueofTechnocentrism.html
30. Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (2000). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education (5th ed.). Kiel, Germany: University of Kiel.
31. Polman, J. L. (1998, April). Activity structures for project-based teaching and learning: Design and adaptation of cultural tools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/17/0e/26.pdf
32. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
33. Roblyer, M. D., Edwards, J., & Havriluk, M. A. (1997). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
34. Rogers, A., Andres, Y., Jacks, M., & Clausen, T. (1990). Keys to successful telecomputing. The Computing Teacher, 17(8), 25-28.
35. Russell, M., O’Dwyer, L. M., Bebell, D., & Tao, W. (2007). How teachers’ uses of technology vary by tenure and longevity, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37, 393-417.
36. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
37. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
38. Stodolsky, S. S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in math and social studies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
39. Windschitl, M. (2004). What types of knowledge do teachers use to engage learners in “doing science?” Paper commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: Board of Science Education. Retrieved February 20, 2007, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/MWindschitl_comissioned_paper_6_03_04_HSLabs_Mtg.pdf
40. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.