Building Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) among Pre-Service Teachers in a Science Methods Course Usin...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Building Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) among Pre-Service Teachers in a Science Methods Course Using Action Research
Physical Description:
1 online resource (159 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Lowder, Laura S
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ed.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Curriculum and Instruction, Teaching and Learning
Committee Chair:
Dawson, Kara Mariehopkins
Committee Members:
Bondy, Elizabeth
Kumar, Swapna
Griffin, Cynthia Carlson

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
action -- lessons -- pre-service -- pre-serviceteachers -- science -- sciencemethods -- teachereducation -- technology -- tpack
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Curriculum and Instruction thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
In this study I investigated the problem of helping my pre-service elementary science teachers to develop the skills necessary to intentionally design effective lessons with technology integration within content areas.  I needed to develop a strategic plan of action to facilitate the development of these skills among my students.  I developed a teacher education course to support the growth of technological, pedagogical, content knowledge (TPACK) among pre-service teachers within a science methods course and, through carefully planned action research, evaluated the impact of the course and how it might be improved for future semesters.  Using TPACK surveys, learning activities, and an assessment rubric, pre-service teachers were introduced to the TPACK framework in an effort to guide their lesson plan development.  Researcher reflections and lessons learned provided direction for changes in future science methods courses and to improve the TPACK development of my students.  This research aimed to answer two questions:  In what ways will my pre-service teachers’ TPACK knowledge change during a carefully designed science methods course?  and What teaching strategies and learning activities will support TPACK development among pre-service teachers in a science methods course?  This research study is significant in the field of education as teachers are continually challenged to meet the needs of a diverse population of increasingly digital learners.  In order to meet these teaching and learning needs, graduates of teacher education programs must become competent in lesson design that effectively integrates appropriate technology with content, in pedagogically sound ways that supports student learning.  Data collection included a pre and post TPACK survey, pre and post lesson plans, exit interviews of pre-service teachers, and a researcher reflection journal.  I utilized analysis of the TPACK survey to compare paired data from each survey category.  The pre and post lesson plans were analyzed and evaluated using content analysis with pre-set coding and comparison of lesson plans using the TPACK-based coding criteria with percentage comparison.  Researcher reflections and exit interviews of pre-service teachers were analyzed using content analysis with emergent coding.I found that pre-service teachers’ TPACK knowledge increased in key areas, students’ general understanding of technology integration practices increased,  evidenced through pre and post lesson plan submissions, and students’ misconceptions about the way to go about using technology in lesson planning (TPACK) were clarified throughout the course.  The teaching strategies and learning activities that supported TPACK development among the pre-service teachers in my science methods course included assigned readings, videos, specific content resources, scaffolding of class activities, and the introduction of the TPACK lesson plan format.  These and other resources guided students to revise previous lesson plans and develop new lesson plans as they put the TPACK components together.  Students interacted collaboratively through peer reviews and also recommended strategies for strengthening TPACK development in future courses. These results have implications that reach beyond my science methods classroom for pre-service teachers.  Applicable in many education settings, the recommendations for TPACK development can benefit other courses within the school of education that this course was taught, as well as schools of education elsewhere who are working to prepare teachers for today’s classroom.  Making research-informed decisions about changes in technology integration practices is an urgent issue in our education systems.  With such an emphasis on the use of technology for instruction, it is vital that teachers be knowledgeable about ways to maintain research-based pedagogy amidst the infusion of technology in the classroom.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Laura S Lowder.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: Dawson, Kara Mariehopkins.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2014-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0045293:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 BUILDING TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAG OGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK) AMONG PRE SERVICE TEACHERS IN A SCIENCE METHODS COURSE USING ACTION RESEARCH By LAURA S. LOWDER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Laura S. Lowder

PAGE 3

3 To my family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my husband, Michael, children, Haley, Zachary, and Elijah, and family for their support through this dissertation process. I also thank Kara, my chair, for her Sw apna, for their guidance and support to stretch me through my work.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13 Statement of Problem ................................ ................................ ............................. 13 Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 14 Research Question ................................ ................................ ................................ 14 Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 15 2 COURSE DESCRIPTION AND INTERGRATED LITERATURE REVIEW .............. 16 Context ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 16 Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 16 Teacher Researcher ................................ ................................ ........................ 16 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 17 Theoretical Research Basis for Initial Course Design (TPACK) ....................... 17 TPACK (Content) Goals ................................ ................................ .................. 22 TPACK (Pedagogy) ................................ ................................ .......................... 23 TPACK (Te chnology) Goals ................................ ................................ ............. 26 Tying Together Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge .................... 27 Instructional Design ................................ ................................ ................................ 28 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 35 Research Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 35 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 37 Pre and P ost TPACK Survey ................................ ................................ ............ 37 Pre and Post Lesson Plans ................................ ................................ ............ 38 Exit Interviews of Pre Se rvice Teachers ................................ ........................... 39 Researcher Reflection Journal ................................ ................................ ......... 40 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 40 Analysis of TPACK Survey ................................ ................................ ............... 40 Analysis of Pre and Post Lesson Plans ................................ ............................ 41 Analysis of Researcher Reflections ................................ ................................ .. 43 Analysis of Exit Interviews of Pre Service Teachers ................................ ........ 44 Analysis of Complete Data Set ................................ ................................ ......... 44

PAGE 6

6 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ .................... 45 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 47 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 47 Lesson Plan Evaluation Protocol Components ................................ ....................... 50 NETS*S ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 50 Learning Activity Types ................................ ................................ .................... 50 Technology Tools ................................ ................................ ............................. 51 Lev els of Cognitive Demand ................................ ................................ ............. 51 Levels of Technology Integration ................................ ................................ ...... 52 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 66 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 78 Discussion of Results ................................ ................................ .............................. 78 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 84 Implications for My Teaching ................................ ................................ ............ 85 Implications for My Teacher Education Program ................................ .............. 88 Implications for Other Teacher Educ ators ................................ ........................ 89 Improvements for Future Research ................................ ................................ .. 90 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 91 A PPEN DIX A QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 97 B CODING CRITERIA FOR LESSON PLANS AND TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION EVALUATION CHART ................................ ................................ 103 C LEARNING ACTIVITY TYPES ................................ ................................ .............. 106 D GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER JOURNAL ............ 107 E GUIDING QUESTIONS TO ANALYZE COMPLETE DATA SET (DERIVED FROM DANA and YEN DOL HOPPEY, 2009). ................................ ..................... 108 F TPACK LESSON PLAN TEMPLATE ................................ ................................ .... 109 G EXIT INTERVIEW OF PRE SERVICE TEACHERS ................................ ............. 111 H TRAINING DOCUMENT FOR INTERVIEWER ................................ ..................... 112 I SAMPLE OF THE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION ................................ .............. 113 J SCREENSHOTS FROM BLACKBOARD COURSE ................................ ............. 116 K SAMPLE PRE AND POST STUDENT LESSON PLANS ................................ ...... 120

PAGE 7

7 L COURSE SYLLABUS ................................ ................................ ........................... 134 M 8 STEPS TO INCREASING TPACK AMONG YOUR STUDENTS ....................... 152 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 154 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 159

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 NC Essential Science Standards Kindergarten Fifth Grade ............................... 29 2 2 Science Learning Activity Types Organized by Type of Knowledge Facilitated .. 30 2 3 Technology Tools Organized by Type of Knowledge Facilitated ........................ 31 2 4 Initial Plan for Course Teaching Activities with Student Learning Tasks ............ 32 3 1 Data Analysis for Each Data Set by Research Question ................................ .... 46 4 2 The percentage increase for each level of technology integration (entry, adoption, adaptation, infusion, and transformation. ................................ ............ 69 4 3 Sample of Learning Activities Developed by Pre service Teachers .................... 76 5 1 Plan for future courses, with changes from the original course activity plan highlighted. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 94

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 TPACK diagram. Reproduced by permission of the publisher, 2012 by tpack.org ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 29 4 1 Average pre and post scores on the survey for each category, along with growth percentages, for each of these key areas. ................................ .............. 68 4 2 using PowerPoint and video clip. ................................ ................................ ........ 69 4 3 ............ 69 4 4 ................... 70 4 5 transformation technology integration. ................................ ................................ 70 4 6 sson plan sample with no technology integration. ................... 71 4 7 tion technology integration. ................................ ................................ ....................... 72 4 8 Learning Activities Supporting TPACK Development ................................ ......... 72 4 9 ..................... 73 4 10 ................................ ............. 74 4 11 Chart of Google Blogger ................................ ................ 75 4 12 Sample TPACK Diagram with Student Descriptions of Each TPACK Component ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 76 4 13 Improvements Needed for Future Courses ................................ ........................ 77

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for th e Degree of Doctor of Education BUILDING TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK) AMONG PRE SERVICE TEACHERS IN A SCIENCE METHODS COURSE USING ACTION RESEARCH By Laura S. Lowder August 2013 Chair: Kara Dawson Major: Curriculum and Instruction In t his study I investigated the problem of helping my pre service elementary science teachers to develop the skills necessary to intentionally design effective lessons with technology integration within content areas. I needed to develop a strategic plan of action to facilitate the development of t he se skills among my students. I developed a teacher education course to support the growth of technological, pedagogical, content knowledge (TPACK) among pre service teachers within a science methods course and, through carefully planned action research, evaluated the impact of the course and how it might be improved for future semesters. Using TPACK surveys, learning activities, and an assessment rubric, pre service teachers were introduced to the TPACK framework in an effort to guide t heir lesson plan development. Researcher reflections and lessons learned provided direction for changes in future science methods courses and to improve the TPACK development of my students. This research aimed to answer two questions: In what ways will my pre change during a carefully designed science methods course? and What teaching strategies and learning activities will support TPACK development among pre service

PAGE 11

11 teachers in a science methods course? This research study is significant in the field of education as teachers are continually challenged to meet the needs of a diverse population of increasingly digital learners. In order to meet these teaching and learning needs, graduates of teacher education programs must become competent in lesson design that effectively integrates appropriate technology with content, in pedagogically sound ways that supports student learning. Data collection included a pre and post TPACK survey, pre and post lesson plans, exit interviews of pre service teachers, and a researcher reflection journal. I utilized analysis of the TPACK survey to compare paired data from each survey category. The pre and post lesson plans were analyzed and evaluated using content analysis with pre set coding and comparison of lesson plans using the TPACK based coding criteria with percentage comparison. Researcher reflections and exit i nterviews of pre service teachers were analyzed using conte nt analysis with emergent codin g. I found that p re general understanding of technology integration practices incr eased evidenced way to go about using technology in lesson planning (TPACK) were clarified throughout the course. The teaching strategies and learning activities tha t supported TPACK development among the pre service teachers in my science methods course included assigned readings, videos, specific content resources, scaffolding of class activities, and the introduction of the TPACK lesson plan format These and othe r resources guided students to revise previous lesson plans and develop new lesson plans as they put the TPACK components together Students interacted collaboratively through peer

PAGE 12

12 review s and also recommended strategies for strengthening TPACK development in future courses. The se results have im plications that reach beyond my science methods classroom for pre service tea chers. Applicable in many education settings, the recommendations for TPACK development can benefit other courses within the s chool o f education that this course was taught, as well as schools of education elsewhere who Making research informed decisions about changes in technology integration practices is an urgent issue i n our education systems. With such an emphasis on the use of technology for instruction, it is vital that teachers be knowledgeable about ways to maintain research based pedagogy amidst the infusion of technology in the classroom.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Statement of Problem As an experienced classroom teacher, I know firsthand the challenge of developing lesson plans that are both appropriate and effective. Along with decisions about the best technology tools to support instruction, teachers must be knowledgeable of and able to determine the best tools to support the curriculum based teaching and learning needs for their specific context (Hoffer and Harris, 2010). Koehler and Mishra developed the concept of Technological, Pedagogical Co ntent Knowledge ( TPACK ) and provided a descriptive framework of tools to help guide the development of lesson plans that integrate content, p edagogy, and technology (Koehler and Mishra, 2006). These researchers developed surveys, learning activities rubrics, and other tools to support the development and assessment of TPACK related competencies with pre service and in service teachers. Multiple studies have shown these tools to be both valid and reliable when used to support the development of TPACK among educators (Koehler and Mishra, 2009). In the spring semester of 2013 I developed an introductory science methods course for education majors. This course was among the first methods courses that education majors were required to take in the ir program of study. Although I have several years of experience teaching technology rich lessons to elementary children the task of guiding pre service teachers to develop technological, pedagogical content knowledge was a novel experience for me. T eacher education candidates in this particular school of education were required to integrate technology into lesson plans throughout thei r methods courses without first

PAGE 14

14 receiving explicit instruction on the p edagogical strategies necessary to p urposeful ly integrate technology in content based learning As a result, it had become a critical need for my students to develop the skills necessary to intentionally design effective lessons wi th technology integration within content areas. To facilitate this, I need ed to develop a strategic plan of action to facilitate the development of these skills among my students In doing so, I aimed to build a bridge between theory and practice by consulting relevant literat ure to gu ide my course design. For this study, I developed a teacher education course to support the growth of technological, pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among pre service teachers within a science methods course and, through carefully planned action rese arch, evaluate d th e impact of the course and how it might be improve d for future semesters. Purpose The purpose of this action research study was to strategically design, assess, and plan a series of activities that encourage d the development of technological, pedagogical content knowledge of pre service teachers in an introductory science methods course Using TPACK surveys, learning activit ies and an assessment rubric, pre service teachers were introduced to the TPACK fr amework in an effort to guide their lesson plan development. Researcher reflections and lessons learned provided direction for changes in future science methods courses and to improve the TPACK development of my students. Research Question My research aimed to answer the following question s : I n what ways will my pre service science

PAGE 15

15 methods course ? What teaching strategies and learning activities will support TPACK development among pre servi ce teachers in a science methods course? Significance Th is action research study guided my development of an introductory science methods course to support TPACK among pre service teachers My research is significant in the field of education as teachers are continually challenged to meet the needs of a diverse population of increasingly digital learners. In order to meet these teaching and learning needs, graduates of teacher education programs must b ecome competent in lesson design that effectively integrates appropriate technology with content in pedago gically sound ways that support student learning. By following an actio n research model of inquiry, I developed this course using intentional an d systematic processes of research and reflection, which provide d evidence of teaching activities and strategies that support student growth in the area of TPACK. Not only do the findings provide practical implications for application in future methods co urses for me but results and related suggestions are also applicable to the wider setting of educational methods courses taught by teacher educators.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 COURSE DESCRIPTION A N D INTERGRATED LITERATURE REVIEW Context Setting This action research study took place at a small, private, liberal arts u niversity in North Carolina with approximately 2,000 students residing on campus. Of these, less than 100 were enrolled in classes within the school of education. The university is located approximately 50 miles from the nearest major city. The school systems where students were placed for practicum experiences were ethnically d iverse mostly high poverty ( federal Title I ) schools State test scores over the pa st five years have been according to No Child Left Behind data (No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2002) The majority of graduates from our school of education obtain teac hing positions in the surrounding school systems following graduation. Teacher Researcher I a m a first year university professor with past experience teaching at the elementary level as a classroom teacher. Assigned courses in the fall semester were research methods, technological applications, arts methods, and student teaching supervision; all for education majors. For spring 2013 I taught science, math, and research methods, as well as technological applications, to education majors. While in the elementary classroom setting, I gained extensive experience integrating technology into content are a teaching through use of a variety of technological tools as a result of st obtainment of a class set of laptops, iTouch devices, digital cameras, an Active Board,

PAGE 17

17 and ot her related equipment. These technology tools were integrated into teaching and learning daily in the elementary classroom (Rowan Salisbury School System, 2011) It is now my passion to help prepare pre service teachers to effectively plan technology int egration to provide support for children in meet ing their learning goals. Participants The participants in this study were students enrolled in an undergraduate elementary science methods course. The course included nine females between the ages of 18 and 34 years old. All nine students were Caucasian. Two participate d in the u niversity fees in return for their duties for the University All students had been formally admitted into the teacher education program at the time of the study and had completed introductory courses in educational technology, education psychology, and introduction to teaching. In addition to these prerequisite courses, all nine s tudents completed a minimum of fifteen observation hours in elementary school settings prior to the start of this course. Theoretical Research Basis for Initial Course Design (TPACK) Mishra and Koehler developed the Technological, Pedagogica l Content Knowledge framework, commonly referred to as TPACK in 2006. This conceptual framework serves as a set of guiding principles and references that attempt to meld together each of the required forms of knowledge that educators should conside r when designing instruction. These three forms of knowledge are content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge (Koehler and Mishra, 2006). Figure 2 1 located at the end of this chapter, provides a visual depiction of the interrelatedness of these three forms of knowledge.

PAGE 18

18 Content knowledge is described as the subject matter. This knowledge is about the learning of concepts within the curriculum and the related processes. Pedagogical knowledge has to do with the teaching strategies used to promote the learning of the curriculum content. Technology is the selected tools used to support the pedagogical design and the learning of the content. Each of these separate forms of knowledge can be combined to form disti nct combinations of additional knowledge types such as Technological Content Knowledge, Technological Pedagogical Knowledge, and finally Technological, Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). When pedagogical and content knowledge are combined, the teacher is able to design learning experiences that help the learners achieve the curriculum goals in terms of content. Technological and content knowledge combine to mean understanding the impact of technological choices in relation to the curriculum. Technolo gical and pedagogical knowledge together means the lesson design decisions for technology and strategies for supporting learning are used effecti vely (Koehler and Mishra, 2006). One of the key differences between the TPACK framework and the role that tec hnology integration has had in the past is the focus on the constructs of teaching, rather than how to use specific technology tools (Mishra, et al., 2009) The premise behind this is that technology is always changing and so are the tools that we have ac cess to as educators. If we can develop guidelines for best practices for how we use technology to support instruction, then we can focus on the components of the technology tools that make them beneficial in the classroom. Then, when the tools change, w e know what to look for in choosing others. It is really the pedagogical

PAGE 19

19 allowances that technologies offer us that make them appropriate (or not) for use in the classroom. The TPACK framework is used in other institutions of higher learning to guide th e development of technology integration skills among pre service students. TPACK is taught to pre service teachers at Brigham Young University in a series of systematic and sequential steps at key points throughout the program of study. Wentworth and two other Brigham Young professors have designed this teacher education program of study to begin in the educational technology course with an introduction of technology tools for a variety of learning purposes. Then, pre service teachers continue their stud y of TPACK in each of their methods classes, as they learn to merge content and pedagogy with the selection of appropriate tools to support their learning goals. Finally, students in this education program practice their TPACK integration skills in the fi eld as they complete their final field experience. During this final field experience, students complete a teacher work sample that involves using TPACK to support active learning. Specific information about how these researchers support TPACK developmen t throughout the education program that pre service teachers complete at Brigham Young University is available in the Handbook of Research on New Media Literacy at the K12 Level: Issues and Challenges in chapter 51 (Wentworth et al., 2009). The informati on developed by Wentworth and others at B righam Young University provided key insights for this study (i.e. C1) and beyond as I continue to work to support the development of TPACK in the science education context and also as I deve lop implications for future suggestions for course and programmatic change at my u niversity.

PAGE 20

20 The TPACK framework has been used by other researchers in search for insight into technology integration practices. A study by Graham and others in 2009 examined TPACK development among in service teachers of science. Their focus was on the measurement of the confidence that the participants had in their TPACK knowledge The TPACK constructs that were measured were TPACK, TPK, TCK, and TK. The results of this study were used to support further development of science program coordinators in strengthening the technology content knowledge (TCK) of science teachers by exposing them to technology tools specifically useful in supporting s cience teaching. The Graham, et al. study is related to this research as it suggests the need for exposing my pre service teachers to specific technology tools that support science teaching and learnin g such as those listed in Table 2 3 at the end of th is chapter (Graham, et al., 2009). Polly and Brantley Dias noted the ways that TPACK is used in association with technology integration in learning environments and in finding out what teachers know and how teachers are using technology in the classrooms. They suggest ed questions about how teacher education programs are currently designed and how we might further develop TPACK among teachers (Polly and Brantley Dias, 2009 ). These studies suggest the need for further research about the wa ys that pre service teachers are being prepared to teach using technology too ls that are rapidly changing Thompson and Schmidt provide support for the use of the TPACK framework in the development of educational technology among pre service teachers and others. They describe it as having entered a new phase in its use in research; its focus now being used in research and development, and no longer solely on developing a

PAGE 21

21 theoretical definition of the framework itself (Thompson and Schmidt, 2010). A lon gitudinal study is currently in progress in Taiwan where pre service teachers were taught the TPACK framework in an introductory educational technology course and are now being tracked to determine the level of follow through they exhibit with respect to t echnology integration in their classroom s In addition, this study is focusing on the implications of modeling by professors during teacher education classes and the transfer of associated beliefs about technology use in the classro o m from professor to teacher education candidate. come into play, as the now practicing teachers are teaching as they were taught through the modeling that took place in their pre service educational technology classes ( Baran, et al., 2011). The implications of the Baran et al. study on my research included the need to model what the researcher expects from the students in the instructional sequence to give the se participants clear examples of how to use TPACK to devel op lesson plans for children Another recent study using the TPACK framework was conducted by Marino and others and focused on improving use of TPACK integration with assistive technologies to provide support for children with disabilitie s. This study suggests the need for improving the preparedness of pre service teachers to select appropriate assistive technology tools in support of the special education children in their regular education classes (Marino et al., 2009). The Marino et al. study is relevant to my research as it suggests the inclusion of assistive technology tools when introducing science methods pre service teachers to technology tools that enhanc e the instruction of scientific concepts. Examples of assistive technology tools include tactile measuring devices for

PAGE 22

22 those with visual impairments, a text to speech software program, videos, advanced organizer software, digital recorders, Livescribe fo r notetaking, iPods to listen to lectures at own pace, etc. Chai and others studied the perceived development of TPACK among pre service teachers using an adapted version of the TPACK survey designed by Schmidt and others implications suggest that the pedagogical component of TPACK should be the focus first when preparing pre service teachers for the classroom These researchers also determined that it is important to continually provide opportunities for pre service teachers to practice combining pedagogy with content and technology throughout their education courses to maintain strong pedagogical skills (Cha i et al., 2010). This provides insight into the development of the activity sequence for my study as participants need ed to develop an understanding of how to best teach science pedagogically before moving into an exploration of the available technology t ools for teaching science and how to select these to support their pedagogical needs. Overall, this collection of recent research on TPACK supports the use of this timely and innovative framework in the development of technology integration for pre service teachers. TPA C K ( Content ) Goals During my science methods course, content goals drove the teaching methods that were taught. The se content goals were taken directly from the N orth C arolina Essential Standards, which comprises the state curriculum that teachers in NC public schools are requi red to teach They are categorized into three categories ; life science, Earth science, and physical science. Table 1 shows thes e curricular goals.

PAGE 23

23 Pedagogical instructional activities presente d during the course focus ed on these content based themes. It was critical for the pre service teachers enrolled in this science methods course to become knowledgeab le of the content that they must ultimately be licensed to teach. Schulman notes the imp ortance of science teachers having pedagogical content knowledge of their subject. This means that such teachers must hold an understanding of the content and also an understanding of how best to teach this content to learners (Schulman, 1986). It was im portant for this course to include learning activities devoted to the exploration of and understanding building of the science standards that were ultimately the focus of the lesson plans that were developed using pedagogical approaches. T P ACK (Pedagogy) Science instruction should be active, foster higher order thinking skills, and incorporate principles of constructivist learning (Bruner, 1971). First science experiences for children should be active in nature. Active lear ning put s the learner in charge of the learning by giving them a hands on, active approach to the learning task. In the context of thi s study, active learning was implemented using an inquiry based approach to teaching science to children. In 1971, Bruner described active di scovery as a model of teaching science that involves the student as a key player in the learning process, interacting with the content to construct their own meaning ( Bruner,1971). The science experiences designed for children among the pre service t eachers in this class focused on providing opportunities for active learning. A second key approach to teaching science as recommended by educational theorists and commonly referred to as best practices is the use of higher order thinking

PAGE 24

24 in teaching. B loom created a taxonomy of key levels of cognitive outcomes progressing from those that promote lower order thinking to higher order thinking. The development of synthesis, evaluation, and analysis; higher hierarchical taxonomy, was the focus of pre service teachers in my course with the goal of creating lesson plans that promote deeper learning (Bloom, 1 956). Through use of active learning and higher order thinking skills, the pre service teachers in the course allowed students to construct their own knowledge of science. Th e epistemology of constructivism, is the third key component that is relevant to my study. Piaget described the use of assimilation and accommodation through their experiences as a vehicle for the constructio n of knowledge among learners (Piaget, 1950) Course activities provide d scaffolding f or participants to learn to develop learning experiences for children where the role of the teacher is that of a facilitator who will guide children to build new knowledge using what they already know and combining this background knowledge with th eir new experiences. My course focus ed on the introduction of learning activity types as classified by Blanchard, et al. ( 2011 ) to guide knowledge acquisition. Many of the learning activity types used in the course support constructivist teaching methods. The focus on learning activities in the course focused on the selection and development of activities that support constructive learning environments for science learning. These tools were developed to help in the operationalization of TPACK. T he focus of the learning activity types was to provide a tool to help guide the conceptual planning process for learners. They provide d a tool to guide the development of standards based learning experiences that utilize technology. This approach differs from traditional methods of technology integration in that the selection of technology tools is not made until after the activity

PAGE 25

25 design and curriculum based learning goals have been finalized (Harris and Hoffer, 2009). These different types of activit ies are categorized to build conceptual knowledge procedura l knowledge or knowledge expression. Blanchard et al. specifically developed a series of learning activity types for a variety of content areas. Science instruction has its own set of these typ es of learning activities. These activities serve d as a structure to provide pre service teachers with scaffolded instructional design choices commonly aligned with student learning. Table 2 2 shows examples of each of these activity types, organized by the type of knowledge they intend to build. The full document showing science learning activity types that was developed by Harris et al. can be found in Appendix C (Blanchard, et al., 2011). The use of these learning activity types was taught to pre service teachers in the context of building constructiv ist learning opportunities. More than a decade ago, in 200 0, researchers Flick and Bell argued the importance of utilizing the growing num ber of classroom technologies while maintaining student centered teaching and learning practices. As a result, they proposed a set of guidelines to provide support for using technology in the preparation of pre service teachers. I would argue that these guidelines are still applicable today and relate to the TPACK framework. The suggestion of particular interest from this set of guidelines for the preparation of pre service sc ience teachers using technology is that the use of technology in science should focus on important science content with appropriate pedagogy This was an important guideline to keep in mind when introducing pre service teachers to science technology tools and guiding them to use these tools in their lesson planning to support pedagogically sound teaching (Flick and Bell, 2000). When

PAGE 26

26 designing their lesson plans, pre service teachers were taught to focus on the important content as defined by the NC Essential Science Standards and use the techno logy tools that were most appropriate to meet the pedagogy being used. A recently published study by Glassman and Karno provides a call to action for learners and utilize th e resources that are now available via the World Wide Web. They describe the increased emphasis on science education in response to recent STEM (Science, Technology, Engine ering, and Math) initiatives and the ability of teachers to engage their classrooms in science in new ways using web based technology tools (Glassman and Karno, 2013). This article by Glassman and Karno provide d important guidance for my study by providing support for works aimed at altering the pedagogical strategies of sc ience educators to include embracing technology to support instruction. The teaching activities relating to pedagogy in my course cente red on the work of constructivist theorists and current researchers in educational technology. T PACK (Technology) Goals The overall course technology goal was for pre service teachers to learn the functional uses of a variety of technology tools to support science teaching and learning. The standards for the use of technology in teaching and learning are set by the Nat ional Education Technology Standards for Students and Teachers (NETS *S and NETS*T ). T he NETS *S and NETS*T provide a guide of best practices in using technology to support digital age learning There are six main standards, with several objectives aligning with each. The six NETS standards focus on creativity and innovation, collaboration, research and information, critical thinking, digital citizenship, and technology operati ons (ISTE, 2012). The teaching activities and tasks within my

PAGE 27

27 science methods course align ed to these six NETS standards so that the pre service teachers in my class were prepared to guide their children in meeting the NETS in their own classrooms. The technology tools found within the science learning activity types document served as the basis for the technology goals. It was important for the pre service teachers to learn about these tools so that they could develop lesson plans that combine TPACK through the s tudent tasks in Table 2 2 The technology tools that students were expected to learn (see Table 2 3 ) are organized into the three types of knowledge building activities in an effort to stay consistent with the organization al pattern f ound in Table 2 2 Due to the limitations of this class, not all of the technology tools included in Appendix C were included in the technology goals for this course I selected a sample of these tools for students to become familiar with and utilize in their lesson planning. Tying Together T echnology, P edagogy, and C ontent K nowledge In my science methods course, t he science content that the pedagogical teaching methods focused on fell within the learning activity types categorized by Blanchard, Harris, and Hoffer (Blanchard, et al., 2011). Teaching activities were developed to introduce pre service teachers to a variety of learning activity types to complement the elementary science concepts. Elementary science concepts were derived from the NC Essential Standards for K 5 science learners and were categorized as Earth Science, Physical Science, or Life Science. TPACK was introduced and developed using the learning activity types and associated technology tools suggested in Appendix C as a guide. Pre ser vice teachers were guided in selecting activity types that support the development of the type of

PAGE 28

28 knowledge most closely related to their teaching goals. These teaching goals, taken from the NC Essential Standards, were the basis for lesson plan developme nt. Teaching activities focused on providing scaffolding for the process of aligning teaching goals with activity types that foster ed learning through the support of appropriate technology tools. This process was designed to develop the TPACK of these pr e service teachers. Instructional Design Student assignments were developed with the main goal of providing opportunities for students to build their own TPACK throug h a series of scaffolded tasks. These tasks were directly associated with teaching activities. Although a plan for this series of teaching activities and learning tasks are outlined here changes were made as necessitated by the needs of the course and are documented in the results. Table 2 4 shows the initial plan for teaching activities, along with associated student learning tasks, to support the development of TPACK among the pre service teachers enrolled in this course. To view screenshots fr om the course Blackboard, refer to Appendix I

PAGE 29

29 http://tpack.org/ Figure 2 1. TPACK diagram. Reproduced by permission of the publisher, 2012 by tpack.org Table 2 1. NC Essential Science Standards Kindergarten Fifth Grade Physical Science Goals Forces and Motion Matter, Properties, and Change Energy: Conservation and Transfer Earth Science Goals Earth Systems, Structures, and Processes Earth In the Universe Earth History Life Science Goals Structures and Functions of Living Organisms Ecosystems Molecular Biology Evolution and Genetics

PAGE 30

30 Table 2 2. Science Learning Activity Types Organized by Type of Knowledge Facilitated Conceptual Knowledge Procedural Knowledge Knowledge Expression Read Text Participate in a Simulation Learn and Practice Safety Procedures Attend to Presentation/Demonstration Explore a Topic/Conduct Background Research Measure Take Notes Study Practice View Images/Objects Observe Phenomena Prepare/Clean Up Discuss Distinguish Observations from Inferences Carry Out Procedures Develop Predictions, Hypotheses, Questions, Variables Observe Select Procedures Record Data Sequence Procedures Generate Data Organize/Classify Data Collect Data Analyze Data Collect Samples Compare Findings with Predictions/Hypotheses Compute Make Connections Between Findings and Science Concepts/Knowledge Blanchard, M. R., Harris, J., and Hofer, M. (2011, February).

PAGE 31

31 Table 2 3. Technology Tools Organized by Type of Knowledge Facilitated Conceptual Knowledge Procedural Knowledge Knowledge Expression Websites, video, presentation software Word Processing software wiki, concept mapping software, digital camera, blog, and interactive whiteboard and other as desired and accessible Web based simulations, web search engines, wikis, websites, presentation software, video clips, simulation database, spreadsheet word processing, and concept mapping and others as desired and accessible Content specif ic interactive tools, web based software, simulation web cams digital video cameras web based data sets, Glogster video creation software and others as desired and accessible *Tools sh own in blue were introduced in the course. Tools shown in gre en were introduced in the educational technology course that is a prerequisite to this science methods course.

PAGE 32

32 Table 2 4. Initial Plan for Course Teaching Activities with Student Learning Tasks TPACK Component (s) Being Built Teaching Activities Planned to Develop TPACK Associated Student Learning Tasks *pre TPACK lesson plans will be created before students are introduced to TPACK framework *TPACK survey will be given before students are introduce to TPACK as well Content Knowledge Introduce c ontent k nowledge development of sc ience knowledge Create overall concept maps of each K 5 goal Content Knowledge Review content within each theme to build and refresh pre service teacher content knowledge Student centered science labs for each theme Science collaborative journal of reflective learning (blog) Content Knowledge Pedagogical Knowledge Introduce the notion of c ontent and p edagogy combining to create the methods for teaching science Complete online learning module about the history of science education Pedagogical Knowledge Introduce p edagogical k nowledge Explore, describe and provide examples of constructivist teaching methods (Piaget, Vygotsky, and active learning) Research current trends in science education (focusing on methods) Pedagogical Knowledge Intro duce learning activity types focusing on the three types of knowledge building activities Explore learning activity types Categorize learning related to each content based theme within the three types of knowledge building activities Pedagogical Knowledge Model choosing learning activity types based on determining types of knowledge needed to be built among learners Guided practice in small groups to select learning activities to match the needs for knowledge building Individual practice selec ting learning activities to match the needs for knowledge building Pedagogical Knowledge Content Knowledge Model combining c ontent and p edagogical knowledge using learning activity types Use learning activity types to develop plans for teaching science content Technological Knowledge Introduce t echnological knowledge Define technological knowledge Technological Knowledge Introduce technology tools to support science teaching and learning Explore technology tools with science Evaluate usefulness of a variety of technological tools

PAGE 33

33 for science teaching and learning (no emphasis on pedagogy) Table 2 4. Continued TPACK Component(s) Being Built Teaching Activities Planned to Develop TPACK Associated Student Learning Tasks *pre TPACK lesson plans will be created before students are introduced to TPACK framework *TPACK survey will be given before students are introduce to TPACK as well Technological Knowledge Content Knowledge Model combining t echnological knowledge with c ontent knowledge Develop lesson plan to teach science content with technology (no emphasis on pedagogy) Technological Knowledge Content Knowledge Provide opportunities for exploration with different t echnology tools in building pre service teacher c ontent k nowledge Science labs using technology to continue building content knowledge of pre service teachers Science collaborative journal of reflective learning continued (blog) Technological Knowledge Content Knowledge Pedagogical Knowledge -Use learning activity types document (Appendix C) to introduce and model choosing technology tools to go along with selected learning activities Scaffolded practice selecting technology tools to support science learning using lea rning activity types document in small groups Ind ividual practice selecting technology tools to support science learning Create post TPACK lesson plan (draft) to be evaluated by self and peers using the Technology Integration Assessment Rubric developed by Harris and others. TPACK evaluation Provide opportunities for pre service teachers to evaluate the usefulness of the tools that they select to support teaching and learning and model this type of evaluation Using the Technology Integration Assessment Rubric evaluate the usefulness of the technology tools intended to et al., 2010) TPACK revision Model revision of lesson plan based on self and peer evaluations using the Technology Integration Assessment Rubric (Harris et al., 2 010) Revise lesson plan based on peer feedback (post TPACK lesson plan) Complete post TPACK survey

PAGE 34

34

PAGE 35

35 CHAPTER 3 METHODS The purpose of this action research study was to strategically design, assess, and make plans for future changes to a series of activities that encourage the development of technological, pedagogical content knowledge of pre service teachers throughout an introductory science methods course. The mai n research question s were : In what ways will my pre service knowledge of TPACK change during a carefully designed intr oductory science methods course? What teaching strategies and learning activities will support TPACK development among pre s ervice teachers in a science methods course? Research Methods Action research was used to study my introductory science methods course Action research is an inquiry process that involves careful planning, action, observation of implementation of planning, evaluation and reflection that is then used to plan future instruction (O'Brien, 2001; McNiff, 2002). Action research, also referred to as teacher researc h, is the process by which teachers study their own practice. They reflect on their practice and decide upon changes to impact their students (Cochran Smith and Lytle, 1993). They follow a systematic process as they ask questions about their practice, coll ect data to give them information about their question, analyze their data with support from current literature that is related to their topic of study, change their practice as a result of their findings, and share their findings with others (Dana and Ye ndol Silva, 2003).

PAGE 36

36 The use of action research by teachers to improve classroom based technology outcomes has been described by Dawson and others to lead to positive educational change as well as improved practice. The action research model provides a sy stematic process to guide teachers through an intentional study of the ways that their integration of technology impacts the learning of their students as well as a vehicle towards a change in the conceptual beliefs of the teacher about how to go about int egrating technology (Dawson, et al 2009). Some action research studies that specifically involve the TPACK framework can be found within literature in the field of educational technology. One study conducted by Larkin, et al., studied TPACK with two c ohorts of mathematics education pre service teachers in Australia. They used their data to inform changes aimed at improving the pedagogical technological approach to strengthen student learning and to align the mathematics education course with the expec tations of students once they graduate and become teachers (Larkin, et al., 2012). Another study was just published that used action research to study the perceived development of pre service teachers Instructional Material Design (IMD) competencies thro ugh a college course for elementary pre service teachers following a TPACK framework These results showed growth among the 22 pre service teachers in the study (Sancar, et al., 2013). Although the currently published studies are helpful to teachers wit h similar interests and contextual concerns, additional practical research is needed to further support research based instructional design involving technology integration

PAGE 37

37 Data Collection Pre and Post TPACK S urvey Pre service teachers in my science methods course complete d the TPACK survey (see Appendix A) both prior to and following their development of content based lesson plans. The purpose of this survey was to collect data about the knowledge of students in each of the TPACK domains. This survey has been tested many times and has been found by its developers to be both valid and reliable ( Schmidt, et al., 2009 ). The developers of this survey instrument conducted a pi lot study on 124 pre service teachers. Through this study, they found this TPACK survey to have a range of internal consistency reliability from .75 to .92 for the seven subscales in the survey, which is considered to be a solid range for reliability Th is particular instrument is different from others that have been created to assess TPACK because it focu ses on the self assessment of pre service technology integration or attitudes about the use o f technology (S c hmidt et al., 2009). S c hmidt and others conducted a study of elementary and early childhood pre service pre service teachers changed throughout an introduc tory course that was guided by the TPACK framework. They collected pre and post data from pre service teachers and found that the students showed significant increases in their TPACK throughout the course (Schmidt, et al., 2009). Based on the previous de velopment, assessment, and use of this survey instrument and its designed intentions for use, I selected this to guide data collection in my study.

PAGE 38

38 P re and Post Lesson P lans Lesson plans were developed by participants both before and after implementat ion of TPACK teaching strategies. Students have had a previous introductory technology applications class prior to beginning my science methods course. This prior knowledge about the integration of technology into content teaching serve d as their knowledge baseline for developing the pre TPACK lesson plan. The post lesson plan was written following explicit instruction of TPACK integration strategies as described in Table 2 4 Lesson plans wer e used as a data source because they are a regular artifact produced in my science methods course. These documents provide d rich information to inform the inquiry process by allowing me to track student productivity over time (Dana and Yendol Hoppey, 200 9). Lesson plans have been used in previous studies as a source of data collection. These documents were used to infor m a year long TPACK integration study of m ath and science teaching using over six hundred lesson plans as data (Dawson, et al., in p rint). Lesson plans have also been used to show evidence of teacher practices for National Board Certification (Darling Hammond, 2010). T eaching strategies used in the course include d instruction and guided activities using the TPACK framework and learning activity types These tools were used to development the TPACK lesson plan format (Appendix F) that was used during my science methods course This lesson plan format provided scaffolding to support the thoughtful integration of TPACK into scien ce lessons by including a space to describe content, pedagogy, and technology integration as well as a space for self evaluation of the TPACK integration within the lesson plan.

PAGE 39

39 The coding criterion for lesson plan data (see Appendix B) was developed to assess the quality of the technology integration within lessons. Th ese criteri on w ere developed using the learning activity types (Harris and Hoffer, 2009) the science content standards, NETS*S standards, levels of cognitive demand (Silver et al., 2009), and the levels of integration developed by Sandholtz and others in 1997 (Sandholtz, et al.,1997 ). A similar TPACK lesson plan assessment tool was developed by (Dawson, et al., in print) to study the TPACK integration practices of math and science teachers who were involved in a technology integration initiati ve. Exit Interviews of Pre Service T eachers E xit interviews were conducted with the pre service teachers at the conclusion of the course to determine their perceptions of TPACK growth Sample quotes from these interviews will be included in the results section to represent what the students believed they got out of the course and how it was beneficial (or not) to them in their technolog y integration with science teaching content. Interview q uestion s also elicit ed student suggestions for how the course could be improved The exit interview guiding questions are located in Appendix G. The interviewer was the secretary for the school o f education at the u niversity. She does not have any influence on student grades during their time in the education program. Our students know her and should be comfortable sharing their thoughts with her openly. She was provided a guide sheet with dir ections for administration of the interview (see Appendix H) as well as the interview questions. She was trained to extract detailed responses from the participants using probing questions to gather specific descriptions from the interviewees that relate to the questions asked She

PAGE 40

40 practiced using these probing questions with me prior to administering the interview to the pre service teachers participating in the study R esearcher Reflection J ournal I kept a reflectiv e journal throughout this study. This reflective journal allow ed me to capture my thoughts about the study as it progressed I completed reflections within 24 hours after each class meeting related to the research. The teacher researcher reflective journal w ere organized by the following set of guiding questions that are also charted in Appendix D. Guiding Questions What activities/strategies worked and why? What activities/strategies did not work and why? How did the students respond? What (if any) misconceptions emerged through this activity/strategy? How can I facilitate correction of student misconceptions? What evidence of growth (if any) emerged through this activity/strategy? How could I improve this activity/strategy for next semester? Data Analysis My d ata analysis was guided by recommendations for analysis of teacher research from Dana and Yendol Hoppey (Dana and Yendol Hoppey, 2009). They sense of the learning that has occurred throughout the study (Dana and Yendol Hoppey, p. 118, 2009 ). Based on t hese recommendations, I analyzed data from each component (lesson plans, surveys, interviews, and researcher reflections) individually. Then, after I completed an individual analysis for each data type I analyzed data from across the four data coll ection methods in hopes of identifying common themes. A nalysis of TPACK S urvey I utilized analysis of the TPACK survey to compare paire d data from each survey

PAGE 41

41 category Since the data are paired and given in pre/post form t he TPACK survey w as analyzed by c omparing the means with standard deviations from pre to post survey The results of this comparison revealed any changes in perception of pre service teacher knowledge for each domain area while accounting for the standard dev iation. I used p ercentages to show change in scores between the pre and posttests ( Krathwohl, 2004 ) Anal ysis of Pre and Post Lesson P lans I analyzed and evaluated e ach set of student lesson plans using the teacher researcher developed TPACK coding criteria for lesson plans I coded the lesson plans using the preset coding criteria. After completion of this initial coding, two education professionals review ed the coded lesson plans to check for accuracy. These professionals include d a science inst ructor and a professor with past experience teaching both science methods and technology applications for pre service teachers. I follow ed the guidelines for coding of qualitative data described by Krathwohl to code lesson plan artifacts I deter mined all coding categories by using the learning activity types software and hardware, science topics, cognitive demand, and levels of integration I scanned each of these components, noting repetitions and relationships throu ghout these categories In an effort to maintain were kept as ideas came to mind about the relatedness of the data as I work ed to code the data. Mind maps showing the developing organization of the data were created. f coded data were placed into each categorized label. I changed coding labels as needed to ensure a best fit for the data Once all data were coded and categorized based on similar themes, I reviewed the results and conducted a search for any overlap or redundancy. By doing so, I was

PAGE 42

42 allowed the opportunity to think about whether or not the codes reflect ed what was important in the data. Changes were made as needed. As I made was updated. Finally, I created a code definitio n and statements w rote statemetns describing what I believe d I c ould best conclude from the data. These statements focus ed on (Krathwohl, p. 310, 2004). I utilized l esson plan examples to support the code definitions (Krathwohl, 2004). I completed a nalysis of student pr e and post lesson plans using content analysis with pre set coding and comparison of lesson plans using the TPACK based coding criteria (Appendix B) with percentage comparison For example, I compared the percentage of pre and post lesson plans meeting criteria for different levels of integration ( Sandholtz et al., 1997). Each of these categories of levels of integration has a definition formed by Sandholtz et al. As teachers develop skills in technology integration with content and pedagogy, they are predicted to move through levels of integration defined by Sandholtz and others in 1997. These levels are identified as e ntry, adoption, adaptation, infusion, and integration. Lower levels of technology integration occur when teachers use the technology in the entry level and progress to a level in which the technology use is essential for the lesson at the transformation l evel (Sandholtz, et al., 1997). I was aware of the progression of pre service teacher technology development and indicate d any observed changes through the researcher reflections It is possible for a lesson plan to use a combinatio n of more than one level

PAGE 43

43 of integration. For example, a plan may include a presentation using technology given by the teacher (entry) but also allow children the opportunity to select a technology tool to use in creating a digital product (adaptat ion). In this case, the lesson plan would meet both the entry and adaptation level s of integration (see APPENDIX K, Student Sample Post Lesson Plan Artifacts # 2, 4, and 6 ) Although it will be important for the set of post lesson plans to show higher le vels of integration, they are likely to also show more than one level of integration throughout the different parts of the lesson plan. I selected r epresentative lesson plans showing examples of growth between pre and post plans to support the qualitative analysi s (Appendix K). Analysis of Researcher R eflections I completed the analysis of researcher reflections by using content analysis with emergen t coding I reviewed the reflections in an effort to identify relationships and patterns that repeat within a set of reflections I identified and noted similarities and specific situations that are important to recognize (e.g., r epeated terminology) As this set of data was reviewed, categories began to emerge based on the relatedness of the s were kept as ideas came to mind about the organization and relatedness of the data. I created a tentative categories list and coded data using this list. Once I coded researcher reflections according to tentative categories, the data were sorted under these categories. I changed c oding titles as needed in order to make a better fit for the data. Once I had sorted all reflections, the results were reviewed and any occurrences of overlap or redundancy were identified. I changed particular codes that were found not to reflect what was important in the data

PAGE 44

44 I then created a graphic of the reflection data. Codes were defined with support through quotes from my ref lections. Statements were made to describe the ideas that I decide d could be draw n from my data and have been kept with the audit trail (Krathwohl, 2004). Analysis of Exit Interviews of Pre Service T eachers I analyzed i nterview data using content analysis with emergent coding as suggested by Krathwohl. I utilized this process, as described in the researcher reflection analysis above, to determine common themes related to student perceptions about the course. Coding themes centered on student comments about the usefulness of course activities and processes in developing their TPACK integration skills as well as their suggestions for how the course could be improved (Krathwohl, 2004). Analysis of Complete Data S et After coding all data, and pre and post data were shown through frequency distributions and change analysis, data analysis for this study was broken down into four distinct steps 1. Review the entire data set to obtain a description. 2. Make sense of the data. 3. Construct statements of learning. 4. Determine implications. (Dana and Yendol Hoppey, 2009 ) First, I read and review ed the entire set of data with the goal of gaining a descripti ve sense of the information collected. Second, after read ing through the data set and focusing on these questions, I attempt ed to make sense of the data. I made notes within the data artifacts and put the data into groups based on themes. This part of th e process focused on organizing the data.

PAGE 45

45 The third step of my data analysis focus ed on my construction of statements that express ed main goal of this step was to interpret the meaning of the data. To do this, I analyzed the themes and patterns of the data that were cod ed in step two. Finally, the fourth step of data analysis suggested by Dana and Yendol Hoppey is to focus on the implications of the study To do this, I had learned and make a plan of action for future courses. I also gleaned f uture questions from this step of analysis (Dana and Yendol Hoppey, 2009 ) Limitations of the S tudy This study had several lim itations that were outside of my control The science methods course that was selected for this study had low enrollment of only nine students. Fortunately, all nine students participated in the study. All of these participants are female, all Caucasian, and all are within the age range of 18 34 years old. A more d iverse population of participants may have yielded data representing a greater var iety of perceptions and viewpoints. The study was also limited by the scheduling logistics of the class sessions. This class met once a week for three hours. I found myself will be requested to allow for students to meet two to three times each week, for one to one and half hours for each session. This e of being overwhelmed by so many learning activities during a single class session, by enabling me to distribute activities across more class meetings.

PAGE 46

46 Table 3 1. Data Analysis for Each Data Set by Research Question Pre/Post Survey Pre/Post Lesson Plans Teacher Researcher Reflections Pre service Teacher Exit Interviews In what ways will my pre knowledge change during a carefully designed science methods course? Mean, standard deviation, and difference Content analysis with preset coding and comparison using percentages (Krathwohl, 2004) Content analysis with emergent coding (Krathwohl, 2004) Content analy sis with emergent coding (Krathwohl, 2004) Teacher Researcher Reflections Pre service Teacher Exit Interviews What teaching strategies and learning activities will support TPACK development among pre service teachers in a science methods course? Content analysis with emergent coding (Krathwohl, 2004) Content analysis with emergent coding (Krathwohl, 2004)

PAGE 47

47 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Overvi e w My pre service teachers increased during the course in key areas. The general understanding among my students about how to integrate technology increased as they participated in the sequence of course activities. Misconceptions that students had about ways to properly integrat e technology into lesson planning were uncovered and clarified throughout the course. The assigned readings, videos, and specific resources throughout the course supported the development of TPACK among my students. The scaffolding of class activities pr ovided building blocks to guide students through this development process. The use of the lesson plan format provided a guide to support the revision of student lesson plans to aid them in putting the TPACK components together. Peer collaboration through out the course aided in TPACK development of students. Strategies for further improving the increase in TPACK development among students in future courses were recommended by participants. A summary of the results for each of my research question as shown through the data analysis is a s follows. Research Question # 1 : In what ways will my pre knowledge change during a carefully designed science methods course? Finding # 1 sed i n key TPACK areas Finding # 2 : practices increased as evidenced through pre and post lesson plan submissions Finding # 3: technology i n lesson planning (TPACK) were clarified throughout the course

PAGE 48

48 Research Question # 2 : What teaching strategies and learning activities will support TPACK development among pre service teachers in a science methods course? Finding # 1: Assigned readings, v ideos, and specific resources supported TPACK development among students Finding # 2: Scaffolding of class activities provided building blocks to guide students through the process of developing TPACK Finding # 3 : Introduction of the TPACK lesson plan format as a guide for revising previous lesson plans and developing new lesson plans Finding # 4 : Peer collaboration supported successful TPACK development Finding # 5 : Student interviews and r esearcher reflections recommended strategies for strengthening TPACK development in future courses Research Question # 1: In what ways will my pre knowledge change during a carefully designed science methods course? Finding # 1 : knowledge increased in key TPACK areas Perceptions of the pre service teachers on the TPACK survey showed growth in key areas related to course implementation of teaching strategies and learning activities supporting TPACK development. Using means and standard deviations, growth occurred in categories for science content knowledge (CK), pedagogi cal content k nowledge (PCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) technology content knowledge (TCK), and technological, pedagogical, content knowledge (TPACK ). The graph Figure 4 1 shows average pre and post scores on the survey for each category, along wi th growth percentages, for each of these key areas. There was an 18% increase in average scores from pre to post survey in the science CK category. The TCK category increased from pre to post survey by a 19% increase in average scores for the TCK catego ry of the survey. For the TPACK

PAGE 49

49 category of the survey, t here was a 17% increase in the average score In the PCK category, there was a 12% inc rease in average survey score. The TPK category scores increased by 11%. Finding # 2: standing of technology integration practices increased as evidenced through pre and post lesson plan submissions Lesson plans were collected from each student representing before the course (pre TPACK) and after the TPACK related course activities (post TPACK). A total of 18 lesson plans were collected; a pre and a post from each of the nine participants. These lesson plans were coded using preset categories (see Appendix B). Evidence of use of NETS*S, learning activity types, number of technology tool s, low level demands, and high level demands we re among the preset categories. Throughout the data analysis, I was looking for an increase in the use of NETS*S standards, Learning Activity Types, and technology tools as well as an increase in activities r equiring high levels of cognitive demand. Increasing use of the NETS*S provides children with more 21 st century experiences that build creativity, collaboration, research, critical thinking, digital citizenship, and technology operations skills. Including more learning activity types in a lesson plan makes it more likely for children to be given opportunities to build a variety of types of knowledge (conceptual, procedural, and knowledge expression). Increasing the use of technology tools, in several cases from no technology tools being used to more than one being used, also provides children with a greater variety of opportunities to build knowledge in meaningful ways. Including activities that support the use of high levels of cognitive demand help ed children to better retain the information that they are working wi th (Silver et al., 2009).

PAGE 50

50 Lesson Plan Evaluation Protocol Components Changes in technology integration following the TPACK model were found as evidenced through comparison of pre and post lesson plans submitted by participants. In general, I found that th ere were increases in many of the categories associated with TPACK activities from within the course. NETS*S I included t he National Education Technology Standards (NETS*S) in the lesson plan evaluation protocol components because these standards guide t eachers in developing activities aligned to best practices in supporting 21 st century digital age learning (ISTE, 2012). There was an increase in the use of the National Education Technology Standards for Students (NETS*S) to guide instruction. The avera ge increase in number of NETS*S Standards from the set of pre to post lesson plans is five. This increase shows that the set of post lesson plans provide d children with more opportunities to build 21 st century skills than the set of pre plans did Learning Activity Types I found the set of learning activities evaluated in the lesson plans support constructivist learning opportunities and were properly organized to determine the types of knowledge that children would build (conceptual, procedural, and/or knowledge expression) (Blanchard, et al., 2011). Evaluating the quantities of learning activities that students were planning for their learners to receive in each category. I found that the number and variety of learning activity types used in the lesson plans increased. From the set of pre to post lesson plans, the average number of learning activity types

PAGE 51

51 increased by six, addin g to the opportunities that children are given to develop knowledge about the concepts taught through the lesson plans. Technology Tools It was important for me to analyze the numbers and types of technology tools being used in the lesson planning of my science methods students. By evaluating this lesson plan component, I was able to determine whether or not my students were increasing the quantities of technology tools being used from their pre to post lesson plans. I found an increase in the ave rage number of technology tools used by teachers and/or students in each lesson plan by three. Several pre lesson plans did not include the use of technology. All of the plans in the post set contained at least one technology tool to be used. Many of th ese plans included a technology tool being used by the teacher to present information and also at least one technology tool being used by the children This increase in technology tools being used gives children more opportunities to build and/or express knowledge. Levels of Cognitive Demand learners they were written to teach were also included in this evalu ation because research shows that activities requiring l earners to use higher levels of cognitive demand as defined by Silver provide a deeper level of learning than activities that require lower levels of demand (Silver et al., 2009 and Bloom 1956). Being able to analyze the quantity of activities requiring these levels of cognitive demand gave me a better understanding of the degree of learning that my students were using the technology tools to help their learners attain. There was also an increase in the average number of activities requiring higher level s of demand (Silver, et al., 2009). I

PAGE 52

52 found that the pre lesson plans had activities requiring low levels of demand more than twice as often as those requiring high levels of demand. The set of post plans reversed this ratio to include activities requiri ng high levels of demand more than those that require lower demand levels. This increase in activities promoting higher levels of cognitive demand makes it more likely that children will learn more and remember more of the content that they are le arning because they are interacting with the content on a deeper level. Levels of Technology Integration P articular attention was given to the levels of technology integration. These levels of technology integration categorize d the lesson plans of my students that use technology themselves, to present to the children those that use a single technology tool, those that allow children to choose the tool that will aid them in creating a digital product, those that require the use o f technology as an integral tool to support their learning and engagement in the lesson, and those that use technology as an essential tool in carrying out the lesson, making the lesson impossible if the technology is removed (Sandholtz et al., 1997). If I could see a noticeable change in the levels of technology integration between the pre and post lesson plan data sets, I knew that my students were increasing their ability to integrate technology into these plans in more meaningful ways. There was an in crease in le vels of technology integration between the set of pre TPACK lesson plans and those within the post TPACK set. On average, the post lesson plans moved up nearly three levels of technology integration. The percentage increase for each level of technology integration (entry, adoption, adaptation, infusion, and tran sformation) is shown in Table (4 3) The percentages shown in the pre and post lesson plan columns indicate the percentage of lesson plans

PAGE 53

53 within the set of lesson plans that included each level of integration. The percentage change represents the increase in levels of technology integration for each category from the pre to the post lesson plan sets. I also analyzed the data for the levels of technology integration for the set of p re TPACK and the set of post TPACK lesson plans using percentages. Sample pre and post lesson plans can be found in Appendix K. Specific examples of increase in levels of integration are shown through the following samples taken from lesson plans. Figure s 4 2 and 4 teacher used the PowerPoint and video clip about the topic being studied, parts of a plant, to present information to the children Her post plan, showed entry, adoption, and infusion. In this plan, the teacher still used a video clip to present to the children After the active inquiry portion of the lesson, the teacher used a r eflective blog post to provide children with the opportunity to reflect on their learning as they recorded their inquiry process, what they did throughout the process, their observations, and a summary of what they learned. Another example of growt levels of integration is shown in Figures 4 4 and 4 5. These are samples from Student level 0 and off the chart. Her post plan included entry, adaptation, and transformation levels of technology integration. Children view a video that presents information about how to conduct the experiment. After completing the experimental part of the lesson, an extension

PAGE 54

54 opportunity is provided to give children the opportunity to create an online video as they explain what they have learned. By providing this key component of the lesson, the explanation of children the transformation level of integration is met as this task requires the use of technology to complete. A third example of growth in TPACK knowledge through application in lesson plans can be seen in the pre and post samples from Student 1, shown in Figures 4 5 and 4 high levels o f demand from children did not include the integration of technology, also a score of 0 for this coding category. The post lesson plan from Student 1 shows evidence of entry, infusion, and transformation. She used a video clip to show the parts of the plant, digital cameras for children to take pictures of their flowers at different points in time as they conducted the experiment, and the use of blogging to record their explorations, observations, and discoveries. Throughout this lesson the use of technology tools to support the lesson and engage children is evident. The children would not be able to complete the expected tasks without the use of the digital cameras and blogs to share their work. S ignificant change in data analysis of lesson plans and associated evidence provided through samples taken from these lesson plans Finding # 3: misconceptions about the way to go about using technolo gy in lesson planning (TPACK) were clarified throughout the course Student misconceptions arose during the course and were recorded in my reflection journal. After the analysis of the pre TPACK surveys ta ken on the first day of class, I noted my

PAGE 55

55 percepti on of an over lesson design. Additionally, the common idea was held that instruction al planning should center on the technology tools (prior to the related TPACK lessons). As student misco nceptions were noted in my reflection journal, so were evidences of student growth. As the course activities related to TPACK development were completed by students, they thought more intentionally about technology tool integration and eventually began applying these TPACK integration skills into their lesson planning once introduced to the TPACK lesson plan format. ah ha uncovered and clarified throughout the course. These corrections of student misconceptions are related to three main idea s that were discovered by students as evidenced through their midcourse reflection responses : (1) There are different ways that technology can support content and pedagogy. (2) There are more technology too projector and a Smartboard and (3) The most important thing is deciding on the best way to implement the task using technology. Technology can be used to support content and pedagogy in different ways Students realized that there are different ways for technology to support content different types of ways that technology can support content and pedagogy (Student 4, Blackboard discussion forum February 28 th She shared this as she reflected on a course activity that gave her the opportunity to evaluate technology tools for their use with children the diffe rent ways technology can be brought into your cla ssroom to help students learn

PAGE 56

56 (Student 6, Blackboard discussion forum following use of the Evaluating Technology Tools To Support Content and Pedagogy Chart February 28 th There are a variety of t SmartBoard and projector my students is that there are there is so much more you can do with technology and keep it new, excitin g, and very easy to work with (Student 8, Blackboard discussion forum following use of the Evaluating Technology Tools To Support Content and Pedagogy Chart February 28 th Another student ght about teaching technology a great deal. I never knew there were so many different ways to bring technology into the classroom. I found two tools that I think students would really enjoy using to learn about science and technology, (Student 6, Blackbo ard discussion forum following use of the Evaluating Technology Tools To Support Content and Pedagogy Chart February 28 th en gage the students in learning (Student 1, Blackboard discussion forum following use of the Evaluating Technology Tools to Support Content and Pedagogy Chart February 28 th The most important thing to do when integrating technology is deciding on the best way to implement the task using the technology tool(s) theme found within my student midcourse reflect ion responses wa s the importan ce of decid ing on the best way to implement the task using the tech nology tool(s). Student quotes are used here to describe their corrections of misconceptions.

PAGE 57

57 teaching. It is supposed to be the opposite (Students 1 and 4, group discussion reflect ion, February 21 st 2013 ) also just an aid and that the most important thing about your lesson is the content of your lesson. Choosing your task and then deciding on the b est way to implement that task using technology is how teaching should be done to the best degree (Student 8, Blackboard discussion forum following use of the Evaluating Technology Tools T o Support Content and Pedagogy Chart February 28 th 2013) computer. Technology must be properly integrated into a lesson. Students must be engaged in the activity they are participating in on the computer, even if it is a game it must fa ll within the TPACK guidelines (Student 2, Blackboard discussion forum following use of the Evaluating Technology Tools T o Support Content and Pedagogy Chart February 28 th 2013) around (Student 1, Blackboard discussion forum following use of the Evaluating Technology Tools T o Support Content and Pedagogy Chart February 28 th 2013) C hanges in student thought processes about the ways that they approach lesson plan developmen t in general, and particularly the integration of t echnology into lesson plans became evident as the study of TPACK progressed in the course as evidenced through these student quotes from multiple student reflections. Research Question # 2: What teaching strategies and learning activities will support TPACK development among pre service teachers in a science methods course? Finding # 1: Assigned readings, videos, and specific resources supported TPACK development among students Midway through the course students read and discussed an article I assigned le, students began developing a more sophisticated understand ing of how best to integrate technology The main idea share d through student reflections was

PAGE 58

58 and THEN included technology IF it fits and supports what and how I want to teach (Student 9, article reflections, February 21, 2013) Similar ideas were shared by all students as they reflected on the assigned article reading. Another student shared a then incorporate technology IF it fits in an d enhances what I want to teach (Student 2, article reflections in small groups, February 21, 2013). a task first and then finding the appropriate tools to aid the task (Student 8, article reflections, February 21, 2 013 ). A summary written by a group of students to explain how to integrate TPACK ends with (Students 4 and 1, article reflections in small groups February 21, 2013 The researcher reflection journal that I kept throughout the course provided evidence that the use of readings, videos, and specific resources helped support the development of TPACK among student s. This journal consisted of a set of guiding questions that were answered following each class session (see Appendix D.). The purpose of this reflection journal was to provide opportunities to note activities that ctivities, student misconception s evidence of growth, and recommended improvements for this course and future courses. Th ese data w ere coded using emergent coding (Krathwohl, 2011) and resulted in a set of themes that appeared throughout th e researcher reflections. Videos viewed, scaffolded student activities, specific resources that were provided, and peer collaboration seemed to lend to positive student responses. Evidence of student

PAGE 59

59 misconceptions and growth emerged throughout the cou rse, as well as areas needing improvement. The assigned readings and videos that were provided to students prior to our class sessions built the background knowledge of students, providing them with a base to build from as they worked to complete course activities (researcher reflection journal, February 14, 2013 and February 21, 2013) Prior to class on February 14 th students viewed a video created by Steven Anderson introducing them to learning activity types ( Anderson, 2012). As they viewed this v ideo, they recorded their responses about what they found important and interesting in a chart. They also read the science learning activity types document created by Blanchard, Harris, and Hoffer (Blanchard, et al., 2011). Prior to class on February 21 st students viewed two TPACK introductory videos, one created by Royce Kimmons and the other by Candace Figg (Kimmons, 2011 ; Figg 2011). Their assigned reading for this class was to read and record the main ideas from three short TPACK related wiki a rticles written by Mark Fijor (Fijor, 2011). At the beginning of each of these class sessions, I asked students to discuss the videos and articles with their peers. These peer to peer discussions were the basis for my TPACK knowledge development. Student understanding was recognized through their comments made during discussions of videos they viewed were noted in my reflections more than once, giving evidence that these were beneficial to student growth in TPACK development. I provided s pecific resources to students to provide structure for their TPACK dev elopment, including s everal web based resources to aid dif ferent course activities.

PAGE 60

60 The S ciencebuddies.com site was used to provide structure for the develo pment of student science experi ments As students worked on these projects their science content a nd pedagogical knowledge grew. As they explored the Science Buddies site to gain ideas for their assigned science projects, they developed a better understanding of the differences between a demonstration and an experiment (researcher reflection journal n otes, February 7, 2013). RICE.edu was used to provide science activities for each of the main science content areas (life, Earth, and physical science) that follow the new Common Core standards. This web based resource provided examples of inquiry based science activities to help scaffold my students as they developed their own. Through use of this resource, students were able to complete the assigned task of developing an inquiry based science lesson within the area of life, Earth, or physical science ( researcher reflection journal notes, January 17 th 2013). Students 1, 2, and 7 worked collaboratively to develop a physical science activity plan using the RICE.edu site as a resource. A summary of their activity plan is shown in Figure 4 9 Through gui ded exploration and experimentation with different sound producing objects, this activity provides opportunities for children to engage in an active inquiry science lesson. I introduced t he Glogster.edu web tool to students for their science autobiography site to give them experience using a web tool similar to one that they may use in their own classrooms in the future. Students explored the Glogster tool by creating their own glogs to share with our class. They gained knowledge of ways to use a simple, online, multimedia tool to create a product to share with others. I have provided a sample glog in Figure 4 10.

PAGE 61

61 In addition to these web based resources, I provided the TPACK lesson plan format (Appendix F) and TPACK integration evaluation c hart (Appendix B) to students to str ucture their peer evaluations on lesson plans and their own lesson plan development. Through use of the technology integration evaluation chart, students assessed technology tools for their appropriateness and evaluated their own lesson plans for TPACK integration. Figure 4 1 1 shows an evaluation chart completed by Student 8 as she reviewed Google Blogger for use in a lesson plan to provide students with opportunities to discuss what they have learned. Finding # 2: M y s caffolding of class activities provided building blocks to guide students through the process of developing TPACK Careful scaffolding of student assignments allowed students to learn to implement pieces of the TPACK framework before being challenged to put all of the pieces together. One such task that I presented to students prior to them being introduced to the full TPACK framework was designing learning activities to provide their own children with opportunities for conceptual knowledge buil ding; procedural knowledge building, and knowledge expression, students developed learning activities that would support best practices in science. The TPACK components being emphasized for this particular activity were the combination of pedagogy (P) wit h content (CK). These activities were largely active in nature, keeping consistent with recommendations from best practices. The chart below Table 4 3 describes a sample of learning activities developed by pre service teachers in the course for each category. The coding of researcher reflections sh owed several specific scaffolding support strategies provided to students that were particularly beneficial The creation of

PAGE 62

62 concept maps for each area of science (life, Earth, and physical science) showed an increase in knowledge among students (researcher reflection journal, January 17, 2013 and January 31, 2013). S tudents use of science experiences from the course textbook to guide development of engaging activities for children was noted as being particularly helpful in giving students a guide with which to use when developing appropriate science activities for their own children (researcher ref lection journal, January 31, 2013) Later on during the course, students worked in groups to create diagrams to show the relatedness of each of the TPACK components to one another in the technology integration process. My researcher reflection notes sho w that this activity worked very well and that students were able to create and explain diagrams that showed their clear understanding of the relatedness of the TPACK components (researcher reflection journal, February 14, 2013). Figure 4 1 2 shows a sampl e TPACK diagram with student descriptions of each TPACK component made by a small group of students on February 21, 2013. The TPACK lesson evaluation chart provided students with self evaluation practice as well as peer evaluation of lesson plans. Finall y, the TPACK lesson plan format itself provided prompts and questions to guide thoughtful inclusion of each of the key components of TPACK and the careful integration of each of these to form a quality lesson (see Appendix F) Finding # 3: Introduction of the TPACK lesson plan format as a guide for efforts to put the TPACK pieces together In addition to the lesson plan coding analysis that shows significant growth in TPACK levels of integration, student exit interview data

PAGE 63

63 development. The most beneficial activity shared by students was the use of the TPACK lesson plan format (Appendix F) to help support the implementation of suggested revisions from previous lesson plans that did not use this format. Through the exit interview, two student s shared that the TPACK l esson plan activities helped them to lesson plans and balance all three (Students 2 and 3, exit interview, March 1, 2013) One of these students stated (Student 3, exit interview, March 1, 2013) Students also to choose from and that using the tool that best fits the plan (and not vice versa) is the best way of integrating technology (Student 7, exit interview, March 1, 2013) Two student s ers should not just present with technology but (that) (Students 8 and 4) Finding # 4: Peer collaboration supported successful TPACK development Students were noted to have been succes sful in course activities providing them with opportunities to work in groups with their peers t o build their TPACK knowledge. A s noted in my researcher reflection journal p eer collaboration was found to be a practice that worked well throughout the course. The communication in the form of explanations that occurred during the creation of concept maps for each science content area (life, Earth, and physical science) helped students to clarify the vertical alignment of Common Core stan dards throughout grades K 6 (researcher reflection journal, January 17, 2013 and January 31, 2013) The discussions of the assigned articles, t extbook reading, and videos, were noted as being beneficial in strengthening the understanding

PAGE 64

64 of course conten t by providing opportunities for students to verbalize and synthesize the information that they had read and/or or viewed as it relate d to teaching science (researcher reflection journal February 21, 2013) Along with the TPACK diagrams that students cr eated as described earlier, g roup discussions about TPACK took place as students worked together to develop their own definition of TPACK and a short presentation to share with the class The follow ing quotes share student comments as they discussed TPACK in preparation for these short presentations related to how to integrate technology into teaching. Their developing understanding of TPACK can be seen through these c omments that students made during this group work after being introduced to the complete TPACK framework : awesome teacher; you do it all (Students 6, 2, and 3, group definition of TPACK poster presentation group work, February 21, 2013). TP A CK, (the m iddle of the chart), is how they work together to support enhanced learning (Students 5 and 7, group definition of TPACK poster presentation group work, February 21, 2013) You have to know your task before you choose the technology (Students 9 and 8, group definition of TPACK poster presentation group work, February 21, 2013) There has to be a balance of them (the components of TPACK) all (Students 9 and 8, group definition of TPACK poster presentation group work, February 21, 2013) Another discussion yet (Students 5 and 7, group definition of TPACK poster presentation group work, February 21, 2013) Finding # 5: Student interviews and researcher reflections recommended strate gies for strengthening TPACK development in future courses The coding of my researcher reflection journal resulted in a list of improvements that I feel are needed A major improvement that is needed as noted in multiple reflection entries is the need f or

PAGE 65

65 more time to provide additional opportunities for guided practice of many of the course activities. To help alleviate the misconcepti ons related to science content, I could move the content paper to earlier in the course with students being given acces s to content experts for collaboration and support related to science content (researcher reflection journal, January 31, 2013) I also noted that s tudent attendance was a problem during several weeks of the course. Although the course syllabus includes an attendance policy where students may miss no more than one class session before points are deducted from the final grade, clearer communication of the attendance expectations, along with reminders throughout the course, could be helpful in alleviating t his problem (researcher reflection journal, January 17, 2013, January 24, 2013, and February 7, 2013). I noted the need for m ore modeling overall to provide further support of student learning of TPACK integration strategies (researcher reflection journa l, January 17, 2013, February 7, 2013, and February 21, 2013) M ore details were needed for a few of the assignments to provide clearer student expectations (researcher reflection journal, January 31, 2013) A better set of web based resources needs to be available to students to guide the creation of their technology resource lists (researcher reflection journal, January 31, 2013) Additionally, I found that it will be important not to try to n general in the future (researcher reflection journal, January 31, 2013, February 14, 2013, and February 21, 2013) A summary of the improvements needed for futur e courses is shown in Figure 4 1 3 In addition to the improvements to future courses sugge sted by my researcher reflection journal data, students recommended changes through exit interviews.

PAGE 66

66 Students gave three main recommendations for improving TPACK activities for future courses. suggestion (Students 3, 7, 1, 5, and 8, exit interview, March 1, 2013) (Students 3 and 5, exit interview, March 1, 2013) The third a TPACK lesson; creating all of the components (Student 7, exit interview, March 1, 2013) Figure 4 1 4 shows courses The analysis of pre and post TPACK surveys, pre and post lesson plans, researcher reflection journal entries, and student mid semester reflection and end of study interview responses has given insight into what specific activities and teaching approaches w orked well and what could be improved to help build TPACK development of pre service teachers. Summary My results demonstrate that s tudents showed themselves to be highly capable of changing their previous lesson plan development practices when provided support, differing expectations, and scaffolding throughout the process. The different pieces of data show multiple perspectives. My own perspective is clearly shown through the ir survey responses, mid semester reflections, and end of study interview responses. The lesson plans provide triangulation of data from both perspectives as they provide concrete evidence that support the findings found from the other three data sources. In particular, the combination of data provide insight into the specific teaching strategies and learning activities that led to significant growth in knowledge of the TPACK

PAGE 67

67 framework among pre service teachers and how they b ecame able to integrate the TPACK components into lesson plans for children.

PAGE 68

68 Table 4 1. Summary of Results Component Pre Mean Pre SD Post Mean Post SD Difference Content knowledge 3.21 0.64 4.11 0.55 0.90 or 18% Pedagogical Content Knowledge 3.50 0.70 4.08 0.44 0.58 or 12% Technological, Content Knowledge 3.36 0.96 4.33 0.60 0.97 or 19% Technological, Pedagogical, Knowledge 3.94 0.46 4.51 0.42 0.57 or 11% Technological, Pedagogical, Content Knowledge 3.36 0.87 4.19 0.50 0.83 or 17% Figure 4 1 A verage pre and post scores on the survey for each category, along with growth percentages, for each of these key areas.

PAGE 69

69 Table 4 2. The percentage increase for each level of technology integration (entry, adoption, adaptation, infusion and transformation. Whole Class Avg. Pre Lesson Plan Post Lesson Plan Percentage Change Entry 33% 78% 45% Adoption 22% 44 % 22% Adaptation 0% 56% 56% Infusion 11% 56% 45% Transformation 0% 33% 33% Figure 4 sample with entry level technology integration using PowerPoint and video clip. Figure 4

PAGE 70

70 Figure 4 Figure 4 transformation technology integration.

PAGE 71

71 Figure 4

PAGE 72

72 Figure 4 with entry, infusion, and transformation technology integration. Figure 4 8. Learning Activities Supporting TPACK Development

PAGE 73

73 Grade Level: 2 Standards: 2.P.1 Essential Question(s): What is sound? Do we each hear things the same? Materials: Pictures of sound waves and various instruments, science journal, paper and drawing utensils and sounds. Engage: Sound Activities Observing Ask students to listen to the sound clips and compare and contrast pitch and loudness based on what they have hear d. Explore: How will you provide opportunities for meaningful exploration? Organizing Organize pictures of sound waves and sort based on pitch and length. Questioning Ask students to look for patterns in the pictures that they have sorted and write thr ee questions about the patterns that they have found. They will then find another student to exchange and ask questions to. Explain: How will explanation take place? Representing Draw a picture of their interpretation of pitch and loudness (sound waves e tc). Elaborate: How will elaboration on learning take place? Experimenting Ask students to experiment with different objects that make sounds, then they will draw their own picture of the sound waves or match the pictures that they sorted to the instrume nt. Evaluate: How will evaluation of the learning take place? Sharing Have students partner and share what they know about sounds and sound waves they will then create a picture that reflects what they have learned. Figure 4 9. Summary of Students 1, 2,

PAGE 74

74 Figure 4

PAGE 75

75 Figure 4

PAGE 76

76 Table 4 3. Sample of Learning Activities Developed by Pre service Teachers Concep tual Knowledge Building Procedural Knowledge Building Knowledge Expression Students discuss their hypotheses about whether or not an object will sink or float. Students will measure the specified amount of liquid in a graduated cylinder. Students will develop a game to help the class learn a particular topic. Students will view nature objects (butterfly wings, grass, etc.) using a microscope. Students will collect samples and study items in person using appropriate technology tools. Students will discuss opposing viewpoints within science. Students will gather information needed for a presentation when they will teach the class about a concept. Students will go outside and observe the clouds. Students will create an image to demonstrate what they know. Figure 4 12. Sample TPACK Diagram with Student Descriptions of Each TPACK Component

PAGE 77

77 Figure 4 13. Improvements Needed for Future Courses Figure 4

PAGE 78

78 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Discussion of Results The main goal of this study was to provide insight into best practices for developing TPACK knowledge among pre service teachers in a science methods course. The two main research questions that I aim ed to answer in this study what ways will my pre designed science methods course? and What teaching strategies and learning activities will support TPACK development among pre service t eachers in a science methods course? For my first research question, all four data sets provided valuable evidence of change in TPACK knowledge of my pre service teachers. My second research question was answered mainly through the analysis of my resear cher reflections and the student reflections and interview data. By determining the ways that TPACK knowledge changed for the pre service teachers in this course, as well as the activities and teaching strategies that supported this development, this study has provided valuable insight into my plans for future teacher education courses including s cience methods, introductory educational technology, and other methods courses within the education department. Research Question # 1: In what ways will my pre knowledge change during a carefully designed science methods course? TPACK surveys completed by the pre service teachers in my science methods course during the beginning and end of the study provide d answers to my first research question. As indicated through the growth in TPACK areas of science CK, PCK, TCK, TPK, and T PACK, the students in my science methods class did indeed report an increase in

PAGE 79

79 knowledge of and abilities to implement this research based approach to technology integration according to their self perceptions (i.e. C4, Finding 1) As suggested by Mishra and others (i.e. C2), the TPACK framework focuses on the constructs of teaching (Mishra et al., 2009). The approach used in this course was different for my students who were used to the traditional approach of focusing on how to use specific technology tools and then making their lessons fit the tools. So, this information tells me that the course activities relating to CK, PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK were successful in building the development of TPACK knowledge among my students. The areas of TK and PK did not change as much, as shown in the data analysis of the survey. As I discussed in Chapter 2, TPACK literature focuses on the interrelatedness of each of the TPACK components (Koehler and Mishra, 2006). The whole purpose of the TPACK concept is to provide a framework to show the importance of thinking of technology integration as the melding together of technology, content, and pedagogy, in all of the possible permutations. Knowing this, I question why t he survey re sults did not show much increase in TK and PK. A few t houghts come to mind as I wrestle with this lems were low for both the pre and post survey because they were thinking about problems related to the Internet signal problems prevalent on campus during the time of this study (TPACK survey question # 1, Graham, et al., 2009). It is certainly true tha t we did not spend time in the course working specifically on finding solutions to technical problems. There are six questions in this survey category. There was a slight increase in pre to post TK scores, from 3.7 to 3.93. Al though there was not a l arge amount of

PAGE 80

80 growth shown, after removing the responses to this first survey question and re averaging the pre and post scores for the TK category, the average post score is 3.98, In fact, when looking closely score below 3.5 for the TK survey category. Although these specific details shed light on one possible e xplanation for a lack of growth in these areas i t is likely that students would benefit from additional focus on activities related to their TK development in future courses. T here either need ed to be a dditional activities developed to further enhance the development of technol ogical knowledge (TK) in this course or students began this course with adequate knowledge of technology already Since the average technological knowledge (TK) in the pre survey was 3.7, this category of knowledge was already adequate among students for them to be able to move forward into integrating the use of this technology with content and pedagogy. The highest category on the survey is 5.0, so students did have room for growth, like they showed in other TPACK related categories. Although I found that pedagogical knowled ge (PK) did not show a significant increase, the average student scores for this category on the pre and post survey were tions of their pedagogical knowledge were already strong prior to the learning activities and teaching strategies implemented in the course. This could have been because they were well prepared pedagogically in their previous curriculum course that t hey completed prior to being cleared to take methods courses.

PAGE 81

81 TPACK knowledge as a result of the sequence of teaching strategies and learning activities in this science methods course. Data analysis from the mid semester reflections and end of study TPACK interview provide answers to this research question as well. The responses of participants indicated specific examples of ways that their knowledge of TPACK changed during the course (i.e. C4, Findings 1 and 2) They reported learning how to balance the integration of content, pedagogy, and technology in their lesson plans, how to integrate technology into every subject, that it is best practice to not just present with technology, but to integrate the technology into the ways that the students interact with and learn the content, and also that there are many different types of technology tools to choose from when selecting the tool that best fits the pedagogical plan for teaching the conte nt. In addition to the learning that students gained through the semester, they also revealed misconceptions that were corrected during the course (i.e. C4, Finding 3) Their mid semester reflection responses indicated that they realized that there were They learned to start with the task and then move on to include the technology only i f the available technology tools fit the task and support what and how they are teaching. I found that the pre and post lesson plan artifacts completed by students in the science methods class also showed examples of the changes in TPACK knowledge of the pre service teachers in the course (i.e. C4, Findings 1 and 2) The increase in NETS*S in the lesson plans was likely in response to the activities related to the

PAGE 82

82 introduction of these standards to students and the evaluation activities that students co mpleted using the TPACK integration chart to evaluate the lesson plans of their peers. During the course, as recommended by Schulman, students were given opportunities to build their pedagogical content knowledge through specifically designed course a ctiv ities (i.e. C2, Table 2 4; Schulman, 1986). The increase in learning activity types was likely in response to the guided course activity when students learned about a variety of learning activities f or science teaching and applied this learning to design i ng activities that fit within each category of learning activities as defined by B lanchard (2011). In my view, the increase in technology tools used from the pre to post TPACK lesson plans was probably in response to the guided exploration of and evaluati on of technology tools as well as the use of the TPACK lesson plan format that provided clear expectations and specific guiding questions for including the use of technology to support instruction. I would argue that the increase in the levels of high cog nitive demand (Silver, 2009) in the post TPACK lesson plans can be attributed to the use of the TPACK integration evaluation chart, making students aware of the different levels of cognitive demand being used in their lesson plans and encouraging them to i ncrease the higher levels to provide for higher levels of learning among students. Finally, and most integral to the purposes of this study, the increase in levels of technology integration from the pre to post TPACK lesson plans are likely related to the growth in TPACK among pre service teachers that developed throughout the course as they participated in the carefully planned out sequence of learning activities.

PAGE 83

83 Overall, the results of the lesson plan data analysis i ndicate specific growth areas within the TPACK framework among pre service teachers as evidenced by their lesson plan attributes. Research Question # 2: What teaching strategies and learning activities will support TPACK development among pre service te achers in a science methods course? Students reported that the use of the TPACK lesson plan format (i.e. C4, Finding 3) peer and self revision of lesson plans (i.e. C4, Findings 3 and 4) and viewing of the videos (i.e. C4, Finding 1) were the course ac tivities that provided the most support in their T PACK growth and development. I designed the initial sequencing of course activities following recommendations from Chai and others to focus on the science pedagogy, then exploring technology tools, and the n finally on how to integrate these to teach the content (Chai et al., 2010). This sequence can be seen in the activities table (i.e. C2, Table 2 4). Overall, the mid semester student reflections and end of study interview responses provided concrete evidence to inform the study These data revealed s pecific learning activities and teaching strategies that suppor ted the TPACK development of pre service teachers in the science methods course as well as the changes in TPACK knowledge that occurred as a result of th e carefully planned sequence of activities (i.e. C2, Table 2 4) Specific teaching strategies and learning activities led to this growth as students became more aware of the importance and relevanc e of increas ing science and technology experiences with students from the viewing of the course video clips and creation of science autobiographies (i.e. C4, Finding 1). The growth in content and

PAGE 84

84 pedagogical understanding of the scientific process grew as a result of the student science project proposal activity. Students began thinking more intentionally about technology tools for teaching after completing the activities related to exploration of technology tools and designing learning activities (i.e. C4, Finding 2 ) A variety of tools were explored including several tools specifically for the special education setting. Graham and others (i.e. C2) recommended exposing students to technology tools for use specifically for science (Graham et al., 2009). As students participated in course activities involving the exploration of technology tools, I directed them to specific resources that could be used in the science classroom. Marino and others (i.e. C2) suggested a need to better prepare pre service teachers to select technology tools to support students with disabilities (Marino et al., 2009). As students evaluated and explored technology tools for use in the science classroom, they included in their search tools that could be used to support special education learners. They later began implementing the TPACK framework once introduced to the TPACK lesson plan template (i.e. C4, Finding 3) Implications My goal for the study was to strategically design, assess, and make plans for future changes to a series of activities that encourage the development of technological, pedagogical content knowledge of pre service teachers throughout my science methods course (i.e. abstrac t, C1, C3, and C5) I was unsure of the best teaching strategies and learning activities to support this change or the amount of direction and scaffolding that students would need to be able to change their thinking about creating lesson I needed to start with a carefully designed plan of action that I would assess regularly to determine which activities and strategies worked and which did not. Throughout the

PAGE 85

85 study I was able to observe and document student change, growth, and better understanding of how to use the TPACK framework to develop content based lesson plans with intentional technology integration to support specific learning goals. My students, teaching TPACK, classroom, and school are all connected in that the results of this study will inform future instruction. Students now know how to develop stronger technology rich lesson plans using the TPACK framework and lesson plan template as shown through t heir increase in levels of integration throughout their lesson plans. B ased on recommendations from the exit interview and my researcher reflection data m y teaching has been informed with regards to the things that I should keep the same (that have worked well) and things that I should change in order to strengthen courses that I will teach in the future. Lesson plan data show that TPACK integration is happening among my students, a practice that was not evid ent before this study. My classroom will continue to show learner engagement and skill development in the area of TPACK. Finally, based on these findings, programmatic changes including the implementation of up to date technology integration prac tices in all methods classes will impact the entire education program at my u niversity. The implications of this study fit into three categories, including my teaching, the teacher education program at my universi ty and teacher education programs of other universities Imp lications for M y Teaching As a teacher researcher new to the post secondary classroom, this study has taugh t me that regular, systematic reflection is of upmost importance in guiding my own course development; specifically in providing evidence to help determine how to best respond to the learning needs of my students.

PAGE 86

86 Perhaps the most significant findings, n ot specific to the research questions of this study, but certainly applicable to all college level courses, is that my students are impressionable and capable of changing their current practices when provided with high quality, specific resources and caref ul scaffolding to support their learning. They need lots of modeling to show them examples of behaviors that they are expected to acquire The idea of modeling for students was suggested by Baran and others (i.e. C2) in their study that included modeling of the expectations that the teachers had for the pre service teachers (Baran et al., 2011) Adequate modeling did not take place in my class during this study as indicated by the data. Additional modeling has been planned for future courses and is highlighted in the plan for future courses (Table 5 1). Both the end of study interview data and my researcher reflection journal highlighted suggested improvements to future science methods courses. In the analysis of interview data I found that students recommend ed introducing TPACK earlier in the course and explaining this concept thoroughly from the beginning, when students write their first lesson plans. Additionally, muc h more modeling is needed to show students how to build a TPACK lesson. In future science methods courses, I plan to invest significant classroom time modeling the behaviors expected of the pre service teachers. These include, but are not limited to, the evaluation of and use of a variety of technology tools, the creation of all components of the TPACK lesson plan using the format provided to students, and assessment of lesson plans using the TPACK evaluation chart. The analysis of my researcher reflect ion journal showed a positive student response to the videos clips showing both explanations of content and examples of

PAGE 87

87 science teaching in the classroom. Additional videos will be included in my future courses to provide students even more of this useful information in a video based format that allows them to revisit and/or review the content in a convenient way. I will provide a dditional scaffolding to students, specifically in the use of the TPACK evaluation chart and lesson plan format. In the future modeling will occur to show students how they are expected to use the TPACK evaluation grid to assess lesson plans and make recommendations for revisions. In addition, I will require that my class work through a guided lesson development from start to f inish, with modeling provided by me before students will be asked to use this lesson plan format on their own. The activities that students responded best to (based on their comments in clas s and through their reflections, and as evidenced by their growt h ) were those that included the most scaffolding and specific resources. Another improvement for my future courses will be for me to provide support for the learning of the science content by moving the required content paper to the first three weeks of the course, while providing support by giving students access to a content expert to collaborate with while writing the paper. More time will be given for the most beneficial activities to allow students adequate practice time with the support of their pe ers and that of their instructor. I will address student attendance issues in a proactive manner by including greater consequences for absences in the course syllabus, as well as making expectations clear and setting up incentives for those students who a ttend all class sessions. In addition to these recommendations for improvement to future science methods courses, I will also create a better and more thorough list of web based technology resources to guide the technology resource list

PAGE 88

88 project, a need also indicated by notes in my researcher reflection journal. Finally, additional detail ed instructions will be given to students for activities throughout the course. Although students were successful in changing their technology integra tion behaviors using the TPACK framework followed through the course implementation of these recommended changes should strengthen this change and provide clearer perceptions of self growth among students during future courses. I have developed a revised sequential plan for cou rse activities using the suggestions gathered through data analysis ( Table 5 1). Implications for M y Teacher Education Program Beyond changes to my own courses I will suggest changes be made within the broader teacher education program as a result of this study. Students recommended the introduction of the TPACK framework in all methods courses and for the first introduction to occur during the introductory educational technology course that students take prior to beginning methods courses in the tea cher education program. As the instructor of both science methods and the educational technology course, I will be able to e ffect this change in these courses. Additionally, I am scheduled to teach math methods and arts methods during the upcoming cale ndar year. During the development of each of these course revisions, I will ensure that the TPACK framework is introduced early on in each course, with appropriate modeling and scaffolded learning activities provided. An initial and thorough introduction of the TPACK framework will also be embedded into the introductory educational technology course that students will typically take during their sophomore year. I will encourage other instructors in the teacher education department to include the TPACK f ramework and lesson plan format in their methods courses as well through

PAGE 89

89 participation in a series of professional development offerings about the research and benefits supporting the use of this TPACK framework in teacher education courses. These session s will provide peer instructors not only the research basis to hopefully motivate them to include this framework in their teaching, but also the skills that they themselves will need as instructors to be able to model and implement this framework successfu lly as they work to transfer this knowledge to their students. In addition to these programmatic changes that can be implemented as early as the summer and fall sessions of 2013 I will be proposing the addition of a technology integration methods course to be added into the University catalog for School of Education programs. If accepted, this new course will be able to begin in approximately one calendar year from the date the formal proposal is submitted to the School of Education board. This new cou rse will enable our pre service teachers to begin learning about technology tools in the introductory technology applications course, learn about pedagogy in their curriculum course, learn how to integrate TPACK in this new technology integration methods c ourse, practice their knowledgeable integration of TPACK in the rest of their methods courses and put these skills into practice in their clinical classroom settings as they student teach These planned programmatic changes build on the Brigham Young study (i.e. C1) suggesting that pre service teachers begin their study of TPACK with a study of technology tools in an introductory educational technology course, continue in each of their methods classes, and complete this in their field experience (Went worth et al., 2009). Implications for Other Teacher Educators To my peers in the higher education setting who are working to prepare pre service teachers for their own classrooms, I highly encourage the use of this carefully

PAGE 90

90 designed framework. There ar e numerous resources available (see reference list) to support the use of these teaching strategies with students. I would be honored to collaborate and provide support in adopting this framework for the preparation of future teachers to intentio nally integrate technology to support teaching methods and learning goals. As the technology tools that are being used in classrooms rap idly change, teachers will be ar med with the knowledge and pedagogical habits needed to select tools to support the me thod of teaching and learning (and not, as my students have teachers will be minimally affected by the rapidly changing technologies at their disposal Teachers will be abl e to continue to use and work to perfect the sound, research based teaching methods that they know work for their students, and adapt to whatever new tools are available at any given time throughout their teaching careers, using the appropriate tools to su pport their instruction. Empowering future teachers to knowledgably integrate technology, content, and pedagogy will set their future students up for a dynamic learning experience, full of research based, effective pedagogy that is supported by the tools of the day. Improvements for Future Research For future research, I have noted a few improvements that I believe are necessary First, prior to administering the pre TPACK survey, I believe additional information needs to be gathered from students to provide me with a better types of technology integration that has been modeled and expected of students previously Second I believe an explanation of the terminology throughout the survey would be beneficial in ensuring that students self report their perceptions accurately.

PAGE 91

91 During the course, students could record reflections after each class session to provide timely feedback about what the students feel they ar e getting out of the instruction and learning activities. This would allow time the instructor to implement changes within the context of the course in a more timely manner than is possible with mid semester reflections and post study interviews At the end of the study, it may be beneficial to give students an opportunity to discuss with their peers the ways that their technology integration skills have changed before giving them the post TPACK survey and/or interviews. I believe that doing so may help to better prepare them to give accurate answers by providing them with a structured opportunity to reflect on their course experiences with the social learning benefits that they get when discussing with their peers. Alt hough this study adds to the current research that is available in the educational field, additional support is needed through research in a variety of settings from the elementary to the post secondary level of instruction. In service classroom teachers working directly with students, K 12 students in the classrooms of these teachers, pre service teachers learning in teacher education programs, and instructors in the higher education settings that are working to prepare future teachers, are each lik ely to have slightly different perspectives on their experiences with technology in the teaching and learning setting. The more research that we have to lean on, the more informed our decisions can be about how to best design instruction supported by tech nology for our students. Conclusions This study of TPACK development among pre service teachers is timely and st century. Even

PAGE 92

92 lity of technology tools is rapidly rising. Effective courses must be in place in our teacher training programs to provide effective instruction to prepare our future teachers to teach effectively with technology. As the tools being used in classrooms w ill continue along a trend of rapid change, I believe that properly prepared educators will be able to embrace this change and continue to reach learners through research based instruction that balances sound pedagogy, teaching of standards based conten t, and thoughtful selection of appropriate technology tools that will support the planned instruction. The results of this study provide practical answers for teacher e ducators by following a similar, research based sequence of course activities related to the development of this TPACK knowledge This course of activities, along with recommended teaching strategies, will prepare pre service teachers to be able to apply TPACK in their lesson plans. The application of this study can be transferred to a variety of educational settings included, but not limited to, K 12 classrooms, professional development of teachers at all levels, post secondary teacher education programs, and graduate schools for educators. Teacher education course i nstructors can use the implications of this study to refine courses to meet the changing needs of future teachers K 12 clas sroom teachers can adapt their current lesson plan framework to use technology more effectively to support instruction. In addition, education leaders providing professional development can shift the standard for technology integration in th eir schools by arming teachers with the TPACK lesson plan, or a similar format that provides guiding questions to provide scaffolded support as teachers begin to implement this approach to lesson planning

PAGE 93

93 with technology. Finally, post secondary education programs at all levels can incorporate the TPACK framework into their teacher education courses to prepare practicing and pre service teachers to improve their instruction from technology based to technology supported In my view, the development of technology tools for use in the classroom is not likely to stall. As the availability of technology tools in education settings continues to rise, so does the need for teachers to be knowledgeable of ways to use this technology, while holding on to strong pedagogical teaching methodologies This study advocates for the revision of the old ways of teaching with technology in all areas of education preparation and professional development. Additional research studies in these t eaching settings are needed to develop effective sequences of instructional techniques and activities that will result in the empowering of teachers to better plan for technology st century students to learn through the meaningful support of technology.

PAGE 94

94 Table 5 1 Plan for future courses, with changes from the original course activity plan highlighted. Time Frame TPACK Component(s) Being Built Teaching Activities Planned to Deve lop TPACK Associated Student Learning Tasks Day 1 Days 2 4 *attendance reminder Content Knowledge Introduce c ontent k nowledge reflecting upon the development of science knowledge using Glogster Create overall concept maps of each K 5 goal (life, physical, and Earth science) Days 2 4 Content Knowledge Review content within each theme to build and refresh pre service teacher content knowledge Student centered science labs for each theme Science collaborative journal of reflective learning (blog) with instructor modeling of expectations Days 2 4 Content Knowledge Introduce content paper with expert collaborators Students begin planning and writing their content paper with collaboration with content expert from science department Day5 Content Knowledge Pedagogical Knowledge Introduce the notion of c ontent and p edagogy combining to create the methods for teaching science Complete online learning module about the history of science ed ucation Days 6 7 Days 6 7 Pedagogical Knowledge Pedagogical Knowledge Introduce p edagogical k nowledge Model examples of constructivist teaching methods Explore demonstrations vs. experiments and model both Explore, describe and provide examples of constructivist teaching methods (Piaget, Vygotsky, and active, inquiry based learning) Research current trends in science education (focusing on methods) Assign science fair projects Days 8 9 Pedagogical Knowledge Introduce learning activity types focusing on the three types of knowledge building activities Explore learning activity types Categorize learning related to each content based theme within the three types of knowledge building activities (m odel first) Days 8 9 Pedagogical Knowledge Model choosing learning activity types based on determining types of knowledge needed to be built among learners Guided practice in small groups to select learning activities to match the needs for knowledge b uilding (model first) Individual practice selecting learning activities to match the needs for knowledge building

PAGE 95

95 Table 5 1. Continued Time Frame TPACK Component(s) Being Built Teaching Activities Planned to Develop TPACK Associated Student Learning Tasks Day 10 *attendance reminder Pedagogical Knowledge Content Knowledge Model combining c ontent and p edagogical knowledge using learning activity types Use learning activity types to develop plans for teaching science content (model first) Day 11 TPACK Concept Introduce the TPACK concept Introduce the TPACK idea generally to give a purpose for our study of technology tools and provide a scope for upcoming course activities Day 12 Technological Knowledge Introduce t echnological knowledge Define technological knowledge Days 13 14 Technological Knowledge Introduce technology tools to support science teaching and learning Explore technology tools with science (give more web resources to scaffold this ) and encourage students to troublesh oot technical problems collaboratively Evaluate usefulness of a variety of technological tools for science teaching and learning (no emphasis on pedagogy) (model first) Days 15 16 Technological Knowledge Content Knowledge Provide opportunities for explo ration with different t echnology tools in building pre service teacher c ontent k nowledge Science labs using technology to continue building content knowledge of pre service teachers Science collaborative journal of reflective learning continued (blog) Day 17 18 *attendance reminder Technological Knowledge Content Knowledge Model combining t echnological knowledge with c ontent knowledge Develop lesson plan to teach science content with technology (no emphasis on pedagogy) (model first) Day 19 Technolog ical Knowledge Content Knowledge Pedagogical Knowledge Model using learning activity types to choose technology tools to go along with selected learning activities Model for students the selection of technology tools to support learning activities Day 20 Day 21 Technological Knowledge Content Knowledge Pedagogical Knowledge -Use learning activity types document (Appendix C) to choose technology tools to go along with selected learning activities Scaffolded practice selecting technology tools to su pport science learning using learning acti vity types document in small groups Individual practice selecting technology tools to support science learning (provide adequate details for clear student expectations)

PAGE 96

96 Table 5 1. Continued Time Frame TPACK Component(s) Being Built Teaching Activities Planned to Develop TPACK Associated Student Learning Tasks Day 22 Model use of TPACK lesson plan format to create lesson plan integrating TP and CK Model use of the TPACK lesson plan format and evaluation using Evaluating Technology Tools To Support Content and Pedagogy Chart Day 23 Students create TPACK lesson plan using TPACK plan format Using the TPACK lesson plan format, create TPACK lesson plan (draft) to be evaluated by self and peers using the Evaluating Technology Tools To Support Content and Pedagogy Chart (give adequate details to make expectations clear) Day 24 TPACK evaluation Provide opportunities for pre service te achers to evaluate the usefulness of the tools that they select to support teaching and learning and model this type of evaluation Using the Evaluating Technology Tools To Support Content and Pedagogy Chart evaluate the usefulness of the technology tools intended to support teaching and Day 25 TPACK revision Model revision of lesson plan based on self and peer evaluations using the Evaluating Technology Tools To Support Content and Pedagogy Chart Model revision of lesson plan Students r evise their lesson plan based on peer feedback (give adequate details to make expectations clear) Days 26 30+ Tying it all together in practice Unit Plan Development Engaged Learning Project in Local School students work in group s to develop unit plans around a central science theme students visit a local school to lead science experiments and demonstrations *In addition to course activities listed in this chart, the instructor will lead guided inquiry mini lessons using the scientific method weekly. Students will also participate in two book studies focusing on methods and issues of science education

PAGE 97

97 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE Thank you for taking time to complete this questionnaire. Please answer each question to the best of your knowledge. Your thoughtfulness and candid responses will be greatly appreciated. Your individual name or identification number will not at any time be associated with your responses. Your responses will be kept completely confidential and will not influence your course grade. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 1. Your Student ID Number 2. Gender a. Female b. Male 3. Age range a. 18 22 b. 23 26 c. 27 32 d. 32+ 4. Major a. Special Education b. Elementary Education c. Secondary Education d. Health and P.E. e. Other 5. Area of Specialization 6. Year in College a. Freshman b. Sophomore c. Junior d. Senior 7. Are you currently enrolled or have you completed a practicum experience in a classroom ? a. Yes b. No

PAGE 98

98 Technology is a broad concept that can mean a lot of different things. For the purpose of this questionnaire, technology is referring to digital technology/technologies. That is, the digital tools we use such as computers, laptops, iPods, handhelds, intera ctive whiteboards, software programs, etc. Please answer all of the questions and if you are uncertain of or neutral about your response you may always select "Neither Agree or Disagree" Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree TK (Technology Knowledge) 1. I know how to solve my own technical problems. 2. I can learn technology easily. 3. I keep up with important new technologies. 4. I frequently play around the technology. 5. I know about a lot of different technologies. 6. I have the technical skills I need to use technology. CK (Content Knowledge) Mathematics 7. I have sufficient knowledge about mathematics. 8. I can use a mathematical way of thinking. 9. I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of mathematics. Social Studies 10. I have sufficient knowledge about social studies. 11. I can use a historical way of thinking. 12. I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of social studies. Science 13. I have sufficient knowledge about science. 14. I can use a scientific way of thinking. 15. I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of science. Literacy 16. I have sufficient knowledge about literacy. 17. I can use a literary way of thinking. 18. I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of literacy.

PAGE 99

99 PK (Pedagogical Knowledge) 19. I know how to assess student performance in a classroom. 20. I can adapt my teaching based upon what students currently understand or do not understand. 21. I can adapt my teaching style to different learners. 22. I can assess student learning in multiple ways. 23. I can use a wide range of teaching approaches in a classroom setting. 24. I am familiar with common student understandings and misconceptions. 25. I know how to organize and maintain classroom management. PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge) 26. I can select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in mathematics. 27. I can select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in literacy. 28. I can select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in science. 29. I can select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in social studies. TCK (Technological Content Knowledge) 30. I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing mathematics. 31. I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing literacy. 32. I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing science. 33. I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing social studies.

PAGE 100

100 TPK (Technological Pedagogical Knowledge) 34. I can choose technologies that enhance the teaching approaches for a lesson. 35. I can choose technologies that enhance students' learning for a lesson. 36. My teacher education program has caused me to think more deeply about how technology could influence the teaching approaches I use in my classroom. 37. I am thinking critically about how to use technology in my classroom. 38. I can adapt the use of the technologies that I am learning about to different teaching activities. 39. I can select technologies to use in my classroom that enhance what I teach, how I teach and what students learn. 40. I can use strategies that combine content, technologies and teaching approaches that I learned about in my coursework in my classroom. 41. I can provide leadership in helping others to coordinate the use of content, technologies and teaching approaches at my school and/or district. 42. I can choose technologies that enhance the content for a lesson. TPACK (Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge) 43. I can teach lessons that appropriately combine mathematics, technologies and teaching approaches. 44. I can teach lessons that appropriately combine literacy, technologies and teaching approaches. 45. I can teach lessons that appropriately combine science, technologies and teaching approaches. 46. I can teach lessons that appropriately combine social studies, technologies and teaching approaches.

PAGE 101

101 25% or less 26% 50% 51% 75% 76% 100% MODELS of TPCK 55. In general, approximately what percentage of your teacher education professors have provided an effective model of combining content, technologies and teaching approaches in their teaching? 56. In general, approximately what percentage of your professors outside of teacher education have provided an effective model of combining content, technologies and teaching approaches in their teaching? 57. In general, approximately what percentage of the PreK 6 cooperating teachers have provided an effective model of combining content, technologies and teaching approaches in their teaching? MODELS of TPACK (Faculty, PreK 6 Teachers) 47. My mathematics education professors appropriately model combining content, technologies and teaching approaches in their teaching. 48. My literacy education professors appropriately model combining content, technologies and teaching approaches in their teaching. 49. My science education professors appropriately model combining content, technologies and teaching approaches in their teaching. 50. My social studies education professors appropriately model combining content, technologies and teaching approaches in their teaching. 51. My instructional technology professors appropriately model combining content, technologies and teaching approaches in their teaching. 52. My educational foundation professors appropriately model combining content, technologies and teaching approaches in their teaching. 53. My professors outside of education appropriately model combining content, technologies and teaching approaches in their teaching. 54. My PreK 6 cooperating teachers appropriately model combining content, technologies and teaching approaches in their teaching.

PAGE 102

102 Please complete this section by writing your responses in the boxes. 73. Describe a specific episode where a Pfeiffer University professor or instructor effectively demonstrated or modeled combining content, technologies and teaching approaches in a classroom lesson. Please include in your description what content was being taught, what technology was used, and what teaching approach(es) was implemented. 74. Describe a specific episode where one of your cooperating teachers effectively demonstrated or modeled combining content, technologies and teaching approac hes in a classroom lesson. Please include in your description what content was being taught, what technology was used, and what teaching approach(es) was implemented. If you have not observed a teacher modeling this, please indicate that you have not. 75. Describe a specific episode where you effectively demonstrated or modeled combining content, technologies and teaching approaches in a classroom lesson. Please include in your description what content you taught, what technology you used, and w hat teaching approach(es) you implemented. If you have not had the opportunity to teach a lesson, please indicate that you have not.

PAGE 103

103 APPENDIX B CODING CRITERIA FOR LESSON PLANS AND TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION EVALUATION CHART Science Content (NC Essential Science Standards, 2012) Physical Science Forces and Motion Earth Science Earth Systems, Structures, and Processes Life Science Structures and Functions of Living Organisms Matter, Properties, and Change Earth In the Universe Ecosystems Energy: Conservation and Transfer Earth History Molecular Biology Evolution and Genetics National Education Technology Standards (ISTE, 2007) Creativity and Innovation Apply existing knowledge to generate new ideas, Products, or processes Collaboration Interact, collaborate, and publish with peers, experts, or others employing a variety of digital environments and media Research and Information Plan strategies to guide inquiry Critical Thinking Identify and define authentic problems and si gnificant questions for investigatio n Digital Citizenship Advocate and practice safe, legal, and responsible use of information and technology Technology Operations Understand and use technology systems Create original works as a means of personal or group expression Communicate information and ideas effectively to multiple audiences using a variety of media and formats Locate, organize, analyze, evaluate, synthesize, and ethically use information from a variety of sources and media Plan and manage activities to develop a solution or complete a project Exhibit a positive attitude toward using technology that supports collaboration learning, and productivity Select and use applications effectively and productively

PAGE 104

104 Use models and simulation s to explore complex systems and issues Develop cultural understandin g and global awareness by engaging with learners of other cultures Evaluate and select information sources and digital tools based on the appropriatenes s to specific tasks Collect and analy ze data to identify solutions and/or make informed decisions Demonstrate personal responsibilit y for lifelong learning Troubleshoo t systems and applications Identify trends and forecast possibilitie s Contribute to project teams to produce original works or solve problems Process data and report results Use multiple processes and diverse perspective s to explore alternative solutions Exhibit leadership for digital citizenship Transfer current knowledge to learning of new technologies Learning activity types ( Blanchard, et al., 2011) Conceptual Knowledge Read Text Procedural Knowledge Participate in a Simulation Knowledge Expression Learn and Practice Safety Procedures Attend to Presentation/Demonstratio n Explore a Topic/Conduct Background Research Measure Take Notes Study Practice View Images/Objects Observe Phenomena Prepare/Clean Up Discuss Distinguish Observations from Inferences Carry Out Procedures Develop Predictions, Hypotheses, Questions, Variables Observe Select Procedures Record Data Organize/Classify Data Generate Data Analyze Data Collect Data Compare Findings with Predictions/Hypotheses Collect Samples Make Connections Between Findings and Science Concepts/Knowledge Compute Technology Tools (Blanchard et al., 2011) Conceptual Knowledge Websites Procedural Knowledge Web based Simulations Knowledge Expression Content Specific Interactive Tools

PAGE 105

105 Video Web Search Engines Web based Software Presentation Software Wikis Simulation Wiki Websites Web Cams Concept Mapping Software Presentation Software Digital Video Cameras Digital Camera Video Clips Web based Data Sets Blog Simulation Glogster Interactive Whiteboard Database Video Creation Software Other Spreadsheet Other Word Processing Concept Mapping Other Assessment (Morrison et al., 2008) Rubrics Teacher Observation Group Assessment Peer Assessment Student Self Assessment Performance Based Assessment Short Response Test Extended Response Test No Assessment Specified Levels of Demand (Silver et al., 2009) Low demand High demand Recall Justify Define Compare Remember Assess Implement Analyze Apply Facts Evaluate Facts Levels of Integration (Sandholtz et al., 1997) Entry Adoption Adaptation Infusion Transformatio n Teacher uses technology to present to students Students use single technology tool Students choose technology tool to create a digital product Technology is an integral in supporting learning and student engagement Technology is an esse ntial tool in carrying out the lesson lesson would not be possible without the technology tool being used

PAGE 106

106 APPENDIX C LEARNING ACTIVITY TYPES Learning activity types Conceptual Knowledge Read Text Procedural Knowledge Participate in a Simulation Knowledge Expression Learn and Practice Safety Procedures Attend to Presentation/Demonstration Explore a Topic/Conduct Background Research Measure Take Notes Study Practice View Images/Objects Observe Phenomena Prepare/Clean Up Discuss Distinguish Observations from Inferences Carry Out Procedures Develop Predictions, Hypotheses, Questions, Variables Observe Select Procedures Record Data Organize/Classify Data Generate Data Analyze Data Collect Data Compare Findings with Predictions/Hypotheses Collect Samples Make Connections Between Findings and Science Concepts/Knowledge Compute (Blanchard, et al., 2011)

PAGE 107

107 APPENDIX D GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER JOURNAL What activities/strategies worked and why? What activities/strategies did not work and why? How did the students respond? What (if any) misconceptions emerged through this activity/strategy? What evidence of growth (if any) emerged through this activity/strategy? How could I improve this activity/strategy for later on during this course? How could I improve this activity/strategy for next semester? Other Thoughts of Reflection

PAGE 108

108 APPENDIX E GUIDING QUESTIONS TO ANALYZE COMPLETE DATA SET ( DERIVED FROM DANA and YENDOL HOPPEY, 2009). Describe What did I see during the inquiry process? What happened? What are my initial insights? Organize What am I noticing in the data? What is happening? How might the different pieces of data fit together? Which data pieces stand out from the rest? Interpret the Meaning What did I initially wonder? How do these themes inform my wonderings? What is happening within and across each theme? How is what is happening connecting to: my students? my teaching? TPACK? my classroom? my school? Develop Implications What have I learned about my students? What have I learned about the larger context of teacher education at my university? of what I have learned on (Dana and Yendol Hoppey, p. 122, 2009). What questions do I now have?

PAGE 109

109 APPENDIX F TPACK LESSON PLAN TEMPLATE Name and Grade Level: Type your name and grade level for the lesson. Title: Give a title to your lesson. Your title can be an essential question. Summary: Write one or two sentences to tell the main idea of your lesson. NC Essential Standard for Science: State which standard and objective(s) from NC Essential Standards your lesson will address. You should copy and paste this word for word and include the standard and objective letters/numbers. Materials: List all of the materials that the teacher and/or students will need to successfully complete the lesson. Teacher Technology Tools: List the technology that the teacher will use to present and guide the lesson. Learner Technology Tools: List the technology that the students will be actively using. Remember to keep them actively engaged with the learning at all times. Giving them direct access to technology tools encourages this active engagement. Resources: List all resources used here. Formative Assessme nt: How will you evaluate student progress DURING the lesson? How will you record this formative assessment data? Learning Outcomes: What do you want students to know as a result of this lesson? What will students be able to do as a result of this lesson ? Teacher Activities: Describe in great detail what the teacher will be doing throughout the lesson. Introduction: Guided Activity: Group/Independent Activity: Closure: Student Activities: (correlate to learning activity types ) Describe in great detail what the students will be doing throughout the lesson. Introduction: Guided Activity: Group/Independent Activity: Closure: Students need to actively summarize their learning. This summary can be verbal, written, with a peer, etc.

PAGE 110

110 Summative Assessment: How will you evaluate student achievement of the learning outcomes? What evidence will you collect to show this? TPACK Components: instructional design components in your lesson plan. Content Pedagogy Technology TPACK Lesson Plan Self Evaluation evaluate your lesson plan for integration of technological, pedagogical, content knowledge. Attach your completed rubric to this lesson plan. Write a paragraph about how you could improve this lesson plan based upon the results of your self evaluation.

PAGE 111

111 APPENDIX G EXIT INTERVIEW OF PRE SERVICE TEACHERS Overall, describe what you learn from the TPACK activities? What TPACK activity (or activities) helped you the most to strengthen your technology integration skills? Were there any TPACK activities that you do not think were important to help you strengthen your technology integration skills? How do you feel about the TPACK lesson plan format? Give details. Do you feel like including the TPACK activities in future science methods courses is a good idea? Explain your reasoning. Is there another course that you think should teach the TPACK framework? Why or why not? Describe wh at you have gotten out of the course so far in terms of technology integration. How could this course be made better to provide further support for technology integration?

PAGE 112

112 APPENDIX H TRAINING DOCUMENT FOR INTERVIEWER Post TPACK Interview Guide Sheet Dear xxxxxxxxxx Thank you so very much for supporting my doctoral dissertation work by administering this interview! I appreciate your help greatly! Please use the instructions below to administer the interview questions to each group of students. Instr uctions for Interviewer: 1. Please call in a group of not more than 4 students to participate in the group interview. 2. Please SAY the following to students: appreciates your participation in this interview. The questions that you an swer will help to strengthen future courses in our program. Although the information that you share will be given to Professor Lowder, she will not be given any identifying information. Also, nothing shared in the interview will affect your grade in the co 3. Please begin recording the interview using the camera on the iPad. No students should be viewed on the recording so, please just leave the iPad flat on the table during the interview. 4. Ask each interview question, asking follow up questions as needed to obtain additional information and/or details for each question (Why? Can you explain that answer a little bit more? Can you give me a specific example ? etc.) 5. Students may respond as a group, chiming in as they wish. It is not a big deal if 6. At the conclusion of the interview SAY questions. Thank you again for your participation. Professor XXXXXX and I wish you a wonder 7. Turn off the camera. Thank you!!!! XXXXX

PAGE 113

113 APPENDIX I SAMPLE OF THE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION Post TPACK Interview Transcription Question # 1: Question # 2: PACK lesson plan and revising our previous lesson plan into that lesson Interviewer: Why do you think that helped you strengthen it? integrate technolog 5 ) Question # 3: help you strengthen your technology integ Anything else? Question # 4: a time instead of feeling overwhelmed, you could work piece by piece to plan your lesson and How does anyone else feel about the lesson plan format? ent 6 ) Question # 5: science methods courses are

PAGE 114

114 to perfect Why needed for it and if you start out with it at the beginning you can work on making it ( Student 3 ) t you should start out with it at the beginning because it lays the foundation (Student 7, Student 1) Question # 6: h the TPACK Yea, you need to integrate technology into every subject so, it should be taught in all of them so that we (Student 5) They could introduce it in ed. Tech. since you take that before your methods classes, so that (Student 3) Question # 7: ls and you need to use the tool that best fits the plan Student 4) Question # 8: I think they should explain what TPACK is to start with because when we first started it (Student 5)

PAGE 115

115 ) If the instructor modeled how to build a TPACK lesson that would be really good, l ike in (Student 7) for science, that way you have that one activity and then you see it done with technology in tegrated into it and see how different it is, how much you think it s better or (Student 1)

PAGE 116

116 APPENDIX J SCR EENSHOTS FROM BLACKBOARD COURSE

PAGE 117

117

PAGE 118

118

PAGE 119

119

PAGE 120

120 APPENDIX K SAMPLE PRE AND POST STUDENT LESSON PLANS Student Sample Pre Lesson Plan Artifact # 1 *Use of technology to present a video to students (entry)

PAGE 121

121

PAGE 122

122 Student Sample Post Lesson Plan Artifact # 2 *Technology is used to present a video to students (entry), students use Glogster to record their observations, graph their o bservations on the Smart Board or Mimeo (infusion) and choose their own technology tool to use in co mpleting their final reflectio n (adaptation and transformation). Name and Grade Level: Student # 7 ~ First Grade Title: Healthy Teeth Summary: Through this lesson students will explore ways to keep our teeth healthy through good choices in our daily habits. NC Essential Standard for Science: 1. L.2.2 Summarize the basic needs of a variety of different animals (including air, water, and food) for energy and growth.

PAGE 123

123 Healthful Living 1 1.PCH.2 Understand wellness, disease prevention, and recognition of symptoms. Materials: 4 eggs Small, plastic cups Water, milk, grape juice and cola Toothbrushes and toothpaste Science journals (or blank paper), pencils and crayons http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeA3IAVULZc Video on what happens if you drink cola. Resources: http://www.snack girl.com/snack/dental health experiment egg soda/ Learning Outcomes: Learner will be able to discuss and sha re why making good choices is important to the longevity of our teeth. They will also recognize the effects that various types of drink and food can have on our teeth. Teacher Technology Tools: The teacher will use the smart board or mimeo to allow student s to view the video on teeth and the effects of soda. Learner Technology Tools: The student will use glogster to record their observations. Students will view the video and respond to it. Students can write their responses on the mimeo or smart board or graph their observations on the chart. Teacher Activities: Describe in great detail what the teacher will be doing throughout the lesson. Introduction: Teacher will hold up an egg that is unstained and have the students look at it for one to two minutes, and then ask students to share some of the characteristics of the Let them answer and then tell t them move to their assigned stations and get ready to observe. Guided Activity: Next have the students draw the experiment in their journals under their pred ictions. They can draw the eggs in the cups and label each cup with the liquid it holds. The students will be observing the eggs that we had previously placed in liquids and left overnight. After the students have recorded their observations and written d own their predictions they will then observe the egg as it is taken out of the liquid and will write down their new observations. Talk about what happened and which eggs were stained. the egg. W hat do they think will happen if they brush the shared their thoughts and they will record their observations on their chart. Place a small amount of toothpaste on a toothbrush and let students take turns brushing the eggs. Discuss what Formative Assessment: Through observation during the activity and make sure that they are on task. Students will record this prediction in their science journal which I will take up after the experiment has been set up and then review them after class so that they will be available for student use the next day.

PAGE 124

124 happened, Group/Independent Activity: In their journals, have them write and draw what happened to the eggs after soaking in the liquids and after being brushed. Then have them write about what they learned from the experiment, record if this was similar or different from the prediction that you made. Closure: After this the students will go to their seats and the teacher will put the video on the smart board. After watching ask the students if they saw any connection between the video and what we experimented with. Then discuss as a whole group, ask them what would happen if the egg was in the liquid longer or shorter. Students will then take this knowledge and connect it with their own teeth and the ways t hat they can keep their teeth clean and healthy. They will record this information in their science journal with three sentences and an illustration. Student Activities: (correlate to learning activity types ) Describe in great detail what the students will be doing throughout the lesson. Introduction: During this activity the students will be in the meeting area observing and listening as the teacher introduc es the lesson. students will be reflecting and connecting to their prior knowledge. Guided Activity: During this activity the students will be making predictions and assisting with the experiment by placing th e hardboiled egg into the cup on their table and then recording what they have observed and their predictions in their science journal. Group/Independent Activity: The student will go back to the egg the next day and write again what they observe and also their prediction whether the same or new i n their science journal. Then they will take the egg out of the liquid and write down what it looks like and also what they think cau sed the egg to change or stay the same. Closure: After this the students will go to their seats and the teacher will p ut the video on the smart board. After watching ask the students if they saw any connection between the video and what we experimented with. Then discuss as a whole group, ask them what would happen if the egg was in the liquid longer or shorter. Students will then take this knowledge and connect it with their own teeth and the ways that they can keep their teeth clean and healthy. They will record this information in their science journal with three sentences and an illustration. Summative Assessment: Students will chose their tool to use in recording their data through a blog, reflection notebook, poster, or data sheet to r ecord their observations each day on what happened to the egg what will happen to the egg. Then they will turn this in at the end o f the experiment and the last reflection is to show what happened and draw an illustration or make a chart graphing the data. TPACK Components: your lesson plan. Content The topic of the lesson is incorporated through a hands on activity and also relates to the experiment and assessments, the observations, glogs and reflection tools. Pedagogy I am relating the new content to what the students already know about health, just presenting it in a new way for the learners. Technology Technology has been offered to students as a tool for reflection through glogging and also as a connective tool during the extension/conclusion, they will be relati ng what they have done in the experiment to a video on the effects of soda on teeth. TPACK Lesson Plan Self Evaluation evaluate your lesson plan for integration of technological, pedagogical, content knowle dge. Attach your completed rubric to this lesson plan. Write a paragraph about how you could improve this lesson plan based upon the results of your self evaluation. ~

PAGE 125

125 According to the evaluation I would integrate more technology into the lesson and us e a way to create an assessment using a glog that could span several days, the students could use the glog as a tool to carry out their predictions and observation through the whole unit. I think that the lesson is a hands on lesson but if I had more time I could create extensions to allow for more technology, videos, blogs, and video of the observations each day but extend for a couple of weeks. Student Sample Pre Lesson Plan Artifact #3 *Although the materials list includes a computer with Internet access, no suggestions for use of this technology are evident in the lesson plan.

PAGE 126

126

PAGE 127

127 Student Samp le Post Lesson Plan Artifact # 4 *Technology is used to present a video to students (entry) and for students to use when doing research (adoption and infusion). Name and Grade Level: Student # 6 2 nd grade Title: How Do Animals Survive off of each other and Plants? Summary: Students will learn about food webs for animals and plants. They will be able to distinguish between the predators a nd the prey. NC Essential Standard for Science: 2.L.1.2 Compare life cycles of different animals such as, but not limited to, mea lworms, ladybugs, crickets, guppies or frogs. Materials: Index cards Markers Yellow circles Green circles Orange circles Brown circles Teacher Technology Tools: PowerPoint Video on food webs Learner Technology Tools: Computer Resources: Computer YouTube (food web video) Formative Assessment: How will you evaluate student progress DURING the lesson? I will watch that they are doing what I asked them to do, and making sure they understand why they are matching the cards together How will you reco rd this formative assessment data? I will have a checklist with the options that following directions. Learning Outcomes: What do you want students to know as a result of this lesson? Students will know which animals are the prey and which are the predators and how the food web works. What will students be able to do as a result of this lesson? Students will be able to make their food web from the information they learned in the lesson Teacher Activities: Describe in great detail what the teacher will be doing throughout the lesson. Introduction: I will introduce the topic by showing the students a video about a food web/ food chain. I will show the students the PowerPoint with all of the vocabulary terms on it. Guided Activity: Group/Independent Activity: I will hand out the index cards with the different plants and animals on it. They will match the cards with either what it would eat or be eaten by. We will discuss why they matched each card to the one they did. I will correct any misconceptions they have made through matching. Closure: I will review what we learned about the food web

PAGE 128

128 Student Activities: (correlate to learning activity types ) Describe in great detail what the students will be doing throughout the lesson. Introduction: Students will watch the video about a food web and then they will be given different index card with different animals and plants on them. Guided Activity: The students will match their card to the card that it either eat or is eaten by. If they have a plane they find what would e at them, if they are an animal they find what they would eat. Group/Independent Activity: Students will research what a nimal or plant they have on their index card on the internet. They will have a short presentation on their animal to present to the class. Closure: Students need to actively summarize their learning. This summary can be verbal, written, with a peer, etc Students will answer questions on a worksheet that shows what they have learned throughout the lesson. Summative Assessment: How will you evaluate student achievement of the learning outcomes? I will look at their worksheet and how they matched their cards with each other. What evidence will you collect to show this? I will collect the worksheets and have a checklist to show they matched their cards. TPACK Components: uctional design components in your lesson plan. Content The content is covered through the introduction video and the PowerPoint with the vocabulary terms discussed on it. It comes from the 2 nd grade essential standards. Pedagogy I will teach this lesson through hands on experiences and group discussions about what we have learned. Technology Technology will be used through the video and PowerPoint as well as when the students research their animal or plant they receive d. TPACK Lesson Plan Self Evaluation evaluate your lesson plan for integration of technological, pedagogical, content knowledge. Attach your completed rubric to this lesson plan. Write a paragraph about ho w you could improve this lesson plan based upon the results of your self evaluation. I think that I could learn to integrate technology more into my lessons. I want to learn new ways to integrate technology besides just a PowerPoint or video off of the int ernet. Learning about TPACK helped me start to think about different ways to integrate technology with pedagogy and context but I feel like I still need more practice. I want to try to find a fun gam e to use with this lesson that could be used to reinforce what was being taught. I think students would enjoy this and it would help them learn more about the subject.

PAGE 129

129 Student Sam ple Pre Lesson Plan Artifact # 5 *No technology use is evident in this lesson plan.

PAGE 130

130

PAGE 131

131 Student Sample Post Lesson Plan Artifact # 6 *Technology is used to present a video to students (entry), to give students an opportunity to play learning games (adoption), and to give students a choice of tool(s) to use in creating a digital product (adaptation, infusion, and transformat ion). Name and Grade Level: Student # 5 Grade 5 Title: Understanding adaptations we need to survive in our environment Summary: In this lesson students will use manipulatives to alter their own adaptations to understand why we need them. They will do this to understand adaptive characteristics. NC Essential Standard for Science: 5.L.1 Understand how structures and systems of organisms (to include the human body) perform functions necessary for life. 5.L.2 Understand the interdependence of plants and animals with their ecosystems. 5.L.3 Understand why orgasms differ from or are similar to their parents based on the characteristic of the organism.

PAGE 132

132 Materials: bird pictures, toothpicks, craft sticks, tape, flexible straws, sunflower seeds ( and two others), gummy worms, and flat corn chips. Teacher Technology Tools: A video will be shown at the beginning to show the different types of bird beaks and why they have those kinds of characteristics, and one will be shown at the end if there is time to show one specific kind of bird just for fun. they can also play the inte ractive game online about animal adaptations they will choose at the end what they want to use to make a short project on animal adaptations Learner Technology Tools: http://www.ecokids.ca/pub/eco_info/topi cs/climate/adaptations/index.cfm Resources: Rice University site http://blackboard.pfeiffer.edu/webapps/portal/framese t.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1 and url=%2Fwebapps%2 Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DC ourse%26id%3D_144_1%26url%3D http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/kids/anima ls pets kids/birds kids/stork shoebill kids/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzHQ5 lYvrk http://www.ecokids.ca/pub/eco_info/topics/climate/ad aptations/index.cfm Formative Assessment: The students will be assessed on how well they participate and engage themselv es in the lesson and their projects will be graded with a rubric. Learning Outcomes: Students will know that certain animals have specific characteristics or adaptations that they need to survive. The students will be able to identify certain characteristics animals have that help them survive in their particular environment. Teacher Activities: Describe in great detail what the teacher will be doing throughout the lesson. Introduction: The teacher w ill show the video of the rid with the different beaks and have questions up during the video to help them think about why they have these adaptations and characteristics. Guided Activity:The teacher will be demonstrating and explaining what the students will be doing. When they are sorting the seeds they will show the students how they are to tape their thumbs and walk around if any students are struggling. they will also be walking around asking the class questions to get them to think about what they ar e doing and why. Group/Independent Activity: while the students are playing games the teacher will be walking around making sure they are on task. when they are creating their short project thy will be doing the same (since it is online) Closure: The teach er will ask questions as a review. Student Activities: (correlate to learning activity types ) Describe in great detail what the students will be doing throughout the lesson. Introduction: the students will watch a video on birds that explains the different kinds of beaks they have for which foods they eat Guided Activity: They will have a pile of three different types of seeds. they will have to sort them into the three types however they want. They will then have to tape their thumb down to their palms and do it again, which will get them to realize that their thumbs are an adaptive trait they need in order to survive in their environment. Then they will do a similar activity taping toothpicks and craft sticks to their thumb and index finger to rep resent a birds beak. this will help them understand why different birds eat different things. Group/Independent Activity: the students will play an online game and then do a short project choosing a form of technology

PAGE 133

133 to use (glogster, powerpoint, etc) Cl osure: Students will use their projects or write down what they learned, then they will discuss it with a partner and then have a class discussion on it. Summative Assessment: during the lesson the teacher will be walking around to make sure they are st aying on task, but the projects will be graded with a rubric. TPACK Components: the following instructional design components in your lesson plan. Content they are learning about animals and their adaptive characteristics Pedagogy they are organized so they are working in partners or individually Technology they are watching online videos, playing online games, and using a form of technology resource to create a short project TPACK Lesson Plan Self Evaluation evaluate your lesson plan for integration of technological, pedagogical, content knowledge. Attach your completed rubric to this lesson plan. Write a paragraph about how you could improv e this lesson plan based upon the results of your self evaluation. I could improve this lesson by making it safer for them to be in the comput ers. Under Digital Citizenship I only covered one of the boxes so i could try to include more of that. Also I did n't really include the scientific method and have them create a hypotheses to test or a conclusion, i just had them watch the video and share what they learned so I could have them write down what they think they will find during the little experiments.

PAGE 134

134 APPENDIX L COURSE SYLLABUS SCIENCE METHODS IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATION 441 Section 100 Spring 2013 xxxxxxxxxxx Office: 307C Library Phone: 463 3155 (Voice Mail) xxxxxxx @fsmail .xxxxx .edu Office Hours: M 11:00 A.M. 1:00 P.M. T 10:30 A.M. 12:30 P.M. W 6:30 7:30 P.M. Th 9:15 9:45 P.M. Or by appointment. SCHEDULE: Th 9:30 12:15 TEXTS: What's Your Evidence: Engaging K 5 students in constructing explanations in science ISBN: 978 0 13 211726 5 and Launching Learners In Science, Pre K 5 ISBN: 9781412937030 North Carolina Essential Standards Goals: xxxxx Mission Statement The xxxxx student will develop skills in translating learning and teaching theories into pedagogically sound and effective science instruction. The student will develop skills in oral communication, learning to learn, reasoning, decision making, and problem solvin g. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE XXXXX TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM D EVELOPING S ERVANT L EADERS FOR P ROFESSIONAL P RACTICE Since 1999, the primary focus of the xxxxx Teacher Education Program has been articulated as Consistent with the vision and mission of Pfeiffer University, this concept remains in place as the goal toward which our program strives. Teachers as servant leaders help to set high standards for the learning

PAGE 135

135 communities in which they serve. Through daily interaction, teachers encourage academic and civic excellence among their students. Moreover, because of their unique position in the community and society, teachers who are both servants and leaders have the ongoing opportunity through their collaborative relationships with school colleagues, parents, and community agency personnel to model advocacy and high standards of ethics on behalf of the students they serve. The leading phrase of the conceptual framework also recognizes the work of t he teacher as professional The teacher is not a technician, but rather has extensive preparation that equips the teacher to be informed about the discipline, the nature of the learner, and learning. The teacher must make innumerable independent decisions daily The conceptual framework of the xxxxx Teacher Education Program embodies four domains based on the work of Charlotte Danielson (Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching (2nd Edition), 2007) and are consistent with the North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards. Under each domain are curriculum standards and professional dis positions, which candidates for teacher licensure are expected to demonstrate.

PAGE 136

136 Domain 1. Planning and Preparation The teacher as servant leader approaches the teaching function with a fund of knowledge about the discipline, the learner, and learning th at must be continually renewed and elaborated. This fund of knowledge is buttressed by continued knowledge provides the bases for informed planning. Dispositions 1. The can didate is intellectually curious about the discipline(s) that s/he teaches. 2. The candidate values balanced treatment of controversial issues and problems. 3. The candidate regards the scientific method as valid for investigating phenomena acquiring new knowledge or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. Curriculum Standards 1. The candidate uses accurate and exte nsive content knowledge to plan for instruction. 2. The candidate uses knowledge of content pedagogy to plan for instruction. 3. The candidate plans for and makes cross curricular connections. 4. The candidate integrates 21st Century content and skills in instructional plans. 5. The candidate uses knowledge of how children learn and develop to plan effective lessons. 6. interests and needs, and on State and local curricular goals. 7. The can didate uses knowledge of instructional resources to enhance lesson design. 8. The candidate develops a coherent plan for instruction utilizing units, lessons, and activities that are aligned with instructional goals and objectives. 9. The candidate uses diagnost ic, formative, and summative assessment that informs instruction. Domain 2. Establishing a Respectful Environment The teacher provides leadership for establishing and maintaining respectful learning environments in which each child has a positive, nurtur ing relationship with caring adults. In the classroom the teacher is that adult along with teacher assistant and volunteers. Dispositions 1. The candidate embraces diversity in the school community. 2. 3. The can didate is committed to the development of others. 4. The candidate demonstrates caring for the well being of others. Curriculum Standards 1. The candidate creates and maintains a positive and nurturing learning environment.

PAGE 137

137 2. The candidate identifies difference s in approaches to learning and performance, including different learning styles, learning challenges, and multiple intelligences, 3. The candidate uses knowledge about the process of second language acquisi tion and strategies to support the learning of students whose first language is not English to provide nurturing environment. 4. The candidate works collaboratively with families and other adults in the school community for engagement in the instructional pr ogram. 5. The candidate uses a variety of classroom strategies for instructional grouping, transitions, and use of volunteers and paraprofessionals. 6. The candidate creates high expectations for student behavior, and monitors and responds appropriately to stud ent behavior. 7. The candidate makes effective use of classroom space for safety and instruction.

PAGE 138

138 Domain 3. Instructing Effectively Instructional effectiveness lies at the heart of the role of the professional teachers. The teacher as servant leader facilitates student development based upon knowledge of content, the structure of the discipline, students, teaching methods, the community, and curriculum goals. Dispositions 1. The candidate is enthusiastic about the teaching function. 2. The candidate values the role of research verified evidence in informing teaching practice. Curriculum Standards 1. The candidate communicates clearly and accurately. 2. The candidate uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage high achievement of all students. 3. The can didate uses questions and assignments that encourage critical and creative thinking. 4. The candidate provides for a high level of student engagement. 5. The candidate integrates literacy instruction across all subjects. 6. The candidate monitors student performan ce. 7. The candidate provides feedback to students that is accurate, substantive, constructive, timely, and specific. 8. The candidate uses and integrates technology in instruction. Domain 4. Professional Responsibilities The teacher is responsible, not only t o the students, but also to the entire learning community and to the teaching profession. Therefore, the teacher as servant leader models excellence in support of the school and the profession. Moreover, the teacher has an advocacy role to help assure that settings outside the classroom in which the student participates also promote healthy development. Dispositions 1. The candidate values the dispositions and behaviors of the servant leader including: listening, empathy, conceptualizing, heightened awareness, persuasiveness through action, using foresight, exercising stewardship, healing, commitment to the group, and building community. 2. The candidate models behavior appropriate to a professional settin g including: consistent attendance, a strong work ethic, consistent preparation, punctuality, respect for colleagues, and appropriate dress. Curriculum Standards 1. The candidate reflects on teaching for instructional improvement. 2. The candidate maintains a ccurate records. 3. The candidate assists in identifying needs and implementing plans for school improvement. 4. The candidate communicates with families and professional colleagues to provide services to students. 5. The candidate engages in professional develop ment for personal and professional improvement.

PAGE 139

139 6. The candidate uses personal professional ethics in decision making and interactions with students, peers, parents, and the community. 7. The candidate advocates for students and schools. 8. The candidate engages in service for benefiting students and improving schools. 9. The candidate perceives and evaluates self as a servant leader.

PAGE 140

140 Course Objectives: 1. Understand the constructivist philosophy of teaching/learning a nd its relationship to the teaching of elementary school science. 2. Understand the developmental process of the child in the learning of science concepts. 3. Examine and compare uses of published instructional materials. 4. Develop and implement lesson plans for appropriate grade levels in science using the Nort h Carolina Essential Standards and teacher handbooks as guides. 5. Examine the need for the integration of other skill areas into the K 6 science instruction. 6. List and discuss the goals of science education. 7. Describe and discuss the advantages and disadvantag es of lecture, discussion, free discovery, and guided discovery as instructional strategies. 8. Given a specific set of objectives, select one of the above strategies and give a rationale for that selection. 9. Identify characteristics of a classroom environment that focuses on activity based experiences. 10. Discuss motivational strategies in science instruction, with particular emphasis on females, minorities, and at risk students. 11. Describe appropriate uses of technology for teaching science. 1. 2. 3.

PAGE 141

141 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Evaluation Criteria: 10% Weekly Discussion Forums on Blackboard 10% Active and Thoughtful Discussions 10% Google Site (with technology project and weekly classroom reflections) 10% Group Presentations 10% Lesson Plans 10% Science Fair Project 10% Service Learning Project 10% Final Exam 20% Research Paper (including literature review)

PAGE 142

142 Grade Determination: A 93 100 A 90 92 B+ 87 89 B 83 86 B 80 82 C+ 77 79 C 73 76 C 70 72 D 60 69 F Below 60 Honor Code: Students will be asked to sign the xxxxx University Honor Code Statement accompanying tests and exams.

PAGE 143

143 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

PAGE 144

144 11. 12.

PAGE 145

145

PAGE 146

146

PAGE 147

147

PAGE 148

148 Teaching Methods Used in This Course: Lecture Clinical Experience Independent Research Discussion Cooperative Learning Micro Lessons Reports Accom modations for Disabilities : If modifications are to be made in instructional processes, students with documented disabilities must contact the Director of Academic Support Services. He will inform the instructor of approved accommodations. Students with a documented disability and approved instructional accommodations are asked to notify the instructor before the end of the last add day. Honor Code : All provisions of the xxxxx University Student Honor Code are applicable for all assignments. Cheating and plagiarism are prohibited under the Honor Code and carry consequences. The first offense of plagiarism during enrollment in the University carries a penalty of a grade of 0 on the assignment or F in the course. Subsequent offenses must be ad judicated by the Honor Board. Ideas for lesson plans and other resources from the Internet or elsewhere may be consulted for ideas. However, all work must be the original work of the teacher candidate. Safety: xxxxx University is committed to protecting all community members from any and all threats. You can help the university to protect all persons by reporting any threats that you receive (or hear about) to your professor, to police, or to any university official. The university is diligent in providing a proactive approach to protect anyone who has reason to believe that he/she is in danger. Do not hesitate to report any suspicious activities to university officials. Please visit the Police web site to learn more about campus s afety: Assistance : The instructor is available to assist students during office hours and at other times by appointment. Please see the instructor if you need additional explanations, further clarifications, or help with any other matter related to this course. Tutorial assistance is available in the Wick Sharpe Learning Center (located in the Library).

PAGE 149

149 Note accomplishing the course objectives.

PAGE 150

150 BIBLIOGRAPHY National Research Council. (1996). National Education Science St and ards Washington, DC: National Academy Press Brown, B. (1988). Science for You 112 Illustrated Experiments Blue Ridge Summitt, Pa.: Tab Books. Brown, B. (1988). More Science for You 112 Illustrated Experiments. Blue Ridge Summitt, Pa.: Tab Books. Brown, B. (1987). 200 Illustrated Experiments for Children. Blue Ridge Summitt, Pa.: Tab Books. Cain, S. & Evans, J. (1990). Sciencing an Involvement Approach to Elementary Science Methods. Columbus: Merrill. Carin, A. (1993). Teaching Scienc e Through Discovery. Columbus: Merrill. Committee on High School Biology Education, Board on Biology, (1990). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council. Cox Peterson A., Melber L. & Patchen T. (2012). Teaching Science to Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Elementary Students Pearson. (0n Reserve in Library) Fulwiler B. (2011). Writing in Science in Action. Port smouth, NH: Heinemann. (0n Reserve in Library) Funk H., Fiel, R.,Okey, J., Jaus, H., & Sprague, C. (1985). Learning Science Process Skills. Debuque: Kendall/Hunt. Jacobson, W., & Bergman, B. (1991). Science for Children: A Book for Teachers. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Rutherford, J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. Seefeldt C, Galper A. & Jones I. (2012). Active Experiences for Active Children Pearson, ( 0n Reserve in Library) Stein,, S. (1979). The Science Book. New York: Workman.

PAGE 151

151 Yager, R. & Penick, J.. (1990). Science Teacher Education. In W. Robert Houston (Ed.), H and book of Research on Teacher Education. (pp. 657 673) New York: Macmill an. Journal of Research in Science Teaching The Science Teacher Science and Children Ranger Rick

PAGE 152

152 APPENDIX M 8 STEPS TO INCREASING TPACK AMONG YOUR STUDENTS 1. Provide students with multiple opportunities to build content knowledge focusing on the teaching st and ards that they will be using in the classroom. Include collaboration between students and experts in the content field via a collaborative blog to strengthen this learning. (Content Knowledge) 2. Model constructivist teaching methods in class. Provide multiple opportunities for students to explore, describe, and de sign learning activities based on th ese pedagogical approaches. (Pedagogical Knowledge) 3. ach content knowledge. Provide multiple opportunities for students to explore, describe, and design learning activities and /or lesson plans to teach the content using activities from different levels of Scaffold these experiences ; moving from teacher led, to peer collaboration, and finally independent work. (Pedagogical Content Knowledge) 4. Model the use of technology tools to support content knowledge learning of students. Provide multiple opportunities for exploration of a variet y of technology tools in building content knowledge of your students (if teaching pre service teachers, these activities should be used to build their content knowledge, not the children who they will be teaching). (Technological Content Knowledge) 5. Provid e multiple opportunities for students to explore a variety of technology tools for teaching and learning. Direct students to at least eight ten specific technology tools used for the content area in focus. Using Figure 4 11, to Support Content and Model first, then use peer collaboration, and finally independent use of th e chart. Encourage students to troubleshoot any technology problems that come up collaborative ly with their peers. (TPACK) 6. Model the selection of appropriate technology tools to support the content that is being taught and the constructivist pedagogy that has After modeling and giving clear expectations to students, provide opportunities to select appropriate technology tools to support learning activities with peers and then independently to scaffold this process for students. 7. Introduce the TPACK Le sson Plan Format (APPENDIX F) Model the development of a lesson plan that integrates TPACK using this

PAGE 153

153 lesson plan format. Provide support as students develop their own lesson plan using these guidelines. 8. Using APPENDIX B (revised to include the teaching st and ards that your students evaluation of lesson plans. Assign students to complete evaluations of peer Also, assign students self evaluations of their own less on plans using this chart. Following th ese self and peer evaluations model the revision of a lesson plan and then provi de opportunities for student revision *Throughout this sequence of steps, provide students with opportunities to reflect both independently and collaboratively on their thinking about the integration of technology into teaching and learning. Focus on the big ideas that arise in their thoughts as well as any misconceptions that are noticed and /or clarified.

PAGE 154

1 54 REFERENCES And erson, S., (2012). Classroom 2.0. Live TPACK with Steven And erson. http://blip.tv/peggyg/classroom 2 0 live tpack with steven and erson 5951394 Baran, E., Chuang, H., Thompson, A. (2011). TPACK: An emerging research and development took for teacher educators. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10 (4), 370 377. Blanchard, M. R., Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2011, February). Science learning activity types Retrieved from College of William and Mary, School of Education, Learning Activity Types Wiki: http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/file/view/Sci enceLearningATs Feb2011.pdf Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York: David McKay Company, Inc. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review 31(1): 21 32. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating Pre service Teachers' Development of Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Educational Technology & Society, 13 (4), 63 73. Cochran Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. Dana, N. F., & Yendol Silva (200 9 research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Thous and Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Darling Hammond, L. L. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance assessments can measure and improve teaching. Washington, D.C.: Center for Ame rican Progress. Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C. & Ritzhaupt, A. (2009). The evolution of ARTI: An online tool to promote classroom based technology outcomes via teacher inquiry. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 36 41). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Dawson, K., Ritzhaupt, D. A., Liu, F., Rodriguez, M. P., Frey, A. C. (In Press). Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. Digital Learning Futures (2010). Accessed October 21 st 2012: http://www.learningfutures.com.au/edc4000 tutorial demonstrating ict pedagogy

PAGE 155

155 Figg, C. (2011). Underst and ing TPACK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded & v=qyDU_3 AH2k Fijor, M. ( 2011 ) TPACK and Systematic Technology Integration: Part II. New School Technology. July 22, 2011. http://www.newschooltechnology.org/2011/07/tpack and systemic technology integration part two/ Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for Science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 1 (1). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/science/article1.htm Glassman, M., & Karno, D. (2013). Science as a web of trails: Redesigning science education with the tools of the present to meet the needs of the future. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2013. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media. 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 in service science teachers TechTr ends, 53 (5), 70 79. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum based TPACK development. In C.D. Maddux, (Ed.). Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99 108). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE). Hofer, M. & Harris, J. (2010). Differentiating TPACK development: Using learning activity types with in service and pre service te achers. In C. D. Maddux, D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (Eds.). Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2010 (pp. 295 302). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE). Harris, J., Gr and genett, N., & H ofer, M. (2010, March). Testing a TPACK based technology integration assessment rubric. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2010, No. 1, pp. 3833 3840). International Society for Technology In Educati on (ISTE). (2012). National Education Technology St and ards (NETS). http://www.iste.org/st and ards/nets for students Jaipal, K. & Figg, C. (2010). Exp and ing the Practice Based Taxonomy of Characteristics of TPACK. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3868 3875). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

PAGE 156

156 Kimmons, R. (2011). TPACK In 3 Minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wGpSaTzW58 Krathwohl, D. (2004). Methods of Educational and Social Science Research: An integrated approach, 2 nd Ed. Wavel and Press. (2004). Larkin, Kev in and Jamieson Proctor, Romina and Finger, Glenn (2012). TPACK and pre service teacher mathematics education: defining a signature pedagogy for mathematics education using ICT and based on the metaphor 'mathematics is a language'. Computers i n the Schools, 29 (1 2). pp. 207 226. Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2012, December). Constructivism at Learning Theories.com. Retrieved December 18th, 2012 from http://www.learning theories.com/constructivism.html Marino, M. T., Sameshima, P., & Beecher, C. C. (2009). Enhancing TPACK with assistive technology: Promoting inclusive practices in pre service teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology an d Teacher Education, 9(2), 186 207. McNiff, (2002). Action research for professional development. Accessed online April 26 th 2010: http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108(6), 1017 1054. Mishra. P. & Koehler, M. J. (2009). TPACK Reference Library. Accessed October 21 st 2012: http://tpck.org/tpck/index.php?title=Reference_Library Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K (2009). The song remains the same: Looking back to the future of educational technology TechTrends, 53 (5), 48 53. Morrison, G.R.E.D., Kemp, J.E., & Ross, S.M. (2007). Designing effective instruction (5 th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2012). North Carolina Essential St and ards for Science. Accessed November 20 th 2012: http://www.ncpubl icschools.org/acre/st and ards/new st and ards/#science No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107 110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002), http://www.nationalserviceresources.org/filemanager/download/Evaluation /users_guide/dataanal pdf, accessed November 3 rd 2012.

PAGE 157

157 O'Brien, R. (2001). "An overview of the methodological approach of action research.". In Roberto Richardson (Ed.), Theory and Practice of Action Research. Joo Pessoa, Brazil: Universidade Federal da Paraba. (English version) Accessed online on April 26 th 2010: http://www. web.ca/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html Piaget, Jean. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. New York: Routledge. Polly, D., & Brantley Dias, L (2009). TPACK : Where do we go now? TechTrends, 53 (5), 46 47. Rowan st online on November 29 th 2012: http://www.rss.k12.nc.us/index.php/21century/21Century_2ndPage/category/21st _centur y _home Sancar, T., Yanpar, Y., & eptions on Development of Their IMD Competencies through TPACK based Activities. Educational Technology and Society 16(2), 243 256. S and holtz, J. H., Dwyer, D.C., & Ringstaff, C. (1996). Teaching with technology: Creating student centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The de velopment and validation of an assessment instrument for pre service teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 42(2), 123. Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Koehler, M., Punya, M. & Shin, T. (2009). Examining Pre service Teachers' D evelopment of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in an Introductory Instructional Technology Course. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 4145 4151). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Schulman, L.S. (1986). Those who underst and : Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher 15(2), 4 14. Silver, E.E.A., Mesa, V.M., Morris, K.A., Star, J.R., & Benken, B.M. (2009). Teaching mathematics for underst and ing: An analysis of lessons submitted by teachers seeking NBPTS certification. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 501 531. TPACK Image. Accessed October 21 st 2012: http://tpack.org/ Wentworth, N., Graham, C. R., & Monroe, E. E. (2009). TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program. In L. Tan Wee Hin, & R. Subramaniam

PAGE 158

158 (Eds.), H and book of Research on New Media Literacy at the K 12 Level: Issues and Challenges (pp. 823 838). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978 1 60566 120 9.ch051 Whitely E, & Ball J. (2002). Statistics Review 3: Hypothesis testing and P values. Crit Care. 6 :222 5.

PAGE 159

159 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH The c and idate, Laura Lowder, holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in elementary education from Pfeiffer University as well as a master of education degree in curriculum and instruction from Jones International University. This document represents the final step in earning an education doctorate in curriculum and instruction with a focus in educational technology from The University of Florida.