TPCK2

Computers & Education xxx (2010) 1–11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/compedu

Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical scienceknowledge framework for science teachers professional development

Athanassios Jimoyiannis*

University of Peloponnese, Department of Social and Education Policy, Damaskinou & Kolokotroni Street, Korinthos 20100, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 28 January 2010Received in revised form13 May 2010Accepted 23 May 2010

Keywords:Technological pedagogical scienceknowledgeICT in educationTeacher professional development

* Tel.: þ30 2741074350; fax: þ30 2741074990.E-mail address: [email protected]

0360-1315/$ – see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.022

Please cite this article in press as: JimoyiannComputers & Education (2010), doi:10.1016/

a b s t r a c t

This paper reports on the design and the implementation of the Technological Pedagogical ScienceKnowledge (TPASK), a new model for science teachers professional development built on an integratedframework determined by the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model and theauthentic learning approach. The TPASK curriculum dimensions and the related course sessions are alsoelaborated and applied in the context of a teacher trainers’ preparation program aiming at ICT integrationin science classroom practice. A brief description of the project, its accomplishments, and perceptions ofthe participants, through the lens of TPASK professional development model, are presented. This isfollowed by the presentation of the evaluation results on the impact of the program which demonstratesthat science teachers reported meaningful TPASK knowledge and increased willingness to adopt andapply this framework in their instruction. Finally, we draw on the need to expand TPACK by incorpo-rating a fourth dimension, the Educational Context within Pedagogy, Content and Technology mutuallyinteract, in order to address future policy models concerning teacher preparation to integrate ICT ineducation.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the 21st century society, true learning requires being able to use new technologies, not simply to enhance the ability to memorize andrepeat facts, but to gather, organize and evaluate information to solve problems and innovate practical ideas in real-world settings. The useof Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) as a learning tool within meaningful contexts of learning has been identified andemphasized as a significant priority across the EU countries (European Commission, 2003). In this framework, ICT is perceived to be inherentto the educational reform efforts necessary for the 21st century society while it produces fundamental changes in key aspects of the natureof knowledge and the way students access it. A great amount of research has shown that ICT can lead to significant educational andpedagogical outcomes in the schools, and bring major benefits to both learners and teachers (for example, see Jonassen (2006) and Webb(2005), and references therein).

Despite educational policy huge efforts and directives to position ICT as a central tenet of contemporary education, the application of ICTin educational settings is rather peripheral acting, in most cases, as an ‘add on’ effect to regular classroom work (Jimoyiannis, 2008).Teachers, in general, are positive about students’ development in ICT knowledge and skills and show great interest and motivation to learnabout ICT. Even though they recognize the importance of introducing ICT in education, teachers tend to be less positive about their extensiveuse in the classroom and far less convinced about their potential to improve instruction (Jimoyiannis & Komis, 2006; Russel, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’ Connor, 2003). Although there has been an increase in computer access in the schools, in most cases, teachers continue touse ICT primarily for low-level formal academic tasks (getting information from the Internet) or for administrative purposes (developinglesson plans, worksheets, assessment tests, etc.) rather than as a learning tool to support students active learning (OFSTED, 2004; Russelet al., 2003; Waite, 2004).

Existing research shows that effective teacher preparation is an important factor for successful integration and sustainability of ICT ineducation (Becta, 2004; Davis, Preston, & Sahin, 2009; Hennessy et al., 2007; Jimoyiannis & Komis, 2007; Zhao & Bryant, 2006). In addition,

ll rights reserved.

is, A., Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge...,j.compedu.2010.05.022

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03601315

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.022

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.022

A. Jimoyiannis / Computers & Education xxx (2010) 1–112

technology seminars or workshops that focus on developing operational skills about specific educational software do not help teachersunderstand how ICT could interact with particular pedagogies and enhance learning in specific subject matters (Jimoyiannis, 2008). It seemsthat top-down imposed policy decisions and technocentric models for ICT adoption appear to be unresponsive to the teachers’ perspectives,priorities, and classroom or general professional needs. Lim (2007) suggested an activity theoretical framework for policymakers, schooladministrators, and teachers to describe how to take up the opportunities, and to address the limitations of ICT, and also how to effectivelyintegrate ICT into the schools and their broader sociocultural contexts. A recent study exploring ICT integration from a school improvementapproach (Tondeur, van Keer, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008), suggested that successful ICT integration is clearly connected to school-relatedpolicies, such as ICT plan, ICT support and ICT training.

Since the 90s, a great debate about the integration of ICT in education has been evolving between researchers, policymakers andeducators. Various models to explore and promote the process of integrating ICT into the curriculum have been proposed and established.Prominent among them were the stage-based models for ICT adoption or integration in the schools (Rogers, 1995; Russel, 1995; Toledo,2005). The key idea in those models was teachers’ and students’ development and movement from lower to higher levels of technologyuse and integration in educational settings. In this framework, most ICT teacher professional development initiatives tend to focus ontechnological aspects (i.e. how to use various tools) while pedagogical and instructional issues (i.e. why and how to use those tools toenhance learning) are often taken for granted (Jimoyiannis, 2008). As a result the application of ICT in school settings has been driven moreby the accordance of technology rather than the demands of pedagogy and didactics of subject matter. The need to conceive ICT use ineducation, not in terms of a ’’special event’’ or an ’’extra tool’’ supplemental to the traditional instruction but in terms of specific pedagogicaldimensions, is imperative.

The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (originally TPCK, now known as TPACK) was firstly proposed by Mishra and Koehler(2006) to describe an integrated framework to clarify the critical parameters relating to technology integration in classroom settings,namely Content, Pedagogy and Technology. This framework, built upon Shulman’s (1986) work describing Pedagogical Content Knowledge(PCK), does not consider the three key elements above in isolation, but rather in the complex relationships system they define. TPACK allowsteachers, researchers, and teacher educators to move beyond oversimplified approaches that treat technology as an “add-on” instead tofocus upon the connections among technology, content, and pedagogy as they play out in classroom contexts (Koehler & Mishra, 2009;Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007).

The present paper reports on the Technological Pedagogical Science Knowledge (TPASK), a notion built on an integrated frameworkdetermined by the theoretical principles of the TPACK model and the use of authentic learning. This enhanced framework was developedand implemented in the context of a teacher preparation program, in Greece, attempting to meet the professional development needs ofscience teachers to integrate ICT in their classroom practice. An overview of the nature of TPASK, along with TPASK curriculum dimensionsand the development of the related course sessions are also elaborated. This is followed by a report on the impact of the program onparticipants’ representations of TPASK components and their views, perceptions and abilities to integrate ICT in science classroom. Finally,we draw on the apparent challenges of this framework to make suggestions regarding future research and applications of TPASK in scienceteacher preparation.

2. Literature review

Since its formal introduction as a theoretical concept, TPACK has been transformed into a promising framework to aid ICT integration inschool practice. Undoubtedly, this framework offers new options for looking at a complex phenomenon like technology integration in waysthat are now amenable to analysis and development. In addition, it offers several possibilities for promoting research in teacher education(Lee & Tsai, 2009), guiding pre-service teachers’ education (So & Kim, 2009) and in-service teacher professional development (Doering,Scharber, Miller, & Veletsianos, 2009; Doering, Veletsianos, Scharber, & Miller, 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Niess, 2005) and support-ing teachers to integrate ICT in their classrooms (So & Kim, 2009; Voogt, Tilya, & van den Akker, 2009).

For example, Niess (2005) discussed how a particular science and mathematics teachers’ training program was designed to foster thedevelopment of TPACK in an integratedmanner, encompassing pedagogy courses, subject specific technology courses, and student teaching.Lee and Tsai (2009) provided a framework for understanding teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge while integratingWeb technology into their pedagogical practice. Their study investigated teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in terms of their TPACK andassessed their attitudes toward Web-based instruction.

In their survey, concerning social studies teachers after their participation in a TPACK-based on-line professional developmentprogram, Doering, Veletsianos, et al. (2009), reported changes in teachers’ metacognitive awareness of technological, pedagogical, andcontent knowledge (TPACK). In addition, Voogt et al. (2009) established a series of TPACK-based workshop activities aimed at preparingupper-secondary physics teachers for the integration of Microcomputer Based Laboratories (MBL) in a student-centered teachingapproach.

So and Kim (2009) used TPACK to engage pre-service teachers in a lesson design project in which they applied pedagogical contentknowledge to problem based learning and technological knowledge of various ICT tools to create a subject specific lesson package (content).They reported on pre-service teachers’ perceptions of TPCK and cognitive difficulties as revealed in lesson design artefacts, design, andpersonal reflections. Another interesting paper describes a three-part pedagogical model (giving-prompting-making) to explicate therelationship between pedagogy and technology within the social studies classroom (Hammond & Manfra, 2009). Marino, Sameshima, andBeecher (2009) proposed an enhanced TPACK model to promote inclusive educational practice for pre-service teachers. They conclude thatthis model offers substantive promise for improving learning outcomes for students with disabilities and other traditionally marginalizedpopulations who receive the majority of their classroom instruction in general education settings.

In conclusion, existing research data offer substantive promise that the TPACKmodel improves teachers’ knowledge and skills to supportproductive technology integration in their classroom. Although this framework appears as a simple but elegant construct, in both textualand graphical forms, it is complex to comprehend and apply it in educational settings (Cox, 2008; Lee & Tsai, 2009). The implementation ofthis framework in teacher education has been limited, in large part, to the original TPACK theorists’ own experiments with graduate studentseminars. This may be due to the fact that the framework has largely remained in the theoretical realm with no clear method for

Please cite this article in press as: Jimoyiannis, A., Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge...,Computers & Education (2010), doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.022

A. Jimoyiannis / Computers & Education xxx (2010) 1–11 3

implementation or evaluation Cox (2008, p. 19). While Mishra and Koehler (2006) and Koehler andMishra (2009) have provided definitionsof each construct that articulate to some degree the centers of these constructs, the boundaries between them are still quite fuzzy, thusmaking it difficult to categorize borderline cases (Cox 2008, p. 22).

In addition, Angeli and Valanides (2009) argue that the conceptualization of TPACK needs further theoretical clarity. Their criticism ismainly focused on the current form of TPACK, which

� does not make explicit the connections among content, pedagogy, and technology.� lacks precision, since the boundaries between some components of TPACK are fuzzy, indicating a weakness in accurate knowledgecategorization or discrimination

� appears to be too general, primarily because it does not deal explicitly with the role of tool affordances in learning.

Previous research data and criticism creates a need to enhance the theoretically sound TPACKmodel. In the literature review carried out,no evidence was found that points to the correlation between the building components of TPACK with regard to science education. Thispaper attempts to

a) Clarify TPACK and specify its components in a meaningful framework for the science teachers professional developmentb) Extend the knowledge of science teachers’ perceptions and TPACKc) Extend the knowledge of science teachers’ willingness to adopt TPACK and their abilities to embody TPACK framework in authentic

learning activities during their instruction.

3. Defining technological pedagogical content knowledge for science

Previous research indicates that, to reveal the complex mesh of the interrelations between content, technology, and pedagogy inteaching practice is not an easy task (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Cox, 2008; Lee & Tsai, 2009). Mishra and Koehler (2006) proposed theconcept of TPACK to describe teachers’ understanding of the complex interplay between technology, content, and pedagogy. Theirframework was built upon the advanced idea of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), introduced by Shulman (1986), which emphasizes ontreating teachers’ subject knowledge (content) and pedagogy as mutually exclusive domains. Despite that the basic constitutionalknowledge elements, namely Content (C), Technology (T) and Pedagogy (P), are easily conceptualized by both teachers and researchers, itseems that the overall notion of TPACK is a difficult concept.

However, the TPACK approach goes beyond seeing these three constitutional knowledge elements in isolation. It emphasizes theconnections and the complex relationships between them and defines three new and different dimensions (areas) of knowledge; thePedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), the Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), and the Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). Fig. 1presents an adaptation of the framework for science education, called TPASK hereafter. An analytical presentation of TPASK, which guidedthe curriculum and the coursework in the science teacher preparation project presented in this paper, will follow.

Science education constitutes a privileged subject matter when considering ICT integration and the related issues to enhance teachers’instructional potentialities and students’ active engagement and learning opportunities. There is a wide range of efficient educationalenvironments and applications available for science education (e.g. simulations and modeling tools, microcomputer based laboratories(MBL), Web resources and environments, spreadsheets and databases, etc.) which offer a great variety of affordances for both students andteachers. Good examples of ICT enhanced instruction means not simply adding technology to the existing teaching approaches in contentdomain. In other words, ICT integration in science education should not aim at a simple improvement of the traditional instruction. Rather itis associated to fundamental changes in the learning process while the teaching profession is evolving from an emphasis on teacher-centredinstruction to student-centred learning environments (Webb & Cox, 2004).

Many researchers have advocated the educational potential of ICT-based learning environments in science education, arguing that theyprovide opportunities for active learning, enable students to perform at higher cognitive levels, support constructive learning, promotescientific inquiry and conceptual change (Jimoyiannis & Komis, 2001; Jonassen et al., 2003; de Jong & Joolingen, 1998; Webb & Cox, 2004). Forinstance, by using simulations, students may vary a selection of input parameters, observe the extent to which each individual parameteraffects the system under study, and interpret the output results through an active process of hypothesis-making, and ideas testing.Alternatively, they can explore combinations of parameters and observe their effect on the evolvement of the natural system under study.

The first step in this effort to design and develop a coherent TPACK framework for science teachers’ preparation, was to clarify itsconstitutional components and make explicit the connections among science (content), pedagogy, and technology in a meaningful andrealistic context for secondary education settings. Following, a brief description of the TPACK elements and how they used to guide thedevelopment of a coherent curricular system for teachers’ development is given.

Fig. 1. The framework of technological pedagogical science knowledge (TPASK).



3.1. Pedagogical science knowledge (PSK)

Historically, teacher education has been focused on the content knowledge while general pedagogy was an added course, treated inisolation of the content, with emphasis on general pedagogical classroom practices independent of subject matter. During the last decades,teacher education and professional development programs have shifted their focus from content knowledge to pedagogical knowledgerelated to specific content (Cochran, King, & DeRouiter, 1991; Shulman, 1986). The key argument is that knowledge of subject matter andgeneral pedagogical strategies, though necessary, is not sufficient for capturing the knowledge of good teachers.

According to Shulman (1986), considering Pedagogy (P) and Content (Science, S) together yields Pedagogical Content Knowledge, whichrepresents the knowledge of pedagogy that is applicable to the instruction of specific science content. Existing literature (Clermont, Borko, &Krajcik, 1994; Fernández-Balboa & Stiehl, 1995; van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos, 1998) constitutes a valuable reference base for developing PSK.Consequently, the science corpus includes pedagogical strategies and techniques, representation of scientific concepts, formulation ofscientific concepts, knowledge of what makes those concepts difficult or easy to learn, knowledge of students’ misconceptions, knowledgeof students’ prior knowledge or cognitive difficulties, knowledge of students’ native theories and epistemologies etc. Table 1 presents themain components of Pedagogical Science Knowledge corpus.

3.2. Technological science knowledge (TSK)

Similarly, Technology (T) and (Science, S), taken together, yield the construct of Technological Science Knowledge. This type of knowledgeis useful for describing teacher’s knowledge of how science subject matter and specific units are transformed by the application of tech-nology (e.g. the changes in the nature of science technology brings, new methods and tools used to solve problems in science disciplines,new modeling methods in science, the use of simulation representations in a specific physics subject, concept mapping techniques inbiology etc.). Table 2 presents the main components of the Technological Science Knowledge corpus.

3.3. Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK)

Technology (T) and Pedagogy (P) together describe Technological Pedagogical Knowledge which refers to a general understanding of theapplication of technology in education without reference to a specific content. It includes the knowledge of the pedagogical affordances of

Table 1Pedagogical science knowledge (PSK).

Knowledge components Descriptive components

Scientific knowledge �Structure of Science (disciplinary)�Facts, theories and practices�History and Philosophy of Science�Nature of Science�Relationships among Science, Technology and Society

Science curriculum �General purposes of Science Education�Specific learning goals for various units�Philosophy of Science Education Curriculum�Resources available

Transformation of scientific knowledge �Organizing scientific knowledge (facts, theories, practices)�Multiple representations of scientific knowledge (pictorial, graphical, vector, mathematical)�Teaching Nature of Science�Teaching Science, Technology and Society

Students’ learning difficulties about specific scientific fields �Students’ prior knowledge�Students’ misconceptions�Students’ cognitive barriers�Students’ scientific method skills�Students’ learning profile

Learning strategies �Promoting student motivation and engagement�Using student experimental-practical work�Use of scientific inquiry�Use of scientific explanation�Use of constructivist approaches�Use of cognitive conflict situations�Use of conceptual change strategies

General pedagogy �Knowing basic pedagogy�Developing pedagogical philosophy�Knowing pedagogical strategies

Educational context �Educational purposes�School culture�Practical knowledge�Classroom organizational knowledge


Table 2Technological science knowledge (TSK).


Resources and tools available for science subjects �Simulations�Modeling tools�Spreadsheets�Conceptual mapping tools�MBL settings�Multimedia, encyclopaedias�Applications on the Web�Scientific Web resources�Web 2.0 applications

Operational and technical skills relatedto specific Scientific Knowledge

�Effective use of simulation software to model specific content(e.g. Interactive Physics, Modellus, Edison etc.)�Effective use of conceptual mapping software to model specific content�Effective use of MBL settings to support experimentation in specific subject content

Transformation of Scientific Knowledge �Dynamic representations of specific scientific knowledge�Simulations of specific scientific knowledge (macroscopic and microscopic)�Virtual experimentation�Experimentation using MBL�Conceptual mapping in specific areas�Geospatial technologies in Geography (e.g. Google Earth)�Changes in Nature of Science

Transformation of scientific processes �ICT-based problem solving approaches in science�New methods used to solve problems in science(e.g. using spreadsheets or modeling tools in physics)�New methods used to analyse experimental data�Modeling and simulation methods of specific content inphysics, chemistry, biology (e.g. concepts, processes, principles)


ICT, knowledge of how technology can support specific pedagogical strategies or goals in the classroom (e.g. fostering inquiry or collabo-rative learning, supporting hypothesis testing etc.). In addition, it includes the ability to select and use creatively available ICT tools in a givenpedagogical context. Table 3 presents the main knowledge components of the Technological Pedagogical Knowledge corpus.

3.4. Technological pedagogical science knowledge (TPASK)

Finally, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge is defined as the outcome of considering all three elements (T, P, and C) in joint.Mishra and Koehler (2006) argue that true technology integration demands understanding and negotiating the relationships between these

Table 3Technological pedagogical knowledge.


Affordances of ICT tools �Knowledge of the pedagogical affordances of ICT�Knowledge and skills to identify pedagogical properties of specific software�Knowledge and skills to evaluate educational software�Ability to select tools supporting specific learning approaches

Learning strategies supported by ICT �Supporting experimental-practical work�Use of constructivist approaches�Promoting student motivation�Fostering collaborative learning

Fostering scientific inquiry with ICT �Use of scientific inquiry�Use of scientific explanation�Learning how to learn (autonomous learning)

Information skills �Search and access of information in digital media (e.g. Web)�Analyse and evaluate scientific content in digital media

Student scaffolding �Revealing and handling students’ learning difficulties�Supporting students in conceptual change processes�Developing cognitive conflict situations for the students�Supporting students to develop information skills

Students’ technical difficulties �Supporting students to develop technical and operational skills for specific ICT applications�Supporting students to use modeling software in specific content



three components of knowledge. It seems that the introduction of technology causes the representation of new concepts and requiresdeveloping sound representations of the dynamic, transactional relationships between all three components of the TPACK framework. In thecase of science education, TPASK knowledge is different from knowledge of a disciplinary expert (a physicist, chemist, or biologist), ora technology expert, and also from the general pedagogical knowledge shared by teachers across disciplines. In other words, TPASKrepresents what science teachers need to know about ICT in science education.

Following this approach for the design and the development of a coherent curricular system for teacher preparation requires nota collection of isolated modules that focus on just one of the three knowledge bases at a given moment. Developing TPASK for scienceteacher’s education requires a curricular system that would reveal the complex, multi-dimensional relationships by treating all threecomponents in an epistemologically and conceptually integratedmanner. On the other hand, it shouldmake explicit the connections amongcontent, pedagogy, and technology, as well to clarify the boundaries between them (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Cox, 2008), in a meaningfulway for the teachers, and in an applicable manner for science classroom settings as well. Table 4 presents the main components used todescribe and specify the TPASK curriculum and the related learning strategies for science teachers’ professional development.

In the next section the implementation of the TPASK framework in a science teacher educators’ project, conducted in Greece, ispresented.

4. Implementation of TPASK framework

4.1. Project overview

The TPASK framework and the associated curriculumwere designed and applied in a long-term project in Greece, funded by national andEU authorities, in the context of an ambitious initiative aiming at teachers acquiring basic knowledge and skills towards integration of ICT inthe classroom. The project presented in this paper aimed at the preparation of the educators-mentors engaged in the in-service preparationof secondary education science teachers to integrate ICT in their instruction. It was conducted at the University of Patras, through a TeacherTraining Centre, as part of a wider programme aiming to prepare teacher educators of different specialties, namely preschool and primaryteachers, as well secondary education literacy, mathematics and science teachers. The author was the coordinator of the science dimensionof this programme which was also supported by highly experienced academic staff.

The participants were six science teachers chosen to attend to the project after their request through an open call for participation. Thecriteria for their selection were based on their academic degrees, teaching experience, and ICT qualifications. Four of them had a degree inPhysics and two in Chemistry. One teacher had a PhD in science education and one a Mathematics degree also. Their teaching experienceranged from 10 to 25 years, in upper and lower secondary education.

The course sessions lasted 350 h in total, divided into 6-h lessons per day which were spread in an academic semester (approximatelyfour months). The curriculum content comprised two parts: General theory modules and ICT in science education modules.

Table 4Components of the science TPASK curriculum.

Curriculum Components TPACKframework

Teacher learning strategies

Introduction to basic technical skills on using ICT tools in science education(e.g. simulations, modeling, spreadsheets, presentationsoftware, conceptual mapping, Web recourses etc.)

TK Practical training, learning by doing, collaboration

Introduction to the affordances and the added value of ICT inscience education (e.g. simulations, conceptual mapping, Web recourses etc.)

TSK Classroom presentation, practical training,discussion, collaboration

Introduction to student-centered pedagogical approaches PSK Classroom presentation, discussionIntroduction to science education, including student pre-existing

knowledge issues, misconceptions and learning barriers, cognitive conflict examples etc.PSK Classroom presentation, discussion, teacher

practical knowledge, selectedpapers from the literature

Use of ICT-based existing educative curriculum materials(e.g. for different science topics and different ICT tools)

TPASK Educative curriculum materials;debate and collaboration

Discussion of materials on practicality for classroom use TPASK Grounding learning in classroompractice, collaboration

Development of simulations for specific content by participating science teachers TSK Learning by design simulations (e.g. usingInteractive Physics to simulate the trajectorymotion of an object in the earth gravity field)

Study of how ICT can support specific pedagogical strategies and goalsin the classroom (e.g. uses of simulations to foster inquiry learning)

TPK Classroom presentation, discussion, selected papersfrom the literature

Discussion on specific software and environments and their uses ascognitive tools that enhance student learning in science

TPK Grounding learning in classroom, practiceand collaboration

Design and development of a complete simulation-basedlearning scenario by participating science teachers

TPASK Learning by design

Design and development of complete learning scenarios byparticipating science teachers using various ICT tools(spreadsheets, conceptual mapping, MBL, Web Quests etc.)

TPASK Learning by design

Science teachers’ debating on their own educational materialswith colleagues and their educators

TPASK Grounding learning in classroom,practice and collaboration

Revision of the developed lesson materials based on feedback TPASK Feedback; debating with colleagues,educators’ comments

Experimental teaching using their own lesson materials to theircolleagues and the coordinator (micro-teaching)

TPASK Feedback; debating with colleagues,coordinators’ comments



4.1.1. General theory modulesThe lessons of this part lasted 170 h in total and were common for the various teacher specialties. The modules were described as

Pedagogy, Learning Theories, ICT in Education, ICT tools (development ICT knowledge and skills) and Teacher Training Methods.

4.1.2. ICT in science education modulesTeachers were divided into separate groups according to their teaching specialty. They received instruction in combination to extended

individual and collaborative coursework in the computer laboratory. The second part of the project coursework, lasting 180 h in total, wasdesigned and coordinated by the author using the TPASK framework. It comprised separate modules focused on science education foun-dations and literature, educational software and tools for science education, instructional design principles, learning scenarios and students’learning activities for science subject matters, developing original learning scenarios and learning activities, teaching using their lessonmaterials to their colleagues and the coordinator (micro-teaching).

4.2. Designing TPASK coursework

The overall purpose of this programme was to enhance participants’ representations of TPASK. Specifically, there were four distinctobjectives to this approach:

�to provide participants with stable representations of the various dimensions of the TPASK model and a meaningful understanding ofthe benefits and the barriers in applying TPASK in science classroom settings;�to allow science teacher educators to move beyond oversimplified approaches and views of technology as an “add-on” element inclassroom contexts and to focus upon the connections among technology, content, and pedagogy;�to develop and/or improve teacher participants’ knowledge, skills and abilities to identify what type of technologies and how they couldbe integrated in school practice to enhance students’ development in science education;�to promote participants’ collaboration with colleagues to enhance their own learning and teaching to develop TPASK knowledge, bothas learners and as teachers.

To cover these objectives, two workshop meetings were designed as follows. The first meeting was held on the participants entering theproject and was focused on discussing various issues about ICT in science classroom regarding learning strategies and the science curric-ulum in secondary schools. For this purpose, teachers’ views and perceptions of ICT in science classroomwere audio-recorded. Informationextracted from the transcripts was used as an input in designing course sessions, on the basis of participants’ needs identification. Thismeeting was also used to discuss related practical experiences as well as to prepare participants for the topics following shortly after themeeting, in the next weeks of the project.

A final meeting was organized to reflect on perceptions and representations of TPASK knowledge and skills, and their views of ICT inscience teaching and learning. In this meeting, participants not only exchanged and discussed their personal experiences during the project,but were also encouraged to express their ideas and perspectives regarding ICT integration in science classroom. This meeting also served toevaluate the coursework of the project.

4.3. Implementing TPASK coursework

A potential danger of grounding teachers’ professional development in traditional classroom practice is reproducing the very approachesthat a professional development aims to change. Putnam and Borko (2000) indicated that it may be important to design professionaldevelopment so that teachers experience learning in new and different settings. Therefore, when planning this professional developmentproject, we tried to keep a balance between introducing newways of conceptualizing the teaching and learning process with the realities ofclassroom instruction, both seen interrelated through the lens of TPASK.

Teachers are willing to learn and develop new skills related to their instruction in meaningful and realistic learning settings, i.e. learningactivities that are easily implemented and integrated in the classroom. This paper ambitiously extends the TPASK model by embodyingauthentic learning activities in participants’ coursework, which were planned in an integrated framework determined by TPASK model andauthentic learning approach (Herrington & Kervin, 2007). Therefore, teachers engaged in solving instruction problems and critical situationsthrough designing authentic ICT-based learning scenarios having a sound pedagogical background. This was a learner-centered approachwhich used a design framework covering planning, developing, evaluating and revising ICT-based learning activities.

In addition, the approach followed in coursework conceives teacher learning as a constructivist process situated in a consistent frameworkdefined by science curriculum, pedagogy and learning approaches in science education, ICT tools and their affordances in science education,classroom reality, and teacher engagement. Learning through design embodies a process of constructing artifacts applicable in schoolpractice (e.g. designing lesson plans and scenarios, developing complete learning activities, developing simulations for specific units inscience, guidelines for teachers, designing students’ scaffolding etc.)

There was little direct instruction about particular software or tools during these courses. More common were spontaneous and shorttutorial sessions driven by the immediate requirements of the participants to cover the needs of the project. It is also co-determined by bothindividual (teacher to instructor and teacher to teacher) interactions and colleague’s collaboration while builds on ideas emphasizing thevalue of both TPASK and authentic learning activities in school reality.

Teachers were encouraged to acquire the knowledge and skills mainly through engagement and experience, reflection on things seenand heard during lecture time, discussion with colleagues, imitation, and reading related material and selected papers from scienceeducation and ICT in education research journals. Furthermore, participants were exposed to detailed discussions about the affordances andthe pedagogical uses of various ICT tools (simulations, modeling tools, spreadsheets, MBL settings, scientific Web resources, ICT-basedprojects, Web Quests, Web 2.0 applications etc.) identifying topics of special interest (e.g. secondary education science curriculum, trans-formation of abstract scientific concepts through simulations, learning and teaching strategies with ICT, etc). Independent and collaborative



coursework were properly interwoven to achieve the objectives of the program. A Learning Management System (LMS) was also used tosupport and expand course work, to offer access to the educational material and research papers proposed, to engage science teachers indiscourse through discussion forums, etc.

Summarizing, in the context of TPASK, the course sessions were organized around several key features, which were situated in a con-sisted framework as following:

�Integrated coursework in science curriculum, science teaching methods, foundations of ICT in education, and classroom practice (PSK,PTK)�Assignments designed to integrate key concepts from coursework and ICTaffordances (e.g. designing a simulation using amodeling tool(TK, TSK))�Developing authentic learning activities and scenarios in various subjects (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences (TPASK))�Presentation and debating about the learning activities and scenarios they developed in various subjects (TPASK).

5. Empirical evaluation of the TPASK coursework

5.1. Participants

At the end of the program, an empirical study was conducted to investigate its impact on the participant’s perceptions of ICT in scienceeducation, as well as to evaluate the TPASK model and approach followed during the course sessions. A semi-structured, audio-recordedinterview was carried out by the researcher with four of the participants. Three of them had a degree in Physics and one in Chemistry. Oneteacher had a PhD in science education. Their teaching experience ranged from 10 to 23 years, in upper and lower secondary education.

The participants were selected on a voluntary basis while they cover several criteria, e.g. ranging age, teaching experience, ICTcompetence, academic degrees, previous in-service training experiences etc. Their development on TPASK, estimated by the coordinator onthe basis of their performance during the course sessions and the evaluation of the assignments they completed, was also considered.

Previous research showed that common teacher perceptions of the value and uses of ICT in education are not consistent with the widerframework and perspectives followed by policy stakeholders and the research community (Jimoyiannis, 2008;Waite, 2004). Themajority ofthe teachers hold the representation of administrative and/or information searching tool, as well as an ‘’add-on tool’’ supplemental to thetraditional instruction. Using a sample of highly experienced teachers with a wider academic profile, and a continuous interest and will-ingness to integrate ICT in their profession, we havewell-founded reasons to expect recording a rich, valid and reliable corpus research data.Consequently, following a TPASK-based intervention, we hope to obtain situations revealing the very aspects the TPASK model with respectto participants’ ideas, views and perceptions which determine ICT integration in science classroom.

5.2. Method

Since this study uses the experiences and perceptions of the participants to illuminate certain aspects of this programme, a qualitativecase study approach, within the phenomenological mode to the selection and analysis of the data, is adopted (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). Theinterview schedule aimed at eliciting data related to participant’s perceptions, experiences, and beliefs about TPASK and science instruction.The research objectives aimed at a deeper investigation of the representations and perceptions teachers developed about the variousdimensions of TPACK model; their perceived knowledge, skills and abilities to integrate technology into science instruction; the difficultiesthey expect to face at during their efforts to integrate ICT into science classroom.

5.3. Data analysis

At a general level, the analysis aimed to result in theoretical notions with respect to participants’ perceived knowledge, skills and abilitieson TPASK. Data were mainly collected through the transcripts of the interview. The analysis of audio-recorded data was performed throughthree concurrent flows of activity: data reduction, data display and thematic interpretation (Miles & Huberman, 1994). These involved theselection of fragments relevant to the specific issues above. These fragments were transcribed and analyzed by the author. Categories andtheir attributes emerged from a detailed sententious analysis of the data. Three wider emerging themes, concerning teachers’ widerperception of TPASK, were identified: a) representations of the TPASK model; b) perceived TPASK knowledge and skills; and c) maindifficulties in applying this model to integrate ICT in science classroom.

6. Results

Three major themes that might provide insight into teachers’ experiences, perceptions and ideas about TPACK model, as well as itsimpact on ICT integration in the schools, emerged, and are presented here. These are linked to the objectives of TPASK curriculum and coursesessions previously described.

6.1. Representations and perceptions of the TPASK model

The first project objective was to implement a model that could act as an integrated framework for preparing science teachers toeffectively integrate ICT in science classroom settings. Data from the interviews indicated that the participants developed stable andconvincing representations about TPASK and a meaningful understanding of its value in science education. In addition, they reported theirability to see ICT, Pedagogy, and Science knowledge as an integrated and interrelated construct rather than as separate elements. All theparticipants reported an increased willingness and confidence in their ability to apply ICT in their own instruction.

Indicative are the following quotes, referred in an Ei (i ¼ 1–4) form for anonymity reasons.



E1: This program helped me to perceive and develop a totally different view for instruction. It is very important that there existsa sound theory behind all these things; that technology steps on certain theories and it should be applied under a certain framework inorder to be efficient in practice.E1: The pedagogical dimension of the project was very important for me, not only because I heard a lot of things for the first time. Thisprogram gave me a different lens to see all these elements. In general, I believed that I was very competitive with ICT. Every day I usecomputers and the Internet. But I faced at things that I did not know, and I could not imagine that exist!! Hence, I have a different viewabout technology and how it can be used for educational purposes.E2: I had used many of that software in my classroom but in a different way; rather as a demonstration tool. I am now convinced thatthis approach will not offer too much to the students. It will not offer opportunities for discovery and constructive learning. Everystudent should be engaged and should work on his own computer. I have changed my view of how to use ICT in the classroom.E3: This program gaveme a lot of knowledge and ideas, which I did not imagine ever before. For example, how students can achieve newknowledge in science through engagement and discovery. It is very interesting to use a data base in compound nomenclature in organicchemistry.E4: Although most of the pedagogical knowledge elements were not new for me, this programwas useful not only because it helped meto clarify many issues. The strong point of the approach followed in this program is that it strengthens our sensitivity, as educators, tosee the instructional process from the other side, the students’ side; that is to say from learning to teaching.

6.2. TPASK knowledge and skills to integrate ICT into science instruction

Participants reported in the final survey a change in their rationales for using ICT in science classroom. Data from the interviews indicatedthat all participants developed increased TPACK knowledge and skills with respect to their subject matter. Rather than viewing technologyintegration through a simple skill-based lens (e.g. presentation of simulations or other tools through a video-projector), the programparticipants noted increased abilities to effectively integrate ICT into science content and curriculum (e.g. students engagement in inquiryetc.).

Indicative are the following quotes:

E1: I was familiar with some software tools before entering the project; but I used to view them as a confirmation medium of certainphysical phenomena or processes, and not as a tool to support students’ learning. I was cautious to use ICT in my classroom. Now I feelmore confident than before entering the programme. I will try to use ICT from the first opportunity when I will be back to school..E2: This program helped me to understand how to use ICT in the classroom. I was not aware about students’ misconceptions; rather, Iknew some things about but I used to implement my profession without taking them into consideration. From now on, I will try tobring students in situations of cognitive conflict and support them to transform those alternative conceptions. I believe that I can usethese tools properly in the classroom.E2: I have learned too many things from this program though I used most of the software available for science subjects at a competentlevel. I was not aware about pedagogy and its value in using ICT in the classroom. I think that this program was beneficial and hada positive impact to me. I believe that the key point was the connection between theory and practice.E3: The coursework in the second part (TPASK sessions) was meaningful and landed in classroom reality. Everything was clear and howto approach it (ICT in the classroom). It does not mean that it is an easy task to develop a learning scenario. But I think the approachfollowed is a good track, a good guideline for an ICT novice to move.E4: In the second part (TPASK sessions) the things were very concrete. It is very difficult and needs time to develop a good learningscenario and the related learning task . It needed to collaborate with the other colleagues to develop a simulation-based learningscenario in physics.

6.3. Main difficulties to integrate ICT in science classroom

The last research objective was to identify teachers’ main difficulties to integrate ICT in science classroom using TPASK to design andimplement authentic learning scenarios in classroom settings. Research data indicated that teachers’ views and perceptions are stronglyinfluenced by broader contextual parameters of the secondary schools status and the educational system in general; namely

�the need to cover an extended content set by the science curriculum and the textbooks;�the restrictions posed into instructional practices by the science textbooks;�the need to prepare students for the final exams (especially in upper-secondary schools);�the lack of time to prepare learning activities focused on their students’ specific needs;�the inherent school resistance to changes, which forces most of the teachers to conform their instruction to the established schoolculture and practices.

Reiterating previous results concerning physics education in secondary schools (Siorenta & Jimoyiannis, 2008), the issues aboveconstitute supportive indications for the need to expand TPACK by incorporating a fourth dimension, the Educational Context (EC)within Pedagogy, Content and Technology mutually interact determining efficient learning environments for both students andteachers. The role of the wider educational context confirms the original idea of Cochran et al. (1991) which elaborated the need forconsidering the environmental context of learning while emphasizing on the continuing growth of PCK. From this perspective, TPACK-EC constitutes a dynamically evolved rather than a static notion. Our future efforts will be directed towards the elaboration andclarification of the wider educational context knowledge components, as well as their impact on teachers’ abilities to integrate TPACKin their classroom practices.



7. Conclusions

This paper reported on the design and the implementation of an integrated framework determined by TPACK model and an authenticlearning approach aiming at teachers’ preparation to integrate ICT in science classrooms. The integrated TPASK framework proposedextends existing literacy and offers supportive evidence on the educational value of TPACK model. To our knowledge, this study is the firstone offering a detailed description of the TPASK dimensions and a related curriculum applicable in science teacher’s preparation andprofessional development. The TPASK dimensions and the development of the consequent course sessions elaborated the buildingcomponents of TPACK covering the need a) to overcome its theoretical restrictions and reveal the application aspects of TPACK (Angeli &Valanides, 2009), and b) to clarify the boundaries and the interrelations between technology, pedagogy and content, in the case ofscience education (Cox, 2008; Koehler &Mishra, 2009). Moreover, the need to expand and evolve the notion of TPACK in a fourth dimension,the Educational Context, is justified and proposed.

The results presented are of interest for the international research community and offer into the debate onhow to improve science teachereducation and enhance science teacher professional development on ICT in education. By analytically describing the types of knowledgescience teachers need (in the form of TPASK, e.g. technology, pedagogy, content, educational context, and their interrelations as well), webelieve that educators are better supported to understand the variance in levels of technology integration occurring into the classroom.

Considering the difficulties to comprehend and apply TPACK in educational settings (Cox, 2008; Lee & Tsai, 2009), this study adds to ourknowledge since indicated that the participants, after this professional development program, developed stable representations aboutTPASK and an understanding of its value in science education. Consistent with previous research concerning social studies (Doering,Scharber et al., 2009) and the Web (Lee & Tsai, 2009), this study demonstrates that science teachers reported meaningful TPACK knowl-edge and skills, with respect to their subject matter, alongwith increased willingness to adopt and apply this framework in their instruction.They consider TPACK as a promisingmodel which effectively combines theoretical and practical aspects of the issue ’’ICT integration into thescience classroom’’.

Despite that the evaluation survey presented has followed a qualitative approach, within the phenomenological mode to the selectionand analysis of the interview data, the small size of the sample could be raised as a limitation. However, the academic profile and thequalifications of the science teacher trainers, who participated in the project, are factors supporting for valid and reliable research data. Onecan also realize the limitation arguments concerning the relation between the changes in teachers’ knowledge and the improvement in theirpractices in the classroom. We believe, however, that teachers’ development on TPASK knowledge and skills can lead to changes in theirclassroom practices and that these changes can offer enhanced learning opportunities for their students.

In general, project outcomes supported the idea that teachers’ development on TPASK requires authentic learning experiences withrespect to real class situations. Teachers’ development on TPASK continues beyond training programmes and should be an integral part of in-service teacher professional development. Undoubtedly, teachers’ TPASK culture and capability is built up over time from experience,reflection, review, and continued feedback. To increase the likelihood of ICT being effectively integrated into school practice, scienceteachers need to acquire convincing experiences about the effectiveness of TPASK in teaching and learning. The findings of this studydemonstrate that it is possible to design suitable course experiences to address, and develop, teachers’ understanding of the knowledgecomponents suggested by the TPASK framework.

This approach and the consequent program implementation could be supportive of the argument that direct instruction focusing on oneof the TPACK components at a time would be relatively ineffectual in helping teachers develop meaningful understanding of the complexmesh of the interrelations between content, technology, and pedagogy in teaching practice (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). There are convincingarguments that teacher professional development programs designed through TPASK offer on coupling changes in teachers’ pedagogicalcultures and philosophies for teaching and learning with their knowledge and abilities to use appropriate ICT tools with their students(Jimoyiannis & Komis, 2007).

The TPASK curriculum, originally described within this paper, presents a clear and stable framework that, hopefully, could help scienceteachers to design and integrate TPASK-based learning activities into their classroom, in order to enhance their students’ learning andcompetence in science. Undoubtedly, TPASK needs to be further investigated in classroom settings and from a number of educationalcontext aspects that determine a holistic approach to integrate technology into the science education (e.g. how science teachers perceiveand adopt TPASK; how they apply TPASK in real classroom situations; howwe could better challenge teachers’metacognitive awareness anddevelopment in TPASK; how students respond to TPASK-based learning approaches; what is the role of the school culture and the widereducational context etc.)

The integrated TPASK framework proposed has the ambition to induce new working hypotheses and to serve as a basis for futuretheoretical and applied research in this field. The need to evaluate the effectiveness of the methods used in teacher technology preparationprograms, and to enhance our knowledge about the strong and weak sides of TPACK model, is an open and very interesting researchproblem, and also a valuable task for educational policy stakeholders.

References

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: advances in technologicalpedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52, 154–168.

Becta. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Clermont, C. P., Borko, H., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Comparative study of the pedagogical content knowledge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 31, 419–441.Cochran, K. F., King, R. A., & DeRouiter, J. A. (1991). Pedagogical content knowledge: A tentative model for teacher preparation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April 3-7, 1991. ED340683, Retrieved on Nov 2009 from. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb¼true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0¼ED340683&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0¼no&accno¼ED340683.

Cox, S. (2008). A conceptual analysis of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. BrighamYoung University.Davis, N., Preston, C., & Sahin, I. (2009). Training teachers to use new technologies impacts multiple ecologies: evidence from a national initiative. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 40(5), 861–878.


http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb%3Dtrue&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0%3DED340683&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0%3Dno&accno%3DED340683







Doering, A., Scharber, C., Miller, C., & Veletsianos, G. (2009). GeoThentic: designing and assessing with technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues inTechnology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 316–336.

Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to design online learning environmentsand professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319–346.

van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673–695.European Commission. (2003). eEurope 2002: An information society for all. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Fernández-Balboa, J.-M., & Stiehl, J. (1995). The generic nature of pedagogical content knowledge among college professors. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11, 293–306.Hammond, T. C., & Manfra, M. M. (2009). Giving, prompting, making: aligning technology and pedagogy within TPACK for social studies instruction. Contemporary Issues in

Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 160–185.Hennessy, S., Wishart, J., Whitelock, D., Deaney, R., Brawn, la Velle, L., McFarlane, A., et al. (2007). Pedagogical approaches for technology-integrated science teaching.

Computers & Education, 48(1), 137–152.Herrington, J., & Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: ten suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44(3),

219–236.Jimoyiannis, A. (2008). Factors determining teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of ICT in education. In A. Cartelli, & M. Palma (Eds.), Encyclopedia of information communication

technology (pp. 321–334). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in teaching and learning physics: a case study concerning students’ understanding of trajectory motion. Computers

& Education, 36(2), 183–204.Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2006). Exploring secondary education teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards ICT in education. THEMES in Education, 7(2), 181–204.Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2007). Examining teachers’ beliefs about ICT in education: implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher Development, 11(2), 149–

173.Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Modeling with technology. Mindtools for conceptual change. NJ: Prentice Hall.De Jong, T., & Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–202.Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. Prentice Hall.Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers &

Education, 49, 740–762.Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World

Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38.Lim, C. P. (2007). Effective integration of ICT in Singapore schools: pedagogical and policy implications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 83–116.Marino, M. T., Sameshima, P., & Beecher, C. C. (2009). Enhancing TPACK with assistive technology: promoting inclusive practices in preservice teacher education. Contem-

porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 186–207.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 21, 509–523.OFSTED. (2004). ICT in schools: The impact of government initiatives five years on. London: Office for Standards in Education.Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovation (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.Russel, A. L. (1995). Stages in learning new technology: naïve adult email users. Computers & Education, 25(4), 173–178.Russel, M., Bebell, D., O’ Dwyer, L., & O’ Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher

Education, 54(4), 297–310.Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Siorenta, A., & Jimoyiannis, A. (2008). Physics instruction in secondary schools: an investigation of teachers’ beliefs towards physics laboratory and ICT. Research in Science &

Technological Education, 26(2), 185–202.So, H.-J., & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: student teachers integrating technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology, 25(1), 101–116.Toledo, C. (2005). A five-stage model of computer technology integration into teacher education curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2),

177–191.Tondeur, J., van Keer, H., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers & Education, 51(1), 212–

223.Voogt, J., Tilya, F., & van den Akker, J. (2009). Science teacher learning of MBL-supported student-centered science education in the context of secondary education in

Tanzania. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 429–438.Waite, S. (2004). Tools for the job: a report of two surveys of information and communications technology training and use for literacy in primary schools in the West of

England. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 11–20.Webb, M. E. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning implications for an integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705–735.Webb, M., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to Information and Communications Technology. Technology. Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 235–286.Zhao, Y., & Bryant, F.-L. (2006). Can teacher technology integration training alone lead to high levels of technology integration? A qualitative look at teachers’ technology

integration after state mandated technology training. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5, 53–62.


Documents

TPCK2