Research and Practice on Technology in Teacher Education
A Wikibookian has nominated this book for cleanup. You can help make it better. Please review any relevant discussion. 
Contents
 1 The Many Faces of TPACK: Perspectives and Approaches
 1.1 Preface
 1.2 Getting to know Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
 1.2.1 TPACK within content areas
 1.2.1.1 Science Teacher Education
 1.2.1.2 Math Teacher Education
 1.2.1.3 Physical Education Teacher Education
 1.2.1.4 English Language Teacher Education
 1.2.1.5 Computer Teacher Education
 1.2.1.6 A View to K5 (Primary & Preschool) Teacher Education with TPACK Lens
 1.2.1.7 Specialization of TPACK for Special Education Teacher Education
 1.2.2 TPACK and Diffusion of Innovations
 1.2.1 TPACK within content areas
The Many Faces of TPACK: Perspectives and Approaches[edit]
This wikibook is created as a class project in EDS536 Research and Practice on Technology in Teacher Education Course. Main Page
Preface[edit]
Contributor's Biographies[edit]
</gallery>

Evrim Baran is an assistant professor at the Department of Educational Sciences at Middle East Technical University, Turkey. She received her Ph.D. on Curriculum and Instructional Technology and Human Computer Interaction at Iowa State University. Prior to her position at METU, she worked as a postdoctoral fellow within the department of Curriculum and Pedagogy at the University of British Columbia, Canada. Dr. Baran worked as an instructor and researcher at the Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching at Iowa State University for four years. She also has a four years of industry experience as an instructional designer in an educational software development company in Turkey. Her research focuses on technology and teacher education, online learning, and the impact of social media and emerging technologies on education and society. She teaches graduate courses on technology in teacher education and learning sciences. For more information, check www.evrimbaran.com 
Hatice Çilsalar is a ÖYP research assistant at METU in the behalf of Bozok University for 2 years. Now, she is pursuing her PhD degree to become a faculty member for this university. She is a PhD student at the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Middle East Technical University (METU), Turkey. She graduated from ElementaryTeacher
Education Program at Erciyes University 2007. Then, she had her master degree from Curriculum and Instruction at Erciyes University in 2011. Her research interests are technology integration into education, teacher education, curriculum evaluation, instructional design. email:haticecilsalar@gmail.com 

Example  Example 
Example  Example 
Example  Example 
Example  Example 
Example  Example 
Example  Example 
Example  Example 
Example  Example 
Example  Example 
Getting to know Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)[edit]
TPACK within content areas[edit]
Science Teacher Education[edit]
Math Teacher Education[edit]
1.2.1.1 A Brief History of Integrating Technology into Math
Technology in our life is like the oxygen in the air. It became an essential part of our life even we did not think of it as before. Almost in all aspects of life there are dramatically important technological changes affecting our life. However the effect of technology in education system is not as overwhelming as in the other areas of life. This lack of change is not a result of insufficient technological opportunities for education. Kaput states the reason for this statement as “major limitations of computer use in the coming decades are likely to be less a result of technological limitations than a result of limited human imagination and the constraints of old habits and social structures” (Kaput, 1992, p.515). Besides the opportunities of educational technologies, the creativity of human mind is another important source for technology integration. There are many researchers believe that a vast amount of opportunities are possible with technology and it promotes the acquisition of concepts quickly and easily (Hitt, 2011). NCTM specially emphasizes the importance of technology in principles as ‘‘Technology is essential in teaching and learning mathematics; it influences the mathematics that is taught and enhances students’ learning’’ (NCTM, 2000, p. 11). 21st century technologies are mainly centered on the computers. Within these computer environment many different software are trying to be integrated into mathematics education such as dynamic geometry environments (DGEs), computer algebra system (CAS), spreadsheets, graphing calculators, statistics packages and graphing software for almost 25 years. For example, there are tens of DGE’s in the market and six DGE’s are listed as original DGE’s in PME group whereas the others are considered as clones of these DGE’s (Laborde et al., 1996). Calculators, especially graphing calculators have many effects on the way we teach mathematics (Waits & Demana, 2000). These devices can do complicated arithmetic computations easily, graph even uncommon functions, perform hard integrations, solve equations and so on. Traditional calculators have the ability to deal with equations numerically. When mathematicians need to deal with equations symbolically, they use CAS which enables the quick manipulation and calculation of algebraic routines. The main aim of a CAS is to automate tedious and sometimes difficult algebraic manipulation tasks. Although the capabilities of software used in mathematics education evolved rapidly, their progress is not fast enough as desired and they are mainly used for drill and practice for topics which are previously developed in the classroom (Niess et al., 2009; Bowers & Stephens, 2011). Besides the importance of the integration of technology in education a careful implementation is needed while using it. A wellbalanced implementation is required for successful instruction between the use of technology and traditional methods like paperpencil activities (Hitt, 2011). Another important aspect of integration is the access to the technology to be used. If a change the way we teach math using technology is planned, we have to prepare the opportunities to be used by everyone (Waits & Demana, 2000). All teachers, students and other actors should have the access to use them. When we talk about the integration devices, like graphing calculators, into math lessons all classrooms and students should be equipped with these machines. Otherwise, change can occur only in math curriculum with no application.
1.2.1.2 TPACK in Math Teacher Education
Although technology was a great “extra credit” for a teacher, it is nowadays not an “extra” but a “must ability”. A teacher without technology knowledge may not survive in futures’ education system. At this point an important challenge for teacher educators arises here. How the teachers should be prepared so that they are equipped with technology literacy? How the technology should be integrated into math education? The researchers developed TPACK as a total package for this “wicked problem”. Most of the math curriculum of precollege and undergraduate education does not enfold the technology. They traditionally include course(s) about technology (Niess, 2005). However integrating technology should not be about technology. Instead of the amount or type of technology used, Earle used the terms how and why it is used (Earle, 2002, p. 8). Therefore the emphasis should be on learning and on curriculum designed for that aim. As Niess stated “learning subject matter with technology is different from learning to teach that subject matter with technology”(Niess, 2005). In order to equip the teachers with the ability to teach the subject matter with technology, teacher education programs should be redesigned according to this need. Many of them do not prepare the preservice teachers to use technology effectively in their teaching practice since they offer no or a limited number of courses teaching how to teach mathematics using technology (Baki, 2000; Leatham, 2006). Albion et al. indicate the main reason as the lack of confidence of preservice teacher educators (Albion, JamiesonProctor, & Finger, 2010). When a preservice teachers enters a teacher education program they most probably prone to teach mathematics in the way that they learned. Their preconceptions about mathematics are closely related to their prior roles as students (Niess, 2009; Grootenboer, 2008). Hence the teacher educators have a great responsibility to put the important piece to the puzzle. Since integrating ICT into mathematics education can challenge “signature pedagogies” preservice teacher educators should develop a new approach (Larkin, K., JamiesonProctor, R. & Finger, G., 2012). One of the legs of the difficulty underlying the ICT integration arises here. In order to prepare technologically literate teachers preservice educators must take on responsibility by changing their way of teaching. By using ICT elements like software, wikis, forums, media, etc. in the courses offered in education faculties, preservice educators give students a chance to tread in their footsteps in later teaching practice. Hammond et al. (2009) point out this strong influential factor. This is a sort of sequential effect that needs a predecessor. Today’s preservice educators should choose to be the locomotive of this train so that their students follow them. TPACK may help the educators by being “an overarching” conception for the famous integrating technology issue into education. By the help of TPACK, teachers do not only use technology in schools, they also know how to integrate these technological tools to a selected content with choosing the most appropriate pedagogies for the selected content and technology. A math teacher equipped with TPACK is not solely prepared for today’s classrooms but they get the knowledge for navigating within the classrooms of tomorrow (Lee, H., & Hollebrands, K., 2008). Besides the utmost importance of TPACK, it is much more complex than just defining the intersection of the “three circles”. How can TPACK of a math teacher can be defined? Niess (2005) modified Grossman’s (1989, 1990) four components of PCK to characterize the outcomes for TPCK: “(1) An overarching conception of what it means to teach a particular subject integrating technology in the learning; (2) Knowledge of instructional strategies and representations for teaching particular topics with technology; (3) Knowledge of students’ understandings, thinking, and learning with technology; and (4) Knowledge of curriculum and curriculum materials that integrate technology with learning.” Rogers (1995) depicted a sequential process to whether embrace or refuse when a person is faced to an innovation. Deriving from Rogers’ model Niess, Sadri, and Lee (2007) introduced a new model for a teacher learning to integrate a specific technology in teaching and learning mathematics. According to this reframed progress, a teacher trails the following levels: (1) Recognizing (knowledge); (2) Accepting (persuasion); (3) Adapting (decision); (4) Exploring (implementation); (5) Advancing (confirmation). Then Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE) prepared a visual for these TPACK levels. Niess et al. (2009) emphasize an important caution on this progress that although the levels are seen to be a linear, it does not need to show a regular increasing pattern.
Niess et al. (2009) prepared a development model for mathematics teachers TPACK. This model is constructed I four themes namely Curriculum and Assessment, Learning, Teaching, and Access. In each themes five TPACK levels and different descriptors are given in an overarching manner. In different themes and descriptors a mathematics teacher may belong to different levels. An important mission for teacher educators is to check their existing programs and redesign them to prepare teachers with TPACK for teaching mathematics by providing experiences supporting knowledge and skills (Niess, 2009). Since the mathematics method courses have a potential to shape preservice teachers’ TPACK knowledge these courses should include field experiences on teaching particular topics using appropriate technologies. Field experiences are the areas in which preservice teachers can design, implement and assess the effect of technologies and solve the lack of understanding to anticipate students’ difficulties (Niess, 2009; Lee & Hollebrands, 2008). With the help of these courses preservice teachers may experience the affordances of technologies for specific contents by designing their lessons (Agyei & Voogt, 2012). Lyublinskaya and Tournaki (2012) recommends collaborative work and guidance for successful lesson planning for better TPACK development. By developing their own lessons, preservice teachers have the opportunity to think about the curriculum that will probably teach in field.
1.2.1.2.1 Review of Trends
Researchers had many studies on TPACK many of which are selfreport surveys and rubrics aimed to measure the TPACK knowledge of teachers. Apart from these studies mathematics education researchers contributed to literature in different perspectives. One of the important contributions is developed a model for TPACK levels of teachers developed by Niess et al. (2009) as discussed before in this study. The number of studies trying to measure the impacts of software environments on TPACK dramatically increased in the last years (Shafer, 2010; Zee & Gillowwiles, 2010; Martinovic & Karadag, 2012; Meng & Sam, 2013). Almost all of the studies show that the designs with software integration into lesson studies contributes teachers TPACK levels. Besides the different software, the impact of hardware components are studied in some researches (Jang & Tsai, 2012; Lyublinskaya & Tournaki, 2012). The upward trends in education like interactive white boards and graphic calculators are investigated in these studies. Similar to studies about software, the studies related to hardware components have also positive impact on teachers’ TPACK knowledge. Jang and Tsai (2012) report that there is no significant difference in teachers’ TPACK levels according to gender. They also state teachers who have more teaching experience shows higher TPACK than those who have fewer years of teaching experience. However their one of the most important contributions is the study of the effect of teachers’ TPACK levels on students’ achievement scores. Although they cannot find a significant difference in students’ scores, students who are taught by a higher TPACK level teacher have greater average score in exams. They claim that this medium size effect can be a significant difference with a large sample size future study. After that they tentatively conclude that “possibly a teacher’s TPACK level can predict his/her students’ passing rates” (Lyublinskaya & Tournaki, 2012, p.316). This study may be the unique one trying to relate teachers’ TPACK level and students’ achievement in the literature.
1.2.1.3 Math Teachers’ TPACK
Many mathematics teachers are aware of technological opportunities like interactive whiteboards, graphing calculators, dynamic mathematics software, graphing programs, computer algebra systems etc. and use them in their lessons. However the quality of ICT usage is not just using technology itself, but how the selected technology is integrated into a particular content with wellselected activities in the classroom settings. A teacher with efficient TPACK knowledge is assumed to know how to integrate these key technologies to a specific content with specific objectives applying the most suitable pedagogies. 21st century teachers are expected to know how to integrate the technology in every aspect of education like curriculum designs, implementation, management and evaluation (Jang S. J., Tsai, M. F., 2012). Hence it has the utmost importance for a teacher to be equipped with TPACK knowledge to survive in future’s education system. There are many countries started initiatives involving technology integration projects in their education systems like FATIH Project in Turkey. Many of those projects are based on only providing the technologies. Although they are aimed to have big impact on the education systems, they do not have one as the professional development of inservice teachers are ignored. Since today’s teachers main problem is that they learned mathematics in the past and mathematics can be taught as they learned (Niess, 2009), providing only technology cannot be enough for the desired integration. In order to want teachers to change their teaching ways using technology, professional development opportunities must be supplied to them (Waits & Demana, 2000; Bos & Lee, 2012). There should be ongoing support for teachers during the academic year. Throughout the ongoing support teachers should help each other by sharing their ideas about efficient technology integration (Niess, Lee, Sadri & Suharwoto, 2006). Since integrating technology in mathematics lessons is a kind of evolution of teaching mathematics, it needs time and experience for teachers to believe in mathematical power of technology (Bos & Lee, 2012). Niess et al. (2006) suggested school support and encouragement from others, access to computers, and more practice for successful support for teachers to improve their integration of technology. Teachers should be careful while preparing and designing lesson plans. They should build up a lesson focused on the content not the technology itself. Because the main goal of a mathematics teacher is to teach the mathematics not the technology. By considering TPACK as the interaction of three components, the challenge here is the designing the lesson like a recipe of a soup. What should be the order and amount of three ingredients (T, P, C) to have a delightful soup? Is the order important during the recipe? The answers to those questions are important for a welldesigned TPACK lesson plan. Let us think about the three components technology (T), pedagogy (P), and content (C) and assume that there are a, b, and c many different alternatives respectively. If we want to list all the possible lesson plans, there are a.b.c many lesson plans available theoretically by fundamental counting principle. However many of these lesson plans are waste. Therefore the important skill for a teacher is to decide which alternative(s) is appropriate for a particular content by selecting technology and pedagogy.
1.2.1.4 Future Recommendations
Plenty of studies related to TPACK can be found in the literature. However we need more content based specific studies situating the impacts of specific pedagogies and technologies on selected content areas. There is an obvious need for longitudinal studies to discover the effects of teacher education programs on teachers’ TPACK development. Is technology of very high worth for investment? In order to answer this question the impact of teachers’ TPACK knowledge on students’ achievement must be determined. Therefore there is clear necessity for studies examining the relationship between teachers’ knowledge and students’ attainments.
References
Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. (2012). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice mathematics teachers through collaborative design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 547–564. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/agyei.html
Albion, P. R., JamiesonProctor, R., & Finger, G. (2010). Auditing the TPACK confidence of Australian preservice teachers: The TPACK confidence survey (TCS). In C. Maddux, D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (Eds.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education (pp. 303–312). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education.
Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2009). Mathematics TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) Framework. Retrieved from http://www.amte.net/sites/all/themes/amte/resources/MathTPACKFramework.pdf
Baki, A. (2000). Preparing student teachers to use computers in mathematics classrooms through a longterm preservice course in Turkey. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 343–362. doi:10.1080/14759390000200090
Bos, B., & Lee, K. (2012). Inservice Teachers’ ICTTPCK Development in an Elementary Mathematics Master Teacher Program. In International Conference on Online Learning (pp. 1–23).
Earle, R. S. (2002). The Integration of Instructional Technology into Public Education: Promises and Challenges. ET Magazine, 42(1), 5–13.
Grootenboer, P. (2008). Mathematical belief change in prospective primary teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(6), 479–497. doi:10.1007/s108570089084x
Grossman, P. L. (1989). A Study in Contrast: Sources of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Secondary English Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 40, No. 5. (1 September 1989), pp. 2431, doi:10.1177/002248718904000504 by Kenneth R. Howey, Pamela L. Grossman
Grossman, P. L. (1991). Overcoming the apprenticeship of observation in teacher education coursework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(4), 345357.
Hammond, M., Crosson, S., Fragkouli, E., Ingram, J., Johnston‐Wilder, P., Johnston‐Wilder, S., … Wray, D. (2009). Why do some student teachers make very good use of ICT? An exploratory case study. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(1), 59–73. doi:10.1080/14759390802704097
Hitt, F. (2011). Construction of mathematical knowledge using graphic calculators (CAS) in the mathematics classroom. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(6), 723735.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2000a). National educational technology standards for students: Connecting curriculum and technology. Eugene, OR: Author.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2000b). National educational technology standards for teachers. Eugene, OR: Author.
Jang, S.J., & Tsai, M.F. (2012). Exploring the TPACK of International Society for Technology in Education. (2000a). National educational technology standards for students: Connecting curriculum and technology. Eugene, OR: Author. Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 59(2), 327–338. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.003
Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In. D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515556). New York: MacMillan
Laborde, C., Kynigos, C., Hollebrands, K., & Strässer, R. (2006). Teaching and Learning Geometry with Technology. Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 275–304). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Larkin, K., JamiesonProctor, R., & Finger, G. (2012). TPACK and PreService Teacher Mathematics Education: Defining a Signature Pedagogy for Mathematics Education Using ICT and Based on the Metaphor “Mathematics Is a Language.” Computers in the Schools, 29(12), 207–226. doi:10.1080/07380569.2012.651424
Leatham, K. (2006, January). Characterizing the preparation of preservice secondary mathematics teachers to teach mathematics with technology. Paper presented at The Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators, Tampa, FL. Slides retrieved from http://www.mathed.byu.edu/%7Ekleatham/ResearchProjects/AMTEpresentation2006.html
Lee, H., & Hollebrands, K. (2008). Preparing to teach mathematics with technology: An integrated approach to developing technological pedagogical content knowledge. (G. L. Bull & L. Bell, Eds.) Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 326–341. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/28191
Lyublinskaya, I., & Tournaki, N. (2012). The Effects of Teacher Content Authoring on TPACK and on Student Achievement in Algebra: Research on Instruction with. In R. N. Ronau, C. R. Rakes, & Margaret L. Niess (Eds.), Educational Technology, Teacher Knowledge, and Classroom Impact: A Research Handbook on Frameworks and Approaches (pp. 295–322). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/9781609607500.ch013
Martinovic, D., & Karadag, Z. (2012). Dynamic and interactive mathematics learning environments: the case of teaching the limit concept. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 31(1), 41–48. doi:10.1093/teamat/hrr029
Meng, C. C., & Sam, L. C. (2013). Developing PreService Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teaching Mathematics with the Geometer's Sketchpad through Lesson Study. Journal of Education and Learning, 2(1), 1–8. doi:10.5539/jel.v2n1p1
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006
Niess, M. L., Lee, K., Sadri, P., & Suharwoto, G. (2006). Guiding Inservice Mathematics Teachers in Developing a Technology Pedagogical Knowledge (TPCK). In Society for Information Technology Teacher Education International Conference Proceedings of SITE 2006. Orlando, Florida.
Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston, C., … Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics Teacher TPACK Standards and Development Model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4–24.
Niess, M. L. (2009). Mathematics Teacher TPACK Standards and Revising Teacher Preparation. In L. Paditz & A. Rogerson (Eds.), 10th International conference “Models in Developing Mathematics Education” (pp. 445–449). Dresden. Retrieved from http://math.unipa.it/~grim/21project.htm
Shafer, K. G. (2010). The Proof is in the Screencast. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 383–410.
Waits, B. K., & Demana, F. (2000). Calculators in mathematics teaching and learning: Past, present, and future. In M. J. Burke and F. R. Curcio (Eds.), Learning mathematics for a new century (pp. 5166). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Zee, E. H. Van, & Gillowwiles, H. (2010). Knowledge Growth in Teaching Mathematics/Science with Spreadsheets: Moving PCK to TPACK through Online Professional Development. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(2), 42–52.
Physical Education Teacher Education[edit]
English Language Teacher Education[edit]
Computer Teacher Education[edit]
A View to K5 (Primary & Preschool) Teacher Education with TPACK Lens[edit]
Introduction[edit]
In our current age, focus has moved toward technology because of increasing the place of technology in life. After Schulman (1986)’s introduction of PCK, teacher knowledge domain had gone beyond it. Practical deficiencies in teaching and learning environments have occurred by not meeting the needs of students and society. Mishra & Koehler (2006) studied technological pedagogical content knowledge in order to revisit the knowledge for effective technology integration. Therefore, there are a lot of studies related to drawing a general overview about TPACK in teacher education. Specifically, K5 level teacher education (primary teacher education) has to be analyzed carefully because of its importance on being first level of formal education. This chapter will first introduce TPACK studies in K5 teacher education and the will represent examples of classroom applications of TPACK in K5 level. Therefore, there are to main part of this chapter. In the first part of study, some researches about K5 teacher education are examined to draw and overview on the teachers’ TPACK. In order to conduct review, TPACK newsletters ,specifically Punya Mishra’s, MattKoehler’s, and Mary Jo Weisenburger’s newsletters, are the main source and also databases were searched such as; EBSCOhost and ERIC. While selecting studies, the criteria is that researches should be published articles in scientific journal and it should be article about K5 level teachers’ TPACK. At the end of the process nine articles has reached which fix the criteria.
TPACK and Primary Teacher Education[edit]
The reviewed articles’ main focus is TPACK, and so at the end of this chapter, it is aimed to have a conclusion about what have been done for development of TPACK in K5 level teacher education. General Overview of Studies The table of literature review which includes articles and summary of these article in Appendix 1. Nine articles which are published on a journal take place in this study while six of them(Fig& Jamani,2011;Graham, Broup&Smith, 2012; Kaya&Dağ, 2013;Chaia and et. al., 2011; Ana, Wildera&Limb,2011) are about preservice teacher education while others(Polly,2011; Bos,2011; Chuang&Hoan, 2011) are about inservice teacher education. Two of them(Kaya&Dağ, 2013; Chuang&Hoan, 2011) explain the adaptation of Schmidt et al. survey to different settings which are translation to Turkish and adaptation to, Taiwan setting considering early childhood teachers. In some articles, researchers try to examine the effect of one specific course on teachers’ TPACK knowledge that are introductory educational technology class(Graham, Broup&Smith, 2012), ICT course(Chaia and et. al., 2011), online education course(Ana, Wildera&Limb,2011), instructional technology course (Angelia&Valanides,2009). Being case study, all researches in this study have participants instead of using sample. Some articles have focused on the effect of creating technology rich environment by teachers on their TPACK. The participant numbers range from 2 to 834. This means that this type of researches can include either mostly specified participants or huge number of participants. In this area, researchers are flexible to choose their participants. Different data collection tools were used in these studies that are questionnaire(Fig& Jamani,2011; Graham, Broup&Smith, 2012; Kaya&Dağ, 2013, Chuang&Hoan, 2011; Ana, Wildera&Limb,2011), interview(Fig& Jamani,2011), observation(Fig& Jamani,2011), lesson plan design(Fig& Jamani,2011, Graham, Broup&Smith, 2012; Angelia&Valanides,2009) course assessment(Graham, Broup&Smith, 2012;), reflective thinking rubrics on assignments(Graham, Broup&Smith, 2012; Ana, Wildera&Limb,2011), peer evaluation(Bos,2011; Angelia&Valanides,2009), selfevaluation(Angelia&Valanides,2009). All these tools show that this type of researches collect both qualitative and quantitative data. However using questionnaire is the most common method in this area. Because it is really helpful to collect data in a standardized and objective way and also enables to collect data from a large group of participants(Frankel, Wallen & Huyn,2012). Almost all empirical researches in this study collected data from different sources such as by using questionnaire and interviews or observations. This means that researchers tried to understand TPACK concept in depth. In the light of these information, articles were group according to their participants level(inservice or preservice). All articles can be seen on the Literature Table(*).
=TPACK and Preservice Primary Teacher Education=[edit]
As stated before, the articles about preservice primary teacher educations are written by Fig& Jamani(2011), Graham,Broup&Smith(2012), Kaya&Dağ(2013), Chaia and et. al.(2011), Ana,Wildera&Limb(2011). Brief information about these articles is given below. Fig& Jamani’s (2011) study is about exploring teacher knowledge on technology enriched teaching environment. According to results, taking feedback from experienced teachers is more beneficial being independent for preservice teachers because they need support for increasing student engagement in deciding the sequence of technological activities. Lesson design, focused on content knowledge, has impact on learning outcome while technical skills of teachers promote meaningful learning of students considering not only content but also technological knowledge. Introducing technological tools to preservice teachers supports their lesson plan designs, TPACKinpractice activities. Determination of use of technology in preservice teachers’ growth was articulated in TK, TPK, TPACK that is indicated in Graham,Broup&Smith’s(2012) study. Technology is used, generally, for making content more visual; similarly, technology usage had positive effect on outcomes of content learning activities. In quantity issues, explicitly increase was found for TPK and TPACK categories while in quality issue, length of students’ answers and number of their rationale behind choosing the strategies was found as increased. In the study of Kaya& Dağ(2013), the scale which was developed by Schmidt et al.(2009) was adapted to Turkish and explanatory and confirmative factor analyses was conducted. 352 preservice teachers from three state universities in Turkey were participated in to the study and it was concluded that alpha levels of the dimensions of scale change between 0.77 and 0.88. Confirmatory and explanatory factor analysis indicate that the adopted version of scale have similar factors with the original one. Chaia and et al.(2011) studied to construct relationship among seven sub dimensions of TPACK by trying to answer some questions that are what factors of TPACK are perceived by Singapore preservice teachers when a TPACK survey, contextualized for the pedagogical approaches applied in their ICT course, is being used, and how these identified factors of TPACK are related structurally before and after the ICT course that 834 preservice teachers registered. In this study, researchers design the course of ICT for meaningful learning by conducting the scale of Schmidt et. Al.(2009) scale’s adopted version to Singaporean context. By conducting factor analysis and structural equation model, it was concluded that pedagogical knowledge had a direct impact on TPACK at the beginning of the course. As teachers made connections between their TK and PK to form TPK during the course, the direct relation between PK and TPACK became insignificant where as the relations between pedagogical knowledge and technological pedagogical knowledge, and technological pedagogical knowledge and TPACK were strengthened. Relations between CK and TPACK have become more significant. Ana, Wildera and Limb(2011) tried to answer the question that to what extent and in what ways the teacher candidates’ technical competency, development of TPACK, and beliefs and attitudes toward their technology integration practices changed after taking an online educational technology course. Online survey, students’ written reflections, students’ assignments were used to collect data about the course’s effectiveness on teachers TPACK. As a result of the study, online educational course has positive impact on students’ development of TPACK and also preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs were improved and also show tendency to use technology adequately for students. Candidate teachers improved their designing instructional activities more learnercentered. They have tendency to use technology in their teaching places and see it as a motivator. Angelia and Valanides (2009) proposed ICTTPACK model which is a derivation of TPACK model and measured students learning in design task to examine the impact of technological mapping and assessment of ICTTPACK model. 215 preservice teachers were joined the study and peer assessment, selfassessment, instructor assessment were used to look for Pearson r between self and peer assessment. ICTTPACK competency developed and improved. Teaching ID has positive impact on development of students ICTTPACK knowledge.
=TPACK and Inservice Primary Teacher Education=[edit]
Although researches on preservice K5 teachers are predominated in the field, some researches were conducted to understand TPACK of inservice primary teachers, specifically primary teachers. These researches generally focused on development of teachers’ TPACK. Summaries of some researches were given below. When come to inservice teacher training about technological pedagogical knowledge, their knowledge of creating instructional materials which is enriched by technology tried to examine in the study of Polly(2011). In this research, teachers want to use Google documents, wikis, and other resources online in order to enrich their technological knowledge. While developing their TK, teachers stated that they make connections between PK, PCK, TPK, and TPACK. In order to use the TPACK framework with practicing teachers as they developed instructional units using Web 2.0 instructional tools and mathematical objects to verify whether technology increased their knowledge and enabled them to assimilate technology into an instructional unit adhering to TPACK, Bos(2011) reached 30 teachers who had a mean teaching experience of 5 years and were enrolled in a graduate elementary number concepts course in order to answer the question how TPACK seems when determining websites for instructional units in the mathematics classroom. Teacher’s experience helps them to see importance of pedagogy and mathematical knowledge with their technology interaction. Technological availability in class for each student can limit teachers’ TPACK use in class. The researcher stated that the transition from a causal relationship with technology to a more connected bond built on an understanding of appropriate studentoriented pedagogy, conceptualized mathematical content, and cognitive complexity can lead to more teachable moments with technology as the manipulated medium and arm of instruction rather than as a glitzy addon. Chuang and Hoan (2011) translated and adopted Schmidt et al.(2009) by adding some items related to context and conducted to 335 teachers in Taiwan. After pilot study with 202 inservice early childhood teachers, it was concluded that adopted version of scale has level validity and reliability. Manova, Pearson productmoment correlation analysis were conducted to examine the relationships between each of TPACK subscales and three demographics. Specifically, there are significant differences between different teaching experience levels, age groups, different technology use in a week. When these articles were analyzed, most of them are related to preservice teachers TPACK development. However, there is a huge inservice teacher potential. In order to make current educational system update, teachers’ knowledge should be kept updated. Students need to be faced with current knowledge, current applications and recent activities. Banks, Leach and Moon(2011) stated that “La transposition didactique” of Chevellard is defined as a process of change, alteration and restructuring which the subject matter must undergo if it is to become teachable and accessible to novices or children. Similar with this subject matter change, nowadays teachers’ knowledge is required to such change by considering technological knowledge. In primary school settings, students face first real educational activities; reading and writing letters, words, sentences, knowing numbers, counting, solving mathematical problems, etc. These are first activities done with the aim of developing basic academic knowledge of the freshmen. So, primary teachers who are expecting to meet society, learner, and subject matter have to reconstruct their knowledge by considering these needs. The most common one is technology and the knowledge should be adapted inservice teachers’ knowledge to this domain. This is substantial for both not missing the generation and also preparing adults to next centuries. In addition to requirement of more study on inservice teachers TPACK, development of teacher educators in faculties TPACK should be considered. The instructors in education faculty require training of development TPACK. Instructors with lack of TPACK may not contribute candidate teachers for development of their technology integration ability. And also the researches in this study indicate that the researchers are aware on the issue that teacher education should be designed by considering TPACK. From this point, it can be concluded that all courses which are about teaching and learning should be combined with technology from beginning to end of teacher education programs. To conclude, more inservice training to adapt their knowledge to TPACK, more teacher educator programs on TPACK and finally redesign of teacher education program considering TPACK are required. So there should be more consideration on TPACK in preservice, inservice and professional development of teacher educators.
Technological Sources for Primary Education Teachers[edit]
Final part of this study is about the technological sources on primary education. Specifically these tools are for primary teachers that they can use in and out class for making education more enjoyful. First one is http://www.classroom20.com/ . This site is a free, communitysupported network. And this site is for those who are "beginners" and will find this a supportive comfortable place to start being part of the digital dialog. In this platform, teachers share their ideas with colleagues around the world. Once the membership of a teacher is approved, the best way to find or become part of a conversation is to us the search box at the upper right or the topic list to the lower left. https://play.google.com/store?hl=en: this website gives opportunity to find mobile applications for educational activities under the title of play. For example, teachers can find a lot of games on gravity and electricity. This games helps students to learn topics in an enjoyful way. http://www.teacherstechworkshop.com/ : In this website, there are a lot of little essays on technology integration in to education and tools that can be used with educational purposes. http://edudemic.com/2011/11/bestwebtools/ : This page give information about the 100 best web tools which can be used in classes. On this page, some links about technological tools’ webpage are given. Such sites are helpful for teachers, specifically primary education teachers. Because primary school students enjoy playing games is the opportunity for primary school teachers to find activities make them enjoyful.
Conclusion[edit]
In the age of technology, education requires adaptation to the current age. So primary teacher education programs have to be revised by considering the innovations. Researchers have conducted on preservice primary teacher education, too many instead of inservice primary teacher education. So there is need to conduct more study on inservice primary teacher education.
References[edit]
1. Banks, F.,Leach, J. & Moon, B.(2005): Extract from new understandings of teachers' pedagogic knowledge. Curriculum Journal. 16:3, 331340. 2. Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N. and Hyun, H. (2012). How to design and evaluate Research in Education. Mc Grow Hilll. 3. Koehler’s newsletter: http://www.mattkoehler.com/tpack/category/newsletter/ 4. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record 108 (6), 10171054. 5. Mishra’s Newsletter: http://punya.educ.msu.edu/research/tpck/newsletterarchive/ 6. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher. 15(2), 4 31. 7. Weisenburger’s Newsletter: http://www.scoop.it/t/21stcenturyteaching/p/26905704/tpacknewsletterissue8sdoukakissblog
 Literature table of this study: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxhqFGr276GNdUFjSUVnUUFRM2M/edit?usp=sharing
Specialization of TPACK for Special Education Teacher Education[edit]
The Meaning of Technology for Special Education[edit]
 Instructional Technology
 Assistive Technology
Technology Integration into Special Education[edit]
The Quest of TPACK in Special Ecuation[edit]
 Advantages and Limitations
 Examples and Implications