Tpdk, a New Definition of the Tpack Model for a University Setting

• Authors: Sylviane Bachy
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In this paper we propose a new Technopedagogical Disciplinary Knowledge model. This model integrates four separate dimensions, which we use to measure a teacher’s effectiveness. These are the individual teacher’s discipline (D), personal epistemology (E), pedagogical knowledge (P), and knowledge of technology (T). We also acknowledge the existence of relationships between these components. These can be more or less correlated depending on the teacher’s individual profile. They are always present, but they do not necessarily have the same weighting. In order to test the potential differences between teachers’ profiles, we designed a questionnaire, which tested our model’s components, and the relationships between them. This questionnaire was initially submitted to a group of teachers with whom we were familiar, to ensure the questions were understandable and that, based on what we already knew of the teachers’ characteristics, the profiles that emerged were reliable. A second test was then carried out, which we used to compare the answers of university and non-university level teachers, based in the two institutions in which we work. This second questionnaire was used to test the consistency of responses, and the correlations between the model’s different dimensions. Having analysed the outcome of these questionnaires, it appears that “pedagogical knowledge” is significantly correlated with the other three dimensions. This consolidated framework has helped us to build a system of education development coaching for teaching practices that use technology widely.

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 15-39

Dates

published

2014-12-01

online

2015-03-03

Contributors

author

Sylviane Bachy

• Université catholique de Louvain, 1 place de l’Université, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

References

• 1. Amade-Escot, C. (2011). Le comparatisme en didactique. Presentation in “le cadre de l’école doctorale des didactiques”. Liège, Belgique. 2011, octobre.
• 2. Archambault, L. and Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States Contemporary Issues. In Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), (pp. 71-88).
• 3. Becher, T. (1981). Toward a definition of disciplinary cultures. In Studies in Higher Education, 6(2), (pp. 109-122).
• 4. Becher, T. (1993). Academic Tribes and Territories. Buckingham: Society of Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
• 5. Becher, T. and Trowler, P.R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. (2nd ed.) SRHE/Open University Press.
• 6. Berthiaume, D. (2006). A description of discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge (DPK) encountered in the discourse of four university professors from four different disciplinary areas. (None published doctoral thesis). University de Mc Gill: Montréal, Québec, Canada.
• 7. Berthiaume, D. (2007a). Une description empirique du savoir pédagogique disciplinaire des professeurs d’université. In Actes du colloque de l’AIPU : regards sur l’innovation la collaboration et la valorisation, (p.179-181). Montréal : Canada.
• 8. Berthiaume, D. (2007b). What is the nature of university professors’ discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge? A descriptive multicase study. (thèse de l’University de Mc Gill : Montréal, Québec, Canada. ). Available online at http://digitool.Library.McGill.CA:80/R/-?func=dbin-jumpfull& object_id=103191&silo_library=GEN01
• 9. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. In Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), (pp. 195-203).[Crossref]
• 10. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo Academicus. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
• 11. Bourgeois, E. (1990). University politics: adult Education in a Belgian University. None published doctoral thesis. University of Chicago: Chicago.
• 12. Cochran, K.F.; King, R.A.; De Ruiter, J.A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowledge: an integrative model for teacher preparation. In Journal of teacher Education, 44(4), (pp. 263-272).[Crossref]
• 13. Czaja, R. and Blair, J. (2005). Designing surveys: A guide to decisions and procedures (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• 14. Donald, J. (2002). Learning to thinking. Disciplinary Differences. San Fransisco : Jossey-Bass.
• 15. Gagné, R. (1985).The conditions of learning. Holt Rinehart and Winston. New York, 4th ed.
• 16. Gess-Newsome, J. and Lederman, N.G. (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The Construct and its implications for science education. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
• 17. Graham, C.R.; Borup, J. and Smith, N.B. (2012). Using TPACK as a framework to understand teacher candidates technology integration decisions. In Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, (pp. 530-546).
• 18. Guyot, J.L. and Bonami, M. (2000). Mode de structuration du travail professoral et logiques disciplinaires à l’université. In Cahier du GIRSEF 9, (pp. 1-65).
• 19. Harris, J.; Grandgenett, N. and Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology Integration Assessment rubric. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010, (p.3833-3840), Chesapeake, VA.
• 20. Hativa, N. and Marincovich, M. (eds.) (1995). Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• 21. Hiebert, J.; Gallimore, R. and Stigler, J.W. (2002). A Knowledge base for the teaching profession: what would it look like and how can we g& one? In Educational Researcher, 31(5), (pp. 3-15).
• 22. Hofer, B.K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. In Educational Psychologist, XXXIX(1), (pp. 43-55).
• 23. Hofer, B.K. and Pintrich, P.R. (1997). The Development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. In Review of Educational Research, 67(1), (pp. 88-140).
• 24. Hofer, B.K. and Pintrich, P.R. (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
• 25. Hofer, M. and Harris, J. (2010). Differentiating TPACK development: using learning activity types with inservice and preservice teachers. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010, (pp. 3857-3864), Chesapeake, VA.
• 26. Jacquinot-Delaunay, G. (2008). L’intégration des TICE dans l’institution universitaire : de l’infiltration à l’innovation ? In G. Delaunay & E. Fichez (eds.), L’université & les TIC. Chronique d’une innovation annoncée, (p.179-222), Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.
• 27. Kanuka, H. (2006). Instructional design and e-learning: a discussion of pedagogical content knowledge as a missing construct. In The e-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 9(2). Available online at http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ejist/ docs/vol9_no2/papers/full_papers/kanuka.htm
• 28. Khune, T. (1962). The structure of scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• 29. Kolb, D-A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering (ed.), The Modern American College, (p.232-255). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• 30. Lebrun, M. (1999, 2002a). Des technologies pour enseigner et apprendre. Perspectives en education et formation. (2 ème ed.). Bruxelles : De Boeck Université.
• 31. Lebrun, M. (2002b, 2007a). Théories et méthodes pédagogiques pour enseigner et apprendre. Quelle place pour les TIC dans l’éducation ? Perspectives en éducation et formation. Bruxelles : De boeck Université.
• 32. Lebrun, M. (2005, 2006). E-Learning pour enseigner et pour apprendre- Allier pédagogie et technologie. Louvain-la-Neuve : Ed. Bruylant-academia.
• 33. Lebrun, M. (2007). Quality towards an expected harmony: pedagogy and technology speaking together about innovation. In AACE Journal, 15(2), (pp. 115-130).
• 34. Lebrun, M. (2012). Classes inversées, Flipped Classrooms ...Ca flippe quoi au juste ? Bolg de M@rcel. Available online at http://lebrunremy.be/WordPress/?p=612
• 35. Lenze, L.F. (1995). Discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge in Linguistics and Spanish. In N. Hativa & M. Marincovich (eds.), Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice, (pp. 65-70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• 36. Lessard, C.; Altet, M.; Paquay, L. and Perrenoud, P. (2004). Entre sens commun et sciences humaines. suels savoirs pour enseigner ? Bruxelles : Deboeck.
• 37. Magnusson, S.; Krajcik, J.; Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge, (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht, NL : Kluwer.
• 38. Mishra, P. and Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. In Teachers College Record, 108(6), (pp. 1017-1054). Available online at http://mkoehler.educ.msu.edu/OtherPages/Koehler_Pubs/TECH_BY_DESIGN/TCReco rd/mishra_koehler_tcr2006.pdf[Crossref]
• 39. Moursund, D. and Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? Available online at http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED428072
• 40. Munby, H.; Russell, T. and Martin, A.K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (4e ed.), (pp. 877-904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• 41. Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. In Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), (pp. 135-146).
• 42. Niess, M.L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. In Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, (pp. 509-523).
• 43. Puentedura, R.R. (2006). Transformation, Technology and Education [slides]. Available online at http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/part1.html
• 44. Rege Colet, N. and Berthiaume, D. (2009). Savoir ou être ? Savoirs et identités professionnels chez les enseignants universitaires. In R. Hofstetter & B. Schneuwly (eds.), Savoir en (trans)formation, (p.137-162). Bruxelles : De Boeck.
• 45. Rege Colet, N. and Lenzo Marchese, J. (2006). Peut-on parler de spécificités disciplinaires dans l’utilisation de TIC ? Études des pratiques facultaires à l’Université. Actes du XXIIIème congrès AIPU 2006. Available online at http://www.unige.ch/formev/publications/technologies/texte-regecolet-lenzo.pdf
• 46. Sensevy, G. (2009). Didactique et sciences de l’éducation : une reconfiguration ? In A. Vergnioux (ed.), 40 ans des sciences de l’éducation, (pp. 49-58). Caen : PUC.
• 47. Schmidt, D.A.; Baran, E.; Thompson, A.D.; Mishra, P.; Koehler, M. and Shin, T.S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. In Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), (pp. 123-149).
• 48. Schwab, J.J. (1964). Structure of the disciplines: meanings and significances. In G.W. Ford & L. Pugno (eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum, (pp. 6-30). Chicago. Rand Mc Nally.
• 49. Segall, A. (2004). Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: the pedagogy of content/the content of pedagogy. In Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, (pp. 489-504).
• 50. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. In Educational researcher, 15(2), (pp. 4-14). In Traduit dans Education et didactique, 1(1), (pp. 97-114).
• 51. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. In Harvard Educational review, 57, (pp. 1-22).
• 52. Shulman, L.S. (1998). Theory, Practice and Education of Professionals. In The Elementary School Journal, 98(5), (pp. 511-526).
• 53. Shulman, L.S. (2004). How and what teachers learn: a shifting perspective. In J. Curriculum studies, 36(2), (pp. 257-271).
• 54. Shulman, L.S. (2007). Ceux qui comprennent : Le développement de la connaissance dans l’enseignement. In Education et Didactique, 1(1), (pp. 97-114).
• 55. van Driel, J.H.; Verloop, N.; Devos, W. (1998). Developing science teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge. In Journal of research in science Teaching, 35(6), (pp. 673-695).
• 56. Vause, A. (2009) Les croyances et connaissances des enseignants à propos de l’acte d’enseigner. In Les Cahiers de Recherche en Éducation et Formation, 66

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/eurodl-2014-0017