FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2346868546> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2346868546 endingPage "46" @default.
• W2346868546 startingPage "39" @default.
• W2346868546 abstract "Teachers’ knowledge for technology integration – conceptualized as technological pedagogical content knowledge, or TPACK (Mishra & Koehler 2006) – is difficult to discern, much less assess. Given the complexity, situatedness and interdependence of the types of knowledge represented by the TPACK construct, well-triangulated ways to assess demonstrated technology integration knowledge are needed. In 2009, three of the authors created and tested a rubric that was found to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess the TPACK evident in teachers’ written lesson plans (Harris, Grandgenett & Hofer 2010). We have now also developed a TPACK-based observation rubric that testing has shown to be robust. Seven TPACK experts confirmed the rubric’s construct and face validity. The instrument’s interrater reliability coefficient (.802) was computed using both Intraclass Correlation and a percent score agreement (90.8%) procedure. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) was .914. Test-retest reliability (score agreement) was 93.9%. The rubric is available online at http://activitytypes.wm.edu/Assessments. Assessing Teachers’ TPACK The specific nature of teachers’ knowledge is notoriously difficult to discern, much less assess, with accuracy (Shulman 1986). It is situated, socially constructed, and highly complex (Shulman 1987; Putnam & Borko 2000). Yet if we choose to use a construct such as TPACK (Mishra & Koehler 2006) to conceptualize teachers’ technology integration knowledge, we need valid and reliable strategies and instruments to assess that knowledge in the many forms in which it appears. Recently, researchers have begun to use TPACK as a framework to explore multiple ways to understand and assess teachers’ knowledge for technology integration. Data from self-reports (e.g. survey responses), interviews, and classroom observations, along with documents (e.g., preservice teachers’ journal entries), and other artifacts (e.g., samples of K-12 students’ work) have been analyzed – often alone, but increasingly in combination – in researchers’ attempts to describe and appraise teachers’ TPACK. Many recent TPACK assessments are based primarily upon survey data, whether focused on teachers’ technology proficiency (e.g., Ward & Overall 2010), selfefficacy (e.g., Lee & Tsai 2010), technology adoption concerns and/or stages (e.g., Williams, Foulger & Wetzel 2010), perceptions of necessary knowledge (e.g., de Ovierira & Romero 2010; Robertshaw & Gillam 2010), or evaluations of TPACK-based learning experiences (e.g., Zhou, Zhang, Li & Zhao 2010). Several have been based upon content analyses of teachers’ written reflections, such as assigned journal entries (e.g., Hechter & Phyfe 2010) and responses to instructional dilemmas (e.g., Graham, Burgoyne & Borup 2010). Increasingly, multiple-method assessments of teachers’ technology integration knowledge have been attempted in an effort to uncover and understand more of the complexity inherent in the interdependence and situatedness of the TPACK construct. Studies of experienced teachers’ TPACK by Niess & Gillow-Wiles (2010) and Mueller (2010), for example, used individual interviews, observations of teaching, and a variety of self-report and self-assessment surveys, along with samples of student work (Mueller) and teachers’ portfolios and online discussions (Niess & Gillow-Wiles) to help researchers to better understand the multiple dimensions of participating teachers’ curriculum-based technology integration knowledge. Stoilescu and McDougall’s (2010) ethnographic study of mathematics teachers’ technology integration incorporated similar data types and sources, but in a more immersive and contextually-based way typical of modern anthropological research. Jaipal and Figg’s (2010) multiple case study of two groups of preservice teachers triangulated data sources and types extensively, combining multiple individual interviews with each participant, multiple instructional observations and debriefings, responses to both structured and open-ended survey items, and analysis of lesson plans to determine the “characteristics of teacher knowledge for planning and implementing technologically-enhanced...instruction” (p. 3868)." @default.
• W2346868546 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2346868546 creator A5019421391 @default.
• W2346868546 creator A5027379687 @default.
• W2346868546 creator A5029798351 @default.
• W2346868546 creator A5076056628 @default.
• W2346868546 date "2011-01-01" @default.
• W2346868546 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2346868546 title "Testing a TPACK-Based Technology Integration Observation Rubric" @default.
• W2346868546 cites W1480214188 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W1499368215 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W1507190653 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W1509229155 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W1527356758 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W1546295638 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W1569154263 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W1586414640 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W1599894498 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W1606191273 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W162716798 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W1834077627 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2002275321 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2048236869 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2050460112 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2051255876 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2067724039 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2088634095 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2091434904 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2098786085 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2102867679 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2130059081 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2140369176 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2146984243 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2153000380 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2154272934 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2216977500 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2230033808 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2256077602 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2472007568 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W2496073308 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W3204489237 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W603934942 @default.
• W2346868546 cites W787030947 @default.
• W2346868546 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2346868546 type Work @default.
• W2346868546 sameAs 2346868546 @default.
• W2346868546 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2346868546 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2346868546 hasAuthorship W2346868546A5019421391 @default.
• W2346868546 hasAuthorship W2346868546A5027379687 @default.
• W2346868546 hasAuthorship W2346868546A5029798351 @default.
• W2346868546 hasAuthorship W2346868546A5076056628 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C104709138 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C106906290 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C111640148 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C163258240 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C171606756 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C2776436953 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C2780801425 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C43214815 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C49453240 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C61863361 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConcept C83849319 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C104709138 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C106906290 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C111640148 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C121332964 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C138496976 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C145420912 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C154945302 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C15744967 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C163258240 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C171606756 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C199360897 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C2776436953 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C2780801425 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C41008148 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C43214815 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C49453240 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C61863361 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C62520636 @default.
• W2346868546 hasConceptScore W2346868546C83849319 @default.
• W2346868546 hasLocation W23468685461 @default.
• W2346868546 hasOpenAccess W2346868546 @default.
• W2346868546 hasPrimaryLocation W23468685461 @default.
• W2346868546 hasRelatedWork W1585630248 @default.
• W2346868546 hasRelatedWork W1974573623 @default.
• W2346868546 hasRelatedWork W1988035542 @default.
• W2346868546 hasRelatedWork W1993688415 @default.
• W2346868546 hasRelatedWork W2009825518 @default.

• next