Advertisement

Improving Science Education Through Developing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teachers

  • Diane Jass Ketelhut
Chapter

Abstract

Despite the struggle to achieve expert teaching in science, particularly in K-8, we are now faced with a new challenge: moving from discussing pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to talking about technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). TPACK is the knowledge of how to use technology to improve pedagogy, to facilitate learning of content, and to build on student technological literacies as content. Therefore, TPACK subsumes PCK, adding an additional layer to an already complex classroom decision-making. The question is, then, how do teachers develop this knowledge when in many cases the underlying knowledge bases are already inadequate? This chapter discusses why it is important for teachers to incorporate technological tools into their practice, the issues with doing so, and recommendations for improving this situation.

Keywords

Science education PCK TPACK 

References

  1. Abdal-Haqq, I. (1995). Infusing technology into preservice teacher education, ERIC Digest: 7 p. ED 389 699. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  2. Alberts, B. (2009). Editorial: Redefining science education. Science, 323, 437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, J. S. (2002). Learning in the digital age. In M. Devlin, R. Larson, & J. Meyerson (Eds.), The internet and the university: 2001 forum (pp. 65–91). Boulder: EDUCAUSE Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Harnessing the power of video games for learning. Retrieved on July 21, 2017 from https://fas.org/programs/ltp/policy_and_publications/summit/Summit%20on%20Educational%20Games.pdf
  5. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (Vol. 6, pp. 3–20). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hofer, M., & Swan, K. (2008). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in action: A case study of a middle school digital documentary project. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jorgenson, O., & Vanosdall, R. (2002). The death of science: What we risk in our rush towards standardized testing and the three R’s. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 601–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ketelhut, D. J., Schifter, C, Varnum, S., & Stull, J. (2009). Introducing interactive whiteboards to urban teachers. Proceedings from the 20th Annual SITE International Conference.Google Scholar
  9. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In The AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–30). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  11. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  12. Rathus, S. (2004). Psychology, concepts, and connections. Canada: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  13. Roehrig, G., & Luft, J. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” how preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diane Jass Ketelhut
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations