Examining pre‐service teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as evolving knowledge domains: A longitudinal approach

Valtonen, Teemu; Sointu, Erkko; Kukkonen, Jari; Mäkitalo, Kati; Hoang, Nhi; Häkkinen, Païvi; Järvelä, Sanna; Näykki, Piia; Virtanen, Anne; Pöntinen, Susanna; Kostiainen, Emma; Tondeur, Jo

doi:10.1111/jcal.12353

Cited by 56 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, when critically evaluating these learning contexts' opportunities for cognitive and affective learning, it can be noted that the implementation of digital tools and environments alone is not enough (Gerjets and Hesse, 2004). Therefore, planning and facilitating learning activities in digital education requires knowledge of both technology and pedagogy (Laru et al, 2015;Häkkinen et al, 2017;Valtonen et al, 2019). For example, when designing learning with digital tools, it is important that technologies are embedded into the environment and that their use is designed prior the activities but also facilitated during the learning activities (Kirschner et al, 2006;Dillenbourg, 2013).…”

Section: Discussion-how To Design Cognitively Effortful and Affectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…These case examples are chosen with regard to their likely impact on learning and instruction in current and future educational designs (Woolf, 2010;Chang et al, 2018;Huang et al, 2019). One of the main challenges that teachers face in the context of adopting contemporary technologies to support learning activities is the fact that professional knowledge and competencies are needed in both technology and pedagogy (Valtonen et al, 2019). This means that in addition to technical aspects, it is important that teachers understand and consider the basic processes of how people learn as an individual and as part of collaborative group (Häkkinen et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Affective Learning in Digital Education—Case Studies of Social Networking Systems, Games for Learning, and Digital Fabrication

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological innovations, such as social networking systems, games for learning, and digital fabrication, are extending learning and interaction opportunities of people in educational and professional contexts. These technological transformations have the ability to deepen, enrich, and adaptively guide learning and interaction, but they also hold potential risks for neglecting people's affective learning processes-that is, learners' emotional experiences and expressions in learning. We argue that technologies and their usage in particular should be designed with the goal of enhancing learning and interaction that acknowledges both fundamental aspects of learning: cognitive and affective. In our empirical research, we have explored the possibility of using various types of emerging digital tools as individual and group support for cognitively effortful and affectively meaningful learning. We present four case studies of experiments dealing with social networking systems, programming with computer games, and "makers culture" and digital fabrication as examples of digital education. All these experiments investigate novel ways of technological integration in learning by focusing on their affective potential. In the first study, a social networking system was used in a higher education context for providing a forum for online learning. The second study demonstrates a Minecraft experiment as game-based learning in primary school education. Finally, the third and the fourth case study showcases examples of "maker" contexts and digital fabrication in early education and in secondary school. It is concluded that digital systems and tools can provide multiple opportunities for affective learning in different contexts within different age groups. As a pedagogical implication, scaffolding in both cognitive and affective learning processes is necessary in order to make the learning experience with emerging digital tools meaningful and engaging.

show abstract

Section: Discussion-how To Design Cognitively Effortful and Affectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Affective Learning in Digital Education—Case Studies of Social Networking Systems, Games for Learning, and Digital Fabrication

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bu çalışmada matematik öğretmenlerinin teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgi düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenlere göre belirlenmesi ve bu konuda görüşlerinin alınması amacıyla açımlayıcı sıralı desene göre tasarlanmıştır. Araştırma kapsamında öğretmenlerin teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisinine yönelik olumlu görüşlerinin olduğu literatürdeki araştırmalar (Açıkgül ve Aslaner, 2015;Bağdiken ve Akgündüz, 2018;Bal ve Karademir, 2013;Bilici ve Güler, 2016;Chai, Koh, Tsai, 2010;Çakır, Önal;2015;Çetin, 2017;Karataş ve Aslan Tutak, 2017;Karataş, Pişkin Tunç, Demiray, Yılmaz;2016;Kozikoğlu ve Babacan, 2019;Luik, Taimalu, Suviste, 2018;Topçu ve Masal, 2020;Valtonen, Sointu, Kukkonen vd., 2019) Yukarıda değinilen sonuçlar bağlamında, özetle bu çalışmada, matematik öğretmenlerinin teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgi konusunda olumlu görüşlerinin olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca, görüşme yapılan öğretmenlerin daha çok öğrenme ve öğretme sürecinde teknoloji kullanımının önemli olduğunu ifade ettikleri ve derse olan ilginin bu bağlamda arttığını vurguladıkları görülmektedir.…”

Section: Tartışma Sonuç Ve öNerilerunclassified

“…Bu bağlamda nicel ve nitel verilerin birbirini desteklediği söylenebilir. Yine bu sonuç;Archambault ve Crippen (2009); Bal ve Karademir (2013); Bilici ve Güler (2016) veValtonen, Sointu, Kukkonen vd. (2019) araştırma sonuçlarıyla da paralellik göstermektedir.Araştırmanın ikinci alt amacında ise cinsiyet değişkenine göre teknoloji ve MB alt faktöründe erkek öğretmenler lehine anlamlı bir fark olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.…”

unclassified

Investigation of Technological Pedagogical Field Knowledge Levels of Mathematics Teachers

Bal

Bedir

2020

International Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to determine the level of technological pedagogical field knowledge of mathematics teachers, to examine them according to various variables and to get their opinions on this subject. The study was designed according to the exploratory design of mixed research methods. The study group consisted of 190 mathematics teachers and the qualitative dimension of the study consisted of a total of eight mathematics teachers determined according to the criterion sampling method of purposive sampling methods. Technological pedagogical field knowledge scale, personal information form and semistructured interview form were used as data collection tools. Descriptive statistics, independent groups t-test and one-way were used for the analysis of quantitative data, and content analysis technique was used in the analysis of qualitative data. As a result, it was concluded that the mathematical teachers' level of technological and pedagogical knowledge was sufficient and there were statistically significant differences in terms of various variables. It was seen that the interviewed teachers emphasized that the use of technology was more important in the learning and teaching process and that the interest in the lesson increased in this context.

show abstract

“…Teachers and teacher educators must look into the eyes of technologies and understand the best ways to identify and exploit the affordances of digital devices in a deep educational way. Valtonen et al (2019) affirmed that «ICT is part of the everyday world of today's youth and pre-service teachers. [] According to Sadaf, Newby, and Ertmer (2012), today's pre-service teachers have rather positive attitudes in general concerning the possibilities of ICT in education, still when it comes to concrete work, that is, actually using ICT in the classroom, attitudes are more reserved.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Media & ICT in Teacher Education

Parmigiani

2019

Research on Education and Media

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People's attitude towards digital devices is quite paradoxical. In some areas, they are considered absolutely irreplaceable. In other ones, they are seen as dangerous and must be avoided. Analogically, the school contexts reflect the same situation: media and ICTs, and in general, they are risky; therefore, on the one hand, digital devices are forbidden and their use is prohibited, and on the other hand, technology pervades almost all areas in society (Scherer, Siddiq & Tondeur, 2019) and the new generation of teachers faces considerable demands with respect to the use of new technologies in education (OECD, 2010). In other words, a generalized feeling considers technology as a danger for pupils' cognitive and social health but, at the same time, digital devices are around us and stay silently by us. The role of scholars and researchers is as follows: Studying deeply the digital phenomena and identifying their potentialities and limits in a scientific way. Instead, the role of teachers is more difficult because they have to face the challenges offered by the digital situations and balance their actions between a proper use of technologies in the educational settings, supporting the pupils' cognitive and social growth and understanding the parents' fears, worries and doubts. Teachers walk along the border between a scientific level (the studies related to ICTs' use) and a practical one (caring the relationships with pupils' families). Consequently, there is a further crucial role, located between the academic and the educational contexts, between universities and schools: the teacher educators. Teacher educators play a central and essential role in supporting the digital professional growth of future teachers. «Teacher educators can be considered important stakeholders who prepare and motivate a new generation of teachers for teaching in today's classrooms. They can also play a key role in enhancing preservice teachers' technologyenhanced educational practices. Consequently, preparing future teachers to integrate technology in their educational practice is a challenge that teacher educators are increasingly confronted with (Liu, 2016; Ping, Schellings, & Beijaard, 2018)» (Tondeur et al., 2019, p. ??). Therefore, the question becomes twofold. Former: Which are the main characteristics of teacher educators who can support and prepare trainee teachers for a valuable and effective use of technology at school? Latter: in what way, we should change the teacher education programmes to facilitate and promote this process? Regarding the first question, «Foulger et al. (2013) identified 12 Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs) and defined the knowledge, skills and attitudes teacher educators need in preparing preservice teachers for teaching within technology-enhanced learning environments. Some examples of the competency areas included: aligning content with pedagogical approaches and technologies, modeling the use of online and blended learning methods and strategies, guiding the ethical and responsible use of ...

show abstract

Examining pre‐service teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as evolving knowledge domains: A longitudinal approach

Cited by 56 publications

References 41 publications

Affective Learning in Digital Education—Case Studies of Social Networking Systems, Games for Learning, and Digital Fabrication

Affective Learning in Digital Education—Case Studies of Social Networking Systems, Games for Learning, and Digital Fabrication

Investigation of Technological Pedagogical Field Knowledge Levels of Mathematics Teachers

Media & ICT in Teacher Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About