TPACK –SKILLS OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS TEACHING CRAFTS MARI KYLLÖNEN ITK –TUTKIJATAPAAMINEN 13.5.2016

TechnologiCAL pedagogiCAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE, TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) Derived from Shulmans’ (1986) model of Pedagogical- Content Knowledge (PCK), where Content Knowledge, (CK) meets Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), creating intersect Pedagogical Content knowledge (PCK). TK Technological Knowledge PK Pedagogical Knowledge CK Content knowledge TPACK adds teachers’ Technological Knowledge (TK) as third main constituent, increasing also number of intersections: TPK TCK TPACK PCK Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) Technological Content Knowleddge (TCK) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) TPACK –model has been revised (2008) in order to acknowledge affect of the context Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Shulman, 1986) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, TPACK (Mishra &Koehler 2006)

AIMs of the study METHODS Describe Finnish class teachers' self-assessed TPACK –skills in crafts: how teachers perceive their skills in integrating technology in their pedagogical practices in crafts Test TPACK –surveys applicability for self-assessment of Finnish in-service teachers in crafts context. Find out possible needs for teachers professional development and training. METHODS Mixed-methods approach (Hesse-Biber, 2014) Two sub-studies*: The Survey (n =97) and interviews (n =5). Data collected via web-based survey and thematic interviews fall 2015. Analysis conducted by both, quantitative and qualitative methods. *) Part of doctoral disseratation research ”Finnish Class Teachers’ TPACK –skills in Crafts and students motivational experiences of technology supported crafts teaching.”

THE SURVEY: meter application and analysis Survey design followed - TPACK survey by Schmidt et al. (2009) - Finnish TPACK-21 survey used by Valtonen et al. (2015) - Crafts contents applied following Finnish National Curriulum 2014’s statements on crafts. - 7 scale Likert-type survey, 46 items in the end Analysis - SPSS v22 - Maximum Likelihood (ML) factoring - Descriptive statistics (M, SD, skewness, kurtosis) - Cronbach’s alpha (confidence intervals 95%) - Oblique rotation (direct oblimin) to detect expected correlations. - Correlation analysis of sums - Comparing analysis between teachers by their educational background Survey consisted originally 67 items, including items related to New National curriculum 2016’s general learning achievement statements. Cronbachs used to measure internal consistency - level set of 0.7 or in order to achieve well-structured scale.

Descriptives of six Sums derived from the ML –analysis factoring Inter-item correlations of the sums M SD Skewness Kurtosis Crobachs’ ∝ N = 97 TK 5.2 (1.0) -.32 .09 .93 PK 5.4 (0.6) .10 -.51 .89 CK (1.1) -.72 1.05 .96 TPK 4.5 -.45 .84 .97 PCK 4.9 (0.9) -.43 .66 .95 TCK 3.8 (1.5) .11 -.48 .94 TK PK CK TPK PCK TCK 1.000 .30 .21 .36 .76 .47 .29 .52 .74 .39 .55 .58 .59 .61 TK = Technologial Knowledge PK = Pedagogical Knowledge CK = Content Knowledge TPK = Technological Pedagogical Knowledge PCK = Pedagogical Content Knowledge TCK = Technological Content Knowledge

Means of teachers self-assessed TPACK –skilss in Crafts   TK TCK CK PCK PK TPK M of all constituents Class teachers (n =76) 5,1 3,53 4,94 4,76 5,45 4,45 4,85 Class teachers specialized in crafts (no crafts teachers eligibility) (n =24) 5,14 4,02 5,53 5,2 5,49 4,71 5,17 Crafts teachers (n =14) 5,29 6,01 5,26 4,56 5,21 Class+Crafts teachers’ eligibility (n =7) 5,8 5,02 6,11 6,03 5,6 5,7 All teachers (n =97) 3,81 5,18 5,4 4,52 5,06 1 = No skill, 2 = Poor, 3 = Modest, 4 = Average, 5 = Good, 6 = Advanced/very good, 7 = Excellent.  Respondants’ educational background N Women Men 1. Class teachers eligibility 76 63 13 2. Class teachers eligibility with basic studies in crafts. 24 17 7 3. Crafts teachers eligibility 14 11 3 4. Both class teachers and crafts teachers eligibility 6 1 All respondants 97 80

In general teachers assessed TPACK –skills estimated “good” (M =5,06) Pedagogical Knowledge skills being (PK) the strongest “good” (M =5,4). PK slightly stronger amongst teachers with class teachers education than without. Class teachers with no specialization in crafts, estimated their skills most modest in general (M of TPACK 4,85, less than “Good”). Teachers with crafts teachers eligibility assessed their TPACK in general stronger than others.

FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEY 6 TPACK constituents were found: TK, PK, CK, TPK, TCK and PCK Core constituents TK, PK and CK have statistically significant, fairly strong correlations with related to their intersects (rs = .47 - .76, p < .0005 - .01 ). All constituents have some correlation with each others (rs = .21 - .76, p < 0005 - .04 Surveys fitness for assessing TPACK –skills in Crafts: Teachers TPACK –skills in Crafts: In general teachers assessed their TPACK -skills to be “good” (M =5,06) with PK as the strongest as “good” (M =5,4). Skills in the intersections (TCK, PCK and TPK) were estimated systematically lower than skills of the related core constituents. Same effect was found with other core constituents and their intersections as well. Skills in the intersections (TCK, PCK and TPK) were estimated systematically lower than skills of the related core constituents. e.g. Technological Content Knowledge skills (TCK) lower (M = 3,81) than Technological Knowledge skills (TK, M = 5,2) and Content Knowledge skills (CK, M = 5,18). Same effect was found with other core constituents and their intersections as well.

INTERVIEWS: analysis and interviewees Thematic content analysis in line with theory-informed content analysis principles. Teachers’ point of views and expressions were classified with thematic structure following TPACK –models’ three main constituents (TK, PK and CK) and statements related to other constituents were marked out.   Classteacher not specialized in crafts Agegroup Teaching years Teacher graduation year Teached crafts for (years) A X 60- 35-40 1978 10 B 45-49 '20-24 1993 20 C* 50-54 '25-29 1987 D 40-44 '10-14 2000 6 E* x -4 1998 2,5 Background information of interviewees

TK INTERVIEWS: FINDINGS Teachers identified several technologies used in their daily lives, both at home and at work. Technologies most commonly used at work were related with communication, presentation, information search and learning softwares and games. Attitude towards using technologies is more or less positive. “…as long as it was like you had to get that cart (with dataprojector) from somewhere, I was like a “help me”! What to do next? I was in trouble. Before it was like now (permanently in the classroom), it’s not worth.” Teacher A Availability of the hardware and their usability (e.g. access to proficiently functioning broadband and networks) was seen essential in order to use technology at work.

TK Pedagogy dominates use of technology: TPK “…when I plan my lesson, I always think through what available technologies could be used. Sometimes I choose like nothing, but almost every lesson I use some…by the content that is about to be learned.” Teacher B PK

TK TPK PK “Training in working hours interests me…In a way my employer All teachers expressed desire to get more training. Need of training did’nt concern only technology, but it’s pedagogical use and nature of being teacher as well. TK TPK “Training in working hours interests me…In a way my employer doesn’t offer me time enough to get acquainted with it (new technologies) in order to develop and enhance my teaching. And that makes me worry, because essence of being teacher is changing.” Teacher D PK Lack of time and training at working hours were seen as challenges or obstacles of learning new technologies to be used at work.

CK Use of technology (websites, blogs and social media like Pinterest, Facebook) was mentioned several times with 3 teachers, related to lesson planning and looking for ideas. When technology was used it was for for mediating examples and instruction and as skill practicing tool for kids (sewing machine). TCK TK Most teachers saw possible advantages if technologies would be more used in crafts. - motivate students both in general and in crafts - ease up bringing up and searching ideas with students - enhance project planning Two teachers (Teacher C and D) mentioned students self-assessment and process documentation as possible or desired use of technology in crafts. TPK PK

CK TCK TK TPK PK PCK CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION TPACK –model seems to be adaptable to measure Finnish teachers’ TPACK –skills. Differences in teachers’ self-assessed TPACK -skills between differently educated teachers may indicate that specialization in subject leads into more confindence in CK, TCK and PCK, as well in TK. Class teachers education provided stronger PK than pure crafts teachers’ education. This reflects similarly to PCK and TCK between crafts teachers and tecaher with both eligibilites. TPACK –constituents elements are recognizably used by teachers in their speech, even when not familiar with TPACK -model. Class teachers emphasize pedagogical reasoning when making decisions of ICT use, and are eager to get professional training in order to apply ICT into their teaching.

More research is needed… …in order to corroborate these findings and to understand TPACK constituents relations in crafts? …off interest of whether self-assessment of TPACK constituents changes after teachers receive training? Action research designs are where pedagogical and technical support is provided for teachers with a pre- and post-assessment of TPACK skills. However, more research is needed incorporating not only the teachers’ views, but also students experiences and performances..

References: Chai, C.S., Koh, J.H.L., & Tsai, C.C. (2013). A Review of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31 – 5.   Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2014). Mixed Methods Research. New York, US: Guilford Press. Retrieved 16.11.2015 from http://www.ebrary.com Hirsjärvi, S., & Hurme, H. (2008). Tutkimushaastattelu: Teemahaastattelun teoria ja käytäntö. Helsinki: Gaudeamus Helsinki University Press. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Metsämuuronen, J. (2006). Tutkimuksen tekemisen perusteet ihmistieteissä: Opiskelijalaitos (2. laitos, 3. uud. p.). Helsinki: International Methelp.    Schmidt, D.A., Baran, E., Thompson, A.D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., & Shin, T.S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 4-14. Valtonen, T., Sointu, E.T., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Kukkonen, J. (2015). Developing a TPACK measurement instrument for 21st century pre-service teachers. Seminar.net. International Journal of media, technology and lifelong learning, 11(2). 87-100. Voogt, J. & Roblin, N.P. (2012) A comparative analysis if international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299-321. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge–a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109-121. Retrieved 10.6.2016 from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.jyu.fi/login.aspx direct=true&db=afh&AN=86052527&site=ehost-live

! THANK YOU YOUR FOR ATTENDANCE MARI KYLLÖNEN MARI.J.KYLLONEN@JYU.FI 040 742 0950 WWW.MARI.FI