1. Can Virtual Exchange Enhance Teacher Trainees Digital-Pedagogical Competence?
Jekaterina Rogaten and Mirjam Hauck
Open University UK
Walton Drive, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA

2. Outline RQs TPACK: Framework , Components, Measurement
Method – Qualitative: [Katarina to add]
Findings
Method – Quantitative: Learner Diaries
The Road ahead

3. RQs The overarching RQ More specifically:
Will participation in telecollaborative exchange contribute to the development of competences which future teachers need to teach, collaborate and innovate effectively in a digitalised and cosmopolitan world?
More specifically:
Will telecollaboration have a positive impact on future teachers’
digital-pedagogical competence?
intercultural competence
foreign language competence?

4. Approach
TPACK – Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Mishra and Koehler, 2006)
Framework describing the kinds of knowledge needed by a teacher for effective technology integration
How a teacher’s understanding of content, pedagogy, and technology interrelates and impacts on effective teaching.
Teacher educators have used various approaches to develop TPACK in pre- and in-service teacher training programmes
There are different approaches to measuring TPACK.
The TPACK framework extends Shulman’s idea of Pedagogical Content Knowledge.
people continue to develop the TPACK framework conceptually, theoretically, and empirically. Check out the TPACK Library section on the tpack.org website for more information.

5. TPACK Framework
The TPACK framework tries to capture the complex interplay of three primary forms of knowledge:
Content (CK), Pedagogy (PK), and Technology (TK).
It goes beyond seeing these three knowledge bases in isolation. In fact, the framework emphasizes the kinds of knowledge that lie at the intersections between the three primary forms:
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)
Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), and
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK).

6. TPACK – 7 components
1. Technology knowledge (TK): knowledge about various technologies, ranging from low-tech technologies such as pencil and paper to digital technologies such as the Internet, digital video, interactive whiteboards, and software programs.
2. Content knowledge (CK): “knowledge about actual subject matter that is to be learned or taught” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1026). Teachers must know about the content they are going to teach and how the nature of knowledge is different for various content areas.
3. Pedagogical knowledge (PK): methods and processes of teaching and includes knowledge in classroom management, assessment, lesson plan development, and student learning.
4. Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): content knowledge that deals with the teaching process (Shulman, 1986). Pedagogical content knowledge is different for various content areas, as it blends both content and pedagogy with the goal being to develop better teaching practices in the content areas.
5. Technological content knowledge (TCK): knowledge of how technology can create new representations for specific content. […] teachers understand that, by using a specific technology, they can change the way learners practice and understand concepts in a specific content area.
6. Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK): knowledge of how various technologies can be used in teaching, and to understanding that using technology may change the way teachers teach.
7. Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): knowledge required by teachers for integrating technology into their teaching in any content area. Teachers have an intuitive understanding of the complex interplay between the three basic components of knowledge (CK, PK, TK) by teaching content using appropriate pedagogical methods and technologies.

7. TPACK measurement – internal consistency
Across several different TPACK survey instruments, researchers have found high levels of internal consistency (a form of reliability), indicating that the items of the TPACK survey correctly focus on the individual factors comprising TPACK. (Koehler et al., 2013)
Schmidt et al. (2009) created a 47 Likert item survey designed to measure each of the seven components of TPACK
Participants answered each question using a five-level Likert scale:
1. Strongly disagree / 2. Disagree / 3. Neither agree nor disagree / 4. Agree / 5. Strongly agree

8. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument for Preservice Teachers (Schmidt et al. 2009)
• good to excellent internal consistency (using Cronbach’s alpha between 0.75 and 0.92) for each of the seven constructs • also: significant correlations between the seven components of TPACK

9. Component 1: Technology Knowledge (TK)
1. I know how to solve my own technical problems.
2. I can learn technology easily.
3. I keep up with important new technologies.
4. I frequently play around with the technology.
5. I know about a lot of different technologies.
6. I have the technical skills I need to use technology.
7. I have had sufficient opportunities to work with different technologies.
1. Strongly disagree / 2. Disagree / 3. Neither agree nor disagree / 4. Agree / 5. Strongly agree
From the next area, Technological Content Knowledge we chose only one item:
“I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and learning a foreign language.”

10. Component 6: Technology Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)
35. I can choose technologies that enhance the teaching approaches
for a lesson.
36. I can choose technologies that enhance students’ learning for a lesson.
37. My teacher education program has caused me to think more deeply about how technology could influence the teaching approaches I use in my classroom.
38. I am thinking critically about how to use technology in my classroom.
39. I can adapt the use of the technologies that I am learning about to different teaching activities.
1. Strongly disagree / 2. Disagree / 3. Neither agree nor disagree / 4. Agree / 5. Strongly agree

11. Component 7: Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
40. I can teach lessons that appropriately combine mathematics, technologies, and teaching approaches.
41. I can teach lessons that appropriately combine literacy, technologies, and teaching approaches.
42. I can teach lessons that appropriately combine science, technologies, and teaching approaches.
43. I can teach lessons that appropriately combine social studies, technologies, and teaching approaches.
[I can teach lessons that appropriately combine my specialised subject, technologies, and teaching approaches]
44. I can select technologies to use in my classroom that enhance what I teach, how I teach, and what students learn.
45. I can use strategies that combine content, technologies, and teaching approaches that I learned about in my coursework in my classroom.
46. I can provide leadership in helping others to coordinate the use of content, technologies, and teaching approaches at my school and/or district.
47. I can choose technologies that enhance the content for a lesson.
1. Strongly disagree / 2. Disagree / 3. Neither agree nor disagree / 4. Agree / 5. Strongly agree

12. Method (quantitative)
Participants
496 students from 17 exchanges
Male %
Female %
Unknown %
Age M=24 (SD=5.4)
76 students in the control group
Male
Female
Unknown 1 0.9%
Age M=21 (SD=2.1)
Measures
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) scale (Schmidt et al., 2009)
Technology Knowledge
Technological Content Knowledge
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Procedure
Pre-test and Post-test survey
The average exchange length was 67 days (SD=27.5)
Mention in here that all scales used in this study were translated into Spanish, Portuguese and Hungarian and for all translations the reliability was good.

13. Results: exchange group
Pre-test
Post-test
Variable M SD t
Technology Knowledge
3.46
0.64
3.73
0.65
-8.793***
Technological Content Knowledge
3.54
0.89
3.91
0.75
-7.027***
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge
3.70
0.56
4.01
0.50
-9.922***
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
3.57
0.59
3.88
0.54
***

14. Results: control group
Pre-test
Post-test
Variable M SD t
Technology Knowledge
3.68
0.57
3.73
0.59
-1.035
Technological Content Knowledge
3.56
1.00
3.97
0.78
-2.934*
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge
3.78
0.46
3.88
0.60
-1.321
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
3.71
0.45
3.86
0.58
-1.945

15. Key findings
The results showed that overall students showed to develop Technology Knowledge, Technological Content Knowledge, Technological Pedagogical Knowledge and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as a result of participating in the exchange.
The largest improvement was in the Technological Content Knowledge and the smallest improvement was in Technology Knowledge.

16. Future research Examine the changes on the exchange specific level
Examine the effects of Socio-demographic variables
Compare the results between Round 1 and Round 2 data collections

17. Method (qualitative) 5 data points Before start of exchange
After Task 1
After Task 2
After Task 3
After exchange had finished

18. Prompts
Before start
Can you give a concrete example (a lesson, a series of lessons, or even an entire class/course) of how the use of technology has enhanced teaching or learning (a situation where you were either a learner or a teacher)? What was the topic and which tools and/or online environments were used?
After task 1
In your first task you used different technologies - online tools - for communicating and presenting information. What have you learned about selecting technologies that enhance what you teach and how you teach? Use a concrete example to illustrate your answer.
What have you learned from your first task about selecting technologies that enhance what students learn and how they learn? Use a concrete example to illustrate your answer.

19. First impressions: Round 1 Exchange 1
Yes, I can give an example. It was IT course, where our teacher showed us many webpages (e.g. Padlet, Storybird, Weebly, Quizzlet, ESL Video, Survio, etc.) which can improve our methods of teaching at school.
Before
I can't give a concrete example …. I implemented technology in my lessons before, but it didn’t really enhance my teaching. I usually prefer the old-fashioned way of teaching.
Draw attention to the using technology = method thinking!
Last year I participated in a course dedicated to the use of technology in teaching. We were focusing on enhancing different skills such as listening or reading due to games and online quizzez, e.g. TED-Ed lessons.

20. First impressions After Task 1
It is essential to select appropriate technology which motivates students to learn languages. I think that the task in which we had to chose and describe pictures was very interesting and motivating as well because you could show something what is important to you and learn something new about other culture as well.
After Task 1
One of the technologies we used was Zoom. It is a tool to communicate via webcam in an online conference. I had never used Zoom before. Thus, it was interesting for me to try it out. I find Zoom very helpful when you want to get to know people in person, even though they live far away.
I've learned that technologies have to be chosen properly to the users, I've observed that many students were confused when using many tools at one task. Nevertheless, I think it was a great fun to watch other people's participation and their understanding of the task because as many student we have in this project such many interpretations were there.

21. Prompts
After task 2
Often the way an online tool is being used changes depending on what learners are supposed to do while carrying out the task. What have you learned about the need to adapt online tools to how learners use tasks in your subject area? Give a concrete example to illustrate your answer.
After task 3
What have you learned so far about how technology influences your teaching approach? Give concrete example to illustrate your answer.
After the exchange
Has this project affected in any way how you will use online tools and environments in your own teaching career in the future?
After having collaborated with your partner/s in designing different online tasks, what is the most important thing you feel you have learned about how online tools and environments should be used for teaching? Give a concrete example.

22. First impressions After Task 2
I learned something about the adaption while working with learning apps. The way I was asking my questions was wrong and they were not at the right point of the video, so they rather repeated than gave a purpose for listening.
Padlets are great if you would like the students to write down individual ideas (that can happen anonymously, it does not have to though) or to introduce themselves. I would not use padlets to post results a whole group of students came up with. For that I would prefer a forum where you can post comments and which also allows to comment on each other's posts (like it is possible on Facebook, for example).
I did not learn new things. I always know what students love computers and different apps. They like using the Internet because it's very pleasant, common and easy for them.

23. First impressions After Task 3
I have learned that technology can open up a strict lesson plan, because there are so many options on how to incorporate it in class. If the teachers uses e.g. controlled platforms, the students can do research all by themselves, individual or in teams, in order to do a task. The teacher can focus on monitoring, but still needs to give good instructions beforehand.
After Task 3
The use of technologies in teaching makes it easier to encourage learners to learn foreign languages. Learners feel triggered and they participate in the lessons more eagerly. All sorts of games and quizzes enable learners to overcome difficulties. .
Draw attention to the using technology = method thinking!
Highlight playful aspect of technology use.
“opening up strict classrooms” vs. using “controlled platform” and “good instructions”
I've learned that technology is a good way to improve our language skills especially by speaking through video conference with people from the other culture. It is also a good way to improve our technical skills to not be afraid of using technology as a method of learning foreign language.

24. First impressions After exchange
I was surprised when I noticed that using technology in class does not have to be completely complicated. Using padlets, pictures, videos, creating a weebly page are things that may have to be introduced. But all in all, they are fairly easy to use. I just fear that schools are not always ready for using technology in class.
I am very interested in using technology for an own telecollaborative project when I will be a teacher in school. Also it was interesting to use online tools and platforms within the tasks e.g. About.Me, Kahoot, Padlet, Weebly... I can better imagine to use such tools in my classroom later, also outside of a telecollaborative project.
am definitely going to deal with a couple of online tools and think about using them in my classroom for a communicative purpose.
I think that this project did not affect on my using online tools in my own teaching career in the future. However, it was a very good experience.

25. References
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J.M. Specter, M.D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M.J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp ). Springer New York. 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 pre-service teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42 (2), 123–149.

26. Thank you for listening!
EVALUATE Project Homepage:
Evaluating and Upscaling Telecollaborative Teacher Education (EVALUATE) ( EPP ES-EPPKA3-PI-POLICY) is funded by Erasmus+ Key Action 3 (EACEA No 34/2015). The views reflected in this presentation are the authors’ alone and the commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.