The purpose of this study was to develop and validate the Pre-service Teacher-Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Survey (PT-TPACK) instrument. The PT-TPACK survey items were written to assess preservice teachers' perceptions and understanding of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge construct originally proposed by Mishra and Koehler (2006). The participants for this study were preservice teachers ( n = 120) enrolled in a foundations of educational technology course at a mid-sized western university. Data analysis yielded six interpretable factors: pedagogical knowledge (PK), technological knowledge (TK), content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Technological content knowledge (TCK) was the only dimension in the TPACK construct specified a priori that did not emerge. Results from this study suggest that the PT-TPACK survey holds promise as a useful evaluation tool for assessing preservice teachers' knowledge and use of technology to increase the effectiveness of their instructional efforts.

The Boston University PT3 grant project proposed first to train faculty to use technology and then to sustain the gained expertise in a curriculum development project. Education faculty gains in integrating technology into their teaching and their modeling of that use were clearly demonstrated in phase one of the project (the initial two years of the project). In phase two (the third year), faculty were challenged to produce innovate, interdisciplinary curriculum development projects investigating judgment in their discipline. Prototypes of the Judgment Curriculum (JC) produced in phase two of the project demonstrate an intersection of technology competence and innovative, question driven instruction. Preliminary data show strong gains in faculty use of technology in their teaching and in faculty requirements that their students use technology in education coursework. However, continued development of the Judgment Curriculum lessons remains a challenge.The Nature of the contribution: Scholarly article, 6.432 words.

No abstract

No abstract

D av i d Wh i t t i e r D uring a visit to a sixth-grade science class, the author took extensive notes on the teacher's work and the activities of her students. The following article intersperses the author's field notes, verbatim, with his subsequent analysis of what occurred in the classroom. In doing so, he draws a lesson for teachers on the uses of technology and how to integrate it into a dynamic classroom setting.A: "They study rocks" Jan: "They study rocks, what else do the geologists study, beside rocks?" A: "Minerals" Jan: "Minerals, I want some answers from over here [she says waving her arm to section of students who are sitting passively]. What else, besides rocks and minerals and fossils, might a geologist study? [Said with excitement] I'll give you a clue. I'm giving this side a clue. Anything to do with rocks minerals fossils the earth, how it works, what else might they study. Hands up, if you have an idea." A: "Earthquakes" Jan: "Earthquakes, that's the geologist. You will all get your chance to be geologists but today, the blue group is." Yellow. Yellow folks, raise your hands. Yoooouuu, are the environmental scientists. All right, now you have an idea what you're gonna study, what could you study?A: "Animals" Jan: "Something about animals, but what about them?" A: "Well, how they relate to their habitat." Jan: "OK, how they relate to their habitat. Absolutely. What else?" A: "How they live." Jan: "Good. Allllll right . . ."