You are here

INDICATOR FOR TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK) EVALUATION OF ONLINE TASKS

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Abstract (2. Language): 
In the Information Communication Technology era teachers will have to wisely use the online environment in order to realize a new pedagogy. The penetration of the internet and collaborative online instruments to teaching and learning affect the quality of teaching. We have developed a digital indicator evaluate the quality of the online tasks in terms of content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, technological knowledge and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). The score for the task is obtained immediately, with emphasis of its weaknesses and strengths. The indicator was used to examine 53 online tasks that were created by teachers from 2001 to 2007. We found that teachers can use this indicator for evaluating the quality of the tasks that were developed as well as to test the improvement that took place in their tasks over time.
47-71

REFERENCES

References: 

Birenboim, M. (1997). Alternatives in evaluating achievements. Tel-Aviv University: Ramot (Hebrew).
Capper, J. (2003). Complexities and challenges of integrating technology into the curriculum. TechKnowLogia, 5(1), 60-63.
Cohen, L., Badichi, L., Levi, G. (2008). Computerized performance meter. Accessed on Dec. 17, 2008 (Hebrew):
http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/C0785650-3397-490B-943D-2008 A8037C13A4EA/74799/task_indicator.xls
Condition of Education 2002 Indicator 18 (2002). National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Accessed on July 12, 2001: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2002/pdf/18_2002.pdf
Dori, Y.J. (2003). From nationwide standardized testing to school-based alternative embedded assessment in Israel: Students‘ performance in the matriculation 2000 project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 34-52.
Gao, S., Tong, Y., Rusu, L. (2006). Development of E-society in China. In Proceeding of the IAMOT Conference. Accessed Aug. 6, 2008: http://www.iamot.org/conference/index.php/ocs/10/paper/viewFile/1439/652
Goodrich, H. (1997). Understanding Rubrics. Originally published in Educational Leadership, 54(4). Accessed Aug. 6, 2008 http://www.middleweb.com/rubricsHG.html
Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C., Oliver, R. (2005). Online learning and information delivery: Digital myopia. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16 (4), 353- 367.
Hui, D., Guangzhi, W., Bo, H., Yiyi, Z., Zhi, Y., Meng, M., ShangKai, G. (2005). Construction of a Knowledge Center for Medical Image Processing. Accessed Aug. 6, 2008: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/10755/33900/01616347.pdf
Inbal-Shamir, T., Kelly, I. (2008). Computerized teaching – a way of life or a burden for the teacher? Characterization of the range of computerized action of teachers. Article submitted at the Chase Conference, The Open University (Hebrew).
64
Lehtinen, E., Hakkaainen, K., Muukkonen, H. (1998). Computer Supported Collaborative Learning: A Review. University of Turku, University of Helsinki. Available at: http://etu.utu.fi/papers/clnet/clnetreport.html
Linn, M.C., Davis, E.A., Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108(6), 1017-1054.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2009). TPACK - Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://tpck.org
Nashi, T., Doron, A. (2008). Indicator for evaluation of quality in an online task. Draft 0.2, Ministry of Education, Tel-Aviv District, instruction team at the district. http:// www.atarnet.net/nodewebimages/24369/Files/mma3.docNoski Accessed on Sept. 2, 2008, Hebrew)
H., Shabtai, A., Rimor, R. (2006). To harness the horses of technology to the wagon of pedagogy: Implementation of a learning portal as a system for improving the quality of teaching and learning. Al Hagova, 5, May 2006, pp. 34-37 (Hebrew).
Or Meir, Z. (2005). Computerized task: Definition characterization and components. Accessed Oct. 8, 2008 (Hebrew): http://www.orianit.edu-negev.gov.il/merkazh/sites/homepage/rakaz/mesimah...
Parsad, B., Jones, J., Greene, B. (2005). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2003. US Department of Education: ED Pubs.
Roschelle, J.M., Pea, R.D., Hoadley, C.M., Gordin, D.N., Means, B.M. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. Children and Computer Technology, 10(2). Available online at: http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol10no2Art4%2Epdf
Rotem, A. (2006). Megalithic model for characterizing and evaluating an online learning task. Accessed on Dec. 25, 2006 (Hebrew): http://avrumrotem.com/avrum-S/megalit
Rotem, A., Peled, I. (2008). Towards an online school. Tel-Aviv: Mofet Institute (Hebrew).
Salomon, C. (2000). Technology and education in the age of science. Haifa: Haifa University and Zmora Bitan (Hebrew).
Selant, A. (2007). On the nature of the online task today: Between Aya and Maya. Around the World Portal, Mofet Institute. Accessed on Aug. 2, 2008 (Hebrew): http://portal.macam.ac.il/DbImage.aspx?image=file&id=1497
Shepard, L.A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29, 4.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
65
Smith, K. (2004). Index as an instrument for evaluation in teachers' training. Article submitted in an online meeting, Mofet Institute. Accessed on Nov. 11, 2008 (Hebrew): http://ole.macam.ac.il/lecture/17-2-04/#link2
Wilson, L. (1994). What gets graded is what gets valued. The mathematics teacher, 87(6), 412-414.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com