A TPACK Diagnostic Tool for Teacher Education Leaders

Download PDF
46 downloads 8591 Views 3MB Size Report
Comment
Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2017. Abstract Teacher ... diagnostic tool that provides leaders in teacher education with support and ...
TechTrends (2017) 61:372–379 DOI 10.1007/s11528-017-0171-7

ORIGINAL PAPER

A TPACK Diagnostic Tool for Teacher Education Leaders Kevin J. Graziano 1 & Mary C. Herring 2 & Jeffrey P. Carpenter 3 & Sharon Smaldino 4 & Elizabeth S. Finsness 5

Published online: 11 March 2017 # Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2017

Abstract Teacher education faculty must incorporate and model effective use of Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) in the classroom and across the curriculum. Teacher education leaders have a responsibility to set direction, develop people, and redesign their teacher preparation programs into TPACK ready environments. As such, a change process may occur that may be challenging and difficult for some leaders and their faculty. In this article, the authors examine the process and product of creating a TPACK leadership diagnostic tool that provides leaders in teacher education with support and guidance for the process of developing TPACK ready teacher preparation programs. Suggestions for further development and usage of the diagnostic tool are discussed.

* Kevin J. Graziano [email protected] Mary C. Herring [email protected] Jeffrey P. Carpenter [email protected] Sharon Smaldino [email protected] Elizabeth S. Finsness [email protected] 1

School of Education, Nevada State College, Henderson, NV, USA

2

Curriculum & Instruction, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA

3

School of Education, Elon University, Elon, NC, USA

4

College of Education, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA

5

College of Education, Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN, USA

Keywords Diagnostic tool . Formative assessment . Teacher education leaders . Teacher preparation . TPACK In 2012, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) asked the Innovation and Technology (I&T) Committee, one of AACTE’s seven standing committees, to develop materials that support teacher education leaders in the effective implementation of Technological, Pedagogical, Content Knowledge (TPACK) into their teacher preparation programs (Susan Petroff, personal communication with Mary Herring March 2012). Teacher education leaders must attend to their role and leadership practices that set direction, develop people, and redesign their teacher preparation programs in order to develop TPACK skills in teacher candidates (Herring et al. 2014). The role of such a leader has been identified as maintaining two core functions: (a) providing direction and (b) exercising influence with a goal of organizational improvement. Specifically, a leader should establish agreed-upon and worthwhile directions and do whatever it takes to press and support people to move in those directions. Unfortunately, leadership practices required to create and maintain such practices are often poorly defined (Louis et al. 2010). Technology-based projects often focus on the roles and responsibilities of those charged with actual implementation, thus ignoring the roles and responsibilities of an organization’s leader in creating a context that assists in a successful change process. The I&T Committee identified the need for a diagnostic tool that would assist teacher education leaders in focusing on those components needed to lead a TPACK-based change process successfully. TPACK is a framework of teacher knowledge for technology integration built upon Shulman’s (1986) construct of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to include technology knowledge (Koehler and Mishra 2008; Niess 2005). When

TechTrends (2017) 61:372–379

teachers and teacher educators understand the interactions of these components, it can contribute to teaching that is more likely to harness technology’s potential to support student learning. BTo ensure this result, however, the critical role of leadership in making such changes must be considered^ (Dexter et al. 2012, p. 256). In order to facilitate a systematic, coordinated approach within colleges and universities, the I&T Committee collaborated with the National Technology Leadership Coalition (NTLC) and Microsoft’s Partners in Learning Higher Education Teacher Education Initiative (TEI) project to develop materials explicitly for teacher education leaders such as Deans and department Chairs that guide the process of embedding TPACK into their teacher preparation programs (Herring et al. 2014). Through focus group discussions with College of Education Deans and other leaders regarding context-specific products and processes needed to create change in teacher education at the local level, a blueprint for a leader’s role in supporting the development of TPACK ready teacher candidates was published (Thomas et al. 2013). The blueprint laid out a change process. The I&T committee determined that for actual implementation to occur additional materials should be created to assist leaders with a focus on flexible and wide-ranging applications across a variety of programs. The committee began this work with an examination of the aforementioned Blueprint’s Theory of Action and developed a TPACK leadership diagnostic tool that provides leaders with a snapshot on their progress in implementing a TPACK-based change process. This article describes the process and product that resulted from the committee’s work. Before we discuss the TPACK leadership diagnostic tool, we provide an overview of TPACK, a Theory of Action, and the Transformational Leadership Framework as the foundation that guided the development of the diagnostic tool. This article ends with a call to action/next steps for further research with the tool.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework The TPACK framework (Mishra and Koehler 2006) describes the knowledge associated with effective teaching with technology. In contrast to previous understandings of the knowledge bases for teaching that focus exclusively on either content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), or technological knowledge (TK), the TPACK framework portrays these areas of knowledge as interrelated and inextricably linked. Furthermore, the TPACK framework (see Fig. 1) suggests the three knowledge domains of CK, PK, and TK overlap to produce four additional knowledge domains: pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological pedagogical knowledge

373

Fig. 1 The TPACK framework. Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org

(TPK), technological content knowledge (TCK), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Mishra and Koehler (2006) argue the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at the center of the framework is an Bemergent form of knowledge that goes beyond all three components^ (p. 1028). Additionally, an important element of the TPACK framework is its recognition that contextual factors influence teaching and learning. Knowledge of context is thus considered essential to successful teaching with technology, although this element has been somewhat neglected in the extant research (Rosenberg and Koehler 2015). Given the evolving nature of technology, TPACK should not be thought of as static or fixed (Olofson et al. 2016). The TPACK framework was originally formulated at a time when the theory to guide research in the area of educational technology was limited (Angeli and Valanides 2009). Numerous scholars have subsequently utilized the framework to inform their research, with the seminal Mishra and Koehler (2006) widely cited and two TPACK handbooks published (AACTE, Innovation and Technology Committee 2008; Herring et al. 2016). Research on TPACK spans content areas and grade levels, with attention to theory (Olofson et al. 2016), practice (Harris and Hofer 2011), development of measurement instruments (Abbitt 2011), and the use of TPACK with or by preservice teachers (Koehler et al. 2014), inservice teachers (Jang and Tsai 2012), and higher education faculty (Jang and Chang 2016). The TPACK framework has been utilized and critiqued (Archambault and Barnett 2010; Brantley-Dias and Ertmer 2013; Herring et al. 2016) by many researchers. However,

374

despite the more than 600 TPACK-related journal articles published to date, the area of leadership to support the use and integration of the TPACK framework in higher education has received relatively little attention in the literature (Herring et al. 2016). The context component of the TPACK framework includes elements related to the work of K-12 school leaders, but there remains the issue of how leadership in higher education can support the development of teacher candidates’ TPACK. While prior research offers a variety of findings regarding how faculty members can contribute to TPACK development through single or multiple courses (Mouza et al. 2014), it is less apparent how Deans, department Chairs and other administrators can lead and support larger TPACK initiatives that will ensure all teacher candidates graduate from their programs with the knowledge and skills to effectively integrate technology into teaching and learning. This article addresses this gap in the literature by offering a TPACK leadership diagnostic tool that will guide leaders in teacher education in their development and support of initiatives focused on or informed by the TPACK framework.

TechTrends (2017) 61:372–379

agents. Agents design action to achieve intended consequences, and monitor themselves to learn if their actions are effective. They make sense of their environment by constructing meanings to which they attend, and these constructions in turn guide action. In monitoring the effectiveness of action, they also monitor the suitability of their construction of the environment (pp. 80-1). According to Fullan (2010), BThe best theories are at their core solidly grounded in action^ (p. 1). No organization should move forward without a Theory of Action that maps out the components of a change process (Argyris and Schon 1974; Hill and Celio 1998). The Theory of Action (see Fig. 2) identifies key areas that teacher education leaders should consider as they make plans for the effective integration of TPACK into their teacher preparation programs. The TPACK leadership Theory of Action identifies (a) how change is expected to happen; (b) what is within the control of the leaders; and (c) what leaders might wish they could control (Herring et al. 2014). Transformational Leadership Framework

Foundation of the TPACK Leadership Diagnostic Tool The foundation of the TPACK leadership diagnostic tool includes Argyris and Schon’s (1974) Theory of Action, and Leithwood and colleagues’ Transformational Leadership Framework (Day et al. 2008; Leithwood et al. 2008; Leithwood and Jantzi 2008; Leithwood and Riehl 2003). Both the Theory of Action and the Transformational Leadership Framework support an organization’s development of change. Theory of Action The basic premise of Argyris and Schon’s (1974) Theory of Action is that all individuals need to become competent in taking action while simultaneously reflecting on this action to learn from it (Salaway 1987). In other words, in situations to achieve consequence Bc^, one should do action Ba^ (Argyris and Schon 1974). The Theory of Action is closely associated with a logic model that explains the causeeffect relationships among inputs, activities, and intended outcomes, and is often used in program planning, management, and evaluation (Bennett 2010). Argyris et al. (1985) argue the Theory of Action begins with a conception of human beings as designers of action. They write: To see human behavior under the aspect of action is to see it as constituted by the meanings and intentions of

Another component of the TPACK leadership diagnostic tool is focused on the Transformational Leadership Framework. This framework identifies three key leadership functions associated with improving student outcomes. BThe essence of transformational leadership is dedication to fostering the growth of organizational members and enhancing their commitment by elevating their goals^ (Ross and Gray 2006, p. 180). More specifically, Hallinger (2010) notes: Transformational leadership focuses on developing the organization’s capacity to innovate. It [transformational leadership] seeks to build the organization’s capacity to select its purposes and to support the development of changes to practices of teaching and learning. Transformational leadership may be viewed as distributed in that it focuses on developing a shared vision and shared commitment to school change (p. 4). There are three key components of the Transformational Leadership Framework. They include: (1) Establish a vision to set direction; (2) Develop faculty members to accomplish vision; and (3) Redesign the organization to support member’s work towards the vision. Establish a Vision to Set Direction The 2017 National Education Technology Plan (NETP) reminds us that Btechnology alone does not transform learning; rather, technology helps enable transformative learning^ (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology 2017, p. 42). For systemic changes to occur, teacher education leaders must

TechTrends (2017) 61:372–379

375

Fig. 2 Theory of action

establish a clear vision for how their programs will develop TPACK competent candidates who can become models and/or change agents at their schools (Thomas et al. 2013). Once a community identifies its vision to transform learning, technology can be used to accomplish the vision that would otherwise be out of reach (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology 2017). BBy making certain all involved stakeholder groups are part of the vision-setting process, leaders will ensure better community support and the establishment of a plan for learning technology that reflects local needs and goals^ (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology 2017, p. 89). By answering the following questions, leadership teams can develop clear direction: (1) What is our vision? (2) What resources do we have to support our efforts? (3) What will our institution look like when TPACK is embedded into our teacher preparation program? Answers to these questions will assist teacher education leaders identify where they are now compared to where they want to be for their next steps towards change. Their institutional direction will become clearer when the leadership team establishes program coherence that aligns TPACK to accreditation standards (Thomas et al. 2013). Develop Faculty Members to Accomplish Vision Teacher education leaders must develop members’ capacity to move in the set direction by modeling and providing individualized support and opportunities to learn (Thomas et al. 2013). The direct experiences faculty and staff have with those in leadership roles, as well as the organizational context within which people work, influence such practices (Leithwood and Jantzi 2008). Leaders should plan for a process to develop faculty members’ collective capacities (Fullan 2010). Faculty will likely vary in their levels of prerequisite technology skills and the ways they embed technology into their courses. BMoving to learning enabled by technology can mean a shift in the

specific skills and competencies required of leaders^ (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology 2017, p. 42). Since teacher education leaders are working towards change together with faculty, they too need personal experience with learning technologies and an understanding of how to deploy these resources effectively (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology 2017). Thomas et al. (2013) discuss ways to incentivize TPACK with faculty. They write, Because TPACK requires that learning is an active construction of knowledge and faculty members typically have responsibility for knowledge production, teacher education leaders can consider how data collection and analysis and the subsequent production of findings about the work underway is and could be incentivized and rewarded by tenure and promotion requirements (59).

Redesign the Organization to Support member’s Work towards the Vision Teacher education leaders must support members’ movement towards a desired vision by providing appropriate conditions and support, rather than barriers to progress (Thomas et al. 2013). Leaders may need to redesign their organizations to enable and support both the students’ and faculty members’ work necessary to achieve the vision. This suggests that structuring the school or college as a learning organization and establishing professional learning communities could be means for developing the shared norms and values as well as the skills and knowledge needed to include TPACK in programs (Dexter et al. 2012). To make change happen, teacher education leaders must use resources that can be controlled (see Fig. 2) to facilitate the change process. To be successful, leaders need to consider how the whole organization supports the change. This will include an evaluation of resources so they can be aligned with the

376

TechTrends (2017) 61:372–379 Leaders need to consider a number of issues when determining how to design and implement teacher preparation programs that will prepare Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) ready teacher candidates (Thomas et al. 2013). Among these considerations is developing a process to prepare teacher education faculty in their understanding of the interplay of TPACK elements. This TPACK leadership diagnostic tool is designed for self-reflection and guidance for teacher education leaders and leadership teams as they develop vision and plans for developing a technology rich model for teacher candidates to become 21st century educators. The diagnostic tool serves as an opportunity to examine current practices and to help develop realistic goals for program development. Theory of Action How do policies in your University/College/School support your teacher candidates to acquire Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? What elements within your University/College/School can impact change initiatives related to TPACK integration into programs?

Fig. 3 TPACK leadership diagnostic tool

program change goals simultaneously with restructuring departmental leadership roles (Thomas et al. 2013). Accreditation can be a compelling motivator for educational change. Thomas et al. (2013) write, while every organization

may not undergo an accreditation process, the state level adoption of the Common Core Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiatives 2017) will require most teacher preparation programs to revise their curricula to prepare their

TechTrends (2017) 61:372–379

377

Key Leadership Functions How do policies in your University/College/School support your teacher candidates to acquire Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? What resources do you have available in your University/College/School to generate and support initiatives to integrate TPACK into your programs?

Fig. 3 (continued)

candidates to teach according to the new standards. While these standards and other professional standards are currently in a state of change, teacher preparation programs should consider revising and updating their curricula to reflect TPACK.

TPACK Leadership Diagnostic Tool Building on the Theory of Action and the Transformational Leadership Framework, the I&T committee determined a TPACK leadership diagnostic tool (see Fig. 3) that describes stages of development might provide teacher education leaders with support and guidance for the decision making

process of developing TPACK ready teacher preparation programs. The tool needed to reflect the scaffolding associated with gaining insight over time to aid leaders in their decisions. The committee decided that a diagnostic tool could provide that guidance. O’Donnovan et al. (2004) advocate that any instrument of this sort must be designed with an efficiency of explanation and detail otherwise it will become difficult to use. They also state the instrument will provide no meaningful information or knowledge if it is structured with too much detail, and argue that any instrument becomes difficult to design if the intent is to measure levels of achievement of standards. The committee intended to ensure that teacher education leaders who used the

378

tool would be able to identify their involvement with the various elements of TPACK, the Theory of Action, and the Transformational Leadership Framework, and use it to help them prioritize goals and directions that are individualized to meet the needs of their institution. Each leveled description within the tool allows for interpretation of the stages of growth by those who were leading the process. While the diagnostic tool may appear to be a rubric, it is not meant to be an evaluative tool. It is meant to serve as a guideline of the TPACK implementation stages, from a teacher education leader’s perspective, within teacher preparation programs. It is not to be used as a means to measure each institution’s achievement of a set of standards. The diagnostic tool was developed as a self-assessment tool to serve the individual institution in its decision-making process. We chose to use exemplars, or suggested examples of what each level might appear to be, emphasizing the idea that the tool is to serve the individual institution. But, as recommended by O’Donnovan et al. (2004), the details should be limited to provide individual institutions the potential to observe their own setting without undue constraints. Each of the three key leadership components from the Transformational Leadership Framework: 1) vision to set direction, 2) faculty development, and 3) organizational support, were specifically identified as the core of the TPACK leadership diagnostic tool. Touching on each of these components, the tool offers a set of identifiable stages of progress for the successful integration of TPACK into teacher preparation programs. The Beginning through Leading stages of the exemplars in the tool were adopted from an early version of an NCATE Professional Develop ment School instrument (NCATE 2001). NCATE’s focus on the use of these exemplar terms related to the idea that they represent a developmental perspective of change. They provide a means for teacher education leaders to identify their current status within the change process, and to provide them with suggestions for monitoring their program development. The decision to include a column, Measures/Artifacts Used, provides a means for those involved in the process to keep a record on the change process and program development. The TPACK leadership diagnostic tool was shared with teacher education leaders and individuals interested in the idea of a guideline for adopting a TPACK initiative in teacher education. The committee sought feedback from experts in the field as to the design of the diagnostic tool and suggestions for its improvement. The initial feedback provided essential word changes and additional guiding questions that serve to provide context for the decisions being explored. In addition, the committee was interested in learning about the tool’s potential usefulness. Once the initial feedback for editing was gathered, the committee shared the revised tool

TechTrends (2017) 61:372–379

and received additional feedback at several national conferences where teacher education leaders were present. The intent was to gather feedback on the usefulness of a scaffolded guideline that the tool represented for leaders. Leaders made comments such as, BI could have used something like this last year as I was writing a grant application,^ or BI wish I had this when I was meeting with our new dean.^ These types of comments reassured the committee that the guidelines within the tool offered an appropriate amount of content and that the descriptions were clearly stated to assure the use of the instrument would help leaders identify their current status and record their progress towards developing programs that would lead to TPACK ready teacher candidates.

Conclusion and Next Steps The importance of ensuring that teacher preparation programs produce teacher candidates prepared to understand and utilize a TPACK framework that describes technology integration as the interplay between technology, pedagogy, and content (Herring et al. 2016) is clearly identified in this article. The challenge remains, however, how do we prepare leaders within teacher preparation programs to understand TPACK and to effectively reflect on and evaluate the quality of TPACK projects and initiatives within their respective organizations? The TPACK leadership diagnostic tool is one resource to assist with this challenge as it provides teacher education leaders with a formative assessment to use in the decision making process of developing TPACK ready teacher preparation programs. Our intent with this article was to identify the foundation of the TPACK Leadership Diagnostic Tool and introduce it to assist teacher education leaders in supporting TPACK-based initiatives. We recognize that further research is needed on the effectiveness of the diagnostic tool. In addition to the committee work, it is our hope that others will contribute to the tool’s use and refinement through their own research. Researchers may conduct case studies with educational leaders from a broad range of institutions willing to use the tool, provide insight, feedback, and share results and reflections. The creation of training materials with exemplars from the case studies would benefit teacher education leaders who are not familiar with the tool. A modified version of the diagnostic tool would also assist K-12 educational leaders and educational leaders from higher education disciplines, other than teacher preparation, develop TPACK based initiatives. Ongoing research with the diagnostic tool will help fill the gap in the literature on how teacher education leaders can lead and support larger TPACK initiatives that will ensure all teacher candidates graduate with the knowledge and skills to effectively integrate technology into teaching and learning.

TechTrends (2017) 61:372–379

References AACTE Innovation and Technology Committee. (2008). The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education: a review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 281–300. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT & TPCK: advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168. Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–1662. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science: concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bennett, R. E. (2010). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning (CBAL): a preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment. Measurement, 8, 70–91. Brantley-Dias, L., & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK: is the construct ‘just right?’. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 103–128. Common Core State Standards Initiatives. (2017). Preparing America’s students for success. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/. Day, C., Sammons, P., Leithwood, K., & Kington, A. (2008). Research into the impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes: policy and research contexts. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organization, 28, 5–25. Dexter, S., Herring, M., & Thomas, T. (2012). Editorial: Technology leadership for the teacher education initiative. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 255–263. Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: the change imperative for whole system reform. Thousand Oaks: Corwin. Hallinger, P. (2010). Leading educational change: reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. In A. Walker & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Gateways to leading learning: leading educational change (pp. 2–37). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education. Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: a descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211–229. Herring, M. C., Thomas, T., & Redmond, P. (2014). Special editorial: Technology leadership for preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30(3), 76–80. Herring, M. C., Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2016). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators. New York, NY: Routledge. Hill, P., & Celio, M. (1998). Fixing urban schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Jang, S. J., & Chang, Y. (2016). Exploring the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) of Taiwanese university physics instructors. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 107–122. Jang, S. J., & Tsai, M. F. (2012). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 59(2), 327–338. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of

379 technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–30). New York: Routledge. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Ellen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 101–111). New York: Springer. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: the contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496–528. Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Philadelphia: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27–42. Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learning from leadership: investigating the links to improved student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement/University of Minnesota. Retrieved f r o m h t t p : / / w w w. w a l l a c e f o u n d a t i o n . o rg / k n o w l e d g e center/Pages/Investigating-the-Links-to-Improved-StudentLearning.aspx. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Mouza, C., Karchmer-Klein, R., Nandakumar, R., Ozden, S. Y., & Hu, L. (2014). Investigating the impact of an integrated approach to the development of preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 71, 206–221. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (2001). Standards for Professional Development Schools. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/Standards/tabid/107/Default.aspx. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523. O’Donnovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 325–335. Olofson, M. W., Swallow, M. J., & Neumann, M. D. (2016). TPACKing: a constructivist framing of TPACK to analyze teachers’ construction of knowledge. Computers & Education, 95, 188–201. Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): a systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 186–210. Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: the mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179–199. Salaway, G. (1987). An organizational learning approach to information systems development. MIS Quarterly, 11(2), 245–264. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–31. Thomas, T., Herring, M., Redmond, P., & Smaldino, S. (2013). Innovation, change, and technology: The evolution of a leadership module to develop TPACK ready teacher candidates. TechTrends, 57(5), 55–63. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. Retrieved from https://tech.ed. gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf.