TAN, Christian Bernard (University of Saint Joseph / National Science Learning Centre (U.K.)) http://citers2012.cite.hku.hk/en/paper_522.htm

3. Technological
Inter-disciplinary
Content Knowledge
- A Learners’
Learners
Framework
by
Christian
Bernard Tan
(PhD Candidate)

4. Technological
Organizer
Inter-disciplinary
Presenter Represents
Content Knowledge
- A Learners’
Learners USJ
Organizer
Framework
by
Christian
Bernard Tan
(PhD Candidate)

5. Organizer What makes students’ Presenter Represents
Organizer
TICK? USJ
by
Christian
Bernard Tan
(PhD Candidate)

6. The
Background
of the study
f h d

7. 1
Digital
g Revolution

8. 1
Digital Education Revolution
g
New forms of learning:
e-Learning, m-Learning, blended learning, Web 2.0 technologies, U-Learning, etc.
g g g g g

9. 2
Vision of
Scientific
S i ifi
Excellence
E ll

10. 2
C H I N A’ S
1 2 -Y E A R
Vision of
Scientific
S i ifi
Excellence
E ll
(2008-2020)

11. 3

12. 3

13. 3

14. 3

18. 3

19. 1
2 3

20. DIGITAL
EDUCATION
REVOLUTION
VISION OF SCIENCE
SCIENTIFIC LEARNING
EXCELLENCE CENTRES

21. The
Problem
statement

22. Research Gap #1
p
“Research on the use of educational technology
“R h h f d i l h l
that fails to align with curriculum, pedagogy
and assessment are inadequate...”
( g g
(Langrange, Artigue, Lanorde, & Trouche, 2001; Pollard & Pollard, 2004-2005;
g
Roblyer & Knezeck, 2003; Strudler, 2003; U.S. department of Education, 2004;
Waxman, Lin, & Michko, 2003)

23. The Interacting Triad
g
CURRICULUM
PEDAGOGY ASSESSMENT

24. The Interacting Triad
g
CURRICULUM
PEDAGOGY ASSESSMENT

25. The Interacting Triad
g
CURRICULUM
However, TECHNOLOGY is missing.
PEDAGOGY ASSESSMENT

26. Research Gap #2
p
“Of the existing studies on educational
Of
technology that examines learning outcomes,
few specify all three domains – pedagogy,
ll
content, and technology affordance.”
( g g ,
(Langrange, Artigue, Lanorde, & Trouche, 2001; Pollard & Pollard, 2004-2005;
g , , , ; , ;
Roblyer & Knezeck, 2003; Strudler, 2003; U.S. department of Education, 2004;
Waxman, Lin, & Michko, 2003)

27. Technology Integration
gy g
CURRICULUM PEDAGOGY TECHNOLOGY
PEDAGOGY TECHNOLOGY CURRICULUM
TECHNOLOGY CURRICULUM PEDAGOGY

28. Technology Convergence
gy g
CURRICULUM PEDAGOGY TECHNOLOGY
PEDAGOGY TECHNOLOGY CURRICULUM
TECHNOLOGY CURRICULUM PEDAGOGY

29. The
Significance
of the study
f h d

30. The Most Glaring Research Issue

31. from ‘Stone Age’
to the ‘Conceptual Age’

33. To seek a
learning framework
g
that develops student’s scientific knowledge
and which can serve as the basis for the kinds
of curricula that are essential for the
“conceptual age”
p g
(Gardner, 2007; Pink, 2005)

34. The
Methodology
of the study
f h d

35. Research Questions
Q1. In what ways, and to what extent have TPACK technology integration
affected learners’ learning science education?
learners
Q2. In what ways, and to what extent have TPACK technology integration
affected students’ learning in science education?
students
Q3. How have students’ performed in the science module in the traditional
structured learning en ironment compared to the technology integration
environment
learning environment?
Q4. What factors and barriers influence the change in technology
l l
alignment, integration and convergence in schools?

36. Research Design and Methodology
Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected.
• Quantitative analyses through’ surveys and self-reports questionnaires used to
l l
identify participants’ perceptions of their expertise in the areas of content, pedagogy
and technology and overlapping areas (Mishra & Koehler, 2005)
• Q lit ti analyses th
Qualitative l through case studies of learning-by-design groups (K hl
h t di fl i b d i (Koehler,
Mishra, Hershey, & Peruski, 2004).
•Both qualitative and quantitative data will be analyze using the T-P-C framework.
• Additional sources of data includes online data, surveys discourse analysis
data surveys,
of written assignments, reflective journals, design-based projects, videotape
recordings, and face-to-face interviews.
• Instrument: Participants of this study include science teachers and students from
Tak Sun Secondary School, Hong Kong, and Keang Peng Middle School, Macau.
• Subjects: The total subjects are 118 F5 high school students, from two academic
calendar years, September 2009 to June 2010 and September 2010 to June 2011
years 2010, 2011.

41. The
Theoretical
framework
f k

42. Building on past frameworks
g p
TRACK framework is built on Shulmans’ idea of
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(
(Shulman,1986)
)
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK):
A Framework for Teachers’ Knowledge
(
(Mishra and Koehler, 2005)
, )
( Proposed Conceptual Framework )
Technological Inter-Disciplinary Content Knowledge (TICK):
A Framework for Students Knowledge
Students’
(Tan, 2012)

43. Content
Knowledge Content
(CK)

44. Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(Shulman, 1986)
Pedagogical Content
Pedagogy Knowledge Knowledge Content
(IK) (CK)

45. Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(Shulman, 1986)
Pedagogy Pedagogical
Knowledge
Content
Knowledge
Content
(IK) (CK)

46. Technology
Technological
Knowledge
(TK)
Pedagogical Content
Pedagogy Knowledge Knowledge Content
(PK) (CK)

47. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(Mishra & Koelher, 1986)
Technology
Technological
Knowledge
(TK)
Pedagogical Content
Pedagogy Knowledge Knowledge Content
(PK) (CK)

48. The
Conceptual
framework
f k

49. What makes
students tick?

50. Content
Knowledge Content
(CK)

51. Inter-disciplinary Content
Inter-disciplinary Knowledge Knowledge Content
(IK) (CK)

52. Technology
Technological
Knowledge
(TK)
Inter-disciplinary Content
Inter-disciplinary Knowledge Knowledge Content
(IK) (CK)

53. Technology
Technological
Knowledge
(TK)
Inter-disciplinary Content
Inter-disciplinary Knowledge Knowledge Content
(IK) (CK)

54. Technological
Inter-disciplinary
Content Knowledge
C l
(TICK)
Technology
Technological
Inter-disciplinary Technological Technological
Knowledge Knowledge Content Knowledge
(TIK) (TK) (TCK)
Inter-disciplinary Content
Inter-disciplinary Knowledge Knowledge Content
(IK) (CK)
Inter-disciplinary
Content Knowledge
(ICK)

55. Technological
Inter-disciplinary 7
Content Knowledge
C l
(TICK)
Technology
Technological
3 6
5 Inter-disciplinary Technological Technological
Knowledge Knowledge Content Knowledge
(TIK) (TK) (TCK)
Inter-disciplinary Content
Inter-disciplinary Knowledge Knowledge Content
(IK) (CK)
2 1
Inter-disciplinary
4 Content Knowledge
(ICK)

56. Technological
Inter-disciplinary 7
Content Knowledge
C l
(TICK)
Technology
Technological
3 6
5 Inter-disciplinary Technological Technological
Knowledge Knowledge Content Knowledge
(TIK) (TK) (TCK)
Inter-disciplinary Content
Inter-disciplinary Knowledge Knowledge Content
(IK) (CK)
2 1
Inter-disciplinary
4 Content Knowledge
(ICK)

57. Technological
Inter-disciplinary
Content Knowledge
C l
(TICK)
Technology
Technological
Inter-disciplinary Technological Technological
Knowledge Knowledge Content Knowledge
(TIK) (TK) (TCK)
Inter-disciplinary Content
Inter-disciplinary Knowledge Knowledge Content
(IK) (CK)
Inter-disciplinary
Content Knowledge
(ICK)

58. Technological
Inter-disciplinary
Content Knowledge
C l
(TICK)
Technological
Inter-disciplinary Technological Technological
Knowledge Knowledge Content Knowledge
(TIK) (TK) (TCK)
Inter-disciplinary Content
Knowledge Knowledge
(IK) (CK)
Inter-disciplinary
Content Knowledge
(ICK)

59. What makes students TICK?
Technological
Inter-disciplinary
Content Knowledge
(TICK)
(C.S TAN, 2012)

60. A Framework for Teachers Knowledge
A Framework for Teachers’ Knowledge A Framework for Students Knowledge
A Framework for Students’ Knowledge
focus on focus on
Teachers’ Knowledge Expertise Students’ Knowledge Expertise
g p
Figure: Theoretical Framework:
Figure: Theoretical Framework: Figure: Proposed Conceptual Framework:
Figure: Proposed Conceptual Framework:
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): Technological Interdisciplinary Content Knowledge (TICK):
(Mishra and Koehler, 2005) (Tan, 2012)

61. Technological
Interdisciplinary
Content Knowledge
(TICK)
Technological
Interdisciplinary
Knowledge
(TIK)
Interdisciplinary
Knowledge
(IK)
Figure: Proposed Conceptual Framework:
Technological Interdisciplinary Content Knowledge (TICK): A Framework for Students’ Knowledge (Tan, 2012)

62. Rationale
Technological Inter-Disciplinary Content Knowledge (TICK) :
A Framework for Students’ Knowledge
(Tan, 2012)
I would like to propose the concept of
Technological Inter-Disciplinary Content Knowledge (TICK)
Unlike Shulman’s Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PACK).
which focuses on “what teachers should know and be able to do”,
or Mi h and K hl ’ T h l i l Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
Mishra d Koehler’s Technological P d i lC t tK l d
which focuses, among others, on the dynamics of technology integration, as well as
the complex role of teachers to ensure high quality instruction through online teaching.
Technological Inter-Disciplinary Content Knowledge (TICK)
Inter Disciplinary
focuses on the end-user of the online instruction, i.e. the learner.
What the learner should know and be able to do is crucial, if not, the raison d'être for any good teaching.
In examining how learners should be prepared to learn in online environments in the Conceptual Age,
TICK addresses the three domain areas needed to ensure
Deep and Strategic learning approaches to achieve positive learning outcomes.
This lens offers a way to examine students’ knowledge
about their understanding of their own learning, specifically:
personal conceptions of learning (Marton & Saljo 1997, Saljo 1979),
epistemological beliefs (Hoefer & Pintrich 1997 Perry 1970) and
1997, 1970),
intrinsic learning orientations (Entwistle 2000, Morgan and Beaty 1997, Van Rossum & Schenk 1984, Vermunt 1998).
Simply put, TICK, is the integration of the development of learners’ beliefs and attitudes
with the use of educational technology and how they impact the learning content.
Christian Bernard Tan
12 February 2012

63. The
Preliminary
findings
fi di

64. Preliminary Results and Analysis

65. Preliminary Results and Analysis

66. What Works
Inter-
Content
C t t
disciplinary
Technology
Context

67. What Doesn’t
Doesn t
Inter-
disciplinary Content
Technology
Context

68. Where the magic happens
happens…
Inter-
Content
C t t
disciplinary
Technology
Context

69. The
Implications
for i
f science students
d

70. Preliminary Findings
To support meaningful learning, To support transformative learning,
science CURRICULUM be: science PEDAGOGY be built around:
1. Actively engaging in scientific
1. Systematically organized; and engineering practices;
d i i i
2.
2 Focus on depth over breath; 2. Cross-cutting concepts that
Cross cutting
that transcends disciplinary
3. Engaging opportunities to boundaries;
engage in scientific enquiry,
such as conducting experiments 3. Core ideas in key disciplinary
with peers and mentors areas taught simultaneously
g y

71. Preliminary Findings
To support productive learning, To support productive learning,
TECHNOLOGY should: ASSESSMENT should:
1. Understand how students 1. Through fair, valid, and
learning progression, core ideas careful assessment,
and practices of science and how evaluate students mastery
best to support that learning of the content knowledge
knowledge,
through well-designed i.e. to find out what they
digital tools. know and are able to do.
2. To evaluate program’s
effectiveness and its
possible need for revision.

72. Implications for science students
Connect with scientists.
C h
Be inspired by scientists.
Think like scientists.
Be a scientist

74. Regional ROV Ch
R i l Champions, H
i Hong Kong
K
12th – 14th March 2011

75. Regional ROV Ch
R i l Champions, H
i Hong Kong
K
12th – 14th March 2011

76. Regional ROV Ch
R i l Champions, H
i Hong Kong
K
12th – 14th March 2011

77. Regional
ROV
Competition
2011
Hong Kong
g g
12th – 14th March 2011

78. INTEL S i
Science and E i
d Engineering Fair 2011
i F i
8th – 14th April 2011

79. INTEL
Science and
Engineering
Fair 2011
8th – 14th April 2011

80. Regional
ROV
Competition
2012
Hong Kong
g g
12th – 14th April 2012

81. NASA I
International ROV Competition, Huston
l RO C
14th – 18th June 2011

82. Thank You
T Y
( No stones please )

83. Thank You
T Y
( No stones please )