1. bookVolume 17 (2014): Issue 2 (December 2014)
Journal Details
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
access type Open Access

Tpdk, a New Definition of the Tpack Model for a University Setting

Published Online: 03 Mar 2015
Volume & Issue: Volume 17 (2014) - Issue 2 (December 2014)
Page range: 15 - 39
Journal Details
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year

In this paper we propose a new Technopedagogical Disciplinary Knowledge model. This model integrates four separate dimensions, which we use to measure a teacher’s effectiveness. These are the individual teacher’s discipline (D), personal epistemology (E), pedagogical knowledge (P), and knowledge of technology (T). We also acknowledge the existence of relationships between these components. These can be more or less correlated depending on the teacher’s individual profile. They are always present, but they do not necessarily have the same weighting. In order to test the potential differences between teachers’ profiles, we designed a questionnaire, which tested our model’s components, and the relationships between them. This questionnaire was initially submitted to a group of teachers with whom we were familiar, to ensure the questions were understandable and that, based on what we already knew of the teachers’ characteristics, the profiles that emerged were reliable. A second test was then carried out, which we used to compare the answers of university and non-university level teachers, based in the two institutions in which we work. This second questionnaire was used to test the consistency of responses, and the correlations between the model’s different dimensions. Having analysed the outcome of these questionnaires, it appears that “pedagogical knowledge” is significantly correlated with the other three dimensions. This consolidated framework has helped us to build a system of education development coaching for teaching practices that use technology widely.

1. Amade-Escot, C. (2011). Le comparatisme en didactique. Presentation in “le cadre de l’école doctorale des didactiques”. Liège, Belgique. 2011, octobre.Search in Google Scholar

2. Archambault, L. and Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States Contemporary Issues. In Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), (pp. 71-88).Search in Google Scholar

3. Becher, T. (1981). Toward a definition of disciplinary cultures. In Studies in Higher Education, 6(2), (pp. 109-122).10.1080/03075078112331379362Search in Google Scholar

4. Becher, T. (1993). Academic Tribes and Territories. Buckingham: Society of Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Search in Google Scholar

5. Becher, T. and Trowler, P.R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. (2nd ed.) SRHE/Open University Press.Search in Google Scholar

6. Berthiaume, D. (2006). A description of discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge (DPK) encountered in the discourse of four university professors from four different disciplinary areas. (None published doctoral thesis). University de Mc Gill: Montréal, Québec, Canada.Search in Google Scholar

7. Berthiaume, D. (2007a). Une description empirique du savoir pédagogique disciplinaire des professeurs d’université. In Actes du colloque de l’AIPU : regards sur l’innovation la collaboration et la valorisation, (p.179-181). Montréal : Canada.Search in Google Scholar

8. Berthiaume, D. (2007b). What is the nature of university professors’ discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge? A descriptive multicase study. (thèse de l’University de Mc Gill : Montréal, Québec, Canada. ). Available online at http://digitool.Library.McGill.CA:80/R/-?func=dbin-jumpfull& object_id=103191&silo_library=GEN01Search in Google Scholar

9. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. In Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), (pp. 195-203).10.1037/h0034701Search in Google Scholar

10. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo Academicus. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Search in Google Scholar

11. Bourgeois, E. (1990). University politics: adult Education in a Belgian University. None published doctoral thesis. University of Chicago: Chicago.Search in Google Scholar

12. Cochran, K.F.; King, R.A.; De Ruiter, J.A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowledge: an integrative model for teacher preparation. In Journal of teacher Education, 44(4), (pp. 263-272).10.1177/0022487193044004004Search in Google Scholar

13. Czaja, R. and Blair, J. (2005). Designing surveys: A guide to decisions and procedures (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781412983877Search in Google Scholar

14. Donald, J. (2002). Learning to thinking. Disciplinary Differences. San Fransisco : Jossey-Bass.Search in Google Scholar

15. Gagné, R. (1985).The conditions of learning. Holt Rinehart and Winston. New York, 4th ed.Search in Google Scholar

16. Gess-Newsome, J. and Lederman, N.G. (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The Construct and its implications for science education. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar

17. Graham, C.R.; Borup, J. and Smith, N.B. (2012). Using TPACK as a framework to understand teacher candidates technology integration decisions. In Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, (pp. 530-546).10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00472.xSearch in Google Scholar

18. Guyot, J.L. and Bonami, M. (2000). Mode de structuration du travail professoral et logiques disciplinaires à l’université. In Cahier du GIRSEF 9, (pp. 1-65).Search in Google Scholar

19. Harris, J.; Grandgenett, N. and Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology Integration Assessment rubric. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010, (p.3833-3840), Chesapeake, VA.Search in Google Scholar

20. Hativa, N. and Marincovich, M. (eds.) (1995). Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Search in Google Scholar

21. Hiebert, J.; Gallimore, R. and Stigler, J.W. (2002). A Knowledge base for the teaching profession: what would it look like and how can we g& one? In Educational Researcher, 31(5), (pp. 3-15).Search in Google Scholar

22. Hofer, B.K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. In Educational Psychologist, XXXIX(1), (pp. 43-55).10.1207/s15326985ep3901_5Search in Google Scholar

23. Hofer, B.K. and Pintrich, P.R. (1997). The Development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. In Review of Educational Research, 67(1), (pp. 88-140).10.3102/00346543067001088Search in Google Scholar

24. Hofer, B.K. and Pintrich, P.R. (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

25. Hofer, M. and Harris, J. (2010). Differentiating TPACK development: using learning activity types with inservice and preservice teachers. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010, (pp. 3857-3864), Chesapeake, VA.Search in Google Scholar

26. Jacquinot-Delaunay, G. (2008). L’intégration des TICE dans l’institution universitaire : de l’infiltration à l’innovation ? In G. Delaunay & E. Fichez (eds.), L’université & les TIC. Chronique d’une innovation annoncée, (p.179-222), Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.Search in Google Scholar

27. Kanuka, H. (2006). Instructional design and e-learning: a discussion of pedagogical content knowledge as a missing construct. In The e-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 9(2). Available online at http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ejist/ docs/vol9_no2/papers/full_papers/kanuka.htmSearch in Google Scholar

28. Khune, T. (1962). The structure of scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar

29. Kolb, D-A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering (ed.), The Modern American College, (p.232-255). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Search in Google Scholar

30. Lebrun, M. (1999, 2002a). Des technologies pour enseigner et apprendre. Perspectives en education et formation. (2 ème ed.). Bruxelles : De Boeck Université. Search in Google Scholar

31. Lebrun, M. (2002b, 2007a). Théories et méthodes pédagogiques pour enseigner et apprendre. Quelle place pour les TIC dans l’éducation ? Perspectives en éducation et formation. Bruxelles : De boeck Université.10.3917/dbu.lebru.2007.02Search in Google Scholar

32. Lebrun, M. (2005, 2006). E-Learning pour enseigner et pour apprendre- Allier pédagogie et technologie. Louvain-la-Neuve : Ed. Bruylant-academia.10.3917/dbu.lebru.2007.01Search in Google Scholar

33. Lebrun, M. (2007). Quality towards an expected harmony: pedagogy and technology speaking together about innovation. In AACE Journal, 15(2), (pp. 115-130).Search in Google Scholar

34. Lebrun, M. (2012). Classes inversées, Flipped Classrooms ...Ca flippe quoi au juste ? Bolg de M@rcel. Available online at http://lebrunremy.be/WordPress/?p=612Search in Google Scholar

35. Lenze, L.F. (1995). Discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge in Linguistics and Spanish. In N. Hativa & M. Marincovich (eds.), Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice, (pp. 65-70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Search in Google Scholar

36. Lessard, C.; Altet, M.; Paquay, L. and Perrenoud, P. (2004). Entre sens commun et sciences humaines. suels savoirs pour enseigner ? Bruxelles : Deboeck.Search in Google Scholar

37. Magnusson, S.; Krajcik, J.; Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge, (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht, NL : Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar

38. Mishra, P. and Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. In Teachers College Record, 108(6), (pp. 1017-1054). Available online at http://mkoehler.educ.msu.edu/OtherPages/Koehler_Pubs/TECH_BY_DESIGN/TCReco rd/mishra_koehler_tcr2006.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

39. Moursund, D. and Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? Available online at http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED428072Search in Google Scholar

40. Munby, H.; Russell, T. and Martin, A.K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (4e ed.), (pp. 877-904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Search in Google Scholar

41. Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. In Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), (pp. 135-146).10.1080/03075070120052071Search in Google Scholar

42. Niess, M.L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. In Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, (pp. 509-523).10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006Search in Google Scholar

43. Puentedura, R.R. (2006). Transformation, Technology and Education [slides]. Available online at http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/part1.htmlSearch in Google Scholar

44. Rege Colet, N. and Berthiaume, D. (2009). Savoir ou être ? Savoirs et identités professionnels chez les enseignants universitaires. In R. Hofstetter & B. Schneuwly (eds.), Savoir en (trans)formation, (p.137-162). Bruxelles : De Boeck.Search in Google Scholar

45. Rege Colet, N. and Lenzo Marchese, J. (2006). Peut-on parler de spécificités disciplinaires dans l’utilisation de TIC ? Études des pratiques facultaires à l’Université. Actes du XXIIIème congrès AIPU 2006. Available online at http://www.unige.ch/formev/publications/technologies/texte-regecolet-lenzo.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

46. Sensevy, G. (2009). Didactique et sciences de l’éducation : une reconfiguration ? In A. Vergnioux (ed.), 40 ans des sciences de l’éducation, (pp. 49-58). Caen : PUC.Search in Google Scholar

47. Schmidt, D.A.; Baran, E.; Thompson, A.D.; Mishra, P.; Koehler, M. and Shin, T.S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. In Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), (pp. 123-149).10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544Search in Google Scholar

48. Schwab, J.J. (1964). Structure of the disciplines: meanings and significances. In G.W. Ford & L. Pugno (eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum, (pp. 6-30). Chicago. Rand Mc Nally.Search in Google Scholar

49. Segall, A. (2004). Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: the pedagogy of content/the content of pedagogy. In Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, (pp. 489-504).10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.006Search in Google Scholar

50. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. In Educational researcher, 15(2), (pp. 4-14). In Traduit dans Education et didactique, 1(1), (pp. 97-114).10.3102/0013189X015002004Search in Google Scholar

51. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. In Harvard Educational review, 57, (pp. 1-22).10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411Search in Google Scholar

52. Shulman, L.S. (1998). Theory, Practice and Education of Professionals. In The Elementary School Journal, 98(5), (pp. 511-526).10.1086/461912Search in Google Scholar

53. Shulman, L.S. (2004). How and what teachers learn: a shifting perspective. In J. Curriculum studies, 36(2), (pp. 257-271).10.1080/0022027032000148298Search in Google Scholar

54. Shulman, L.S. (2007). Ceux qui comprennent : Le développement de la connaissance dans l’enseignement. In Education et Didactique, 1(1), (pp. 97-114).10.4000/educationdidactique.121Search in Google Scholar

55. van Driel, J.H.; Verloop, N.; Devos, W. (1998). Developing science teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge. In Journal of research in science Teaching, 35(6), (pp. 673-695).10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<673::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-JSearch in Google Scholar

56. Vause, A. (2009) Les croyances et connaissances des enseignants à propos de l’acte d’enseigner. In Les Cahiers de Recherche en Éducation et Formation, 66 Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo