3.8 Article

Teachers' pedagogical reasoning and reframing of practice in digital contexts

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/IJILT-09-2017-0084

关键词

ICT; Design-based research; TPACK; Added pedagogical value; Pedagogical reasoning; Reframing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to advance the understanding of teachers' reframing of practice in digital contexts by analysing teachers' pedagogical reasoning processes as they explore ways of using information and communication technologies (ICT) to create added pedagogical value. Design/methodology/approach - A design-based research (DBR) approach is employed, in which the on-site researcher collaborates with eight teachers of English as a foreign language in four Swedish schools over a period of two years. Multiple data sources are included for thematic coding and analysis. The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework is used as a conceptual construct in the analysis. Findings - The findings show that teachers' pedagogical reasoning is a complex and multidimensional process and is closely integrated with teachers' reframing of practice. Common characteristics in the teachers' reframing of practice are identified. The results highlight the reciprocal relationship between developments in teachers' pedagogical reasoning and TPACK development and the need for a distinction between general and specific, theoretical and practical TPACK. Research limitations/implications - An increased focus on TPACK research on teachers' pedagogical reasoning is required. DBR is a relevant approach for this. Practical implications - The pedagogical uses of ICT identified as adding value could benefit teachers in other contexts. Originality/value - Rich data from multiple design contexts are collected and analysed over time through DBR. The paper contributes new knowledge about the process of pedagogical reasoning and its relation to teachers' reframing of practice. The paper also contributes to TPACK theory development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据