A Case Study of A TPACK-Based Approach To Teacher Professional Development: Teaching Science With Blogs

Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Figg, C. (2015).
A case study of a TPACK-based approach to teacher

professional development: Teaching science with blogs. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 15(2), 161-200.
A Case Study of a TPACK-Based Approach to

Teacher Professional Development:
Teaching Science With Blogs
Kamini Jaipal-Jamani and Candace Figg
Brock University
CANADA
Abstract
This paper presents a case study of a technology professional development

initiative and illustrates how a workshop approach based on technology,
pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) was adapted for professional learning
at a school site. The case further documents how three middle school science
teacher participants developed knowledge about how to teach with technology as
they planned and implemented a blog activity in science over a 4-week period.
The design of the professional development was informed by the underlying
assumptions of the TPACK framework and characteristics for effective
professional development for science and technology-enhanced teaching. To
obtain insights into the particular experiences of teachers as they participated in
the onsite professional development, a naturalistic case study design was used.
Data collection procedures included researcher field notes during workshop
sessions and lessons, videotaped classroom observations, audiotaped interviews,
and teacher and student lesson artifacts. Data on teachers’ planning and lesson
implementation of the blog activity to Grade 8 students were analyzed using
content analysis. Overall, the results indicate that TPACK is developed through a
combination of workshop experiences and immediate application of knowledge
gained in the workshop into practice in the real-life teaching context.
161
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2)
Many of the characteristics of effective professional development (PD), such as collective

participation of teachers, onsite facilitation, sustained period of time, and a focus on
problems of practice, have been identified in the literature (Borko, Jacobs, & Koellner,
2010; Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; DeMonte, 2013;
Hargreaves, 2003; Hung & Yeh, 2013; Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005; Jaipal & Figg,
2011; Riveros, Newton, & Burgess, 2012). At the same time, concerns have been raised
about teacher professional development, especially the need to deepen teachers’
knowledge of the subjects being taught, while keeping up with developments in digital
learning environments made possible through ubiquitous access to digital tools
(DeMonte, 2013; Johnson et al., 2013).
These concerns point to the need to reexamine the nature of the PD approach as related
to digital environments and the types of learning activities included in such PD. Limited
by logistical and financial demands, school boards commonly choose a workshop
approach to conduct technology professional development in order to meet the demands
of changing digital learning environments. However, these technology workshops are of
short duration and focus on the demonstration of technical skills—promoting tool use
rather than technology-enhanced teaching (Carlson & Gadio, 2002; Trucano, 2005).
Such an approach to technology professional development most often leads to technology

skills being learned out of the classroom context, with teachers finding it difficult to
connect the technical skills learned to subject area content and classroom practice and
leading to questions about the value of the technology-enhanced instruction (Harris &
Hofer, 2009; McKenzie, 2001). Research has shown that a high degree of technical
competence in teachers does not necessarily translate into teaching with technology
(Jaipal & Figg, 2010; Mishra, Koehler, & Kereluik, 2009). Hence, for a workshop
approach to effectively promote technology professional development—in a way that
changes teaching practice—the type of learning activities presented in the workshop is
key.
Professional development, where teachers are taught how to teach with an appropriate
tool to meet content learning goals (referred to as technology-enhanced activities and
instruction), is more effective than teaching teachers technical skills (Harris, 2005;
Hughes, 2005; Jaipal & Figg, 2010; Keating & Evans, 2001; Kereluik, Mishra, & Koehler,
2010; Lundeberg, Bergland, Klyczek, & Hoffman, 2003; Margerum-Leys & Marx, 2002;
Niess, 2005; Zhao, 2003). In other words, technology workshops should develop
teachers’ knowledge about teaching with the technologies to promote student learning of
content in instructional contexts (Glazer, Hannafin, Polly, & Rich, 2009; Harris, Mishra,
& Koehler, 2009; Larson et al., 2009).
For example, situating the learning of technical skills in an authentic learning activity,
such as learning how to use a graphing calculator to illustrate the linear relationship
between force and mass of an object in science, provides a concrete example of how to use
the tool in teaching. This type of learning how to teach with technology is considered a
content-centric approach, and the teacher knowledge developed through this approach is
referred to as technological pedagogical content knowledge (or, more recently,
technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge [TPACK]; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
In a comparative case study examining the nature of teacher knowledge influencing

technology integration in instruction among four English language arts teachers of
varying years of teaching experience, Hughes (2005) found that “content-focused
learning experiences yielded content-based technology integration in the classroom” (p.
295). Hughes’s findings also revealed that experienced teachers with less technology
experience drew on their professional knowledge to develop innovative, technology
162
integrated activities because “veteran teachers’ expertise can offer a subject matter or
pedagogical-based focus to technology explorations that beginning teachers may not be
able to do independently” (p. 299).
In essence, the actual use of technology in instruction was found to be influenced by

teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of the technology for content and pedagogy
purposes (Hughes, 2005). Teacher perceptions of the usefulness of technology is a factor
proposed by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Davis, 1989). The TAM model
explains how users accept and use technology in terms of three factors: perceived
usefulness of technology, perceived ease of use of technology, and attitude toward using
the technology.
Davis (1989) explained that, when technology is perceived as useful (enhancing job
performance) and as easy to use (requiring the least amount of effort), these perceptions
result in positive attitudes and intentions to accept and use technology. Perception of
usefulness was found to be the major factor influencing adoption (Davis, 1993). However,
Teo (2008) demonstrated in his survey of 139 preservice teachers that their attitudes and
intentions to use computers were more positive than their perceptions of control of the
computer and its usefulness.
Teo’s finding appears to contradict Davis’ notion of perceptions of usefulness and ease of
use leading to positive attitudes and intentions. A possible explanation for Teo’s finding is
that, in education, unlike in other fields such as business, teachers in many educational
jurisdictions have autonomy in the design of instructional activities to meet curriculum
goals leading to more flexible job performance. Hence, while preservice teacher
experiences in their teacher education program contribute to positive attitudes and
intentions toward technology use, prior learning experiences and practicum experiences
may affect their perceptions of control of technology (e.g., lack of access and technical
support) and usefulness of the technology for content and pedagogical purposes (e.g., lack
of technology modelling as a pedagogical strategy in content area teaching by associate
teachers; Grove, Strudler, & Odell, 2004; Lei, 2009). How can perceptions of the
usefulness and ease of use of technology be increased so as to instill positive attitudes and
intentions toward technology that are translated into instructional practice? Based on her
study findings, Hughes (2005) recommended the use of a PD approach that engages a
small group of teachers in the same subject area in content-based technology inquiry as
an effective way for teachers to learn how to teach with technology.
Such an approach to PD builds teacher knowledge about how to integrate technology in

content areas (TPACK), demonstrating the usefulness of the technology as a pedagogical
strategy to meet authentic curriculum learning goals. As well, delivering the PD in a short
period of time, preferably onsite, demonstrates the ease of use of the technology within
the specific context needs and constraints of teachers and school boards (e.g., covering of
curriculum expectations, meeting special needs of learners, meeting school board
strategic directives, negotiating constraints of rotary teaching, and limited access to
digital resources).
Extending the work of Mishra & Koehler (2006), we developed the TPACK-based
Professional Learning Design Model (TPLDM) for technology workshops—a sequence of
four learning activities to facilitate a content-centric approach to learning how to plan
and implement technology-enhanced instruction (Figg & Jaipal, 2012; Jaipal-Jamani &
Figg, 2013). The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of a PD initiative to
illustrate how the TPLDM approach was adapted for professional development at a school
site in order to support teachers as they plan and implement technology-enhanced
activities/instruction in science.
163
The term technology-enhanced activity and instruction refers to the design of instruction
that integrates an appropriate technology, as perceived by teachers, to meet curriculum
goals. Teachers make decisions to select a technology based on their understanding of the
affordances of the technology in terms of its usefulness for meeting the content or
pedagogy learning goals (Hughes, 2005). Knowledge of the affordances of the technology
as perceived by the teacher may be gained from experiences such as past teaching
practice or PD workshops.
Technology-enhanced activity and instruction does not imply that instruction with
technology is more effective than instruction without technology. For example, an
instructional strategy such as an inquiry, hands-on investigation may be more effective
for student learning of the science process skills of observation and measuring than a
technology-enhanced instructional strategy. Our study built upon the recommendations
of Hughes (2005) and provided specific insights on how a small group of teachers
teaching the same subject from one school site learned how to use blogs to address
content curriculum learning goals, in this case related to the Grade 8 science topic of
fluids.
The study was guided by the following research questions:
 What are teachers’ perceptions of the efficacy of the TPLDM to develop

knowledge about technology-enhanced science instruction?
 How did teachers use the TPACK gained to plan and implement a blog activity to
Grade 8 students to meet science learning goals?
 How did implementing the blog activity in an authentic context support
development of TPACK?
This case study, therefore, reports on (a) the process of establishing and supporting a
subject matter, technology professional learning initiative of three science teachers over a
short duration, (b) teacher perceptions of their PD experiences and the TPACK gained
about how to teach a science topic with blogs, and (c) the impact of the PD on
participants’ teaching practices during the study.
Whether the technology-enhanced activity leads to effective technology-enhanced

teaching depends on the way the teacher implements the technology-enhanced activity
for increased student learning. This paper does not make claims about technology-
enhanced teaching in relation to student learning and is a limitation explained in the
limitations section. Nevertheless, while generalizations cannot be made from one case of
teacher professional development, our study findings add to the literature by highlighting
the complexities involved in developing teacher knowledge about teaching with
technology through the inclusion of a specific TPACK-based workshop approach, the
TPLDM Workshop approach. As well, insights gained from our study can be used to
adapt the TPLDM Workshop approach for designing professional learning initiatives in
similar settings.
A review of the literature follows, which highlights current trends in three areas that
inform the design and results of the study: developing teacher knowledge for science
instruction, developing teacher knowledge for integrating technology in science
instruction, and blogs in science instruction.
164
Developing Teacher Knowledge for Science Instruction
The dominant lens through which the development of science teacher knowledge is
framed in the literature is the construct of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK;
McCrory, 2008). Lee Shulman (1986) described PCK as “ways of representing and
formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others” (p. 9), and it includes
knowing what conceptions and preconceptions diverse learners have about the topic that
may make learning it easy or difficult. PCK enables teachers to make decisions about how
they will represent and present content so students will understand.
Science education researchers have explored how PCK develops in science teachers
(Appleton, 2008; Lee, Brown, Luft, & Roehrig, 2007) and have identified PCK related to
particular science topics (Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2004). As well, given the varied
interpretations of PCK in the literature, researchers acknowledge that PCK is a complex
construct. Nevertheless, Guzey and Roehrig (2009) described two characteristics of PCK
that Lee et al. (2007) found were common to all interpretations:
(a) teachers’ knowledge of student learning to translate and transform content to

facilitate students’ understanding and (b) teachers’ knowledge of particular
teaching strategies and representations (e.g., examples, explanations, analogies,
and illustrations). (p. 28)
In essence, these two common characteristics of PCK are consistent with and reinforce
Shulman’s (1986) original definition of PCK. Research shows that PCK is developed from
the practical experience of teaching and grows over time (Lee et al., 2007). Teachers do
not enter the field with a developed sense of PCK; teachers learn about what issues,
representations, analogies, and so forth, make a topic easy or difficult from their direct
experiences teaching learners of diverse abilities and backgrounds. Therefore, Lee et al.
(2007) suggested that professional development of PCK in science is more effective when
situated onsite, within the teaching context.
Furthermore, since PCK is foundational for effective science teaching and develops in
practice, a major component of science professional development that is successful in
generating teacher change is “classroom support that enhances the teachers’ science PCK”
(Appleton, 2008, p. 542). In Appleton’s study, elementary teachers were provided with
onsite mentoring support and “according to the teachers, the more formal orientation
sessions did little to influence their teaching, whereas the regular classroom support had
a significant impact on helping them review and change their science teaching practice”
(p. 538). The latter finding suggests that a critical component of any onsite PD approach
is some form of mentoring during classroom implementation to facilitate tangible
changes to teacher practice.
Besides mentoring during classroom teaching, Loughran et al. (2004) found that PD
focused on developing teacher knowledge of how to teach a science topic (PCK) should
take into account the individual and collective viewpoints of teachers in relation to the
content. The PD they provided to science teachers in their study engaged teachers as
individuals and as a group to discuss and plan pedagogical strategies to teach the science
content. Their study revealed that PCK does not reside solely in individual teachers;
different aspects of PCK are also revealed from the collective or groups of teachers.
Hence, effective science PD provides opportunities for groups of teachers to share and
develop PCK.
165
Research also shows that PCK is topic and context specific in science (McCrory, 2008).
The representations and particular ways of presenting content are different for different
topics and may also change, based on the needs of individual student learners (e.g., prior
knowledge, misconceptions, and language abilities). As such, science PD that develops
PCK around teaching a particular topic while considering the specific conditions of school
context may be more effective than developing PCK about a variety of topics at the same
time—an idea supported by evidence from research investigating teachers’ PCK, in which
teachers self-selected a specific content topic when discussing PCK development
(Loughran et al., 2004).
In summary, the science education literature indicates that some of the characteristics for
effective professional development of PCK in science teaching include onsite mentoring
during teaching, individual and collective or group planning experiences, learning
activities focused on teaching one topic, self-selection by teachers, and authentic teaching
practice in classrooms.
Developing Teacher Knowledge for Technology-Enhanced Science Instruction
Mishra and Koehler (2006) described TPACK to highlight the integral role of content in
teaching with technology in educational settings. Their model built upon Shulman’s
(1986; 1987) theory of teacher knowledge, in which teacher knowledge encompasses a
number of categories of specific teacher knowledge (e.g., PCK; knowledge of learners and
their characteristics; and knowledge of educational contexts). The knowledge required for
successful technology-enhanced teaching (TPACK) is situated within PCK, “that special
amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own
special form of professional understanding” (Shulman, 1986, p. 8).
The TPACK model proposes that teacher knowledge of the complex interactions between
content, pedagogy and technology, referred to initially as technological pedagogical
content knowledge, is necessary for effective teaching of content with technology. This
model has resulted in technology educators and researchers reconceptualizing how
knowledge about technology-enhanced teaching is learned. For example, Harris et al.
(2010) developed a categorization of activity types that link learning activities specific to
different subject areas with appropriate technologies, providing knowledge about lesson
design of technology integration in teaching in different content areas. An illustration of
an activity type identified in science is data analysis, executed by technology such as
spreadsheets.
In science education contexts, Jimoyiannis (2010) applied the TPACK framework to

science content to develop the TPASK curriculum (content replaced by science). The
TPASK curriculum represented the knowledge components specific to science (e.g.,
technological science knowledge [TSK] and technological pedagogical science knowledge
[TPASK]) needed to integrate technology in science education. This curriculum was
taught in an in-service PD course over a 4-month semester to prepare high school teacher
mentors to integrate technology in science instruction.
The effectiveness of the curriculum to develop TPASK was evaluated by interview data
from four specialist high school teacher participants. Engaging in an authentic classroom
task led these teacher participants to progress beyond "viewing technology integration
through a simple skill based lens (e.g., presentation of simulations or other tools through
a video-projector)" to thinking about how to effectively integrate technology into science
content for student learning (Jimoyiannis, 2010, p. 1267). This finding reinforces the
notion of a content-centric approach being an effective way to develop technology-
enhanced teaching in content areas (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Niess, 2005).
166
Another important finding of the study by Jimoyiannis (2010) was that the difficulties the
secondary science teachers experienced integrating technology in practice was influenced
by the educational context (e.g., curriculum coverage, exams, and insufficient prep time).
Hence, the author proposed the addition of a fourth component, educational context be
added to the TPASK model and be considered when designing technology PD for science
teachers.
McCrory (2008) proposed another approach to technology professional development in

science contexts. She identified four different types of knowledge relevant to developing
TPACK for teaching science with technology: knowledge of science, students, pedagogy,
and technology. Using McCrory’s framework, Guzey and Roehrig (2009) conducted a case
study of a professional development initiative to develop TPACK among in-service science
teachers. Data were collected from four of the science teachers who participated in a 2-
week summer course. Teachers then completed an online action research course, which
included online discussions and face-to-face, off-school-site meetings through the school
year.
Guzey and Roehrig (2009) found that two critical factors, school context and pedagogical
reasoning, affected teachers’ development of TPACK. Examples of contextual constraints
in their study were availability of technology tools and student characteristics. Teachers'
pedagogical reasoning (reasons for instructional decisions) was reflected in their practice
and was influenced by knowledge of instructional strategies and students, purposes for
teaching, and conceptions of science. The researchers noted a limitation of the study was
not being able to address issues related to school context during the summer course.
Guzey and Roehrig found it was "necessary to provide teachers follow-up assistance
during the time when they were designing and implementing their technology-enriched
lessons and action research projects" (p. 41). In their study, this support was provided
through online and some face-to-face meetings during the action research course.
In light of the discussion on characteristics of effective science PD, Guzey and Roehrig's
findings reinforce the importance of mentoring during the classroom implementation
process for technology PD as well. In this way, issues related to school context and
technology are considered by teachers when pedagogical decisions are made about how to
teach science with technology to meet the needs of their particular learners. Other
research (Appleton, 2008; Higgins & Spitulnik, 2008) has shown that onsite social
supports, such as mentoring and facilitated work groups, also foster teacher
conversations and teacher collaboration and support teachers in the integration of
technology effectively in science instruction.
In summary, the literature shows that effective PD for technology-enhanced science

instruction is characterized by the following components:
 Adapting for the educational and school context in which the instruction will take
place (such as school board directives, curricular constraints, access to tools, and
student diversity/meeting needs of students).
 Providing an authentic technology-enhanced, content-based task (e.g., a task that
promotes learning goals for students and uses technology available in the school).
 Providing individual and group mentoring to teachers as they plan and
implement the technology-enhanced activity (building TPACK through sharing as
the teachers plan and implement).
 Conducting professional development onsite (e.g., at the school to facilitate
planning that takes into account the school and teaching context and enables
reflective feedback during the implementation).
167
These characteristics were taken into consideration when designing the PD initiative we
carried out in this study.
Blogs in Science Instruction
The call for instruction that engages students in learning activities that enable them to
collaborate, construct, and communicate knowledge is articulated in the most recent
report from the United States, entitled A Framework for K-12 Science Education:
Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, (National Research Council [NRC],
2012). This NRC report outlines new standards or a“vision of the scope and nature of the
education in science, engineering,and technology needed for the 21st century” (p. 8). The
essential practices for science education outlined include asking questions, constructing
explanations, engaging in argument from evidence, and obtaining, evaluating, and
communicating information. Additionally, some of the skills identified as necessary for
competence in the 21st-century workplace include collaborative knowledge building,
skilled communication, skilled use of ICTs (information and communication
technologies), collaborative team work, critical thinking, and innovative real-world
problem solving (Microsoft Partners in Learning, 2011; Partnership for 21st Century
Skills, 2011).
To promote the development of the recommended practices of science and 21st-century

learning skills, the affordances of Web 2.0 tools such as blogs can be harnessed
(Luehmann & Frink, 2009). Many affordances of blogs for student learning in K-12 and
higher education contexts have been espoused in the literature. Robertson (2011) viewed
blogs as supporting students’ writing by providing a safe “learning community,” which
offers “opportunities for collaborative learning” (p. 1628).
Ferdig and Trammel (2004) purported that blogs “provide a space for students to reflect
and publish their thoughts and understandings. And because blogs can be commented
on, they provide opportunities for feedback and potential scaffolding of new ideas” (p. 2).
Huffaker (2005) illustrated how students in elementary and high schools used blogs to
practice reading and writing to support the development of language skills.
Within science education, Sawmiller (2010) explained the many ways that blogs can be
used to support science learning, including providing opportunities for collaboration,
increasing motivation, enhancing critical thinking skills, and supporting differentiated
instruction. Brownstein and Klein (2010) proposed a set of procedures for effective
implementation, which included having a clear purpose for the blog (e.g., constructing
knowledge, commenting, or writing), having structure in the form of clear guidelines
often provided by assessment rubrics, and providing examples. Additionally, Luehmann
and Frink (2009) outlined several learning affordances of blogs for science teaching
developed from a literature review that included supporting construction of scientific
explanations and using peer feedback to develop scientific explanations. This literature
described the affordances of blogs and benefits for learning subjects like language and
science. However, these reports have not provided empirical evidence to illustrate claims
about the effectiveness of blogs for learning in classrooms. A few recent studies have
sought to examine the effectiveness of blogs for student learning.
Du and Wagner (2007) investigated the effect of weblog use on learning in a university
undergraduate business course. Their findings showed that the “weblog performance can
be a significant predictor of the students’ learning outcome (i.e., exam performance) and
possibly a better predictor than traditional coursework.” (p. 10). Their findings also
suggested that written posts and comments provided explicit evidence of students’
168
cognitive and social construction efforts and, hence, weblogs could be used to assess
student learning of course content.
In another study on the value of blogs for student learning, Deng and Yuen (2011)
proposed a constructivist-based learning framework to analyze the affordances of blogs
for supporting learning. Participants were bachelor of education degree students at a
university in Hong Kong majoring in English. Deng and Yuen’s framework described
learning as involving four processes: self-expression, self-reflection, social interaction,
and reflective dialogue. Accordingly, they investigated how blogs supported these social
and cognitive processes during a teaching practicum. Their findings indicated that blogs
fostered emotional and social self-expression and self-reflection. However, blog
commenting was characterized by more social support rather than reflective dialogue. A
possible explanation for the latter finding may be that in this study students received
minimum guidelines on how to structure responses.
In a recent quasi-experimental study on blogs and writing, with and without instructional
support through prompts, Petko, Egger, and Graber (2014) found that the group provided
with prompts achieved greater learning gains than the group writing without prompts.
Additionally, they found that a larger number of those writing from the prompt group
revealed the use of metacognitive and cognitive strategies. Petko et al.’s findings suggest,
that while blogs afford a shared space for writing, sharing ideas, and receiving feedback
on ideas, producing writing to reflect learning and understanding of content is enhanced
through the use of instructional prompts. Hence, these findings point to the need for
teachers to incorporate pedagogical strategies during blog activities, to help students
focus on relevant information and organize their ideas into coherent forms of knowledge.
Petko et al.’s findings are consistent with the results of a meta-analysis of scaffolding
research showing that scaffolding instruction is effective for student learning (van de Pol,
Volman, & Beishuizen, 2010).
Methods
Since the intent of this study was to gain insights into how participants experienced
learning to design and teach with technology through a TPACK-based professional
development approach at a particular school site, a naturalistic case study design was
used (Creswell, 2009; Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993; Yin, 2009).
Yin (2009) stated that “a case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context” (p. 18). He further
explained that cases can be of individuals, processes, programs, or events and often
highlight a decision, or set of decisions, related to the phenomenon, such as the process
teachers underwent to build knowledge about teaching with technology, as explored in
this study.
The purpose of the case is not to generalize findings to a larger population, but to present
a rich description of the phenomenon under study from which others can examine and
draw inferences. The case is not a sample, and as Merriam (2002) asserted, “The general
lies in the particular; what we learn in a particular situation we can transfer to similar
situations subsequently encountered” (p. 28). Hence, “reader or user generalizability” is
one way of how case study findings can be applied to other contexts (p. 28). Another way
to generalize from a case study is when findings “expand and generalize theories (analytic
generalization)” (Yin, 2009, p. 15).
169
Thus, the development of theoretical propositions or frameworks supports case study

research because it guides data collection and analysis (Yin, 2009). Validity or credibility
of case study research is achieved through triangulation methods such as multiple data
sources and multiple investigators (Merriam, 2002) rather than a large sample size.
The bounded case in our study was the TPACK-based professional development initiative
that occurred over a period of 4 weeks at the school site. The inner-city school had a
culturally diverse student population. Teacher participants were three female Grade 8
teachers; two teachers taught science in English and one taught science in French. All
teachers were in their first 5 years of teaching, with some to limited experience with using
blogs for classroom instruction. The professional development initiative, which was
facilitated by an educational technology educator (author Candace Figg) and a science
educator (author Kamini Jaipal-Jamani), consisted of the following:
 Two just-in-time workshops (support based on participant learning needs) at the

school site for teacher participants (the authors with three teacher participants in
3-hour sessions each).
 Mentoring and feedback sessions, prior to, during, and after classroom
implementation of blogs in science instruction (university facilitator observed
each participant teaching two 80-minute sessions each, and coached during,
before, and after lessons).
 Teacher collaborative planning sessions during lunch and after school (with only
the teacher participants in three, 2-hour sessions).
The three teachers made a collaborative decision to develop an instructional activity

where blogs could be used to research and explore the applications of fluid mechanics, the
next topic they were to teach.
Data Collection and Analysis
Qualitative methods were used to collect data (Creswell, 2009), and the appropriate
ethics approvals to conduct research with human participants were obtained. We
recorded field notes during the two face-to-face professional learning sessions and
audiorecorded selected portions of the facilitation and discussion. Field notes were also
recorded during the six classroom observations, and selected excerpts of lessons were
video recorded.
Informal discussions with teachers before lessons and debriefing sessions after lessons
were audio recorded. Individual preinterviews and a final, individual postinterview were
conducted with the three teachers, and three focus group interviews were conducted with
12 students in total. Finally, teacher planning resources and artifacts and student blog
entries were collected. These multiple sources served to triangulate data and provide
validity for participants’ views and actions. Some of the classroom observations and all
formal interviews with teachers were conducted by a research assistant to minimize the
effect of researcher-participant power relations.
According to Yin (2009), an analytic strategy should guide the development of the case
report. We used theoretical propositions from the literature to create a list of codes, such
as school context (resources to be used and school directives such as literacy across the
curriculum), process (how the activity was planned and implemented), and social
relationships (collaborative elements and individual interpretation), from which the data
were unitized (Creswell, 2009). This strategy allowed us to identify common patterns, or
categories, related to the codes. The actual process involved each of us (the authors)
170
independently reading transcripts of field notes and interviews and coding using the a
priori list of codes. Themes were then derived from the categories that emerged and used
to construct the case report. The process of coding for themes independently by each of us
provided intercoder reliability (Creswell, 2009).
As with any research study, there were methodological limitations to this study. The use
of one school site did not enable cross case analysis. However, we chose to work at one
site for this first adaptation of the workshop approach to a school site. The study served
as the pilot for future large-scale studies. The PD was not sustained over a long period as
recommended by the literature, because the duration of the study was limited to the
length of the blog activity, which took place over a period of 4 weeks. As such, the PD was
conducted to follow through on the planning, implementation, and reflection of the blog
activity.
As well, the number of onsite PD sessions was determined by the needs and contextual
constraints of the teachers. Teachers indicated that they did not require further formal
workshop sessions, as they preferred to complete their planning by collaborating with
each other after school. They were also constrained by the need to complete other
learning goals in the science curriculum so could give up class time only to attend two
formal PD sessions. However, mentoring with teachers occurred more informally as we
observed and engaged in discussions during the blog implementation over the 4-week
period.
The TPLDM Workshop
In a series of longitudinal studies we identified characteristics and actions that teachers

used during elementary teaching practice to demonstrate TPACK (Figg & Jaipal, 2011;
Figg & Jaipal, 2012; Jaipal & Figg, 2010).
We found that the main characteristics and actions demonstrating TPACK in the practice
of teaching (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015, as summarized in Table 1) were related to the
following three components of the TPACK model:
 Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): the interaction of

technological knowledge (TK) with pedagogical content knowledge (PCK).
 Technological content knowledge (TCK): the interaction of TK with content
knowledge (CK).
 Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK): the interaction of TK with
pedagogical knowledge (PK).
Our research further indicated that teaching the specific characteristics and actions of
these three knowledge components to teachers promoted transfer of knowledge into
teaching practice (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2013; see Table 2) and is similar to what other
studies have found (Angeli & Valanides, 2008; Lock & Redmond, 2010). We also found
that four different types of workshop learning activities were particularly useful in
promoting the learning of these characteristics in practice (Figg & Jaipal-Jamani, 2013).
171
Table 1
The Components of TPACK-in-Practice
Characteristics and Examples of

Component Teacher Actions in Practice
Technological Knowledge to match models of teaching appropriate for content
Pedagogical Content to appropriate technology. Two characteristics supporting this
Knowledge are:
(TPCK-in-Practice)
1. Knowledge of a Repertoire of Technology-Enhanced Activity
Types such as WebQuests, spreadsheets, simulations to
represent different Content Knowledge and skills.
Teacher Action: to select most appropriate activity type to teach
and represent the content learning outcome.
2. Knowledge of Content-based Models of Teaching such as

inquiry or problem based model appropriate for the technology-
enhanced Activity Types.
Teacher Action: select appropriate model of teaching for
technology enhanced instruction
Technological Content Knowledge to use content-appropriate technologies or cross-
Knowledge disciplinary technologies in instruction, and the personal
(TCK-in-Practice) competence to use these technologies to achieve specific subject
matter goals or learning outcomes. Characteristics are:
1. Knowledge of content-appropriate technologies.

Teacher Action: Match appropriate technology or repurpose
technology to achieve content learning goals.
2. Competence with content –appropriate technologies.

Teacher Action: Identify technical skills and personal
competence for effective technology use
Technological Knowledge of practical teaching competencies (i.e., activity
Pedagogical Knowledge choices, organization, assessment, differentiation, classroom
(TPK-in-Practice) management) during planning and implementation of tech-
enhanced lessons. Examples of some characteristics are:
1. Activity choices.
Teacher Action: select technology-enhanced activity types based
on content learning outcomes.
2. Sequencing.
Teacher Action: include technology and content skills into the
lesson and unit.
3. Differentiation for technical competence.

Teacher Action: introduce few technical skills in a lesson.
4. Modelling technology use to and for students.

Teacher Actions: model technology use through teacher created
exemplars and student modeling of skills in content examples.
172
Table 2
Discussion Phase: TPK Aspects to Consider When Planning
Questions To Consider When

Designing the Science Task Examples
What is the most appropriate Internet research and blog comments to explain
activity type to meet the science applications of content and communicate through
learning goal (concepts, skills, tasks) writing, online lab simulation and wiki group report
that you want students to focus on? to demonstrate inquiry skills and data charts
How do you want students to Written posts, diagrams, symbols, simulations,
communicate, organize or sequence pictures, hyperlinked websites
their responses using the
technology?
How will you differentiate for Add information links, post technical tutorials, use
student learning when using the graphics, add series of questions
technology?
How will you assess student learning Rubric, checklist
using technology?
Other studies have also shown that these four activities support knowledge building
around teaching with technology, so that teachers are able to transfer what they learn and
adapt it for their own teaching situations and student learning needs (Angeli & Valanides,
2009; Niess, 2011). For example, Angeli and Valanides (2009) found that authentic tasks
developed TPACK. We combined the four learning activities into a four-stage,
professional development workshop, the TPLDM approach (Figg & Jaipal-Jamani, 2013).
The four activities, or stages, are as follows:
 Modeling a technology-enhanced activity type (learning with the tool) to set the
context and purpose for tool use,
 Integrating pedagogical dialogue in a modeled lesson ( discussion of pedagogical
and context factors such as student needs, management, and access to
technology),
 Developing activity-specific technical skills through short tool demonstrations,
and
 Applying TPACK to the design of an activity adapted to a specific content area or
teaching context.
Examples of how each stage can be applied in a PD workshop are discussed in the case
report that follows.
Findings
This case study report begins with a description of the professional development setting
and the four learning activities of the TPLDM Workshop approach, as adapted for
teaching science content in this school context. We then report teacher perceptions of the
knowledge they gained through participation in the TPLDM-based PD learning activities
with supporting evidence. Finally, the professional learning experienced by the three
173
teachers as they implemented the blog activity is presented. The complex nature of PD—
including the successes, frustrations, and knowledge learned about how to teach science
with blogs—is highlighted.
Professional Development Setting and Learning Experiences
The importance of adapting any type of professional development to meet the needs of
the teaching context (including curricular needs, directives from the school boards or
school sites, and learning needs of the participants’ own students) has been clearly
established by the research. Therefore, when designing the professional development for
the in-service teachers participating in this study, the TPLDM Workshop approach was
adapted to address the unique contextual features experienced by this group of teachers.
For example, the development of literacy and numeracy across the curriculum, one of the
Ontario Ministry of Education's (Ontario Ministry of Education , 2015) strategic
directives, was emphasized by the school board as a top priority for all teachers.
Therefore, the teachers in this study were looking for science professional development
on a technology that would address both science and literacy learning goals.
The participants in this study were familiar with ways blogs could be used to support
literacy goals, especially the affordances of blogs to communicate ideas by writing and
publishing and to enable the reading of other students’ writing. We provided participants
with articles on blogs to further their knowledge of the affordances of blogs, in general,
and in science (Brownstein & Klein, 2010; Huffaker, 2005). Based on this background
reading and discussions with us, the blog was selected because of its affordances for ease
of use for researching topics and usefulness for enabling the sharing of information and
provision of feedback in one shared classroom online space. Blogs were also seen as
logistically feasible to use because of the accessibility from multiple sites and the
availability of hardware resources at the school. Teachers had access to laptops for pairs
of students to use in class, and the majority of students had access to the Internet at
home.
Another consideration for the adaptation of the TPLDM Workshop approach was that the
workshop be conducted at the school site. Teachers preferred to have the workshops
conducted during the time when they were going to plan and teach this curriculum and at
a time and place convenient for all three teachers to learn collaboratively without losing
teaching time with their students. A more formal workshop presentation usually
occurring for a larger group of teachers on a PD day was adapted for a smaller audience in
a more informal setting—a computer classroom at the school.
Professional Workshop Session 1. The four learning activities of the TPLDM

Workshop approach were adapted for the first professional workshop session, as follows:
Phase 1: Modelling a technology-enhanced activity type. Our prior research

showed that modelling a repertoire of technology-enhanced activity types developed
knowledge of how to teach content with technology (Figg & Jaipal-Jamani, 2013; Jaipal-
Jamani & Figg, 2015). We first showed participants a variety of activity types (e.g., blog-
based journaling activities, Internet research activities, article critique activities, or
project showcasing activities) to meet different learning goals. As the participants in this
study were somewhat familiar with the capabilities of blogs in literacy, the science
educator discussed how blogs were used in science instruction (e.g., to meet the science
learning goals of communication and application skills) and modeled one blog activity for
teaching content in a Grade 5 science class that could be adapted for Grade 8. Teachers
were also provided with examples of other authentic classroom applications for the use of
blogs in teaching science content.
174
Phase 2: Engaging in pedagogical dialogue. This phase of the workshop involved

a discussion of how pedagogy and technology interacted when planning and
implementing a technology-enhanced science activity. Questions engaged participants in
a discussion of aspects and issues to consider when teaching science with blogs in the
classroom in order to develop their TPACK. The questions specifically targeted teacher
actions while teaching with technology, which were representative of the components
TCK, TPK and TPACK (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2013). For example, the discussion
highlighted TCK about how blogging tools would support the science Grade 8 learning
goals, TPK about classroom management strategies for students during the classroom
implementation of the blogging activity and ways to differentiate and assess this type of
instruction, and TPACK about how to design an appropriate technology-enhanced activity
that promotes science concept learning while developing literacy skills. The discussion
was guided by four questions (as shown in Table 2 with sample responses).
Phase 3: Tool demonstration. The pedagogical discussion in the previous phase

acted as a segue to the activity in the workshop, where the technology educator
demonstrated, step by step, the skills required to use blogs effectively. Participants were
taught the minimum technical skills required, which were creating a blog, linking to
articles and websites, linking within message posts, writing posts, and commenting on
posts. Then, participants created a blog for the science activity and learned technical skills
in an authentic context (TCK).
Phase 4: Collaborative planning to develop a practice task. Teachers were then

given time to collaborate and make decisions about what the common blog-enhanced
science activity would be that they would implement in all of their Grade 8 classes. We
supported teachers in this process. Using the Grade 8 curriculum and science textbook,
teachers selected specific content learning outcomes and a task or activity that would lead
to the learning outcomes. Within the Grade 8 fluid mechanics unit, the learning outcomes
selected were (a) investigating applications of fluid mechanics and (b) communicating
scientific information. The task agreed upon by teachers was guided Internet research to
explain the application of fluid mechanics in an industry to be communicated through a
blog post.
Thereafter, teachers worked individually on computers to research resources related to

the task, such as websites and articles that could be shared with students in blog posts. To
prompt reflection about how technology, pedagogy, and content interact, teachers used a
written planning guide to plan and develop the technology-enhanced science activity (see
Appendix A).
Professional Workshop Session 2. The second session took place a week after the
first professional learning session. In the interim, teachers had worked collaboratively
after school to discuss lesson design. For example, teachers agreed on a common question
that would guide student research and, based upon prior teaching experience with a
range of students with diverse learning needs, agreed to use a graphic organizer to assist
students in organizing ideas that would become the content of the blog comment task.
Teachers also agreed on the rubric they would use to assess both science content learning
and literacy skills.
During the second professional learning session, teachers worked independently to build
their individual class blog sites, writing the message posts to guide student research,
importing pictures and videos, and creating resources hyperlinks (see appendixes B, C,
and D). In this workshop, we were present as facilitators to provide pedagogical and
technical support as teachers required assistance. Teachers also got feedback from each
other on blog design.
175
Mentoring and Debriefing Teachers’ Classroom Implementation. Short

debriefing sessions with teachers occurred before and after their teaching of the blog
activity to engage teachers in pedagogical reasoning about their decisions for the lesson
design. During classroom teaching, we were available to support the implementation
process as needed. Feedback on the lesson after implementation provided an opportunity
for teachers to reflect on the lesson and discuss any issues that arose, as well as any
subsequent modifications needed.
Teacher Perceptions of the Efficacy of the TPLDM Workshop Experiences
Three main themes emerged about teachers’ perceptions of the knowledge they gained
about technology-enhanced science teaching from their experiences in the TPLDM
Workshop PD.
Theme 1. Authentic, content-focused learning experiences within the TPLDM

Workshop transformed theoretical ideas into practical understandings. The
TPLDM Workshop was valued by participants because it engaged them in authentic,
content-focused learning experiences about technology-enhanced teaching in three ways.
First, teachers indicated that modelling of technology-enhanced science activity types for
classroom use that are appropriate for accessing through a blog—such as resource
exploration activities, Internet research activities, and article critique activities—by
workshop facilitators was important for building their knowledge of how to teach with
blogs.
When asked to explain the most important knowledge they gained from the professional
development sessions, they stated that knowledge related to the practical application of
blogs in the science classroom for student learning was most beneficial.
Having the [modelling activity] was the most beneficial or most helpful
because...[there was] someone telling me, “You can do this; here’s how; here’s
some examples.” (Daley)
The most important knowledge and skills I gained are to be able to set up a blog,
[and] know how my kids can use it. Because again it can be conceptual, like, “Oh
yes, I’d like to do that,” but I don’t know how it’s going to work in my class. I
don’t know what it’s going to look like, and can the kids access it well and really
know what to do, and all of that sort of thing. So it wasn’t just a theoretical idea.
(Pat)
Second, modelling a repertoire of blog-based science activities provided an

authentic context for the next phase of the workshop. Discussion of the
pedagogical issues related to planning and implementing blogs as a technology-
enhanced science activity occurred around real applications of blog activities in a
science classroom, as opposed to a hypothetical general class. Topics in the
discussion targeted practical pedagogical issues, such as classroom management
and grouping of students associated with a science classroom. This discussion
enabled them to analyze how they would implement their own science lesson
design that incorporated blogs.
I think realizing how it’s useful in the classroom setting and all of us being
together throwing ideas off one another—that was all important—and focusing
specifically on how to use it for the classroom. I think that was probably new
knowledge and understanding. (Daley)
176
I thought through what the students would need to know to be success [sic], what
I was looking for from them, what my expectations were, so that they would be
clear on what they were to produce and how they were going to engage in the
activity. (Pat)
Finally, the third phase of the workshop involved learning the technical skills required to
create the blog-based activity. During the technical skill demonstration phase, the
sequencing of a few, just-in-time technical skills in step-by-step, doable chunks was
perceived as useful.
Both the professors definitely guided us through the whole thing and helped us figure out
how to make a blog, which blog to use or which blogspot to use. As well, the process was
very simple, and it was easy enough for me to follow along to be able to create a blog,
which was great. So it was a step-by-step process, and I thought it was really well
communicated and easy to follow. (Sharon)
Overall, the vibe was so positive, like, “You can do it. It’s okay.” I didn’t feel that our
questions were too elementary or we should have known more. I really appreciated being
taken where I was at—“Okay, I don’t really know anything about this”—and being led
through the process. (Pat)
These responses suggest that for these participants the sequence of the phases of the
TPLDM Workshop approach, especially the modelling of authentic, science classroom-
based blog activities, scaffolded learning about how to design and implement blog
activities in their science instruction.
Theme 2. Onsite professional learning supported collaborative coplanning

and individual implementation. Workshops were held at the school site.
Participants indicated that holding professional development workshops onsite enabled
all of the science teachers to participate and collaborate together. Participants felt that
opportunities for guided, collaborative discussions assisted them in coplanning and
making decisions about the types of activities, resources, and content learning outcomes
that would work well with blogging technology.
I really just enjoyed trying to figure out which blog would probably work best for
our activity, so making sure that there was a blog that enabled the kids to be able
to comment on each other, as well as even just going over the articles as a group
to figure out which articles would probably be best suited for the students, that
was very helpful because we didn’t even know where to start from that point.
(Sharon)
Although the teachers planned a common blog learning activity, the relationship that
existed between them due to teaching at the same school site and in the same subject area
gave them a comfort level that allowed them to individualize and implement the activity
for their own classes and according to their individual teaching styles: “We put our heads
together in coming up with the blog site that we were going to use and the assignment
itself but how we were going to instruct it—from there we did on our own” (Pat).
Participants indicated that the professional learning experience was relevant to the
situations in which they taught. Hence, participation in the PD experience that was onsite
supported collaborative coplanning and individual implementation.
177
Theme 3. Just-in-time technical, pedagogical, and content mentoring

enabled transfer of new TPACK immediately into participants’ practice.
Teachers stated that their participation in a hands-on application task (Phase 4:
Collaborative planning to apply TPACK in a practice task) with facilitator support was
"hugely” beneficial.
It was great to be able to be hands on with it all. It would not have been as
beneficial, I think, had it just been presented as, “Here’s what you can do and
here’s some ideas and here’s some examples.” (Pat)
I found that you both really sold the blogging to us. You made us go online. I
really like that because we went right onto the computers while you were there,
and you had us get started. Just that was very helpful because afterwards, when
we had the articles found and when we were on a roll, then it was much easier.
(Sharon)
The depth of knowledge developed from the experience was enhanced with pedagogical
mentoring. During this time, teachers used the written planning guide (see Appendix A)
to discuss ideas on lesson planning and worked on computers to create their science blog
lesson activity. Any science content support required was provided by the science
educator and other science teachers, and technical support was provided by the
technology educator.
It made it doable instead of it being an idea like, “Oh yeah, I should do that, but
there is so much to learn. I don’t know how to get started. I don’t know what to
use.” And then it becomes, “Okay, I’ll get to that sometime when I have time.” So
having someone hands on for a period of time, being released for that time and
actually being able to get set up and started is huge. (Pat)
For sure to have professional development time—we had the afternoon basically
where someone was walking us through how practically to create a blog. I think
with all of that—we were given a lot of tools in that afternoon—and just even time
was a huge tool. [It] was most beneficial to have people kind of standing behind
you as you’re creating and as you’re in there trying to create your blog. That was
the most helpful part, I would say. (Daley)
Just-in-time technical, pedagogical, and content support during the workshop and
applying that knowledge through creating a technology-enhanced learning activity to be
used with their students transformed an abstract teaching idea into a doable plan in
practice. Additionally, engaging in a concrete activity assisted teachers in making the
connection between the abstract TPACK and teacher actions in practice.
Professional Learning Through the Practice of Teaching: Three Teachers’

Experiences
The following section describes the professional learning participants’ experienced

through the act of teaching the technology-enhanced blog activity, planned during the
workshops. Although the three teachers designed the lesson activity collaboratively,
implementation of that lesson design differed between the teachers. In this section, we
first describe how each teacher implemented the blog activity. Then, we present a
thematic analysis of their perceptions of the knowledge about technology-enhanced
teaching they developed through this process.
178
Teaching the Blog Activity: Pat’s Experience. Pat began her introduction to the
blog activity by asking students about their prior experiences with blogs. She explained
the blog to them as “a diary on the Internet.” While students logged into the school portal
using laptops provided to each student, she showed an advanced organizer on the SMART
Board which read “WALT” (What are we learning today?) to introduce the topic,
Application of Fluid Mechanics. The slide had pictures linked to videos showing fluids in
action in real life, such as a speedboat and flying golf balls.
Students were excited and responded with comments such as, “Wow,” and “Check this
out.” She also showed the relevance of these applications to careers. Then, she introduced
the second learning goal for the lesson, Communicating Scientific Information, with the
audience being the class members communicating via a blog.
She introduced “WILF” (What am I looking for?), which consisted of the expectations for
the blogging activity—researching the topic to be able to respond to questions on her blog
through comments. She showed them the questions on her blog and told them to read her
blog post and answer the questions there by replying. Next she introduced “HOWDI”
(How will I do it?) and had originally planned to introduce three steps students would
complete during this period. However, prior to the lesson and after talking to author
Jaipal-Jamani, she made the decision to introduce only two steps in the process during
this class period, as the three steps of the process would have been too many for students
to comprehend and complete.
First, she explained to students that they would be using a graphic organizer (provided on
a handout) to collect information about applications of fluids and related industries. She
provided examples for many of the industries students could research (e.g., medicine,
construction, aeronautics, sports, and food) and modeled how to fill in the graphic
organizer for the students with an example she had prepared (in which the industry was
medicine and blood flow was the application).
The second step of the learning activity was for students to log into her blog site and post
a comment in response to the questions on the blog (see Appendix B). She then showed
them an example post she had already added to the blog to show how to change the
information (called jot notes), collected through the five areas of the graphic organizer,
into five paragraphs that were posted as a response to the questions on the blog.
For the rest of the class period, students then individually chose an industry from the list
she provided, used the hyperlinks on the blog related to that application/industry for
three areas of interest in that application and related careers, and filled in the graphic
organizer by jotting down notes onto the print copy of the graphic organizer (to prevent
plagiarizing by cutting and pasting).
Students continued with the activity in a second, follow-up period, completing the
graphic organizer and posting to the blog. Pat moderated the posts (reviewed the
messages) before they could be published on the blog. The activity continued into a third
period, where replying to posts was introduced.
Teaching the Blog Activity: Sharon’s Experience. Sharon’s lesson started with a
question to students asking if they were familiar with blogs. She discussed how a blog was
similar to YouTube, with respect to posting comments to videos uploaded by other
people. She reviewed knowledge discussed in the previous class about the properties of
fluids and, as an example, explained how fluids affect artificial hearts.
179
An LCD projector was used to project her blog that she created for this activity, and she
introduced the blog by having students read the information on fluids aloud. Then she
explained the task students would be completing by going over the content questions
posted on her blog and pointed to the links on the blog of the different applications of
fluids. The link to information to the artificial heart was used to illustrate two careers
related to this application (e.g., the heart surgeon and the industry that makes the
artificial hearts). She also explained what they were required to do: create a post and
reply to messages posted by two other classmates. Posts would also be approved before
they could be displayed on the site.
Students were then given a print graphic organizer (a series of questions) and told to use
it to summarize the information learned from their research. Sharon then went on to
demonstrate how to fill in the organizer by retrieving information about the application of
a water blaster from a link on her blog. Students were asked to use MS Word to
summarize their jot notes into a good post.
Sharon modeled the content expectations and technical skills required for the task by
showing an example of an appropriate message that she had created on her blog about
the application of body armor/protection. She then showed an example of replies to her
post and demonstrated how to reply using the reply tab.
Students worked on their laptops individually to research applications from the list
presented on her blog and spent the remainder of the period filling in their organizer and
creating draft posts. Toward the end of the period, Sharon realized that students did not
have enough time to complete researching, writing a post, and replying to posts from
classmates. She modified her instructions to students, telling them to focus on
researching their topic and creating their post. She also explained that they should create
their posts directly on her blog, rather than writing it out in MS Word and
cutting/pasting. In the second lesson, Sharon retaught how to create a post as well as how
to reply to classmates’ posts. Students worked during the second class session completing
the activity.
Teaching the Blog Activity: Daley’s Experience. Daley taught science in the French
language, and all written information and oral instructions were communicated in French
to students. Daley provided additional scaffolds for her beginning French students by
placing posters around the classroom describing fluids and blogs. She introduced
students to the topic of fluids through an English language YouTube video titled “How
many fluids do you use in a day?” As the video played, Daley asked students if they did
the activities being displayed in the video to connect the topic to their own lives. She then
displayed her blog and explained what a blog was. A student then read the introductory
paragraph from her blog. Daley used the activity questions on the blog to explain the
learning task and drew students’ attention to the visual links (using hyperlinked pictures
rather than links alone) listed on the blog that would be used to research the applications
of fluids and related careers. She then reiterated that students would be using the links to
research and write a post that summarizes the information they learned and then reply to
classmates’ posts.
She displayed the graphic organizer (the concept map) and explained how they should
use the graphic organizer, if they felt they needed it, to gather information they needed to
answer the questions listed on the blog. An additional question incorporated into her blog
asked how the applications chosen were used in students’ personal lives. She shared the
marking rubric with them.
180
Students were then asked to work independently on their laptops to do the research and
fill in the organizer if required. Daley walked around the classroom to assist students as
needed. Students asked a lot of questions of what they were expected to do and how to do
it. Daley redirected students to the blog to reread the questions, and she explained the
applications again, this time in English. Students worked individually, and after
facilitating for a while, Daley redirected their attention to the graphic organizer and
verbally explained how to complete the components of the concept map, again in English.
Finally, Daley realized a number of students required a visual model, so she sketched the
graphic organizer on the whiteboard and used the example of hydropower to demonstrate
how the graphic organizer should be filled. She also modified her instruction and asked
that all students complete the organizer. She suggested to students that, if they were
ready to post, they should first go to MS Word and write out their post (to enable them to
edit and spellcheck their work).
Students spent the remainder of the class period researching, completing the organizer,
and writing a post. In the following class, students continued creating their post by
translating from English to French and posting it to the blog, with Daley’s assistance.
Development of TPACK During Science Instruction
The pedagogical decisions teachers made about TPACK-related characteristics and

actions are discussed next in relation to activity choices, sequencing, differentiation, and
modelling of the technology. These four characteristics have been identified as integral
aspects of effective teaching with technology (Jaipal & Figg, 2010).
Activity Choices. Teachers who make choices by selecting the technology-enhanced

activity most appropriate to meet learning goals demonstrate TPACK. The teachers in this
study selected the blog as the most appropriate technology because of its usefulness to
achieve their immediate science curriculum expectations of understanding the
application of fluid mechanics and, at the same time, satisfy the literacy expectation of
communicating information. Teachers then selected an Internet research activity
communicated through the blog.
So I picked two curriculum expectations, one being investigating the application

of fluid mechanics and the other one is communicating scientific information for
a variety of purposes for a variety of audiences using a variety of things. So those
are my two expectations, those are the things I’ll be assessing. (Pat)
One of the language requirements is that they read multiple styles of writing and
this would go with that because blogging is a style on its own and even writing-
wise, they have to write in a variety of genres, and this was sort of research
writing versus not persuasive, not letter writing, or anything like that. (Daley)
Additionally, the design of the blog activity, which asked students to research, select, and
construct a paragraph communicating knowledge learned (as illustrated in appendixes B,
C, and D) contributed to the development of broader science learning goals (NRC, 2012),
which in this instance were constructing scientific explanations; obtaining, evaluating,
and communicating information; and building collaborative knowledge by individually
contributing to the blog document. Commenting on other students’ posts supported the
development of 21st-century learning skills, such as collaborative knowledge building,
critical thinking, and information and communications technology skills development.
181
The following is an example of a student’s comment on another student’s scientific

explanation about the application of artificial hearts in health and medicine and
illustrates collaborative knowledge building.
Hi Ben, awesome info about the human heart. One of my mum’s friends was
going in for heart surgery, but he was actually having a pig heart installed.
FACT** pig hearts are the closest genetic animal to humans** (monkeys are very
similar dna wise) hopefully we can save many lives with this technology.
-Tony
ps look after your heart!
Hence, the activity choice of Internet-based research task communicated as a blog post
on a teacher-created blog met the science and literacy curriculum learning goals and
contributed to broader science education and 21st-century learning goals.
Sequencing. This characteristic refers to decisions made about how to sequence the
learning activities so that the required technical skills are developed through teaching
content, rather than isolating technical skill instruction. The three teachers planned their
blog activity to sequence both content and technical skill learning within the science
lesson, as demonstrated in the case reports. All three participants began the lesson by
introducing the science content (fluids). Technical skills were shown or explained during
the teaching of the content.
For example, Pat provided students with a written handout that was used to structure the
learning so that the focus remained on the content learning while the technical skills were
introduced. The instructions on the worksheet show how she embedded technical
learning within content learning (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Embedding technical skill learning within content instruction.
182
Modelling Technology Use for Students.This characteristic refers to modeling best

practices for technology use and providing exemplars and examples. Participants used a
teacher-created blog site to model how to use a blog. Students were shown basic blogging
skills through the content-based blogging task (blog posting and replying). Teachers
modelled posting and replying skills using a teacher-created exemplar of a post about a
fluid application, and a reply to that post (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Example of teacher blogging of commenting and replying for

students.
Differentiation for Student Learning of Content and Technical Skills. All three
teachers successfully structured the learning activities so that content development in
science and writing skills for communication were promoted. Student learning was
guided by questions and graphic organizers.
Because I don’t want them cutting and pasting...[students] will use this [concept
map] to make jot notes, and then they will write their comment from their jot
notes, and I have a rubric for them so they can see what I’m expecting and what
I’m marking. (Sharon)
183
Teachers also incorporated specific modifications to cater to special learning needs of

various students. For example, Pat provided the English as a second language (ESL)
teacher with a copy of her blog for translation into Arabic to meet the needs of her ESL
learner.
I talked to the ESL teacher ahead of time, and I asked him to take the blog and try
to translate it into Arabic using the translator...to see if it made sense to him, so
[the student has] already had hands-on [practice] with it yesterday and has
already written five sentences....The ESL teacher won’t be here today, but at least
[the student] will have a little bit of knowledge and will know how to translate it
[the blog] into Arabic.
I’ve talked to the homeroom teacher about who’s a good buddy for her to work
with so I have a buddy in place for her [the student with mild intellectual
disability (MID)] as well as for my deaf/hard-of-hearing student, who has a
learning disability as well. For MID students I won’t require them to do the
complete graphic organizers. Even if they do one circle for me, that’s what I will
assess.
However, all three teachers planned their lessons to teach students all of the technical
skills in the first lesson: using the blog to research Internet information, posting a blog
message summarizing what they had learned, and replying to a post uploaded by another
student.
The realization that technical skills also needed to be taught in increments dawned on the
teachers at different times during their teaching. Sharon and Daley introduced all of the
skills in the first lesson. As the lesson progressed, these two teachers realized that
students were not able to complete all the content and technical tasks in the one lesson.
They, therefore, revised lesson expectations on the fly as the lesson progressed and asked
students to write the research post only. They then retaught posting and replying to posts
in the next lesson. The following comment by one teacher shows that this element of
TPACK—teaching technical skills in increments—was learned as she taught the
technology-enhanced lesson.
Maybe not going so much into it [blogging skills] for that one session and making
sure that I block time off for each section, because it can be overwhelming for me
and for the kids knowing all the things about the blog. (Sharon’s postlesson
interview)
Likewise, Pat voiced her concerns about the amount of technical skills being taught in the
lesson a few minutes prior to teaching the lesson, and with feedback from author Jaipal-
Jamani, modified her plans. She did not teach how to reply to posts in the first lesson.
This lesson is 100 minutes, and I expect that I will be able to go through the
instructions, that they will be able to pick their topic, that they will be able to
research their topic and complete their jot notes. My hope is that they will be able
to complete their comment; my doubt is that they will be able to comment on
someone else’s comment. (Pat’s prelesson conversation)
As a result of this study, all three teachers realized that differentiation for technical skill
learning is also essential when teaching with technology. Teachers realized that the
Internet researching activity plus the skills of posting and replying to another post were
too many tasks (technical and content) for one lesson.
184
Discussion
Our findings provide insights into professional learning as experienced by three teachers
who participated in a PD initiative, consisting of TPLDM Workshop sessions and
mentoring during the teaching of a technology-enhanced blog activity planned during the
workshops. The TPLDM Workshop engaged teachers in a series of learning activities
designed to promote the development of teacher knowledge about how to meet content-
learning goals through integration of technology in science teaching.
Participants reported that the workshop was beneficial because the activities of the
workshop transformed their theoretical knowledge about teaching science with blogs into
understandings of how to teach with blogs in their classroom practice. For example,
participants found that engagement in authentic, content-focused learning experiences
for teaching science content and literacy skills, which included the modelling of relevant
technology-enhanced activity types during the workshop session, helped them develop
teacher knowledge to design their activity.
In the study, we modeled a blog posting of a science article critique, which participants
described as an important experience for developing their understanding of teaching with
blogs in science. As well, participants indicated that engaging in a pedagogical dialogue
about the unique affordances of the particular technology for practical classroom
implementation and receiving just-in-time technical, pedagogical, and content support
during planning and implementation were highly beneficial for professional learning.
These findings support other findings in the literature that highlight the importance of
professional development that includes authentic classroom tasks (Glazer & Hannifin,
2006; Jimoyiannis, 2010) and modelling preferred instructional practices (Borko et al.,
2000).
Although the literature (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Sparks & Hirsh, 2000)
emphasized the importance of reflection to develop teacher knowledge, the type of
teacher reflection engaged in during the workshop sessions, which we call pedagogical
dialogue, refers to a structured reflection about the pedagogical aspects associated with
teaching an authentic, technology-enhanced, content activity. For example, the
pedagogical discussion might include ideas about how to sequence technical skills within
content learning and manage students and computers for a particular content lesson
(Figg & Jaipal-Jamani, 2013). Hence, our study extends the literature by proposing a
specific type of teacher reflective practice as an essential component of professional
development for technology-enhanced teaching.
Unlike the technocentric professional development models in which participants are first
taught the skills for using a technology (Papert, 1987), the TPLDM Workshop approach
promotes teacher understanding of technical skills through just-in-time technical
support. Our findings reinforce the notion that the learning of technical skills is effective
when situated in an authentic learning activity (content-centric), which is consistent with
current approaches to technology professional development calling for technology skill
instruction to be embedded within the learning of content skills and knowledge (Harris et
al., 2009; Kereluik et al., 2010). The PD in our study provided teachers with technical
skill knowledge while they engaged in the design of technology-enhanced instruction to
meet specific science curriculum goals.
Teacher participants showed evidence of developing TPACK (knowledge of technology-

enhanced teaching) through their choice of activities, sequencing of tasks and technical
skills within the science content task, modelling technology use for students, and
differentiating for student learning needs during implementation of the blog activity.
185
With regard to differentiating for students’ needs, scaffolding learning with prompts and
graphic organizers is recommended as a best practice pedagogy for supporting learning in
any classroom context (Petko et al., 2014; van de Pol et al., 2010). As well, the benefit of
scaffolding for student learning is well exemplified in this excerpt from a student blog
comment: “I studied up on blood flow. It is a VERY interesting topic. I used the graphic
organizer you gave and made these four general topics: Blood Flow through the Heart,
Donating Blood, Careers Involving Blood Flow, and Fun Facts!”
The question prompts on the teacher blog and the graphic organizers were used by all
students in some way to organize and develop their scientific explanations. Our findings
on the benefits of a TPACK-based, content-centric approach for developing teacher
knowledge reinforce similar findings in the literature (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Harris
et al., 2009; Niess, 2005; 2011).
Participants in our study also noted other characteristics of the PD that supported them
in their professional learning about how to teach science with blogs. First, onsite
professional development fostered collaborative coplanning and individual
implementation, which are characteristics of effective professional development (Hughes,
2005; Hung & Yeh, 2013; Joyce & Showers, 2002). Unlike other recent initiatives where
PD supporting technology-enhanced science instruction was delivered through formal
courses or workshops (Guzey & Roehrig, 2009; Jimoyiannis, 2010), our PD design
addressed the contextual needs of the teachers, meeting real-time instructional needs and
time constraints of teachers’ schedules.
In the two PD studies previously cited, a variety of general technologies specific to science
were introduced to teachers. As a result, these researchers found that some participants
required follow-up assistance because they were unable to connect how the technologies
presented in the course could be adapted for their instructional contexts. The just-in-
time, need-to-know approach of the TPLDM-based PD, with a focus on a particular
technology, addressed the concerns raised in the literature about contextual issues.
Second, professional learning was supported by the collaborative engagement of teachers

in an authentic task with a common purpose (common content learning goals). In our
study, the participants were Grade 8 science teachers. They were able to select common
curriculum content outcomes, which enabled them to codesign a learning activity
collaboratively around common student learning goals. Collaborative planning on how to
use a specific technology (blog) to teach specific content knowledge (application of fluids)
provided this common and concrete application for implementation in their actual
practice.
As Glazer et al. (2009) observed in their study, shared planning and shared curriculum
positively influenced interactions and professional learning among teachers. Other
studies have also shown that teachers codesigning learning activities promoted
collaborative professional learning (Hughes, 2005; Hung & Yeh, 2013; Glazer, Hannafin,
& Song, 2005). However, Glazer et al. (2009) cautioned that the development of “shared
repertoire was jeopardized when subject-area differences surfaced” (p. 35). The
experiences of teachers in our study support the notion that when PD is provided to
participants who teach in one subject area, they are able to share common curricular
content, promoting collaborative professional learning (also reported by Hughes, 2005).
A third characteristic of the PD that supported professional learning was the mentoring of
teachers during the implementation phase of the PD, which is consistent with the
findings of Appleton (2008). Our study adds to the literature by providing insights on the
importance of having access to mentors during the implementation phase for both
186
content and technology areas. Mentoring should occur not only during the planning of
the technology-enhanced activity and instruction, as is the case with many technology PD
initiatives that provide support through courses or short workshops.
Our findings suggest that mentoring during implementation developed teacher

knowledge by prompting reflection that resulted in modifications to the lesson in
response to learners’ actual classroom needs. Participants in our study had at least 2
years of experience teaching science, and they exhibited evidence of developed levels of
PCK in some areas. For example, the use of graphic organizers, scaffolding questions, and
science content visuals were used to scaffold student learning of science content. In the
TPLDM Workshops, they were shown how to select technology-enhanced activities for
learning goals and how to incorporate content and technology learning in science
instruction and were taught the importance of sequencing both content and technical
skills. Yet, only through directly teaching the activity in the classroom did teachers
develop the TPACK of sequencing technical skills into manageable units.
Teachers learned through the practice of teaching that they also had to gauge how many
and in what sequence to present technical skills so as not to impede students’ learning of
content. As discussed in the findings, Sharon and Daley realized that students were
overwhelmed with the tasks of researching, posting, and replying. Student learning was
not seamless, and learning was interrupted by students struggling to complete all the
tasks. Hence, these teachers responded during lesson implementation by adapting the
lesson on the fly–breaking the task into two manageable units to be carried out over 2
days.
This learning about how to teach with technology during the practice of teaching is
consistent with the literature on effective teaching. Darling-Hammond (2012) stressed
that effective teaching is characterized by teachers becoming adaptive experts—having
the ability to figure out problems during teaching and adapting teaching strategies or
supports accordingly. As such, developing teacher knowledge involves “preparing
teachers who can learn from teaching, as well as learning for teaching” (p. 11). In relation
to PD initiatives, the latter statement suggests that effective teacher PD should include
experiences that promote learning from the practice of teaching and learning about how
to teach (such as from workshops or courses). In our study, participants developed
TPACK from workshops and from reflection during teaching. This particular instance of
teacher reflection and modification also reinforces the importance of sequencing
technical skills into small doable chunks, which has been identified as one of the effective
characteristics of technology-enhanced teaching in the literature (Angeli & Valanides,
2009; Figg & Jaipal, 2012).
Overall, the TPLDM Workshop was effective at developing some aspects of TPACK, such
as activity choice; other aspects such as sequencing of technical skills, which is highly
learner and context dependent, developed during the practice of teaching with the
technology. Similar findings have been noted in the literature about how PCK is
developed from the practical experience of teaching over time (Lee et al., 2007).
Our findings have implications for how technology PD should be designed. It suggests the
need to provide an immediate application-in-teaching practice phase to help teachers
transfer the knowledge introduced in a workshop into real-time teaching practice and to
further develop their TPACK from teaching in relation to the actual needs of the learners.
Therefore, our findings contribute to the theoretical base of how teacher knowledge,
specifically TPACK, develops, and it provides a practical illustration of how to prepare
teachers to learn about teaching and learn from teaching (as recommended by Darling-
Hammond, 2012).
187
Another characteristic of effective professional development noted in the literature is

ongoing and sustained professional learning experiences (Borko et al., 2010). In our
study, provisions were not made for sustaining the PD because of faculty and teacher
workload commitments and financial constraints. While we were not able to sustain the
professional learning onsite at that school, we found other ways to apply the TPLDM
Workshop to impact teacher practice at a systemic level. As part of the collaboration
between our university and the school board, we provided workshops to board technology
consultants on the TPLDM Workshop.
We have evidence that many of these technology consultants have adopted a TPACK-
based, content-centric model of technology professional development, as opposed to a
focus on teaching technical skills in decontextualized contexts. These consultants
presented technology workshops to our university faculty members that incorporated
components of the TPLDM Workshop, and we hope that continued use of this
professional development approach to provide technology professional development for
practicing teachers in the local school board will impact the field.
Limitations
The findings reported in this paper are limited in the following ways. The focus of the PD
was limited to teachers learning about one type of technology, the blog, in response to
their contextual needs—in their case, the Ministry of Education strategic goals of literacy.
The paper does not report on the effectiveness of blogs on students’ learning, as the focus
of this paper is on teacher professional development. Reporting on the effectiveness of
blogs for student learning requires presenting a framework of analysis and conducting
content analysis to provide evidence that was beyond the scope of this paper. However,
teacher and student interview data provide preliminary evidence that blogs supported
construction of science explanations among students.
In response to the interview question, “What evidence do you have to show that learning
occurred using this blog teaching strategy?” Pat’s response was, “The evidence is in the
blogs.” Sharon explained how the principal and other colleagues who had looked at the
blog entries commented, “Wow, some of these kids who don’t usually do any work or who
are just not into school, they put their effort forward and did their best on their
comments.” Sharon commented further:
[Students] did put a lot of effort into their work, and they tried their best to
incorporate their [personal] connections to them, as well. I was really impressed,
because sometimes you don’t even get that much out of them in normal work.
That says a lot just on its own.
Similar comments were echoed by Daley.
The study findings also do not report on the long-term impact on teachers’ practice, as
this data is not available and would require a follow-up study with necessary ethics
approvals from the university and school board. It should also be noted that Pat was
promoted to a consultant position with the school board the following year, hence could
not be involved in classroom teaching to follow-up with blog integration in her practice.
However, during the year the study was conducted, Daley used blogs for further activities
in her English and French classes at other times in the year. The other two teachers
articulated intentions to use blogs. Pat stated, “I would have liked to use it again for
‘water systems,’ which is what I am doing now but…Our computer cards went on the fritz.
We haven’t had our computers for about three or four weeks, so that didn’t happen.”
188
Sharon explained, “Unfortunately, and not because I don’t want to. It’s just been such a
chaotic year for me, and it was really difficult with our computer labs being down.”
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to illustrate how the TPLDM Workshop approach for
technology workshops was adapted for professional development at a school site and to
explore teacher perceptions of the efficacy of the workshop model and how they
developed TPACK as they planned and implemented a technology-enhanced activity in
science. Our findings suggest that a TPLDM Workshop approach to technology
professional development enabled teachers to see and experience the ways in which
technology, content, and pedagogy interact in an authentic context, promoting the
development of some aspects of TPACK.
Overall, the findings show that content-centric technology professional development that
involves collaboration among a small group of teachers around a common content area
and an authentic classroom activity, with technical and content area support from
experts, supports the transformation of teachers’ theoretical teaching ideas and
hypothetical teaching activities into actual teaching practice. This paper makes a
theoretical contribution by proposing that TPACK is developed through a combination of
workshop experiences and immediate application of knowledge gained in the workshop
into practice in the real-life teaching context. The unique insights gained from this study
can inform the design of future PD initiatives conducted by other researchers and
professional development facilitators.
This paper makes a contribution to the practice of technology-enhanced teaching by

presenting a case of how the TPLDM Workshop approach was applied in a real teaching
context and could inform the work of faculty interested in conducting similar PD. For
teachers in such a study, the research provides professional development in action, and
findings provide research-based evidence for instructional decision-making purposes.
Such findings also provide school administrators with data to inform professional
development and curriculum decisions for science instruction. Directions for future
research include adapting the TPLDM Workshop approach to multiple school sites and
different subject areas to enable cross-case comparisons, which may lead to refinement of
the TPLDM Workshop approach.
References
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2008, March). TPCK in pre-service education: Preparing
primary education students to teach with technology. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from Punya
Mishra’s website: http://punya.educ.msu.edu/presentations/AERA2008/
AngeliValanides_AERA2008.pdf
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 and Education, 52(1), 154-168.
Appleton, K. (2008). Developing science pedagogical content knowledge through

mentoring elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(6), 523-545.
Borko, H., J. Jacobs, & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher

professional development. International Encyclopedia of Education, 7, 548-556.
189
Brownstein, E., & Klein, R. (2006). Blogs: Applications in science education. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 35(6), 18-22.
Carlson, S., & Gadio, C.T., (2002). Teacher professional development in the use of
technology. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 978-
1029). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary

programs. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional

development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher
development in the United States and abroad. Washington, DC: National Staff
Development Council.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319 - 340.
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics,

user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine
Studies, 38(3), 475-487.
DeMonte, J. (2013, July 15). High-quality professional development for teachers:

Supporting teacher training to improve student learning. Retrieved from the Center for
American Progress website: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/
2013/07/15/69592/high-quality-professional-development-for-teachers/
Deng, L., & Yuen, A. H. (2011). Towards a framework for educational affordances of
blogs. Computers & Education, 56(2), 441-451.
Du, H. S., & Wagner, C. (2006). Weblog success: Exploring the role of technology.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(9), 789-798.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., & Skipper, B. L. Allen. SD (1993). Doing naturalistic
inquiry: A guide to methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ferdig, R. E., & Trammell, K. D. (2004). Content delivery in the ‘blogosphere.’ THE
Journal, 31(7), 12-20.
Figg, C., & Jaipal, K. (2011). Developing a survey from a taxonomy of characteristics for
TK, TCK, and TPK to assess teacher candidates’ knowledge of teaching with technology.
In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 4330-4339). Chesapeake, VA:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
190
Figg, C., & Jaipal, K. (2012). TPACK-in-practice: Developing 21st century teacher
knowledge. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 4683-4689). Chesapeake, VA:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Figg, C., & Jaipal-Jamani, K. (2013). Transforming classroom practice: Technology

professional development that works! Teaching & Learning, 8(1), 87-98. Retrieved from
http://brock.scholarsportal.info/journals/teachingandlearning/home/article/view/431/3
84
Glazer, E. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model:

Situated professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 22(2), 179-193.
Glazer, E., Hannafin, M.J., Polly, D., & Rich, P. (2009). Factors and interactions
influencing technology integration during situated professional development in an
elementary school. Computers in the School, 26, 21-39.
Glazer, E., Hannafin, M. J., & Song, L. (2005). Promoting technology integration through
collaborative apprenticeship. Educational Technology Research and Development,
53(4), 57-67.
Grove, K., Strudler, N., & Odell, S. (2004). Mentoring toward technology use:
Cooperating teacher practice in supporting student teachers. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 37(1), 85-109.
Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of
science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 25-45. Retrieved from
http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/science/article1.cfm
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of

insecurity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Harris, J. (2005). Our agenda for technology integration: It’s time to choose.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2). Retrieved from
www.citejournal.org/articles/v5i2editorial1.pdf
Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for
curriculum-based TPACK development. In C. D. Maddux, (Ed.), Research highlights in
technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99-108). Chesapeake, VA: Society for
Information Technology in Teacher Education. Retrieved from
https://chathamcat.pbworks.com/f/HarrisHofer-TPACKActivityTypes.pdf
Harris, J. B., Hofer, M., Schmidt, D. A., Blanchard, M.R., Young, C.Y., Grandgenett, N. F.,
& Van Olphen, M. (2010). “Grounded” technology integration: Instructional planning
using curriculum-based activity type taxonomies. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 18(4), 573-605.
Harris, J. B., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical
content knowledge: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.
191
Higgins, T. E., & Spitulnik, M. W. (2008). Supporting teachers’ use of technology in

science instruction through professional development: A literature review. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 511-521.
Huffaker, D. A. (2005). The educated blogger: Using weblogs to promote literacy in the
classroom. AACE Journal, 13(2), 91-98.
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming
technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2),
227-302.
Hung, H. T., & Yeh, H. C. (2013). Forming a change environment to encourage

professional development through a teacher study group. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 36, 153-165.
Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of
professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes
& efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10). Retrieved from
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/115
Jaipal, K., & Figg, C. (2010). Unpacking the “Total PACKage”: Emergent TPACK
characteristics from a study of preservice teachers teaching with technology. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 18(3), 415-441.
Jaipal, K., & Figg, C. (2011). Collaborative action research approaches promoting
professional development for elementary school teachers. Educational Action
Research, 19(1), 59-72.
Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Figg, C. (2013). The TPACK-in Practice Workshop approach: A shift
from learning the tool to learning about technology-enhanced teaching. In E. Ivala (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on e-Learning (Vol. 2; pp. 215-223).
Reading, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Ltd.
Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Figg, C. (2015). A framework for TPACK-in-Practice: Designing

technology professional learning contexts to develop teacher technology knowledge
(TPACK). In C. Angeli & N. Valanides, N. (Eds.) Exploring, developing, and assessing
TPCK (pp. 137-164). New York, NY: Springer Publications.
Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological

pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers’ professional
development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259-1269.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H.
(2013). NMC Horizon report:2013 Higher education edition. Retrieved from The New
Media Consortium website: http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2013-horizon-report-HE.pdf
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Designing training and peer coaching: Our needs for
learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Keating, T., & Evans, E. (2001). Three computers in the back of the classroom: Preservice
teachers’ conceptions of technology integration. In J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference
192
2001 (pp. 1671-1676). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education.
Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2010). Reconsidering the T and C in TPACK:
Repurposing technologies for interdisciplinary knowledge. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge
(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference 2010 (pp. 3892-3899). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education.
Larson, L., Kuhn, C., Collins, R., Balthazor, G., Ribble, M., & Miller, T. (2009).
Technology instruction: Fixing the disconnect. Principal Leadership, 10(4), 54-58.
Lee, E., Brown, M. N., Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Assessing beginning secondary
science teachers' PCK: Pilot year results. School Science and Mathematics, 107(2), 52-60.
Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is

needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87-97. Retrieved from
http://jeffmacleodtechnologyintegrationportfolio.yolasite.com/resources/teachers_as_di
gital_natives.pdf
Lock, J.V. & Redmond, P. (2010). Transforming pre-service teacher curriculum:

Observation through a TPACK lens. In Proceedings of ASCILITE - Australian Society for
Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference 2010 (pp. 559-564).
Tugun, QLD: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.
Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge
in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370-391.
Luehmann, A. L., & Frink, J. (2009). How can blogging help teachers realize the goals of
reform-based science instruction? A study of nine classroom blogs. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 18(3), 275-290.
Lundeberg, M. A., Bergland, M., Klyczek, K., & Hoffman, D. (2003). Using action
research to develop preservice teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and confidence about
technology. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(4), 1-16. Retrieved from
http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/1.4.5.pdf
Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. W. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology:

A case study of student/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 26(4), 427-462.
McCrory, R. (2008). Science, technology and teaching: The topic-specific challenges of

TPCK in science. In B. Cato (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 193-206). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McKenzie, J. (2001). How teachers learn technology best. The Educational Technology
Journal, 10(6). Retrieved from http://fno.org/mar01/howlearn.html
Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and

analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
193
Microsoft Partners in Learning. (2011). ITL 21st century learning design: 21CLD
learning activity rubrics. Retrieved from http://www.itlresearch.com/itl-leap21
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A

framework for integrating technology in teachers’ knowledge. Teachers College Record,
108(6), 1017-1054.
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking
back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48-53.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Retrieved from The National Academies Press
website: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13165&page=R1
Niess, M. L. (2005). Scaffolding math learning with spreadsheets. Learning and Leading
With Technology, 32(5), 24–25.
Niess, M. L. 2011. Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology.

Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299-317.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2015) Elementary: Elementary education. Retrieved from

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/elementary.html
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). Framework for 21st century learning.
Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/1.__p21_framework_2-
pager.pdf
Papert, S. (1987). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future.
Retrieved from http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html
Petko, D., Egger, N., & Graber, M. (2014). Supporting learning with weblogs in science
education: A comparison of blogging and hand-written reflective writing with and
without prompts. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 7(1), 3-17.
Riveros, A., Newton, P., & Burgess, D. (2012). A situated account of teacher agency and
learning: Critical reflections on professional learning communities. Canadian Journal of
Education, 35(1), 202-216.
Robertson, J. (2011). The educational affordances of blogs for self-directed learning.

Computers & Education, 57, 1628–1644.
Sawmiller, A. (2010). Classroom blogging: What is the role in science learning? The
Clearing House, 83(2), 44-48.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.

Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
194
Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (2000). Strengthening professional development. Education

Week, 19(37), 42, 45.
Teo, T. (2008). Pre-service teachers' attitudes towards computer use: A Singapore survey.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 413-424. Retrieved from:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/teo.html
Trucano, M. (2005). Knowledge maps: ICTs in education. Washington, DC: Information

for Development Program.
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student
interaction: a decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22,271-296.
Zhao, Y. (Ed.). (2003). What should teachers know about technology? Perspectives and
Practices (Vol. 2). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Yin, R. (2009). How to do better case studies. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog’s (Eds.), The
SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 254-282). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Author Notes
Kamini Jaipal-Jamani
Department of Teacher Education
Brock University
CANADA
Email: [email protected]
Candace Figg
Department of Teacher Education
Brock University
CANADA
E-mail: [email protected]
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education is an online journal. All text, tables, and figures in
the print version of this article are exact representations of the original. However, the original article may also
include video and audio files, which can be accessed online at http://www.citejournal.org
195
Appendix A
Designing Your Blog/Wiki Activity to Enhance Science Learning:
Science Teacher Technology Workshop
PLANNING upcoming lesson(s) that Integrate Blog/Wiki
 What is your content learning outcome?

 What is the task/activity and how will you sequence multiple activities in a lesson
to scaffold learning?
 How do you want students to communicate this outcome to you?
 How will you differentiate for student learning?
 How will you assess student learning?
Appropriate Communication Differentiation Assessment

Outcome Task/Activity Mode On Blog Considerations Focus
1. Project- Student will create the Written blog post Prior knowledge of Rubric
based project. What is the with embedded content, Technical (specifically
(slideshow process for creating the multimedia skills, Language covers knowledge
presentation, project? (conduct a lab components (video, abilities, Scaffolded and
laboratory inquiry and create podcast, slideshow, instructional understanding of
report, data report, interpret Google Docs link, strategies content, oral,
tables, databases and construct images/photos, e.g., add links to written, and
graphic graphs, read an article diagrams converted sites for visual
organizers or and evaluate) to images) definitions/notes communication)
graphs, e.g., post tutorials
models, on how to do
poster, article technical aspects
or story, e.g., create a
podcast, glog/podcast
video) e.g., different
2. Issues- Student will analyze instruction,
Based and/or evaluate issue questions or
for decision-making graphics
(conduct research e.g., add series of
online, read an online questions
article, evaluate online
databases)
3. Research Student will locate Checklist (online
and Share resources/information participation,
on topic to share with frequency of on-
class (posting resources task
on the blog, posts/comments,
commenting on number of
resources) resources shared)
4. Reflect on Student will journal
Learning reflections on learning,
explaining their
thinking and reasoning
of class discussions,
give feedback on lesson
activities)
196
IMPLEMENTING upcoming Lesson(s) that Integrate Blog/Wiki
 What do you need to prepare to implement the lesson successfully?

 What type of technology is needed (hardware/software)?
 What is your backup plan if technical issues arise?
 What types of resources do your students need to do the lesson (e.g., handouts,
online articles, databases, image collections)?
 How will you make these accessible to your students during the lesson (e.g.,
embedded in the blog, links from Google Docs, hardcopies)?
 How will you group your students (pairs, individual work with partner sharing)?
 When and how will you model using the blog for students (brief handouts,
demonstrating techniques – NetSupport/LCD projector in class)?
197
Appendix B
Website Created by Pat
198
Appendix C
Website Created by Sharon
199
Appendix D
Website Created by Daley
200

A Case Study of A TPACK-Based Approach To Teacher Professional Development: Teaching Science With Blogs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Case Study of A TPACK-Based Approach To Teacher Professional Development: Teaching Science With Blogs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Case Study of A TPACK-Based Approach To Teacher Professional Development: Teaching Science With Blogs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Figg, C. (2015).

A case study of a TPACK-based approach to teacher

A Case Study of a TPACK-Based Approach to

This paper presents a case study of a technology professional development

Many of the characteristics of effective professional development (PD), such as collective

Such an approach to technology professional development most often leads to technology

In a comparative case study examining the nature of teacher knowledge influencing

In essence, the actual use of technology in instruction was found to be influenced by

Such an approach to PD builds teacher knowledge about how to integrate technology in

The study was guided by the following research questions:

 What are teachers’ perceptions of the efficacy of the TPLDM to develop

Whether the technology-enhanced activity leads to effective technology-enhanced

Developing Teacher Knowledge for Science Instruction

(a) teachers’ knowledge of student learning to translate and transform content to

Developing Teacher Knowledge for Technology-Enhanced Science Instruction

In science education contexts, Jimoyiannis (2010) applied the TPACK framework to

McCrory (2008) proposed another approach to technology professional development in

In summary, the literature shows that effective PD for technology-enhanced science

Blogs in Science Instruction

To promote the development of the recommended practices of science and 21st-century

Thus, the development of theoretical propositions or frameworks supports case study

 Two just-in-time workshops (support based on participant learning needs) at the

The three teachers made a collaborative decision to develop an instructional activity

Data Collection and Analysis

The TPLDM Workshop

In a series of longitudinal studies we identified characteristics and actions that teachers

 Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): the interaction of

Characteristics and Examples of

2. Knowledge of Content-based Models of Teaching such as

1. Knowledge of content-appropriate technologies.

2. Competence with content –appropriate technologies.

3. Differentiation for technical competence.

4. Modelling technology use to and for students.

Questions To Consider When

The four activities, or stages, are as follows:

Professional Development Setting and Learning Experiences

Professional Workshop Session 1. The four learning activities of the TPLDM

Phase 1: Modelling a technology-enhanced activity type. Our prior research

Phase 2: Engaging in pedagogical dialogue. This phase of the workshop involved

Phase 3: Tool demonstration. The pedagogical discussion in the previous phase

Phase 4: Collaborative planning to develop a practice task. Teachers were then

Thereafter, teachers worked individually on computers to research resources related to

Mentoring and Debriefing Teachers’ Classroom Implementation. Short

Teacher Perceptions of the Efficacy of the TPLDM Workshop Experiences

Theme 1. Authentic, content-focused learning experiences within the TPLDM

Second, modelling a repertoire of blog-based science activities provided an

Theme 2. Onsite professional learning supported collaborative coplanning

Theme 3. Just-in-time technical, pedagogical, and content mentoring

Professional Learning Through the Practice of Teaching: Three Teachers’

The following section describes the professional learning participants’ experienced

Development of TPACK During Science Instruction

The pedagogical decisions teachers made about TPACK-related characteristics and

Activity Choices. Teachers who make choices by selecting the technology-enhanced

So I picked two curriculum expectations, one being investigating the application

The following is an example of a student’s comment on another student’s scientific

Figure 1. Embedding technical skill learning within content instruction.

Modelling Technology Use for Students.This characteristic refers to modeling best

Figure 2. Example of teacher blogging of commenting and replying for

Teachers also incorporated specific modifications to cater to special learning needs of