Follow

• 

  Epistemic Cognition and Motivation

  Jason A. Chen and Michael M. Barger

  Why do you want to teach? What are the reasons you decided to major in philosophy in college? Why did you consult three different physicians and comb through hundreds of medical journals just to find out whether you should have your daughter vaccinated—isn’t asking your own doctor sufficient? Motivation is at the root of all of these types of questions. Motivation researchers are primarily concerned with the cognitive processes by which people initiate and sustain behaviors. For example, if a group of teachers indicate they decided to teach because they believe ensuring the next generation of young people enters their adult lives prepared to face the challenges of the 21st century, then these teachers are likely describing a belief in the utility of what they do. On the other hand, if a student said she decided to major in philosophy because she took introductory courses in logic and in ethics and earned superior marks in these classes, then her competence beliefs are likely the most salient aspect of her motivation. Although motivation historically has been presented in many different ways (e.g., need satisfaction, innate drives), in this chapter we frame the most commonly studied constructs of motivation as important cognitive structures and processes that guide our behaviors. We conceive of behaviors in a broad sense of the word to also include cognitive behaviors such as asking oneself whether a certain strategy is the best approach to solve a problem. This focus is in line with the purpose of this chapter and handbook—to focus on cognitive structures and processes that guide behaviors related specifically to building and evaluating knowledge. Given this focus on the cognitive basis of motivation, we then explore how motivational aspects of cognition relate to aspects of cognition that concern the nature of knowledge and knowing. Although the literature about the intersection of motivation and epistemic cognition is relatively small, scholars are becoming increasingly interested in questions such as, “why might some students refer to a politician about whether vaccines are effective and safe rather than refer to their family doctor?” At the heart of these types of questions is the assumption that cognitive behavior (including epistemic cognition) is motivated. That is, might some students refer to their teachers as the definitive source for an answer because they believe that it is not worth the time and effort to find more nuanced answers from multiple sources of information? Or might other students seek out alternative answers that are different from their textbook because they want to show off to their peers and teachers about how smart they are? To understand the linkages between motivation and epistemic cognition, however, we must first understand the theoretical frameworks that guide research in motivation as well as the empirical findings that have supported them. Motivation is a very broad construct that can include competence beliefs (i.e., “Am I able to do this task?”), value beliefs (i.e., “Do I find this task compelling?”), and goal orientations (i.e., “What is the reason I am engaging in this task?”). Given the large number of constructs included under the umbrella term of motivation, clarification is necessary regarding which constructs are typically included when researchers describe motivation. From there, we explore the studies that have examined the links between epistemic cognition and motivation, we consider ways that theory on epistemic cognition has implicitly enveloped motivational constructs, and we delineate how clear motivational constructs might inform such research. We conclude by exploring areas where future research is needed, and offer comments about the types of studies that may be productive for the field.

• 

  Science Teachers’ Beliefs: Perceptions of Efficacy and the Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Knowing

  Jason A. Chen, David B. Morris, and Nasser Mansour

  As we write this chapter, teachers across the United States are preparing for their first days of school. Besides the excitement associated with teaching students who are newly energized after a long summer break, science teachers also come into the school year with a host of beliefs that may well shape the ways in which they teach and may ultimately have some bearing on their students’ overall experiences with science. Although there are countless beliefs that teachers hold with regard to science, in this chapter we focus specifically on two beliefs that have received the most research attention—teachers’ self-efficacy, which describes their beliefs about their capability to teach science, and their epistemic beliefs, which describe their beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge and knowing. Science has been described by many as one of the most difficult school subjects (Drew, 2011; Dweck, 2006; National Academies of Science, 2011). For this reason, the National Academies of Science has noted that a strong sense of competence is critical for success in science and for persistence in science-related careers. For science teachers in particular, this same robust sense of competence is required both to understand science and to teach it well, as teachers who feel incompetent in science are more likely to avoid teaching it (Grindrod, Klindworth, Martin, & Tytler, 1991; Skamp, 1995). Given the importance of competence beliefs in learning and teaching science, we focus on one of the most well-studied constructs dealing with this belief—teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching science. Besides self-efficacy, scholars and practitioners alike have documented the regrettable lack of sophistication that students have with regard to their basic scientific literacy. For example, many students in middle school believe that science is composed entirely of absolute truths (BouJaoude, 1996), and that the development of scientific knowledge leaves little room for creativity and imagination (Griffiths & Barman, 1995; Lederman & O’Malley, 1990; Smith, Maclin, Houghton, & Hennessey, 2000). These troubling cases can be traced to teachers not understanding the complex nature of scientific knowledge well enough to communicate that level of sophistication to their students (Brickhouse, 1990; Duschl & Wright, 1989; Hashweh, 1996; Keys & Bryan, 2001). They can also be traced to institutional structures, such as an undue emphasis on testing, which can lead some science teachers to avoid teaching about the complexities of science (Brickhouse & Bodner, 1992; Munby, Cunningham, & Lock, 2000). The development of students’ deep understanding and appreciation for the complexity of science starts first with teachers. Teachers must have a deep level of understanding about the complexity of scientific knowledge. That is, they must understand that knowledge in science is connected to other fields of knowledge; that scientific knowledge is often revised with new evidence; that scientists often disagree; and that scientific knowledge must be justified with evidence from multiple sources and multiple experiments. Teachers must also possess the selfefficacy to lead their students through learning activities that model that complexity. Being able to teach in such a manner is certainly no easy task. It requires substantial skills in planning and organizing. It requires teachers to possess excellent classroom management skills, the ability to engage and motivate students, as well as the ability to connect these rich learning activities to the standards on which students will be tested. Given these issues that science teachers must grapple with, we chose to study science teachers’ self-efficacy and their epistemic beliefs about science.

• 

  The Construct is in the Eye of the Beholder: School Districts’ Appropriations and Reconceptualizations of TPACK

  Judi Harris and Mark J. Hofer

  Despite debates about the specific parameters of its eight subcomponents, TPACK is generally understood within university-based teacher education communities as the knowledge needed to incorporate technologies—especially digital tools and resources—effectively in teaching and learning. How do professional development providers working within primary and secondary schools and districts conceptualize and operationalize TPACK? Our study of educational technology-related professional development in seven North American schools and districts in seven states/provinces found that educational leaders’ discussion and operationalization of the TPACK construct differs from that of university-based researchers in intriguing and important ways. In these organizations, TPACK was both appropriated to reconnect curriculum and pedagogy with educational technology use after prior technocentric professional development was found to be lacking, and reconceptualized to focus more upon practice than knowledge.

• 

  Testing an Instrument Using Structured Interviews to Assess Experienced Teachers’ TPACK

  Judi Harris, Neal Grandgenett, and Mark J. Hofer

  In 2010, the authors developed, tested, and released a reliable and valid instrument that can be used to assess the quality of inexperienced teachers’ TPACK by examining their detailed written lesson plans. In the current study, the same instrument was tested to see if it could be used to assess the TPACK evident in experienced teachers’ planning in the form of spoken responses to semi-structured interview questions. Interrater reliability was computed using both Intraclass Correlation (.870) and a score agreement (93.6%) procedure. Internal consistency (using Cronbach’s Alpha) was .895. Test-retest reliability (score agreement) was 100%. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the rubric is robust when used to analyze experienced teachers’ descriptions of lessons or projects offered in response to the interview questions that appear in the Appendix.

• 

  TPACK Research with Inservice Teachers: Where’s the TCK?

  Mark J. Hofer and Judi Harris

  Researchers are increasingly exploring the development and expression of experienced teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). While the majority of extant studies focus on evidence and growth of TPACK holistically, some have begun to distinguish teacher knowledge in TPACK’s subdomains, including technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) and technological content knowledge (TCK). In reviewing this literature, one pattern has become apparent: teachers’ TPK is documented considerably more often than their TCK across studies that have disaggregated results according to these subdomains. This paper reviews the studies that together illustrate this trend, offering potential explanations and suggestions for further investigation.

• 

  Testing a TPACK-Based Technology Integration Observation Rubric

  Mark J. Hofer, Neal Grandgenett, Judi Harris, and Kathy Swan

  Teachers' knowledge for technology integration - conceptualized as technological pedagogical content knowledge, or TPACK (Mishra & Koehler 2006) - is difficult to discern, much less assess. Given the complexity, situatedness and interdependence of the types of knowledge represented by the TPACK construct, well-triangulated ways to assess demonstrated technology integration are needed. In 2009, three of the authors created and tested a rubric that was found to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess the TPACK evident in teacher's written lesson plans (Harris, Grandgenett & Hofer 2010). We have now also developed a TPACK-based observation rubric that testing has shown to be robust. Seven TPACK experts confirmed the rubric's construct and face validity. The instrument's interrater reliability coefficient (.802) was computed using both Intraclass Correlation and a percent score agreement (90.8%) procedure. Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) was .914. Test-retest reliability (score agreement) was 93.9%.

• 

  Autobiography and African American Women’s Literature

  Joanne M. Braxton

• 

  Testing a TPACK-Based Technology Integration Assessment Rubric

  Judi Harris, Neal Grandgenett, and Mark J. Hofer

  Although there is ever-increasing emphasis on integrating technology in teaching, there are few well-tested and refined assessments to measure the quality of this integration. The few measures that are available tend to favor constructivist approaches to teaching, and thus do not accurately assess the quality of technology integration across a range of different teaching approaches. We have developed a more “pedagogically inclusive” instrument that reflects key TPACK concepts and that has proven to both reliable and valid in two successive rounds of testing. The instrument’s interrater reliability coefficient (.857) was computed using both Intraclass Correlation and a score agreement (84.1%) procedure. Internal consistency (using Cronbach’s Alpha) was .911. Test-retest reliability (score agreement) was 87.0%. Five TPACK experts also confirmed the instrument's construct and face validities. We offer this new rubric to help teacher educator's to more accurately assess the quality of technology integration in lesson plans, and suggest exploring its use in project and unit plans.

• 

  Differentiating TPACK Development: Using Learning Activity Types with Inservice and Preservice Teachers

  Mark J. Hofer and Judi Harris

  As teacher educators have begun to recognize and acknowledge the complexity of teacher knowledge for technology integration, currently conceptualized as technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), researchers are exploring multiple ways to help inservice and preservice teachers develop this highly situated, interdependent professional knowledge. In this article we overview the Learning Activity Types (LAT) approach to TPACK-building that we have developed and are testing, documenting how we utilize the approach in differentiated ways for preservice and inservice teachers.

• 

  Instructional Planning Activity Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development

  Judi Harris and Mark J. Hofer

  Teachers’ knowledge is situated, event-structured, and episodic. Technology, pedagogy and content knowledge (TPACK) – one form of highly practical professional educational knowledge – is comprised of teachers’ concurrent and interdependent curriculum content, general pedagogy, and technological understanding. Teachers’ planning – which expresses teachers’ knowledge-in-action in pragmatic ways -- is situated, contextually sensitive, routinized, and activity-based. To assist with the development of teachers’ TPACK, therefore, we suggest using what is understood from research about teachers’ knowledge and instructional planning to form an approach to curriculum-based technology integration that is predicated upon the combining of technologically supported learning activity types within and across content-keyed activity type taxonomies. In this chapter, we describe such a TPACK development method.

• 

  Social Cognitive Theory and Mass Media Effects

  Frank Pajares, Abby Prestin, Jason A. Chen, and Robin L. Nabi

  Bandura’s social cognitive theory is one of the most highly influential and widely celebrated theories in the field of social psychology. Thus, it is no surprise that its influence has extended into multiple fields, including communication and especially the study of media effects. Still, despite the enthusiasm with which media scholars have embraced social cognitive theory, its integration into media research is still in its infancy. The purpose of this chapter is first, to lay out the historical background and basic tenets of social cognitive theory. We will then explore the ways in which media effects scholars have integrated it into their research and consider the ways in which scholars might build on the existing foundation of social cognitive theory-based media research to better illuminate media effects processes and outcomes.

• 

  Symbolic Geography and Psychic Landscapes: A Conversation with Maya Angelou

  Joanne M. Braxton