“Jeg er nogle gange kun én YouTube-video foran børnene”
Læreres forståelser og første erfaringer med Teknologiforståelse som forsøgsfag på grundskolens mellemtrin.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/lup.v4i1.117979Nøgleord:
Teknologiforståelse som fag, didaktisk design, lærerforståelser, TPACKResumé
Faget teknologiforståelse er nyt i folkeskolens fagrække, og indhold samt metoder
skal udvikles til relevante læreprocesser. Artiklen her fokuserer på læreres erfaringer
med, forståelse af og forslag til, hvordan mellemtrinsfaget Teknologiforståelse
kan udfoldes.
Med teoretisk udgangspunkt i Mishras og Koehlers TPACK-model (2006) og
metodisk afsæt i grounded theory forsøger artiklen at bidrage med kategoriseringer
af læreres konkrete erfaringer og evalueringer af både det nye fags indholdsområde,
det didaktiske område og det teknologiske område samt overlappene mellem dem.
Referencer
Alonso, R.R., Plaza, I. R., & Orfali, C. H. (2019). Barriers in teacher perception about the use
of technology for evaluation in Higher Education. Digital Education Review, 35, 170-185.
Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A
K-6 Computational Thinking Curriculum Framework: Implications for Teacher Knowledge.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 47-57.
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is Involved
and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads,
2. htt ps://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
Buitrago Flórez, F., Casallas, R., Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., & Danies, G.
(2017). Changing a Generation’s Way of Thinking: Teaching Computational Thinking
Through Programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834-860. htt ps://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654317710096
Calderhead, J., & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching; Student teachers’ early conceptions
of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(1), 1-8.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory – a Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis.
Thousand Oaks, Californien: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. I: Holstein, J.A.,
& Gubrium, J.F. (red.), Handbook of constructionist research (s. 397-412). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Charmaz, K. (2009). Shifting the grounds: Constructivist grounded theory methods. I:
Morse, J.M., Stern, P.N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A.E. (red.), Developing
grounded theory: The second generation (s. 127-154). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
htt ps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315430577 Ela
Choy, M., & Ng, Y.L. (2015). Mapping Teachers’ Perceptions on Technology Use Using the
iTEaCH Implementation Model: A Case Study of a Singapore School. Cogent Education,
2(1), Article 1035527, 1-20.
Ferreira, D.J., Ambrósio, A.P.L., & Melo, T.F.N. (2018). Application of Real-World Problems
in Computer Science Education: Teachers’ Beliefs, Motivational Orientations and Practices.
International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE),
14(3), 15-28. htt ps://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2018070102
Glaser, B.G. 1998. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B.G. 1994. The Constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. I: Glaser, B.G.
(red.). More Grounded Theory Methodology: A Reader. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B.G. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity. Sociology Press.
Hardisky, M. (2018). TPACK: Technology integration and teacher perceptions. Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global database. (UMI No. 10787472). Doktorafhandling.
Hartman, J. 2005. Funderet teori – udvikling af teori på empirisk grund. København: Alinea.
Hord, S.M., Rutherford, W.L., Huling, L., & Hall, G.E. (2006). Taking charge of change. (Revideret
udg.). Austin, Texas: SEDL.
Iversen, O.S., Smith, R.C., & Dindler, C. (2018). From computational thinking to computational
empowerment: a 21st century PD agenda. Proceedings of the 15th Participatory
Design Conference on Full Papers – PDC ’18, 1-11. htt ps://doi.org/10.1145/3210586.3210592
Iversen, O.S., Dindler, C., & Smith, R.C. (2019). En designtilgang til teknologiforståelse. Frederikshavn:
Dafolo.
Johnson, Daniel R. (2011). A Quantitative Study of Teacher Perceptions of Professional Learning
Communities’ Context, Process, and Content. Seton Hall University Dissertations and
Theses (ETDs). Paper 15.
Kale, U., Akcaoglu, M., Cullen, T., Goh, D., Devine, L., Calvert, N., & Grise, K. (2018). Computational
What? Relating Computational Thinking to Teaching. TechTrends, 62(6), 574-
584. htt ps://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0290-9
Madsen, Ulla Ambrosius (2003). Pædagogisk etnografi – forskning i det pædagogiske praksisfelt.
Aarhus: Forlaget Klim.
Margolin, J., Pan, J., & Yang, R. (2019). Technology use in instruction and teacher perceptions
of school support for technology use in Iowa high schools. National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
McRobbie, C.J., Ginns, I. S., & Stein, S.J. (2000). Preservice primary teachers’ thinking about
technology and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
10, 81-101.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-
9620.2006.00684.x
Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers’ beliefs in research on teacher thinking and decision
making, and an alternative methodology. Instructional Science, 11(3), 201-225.
Pepe, T.M. (2016). Teacher Perceptions and Att itud es of Classroom Technology Integration Related
to iPad Training. Afh andling fraWalden University.
Thornberg, R. (2012). Informed Grounded Theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 56(3), 243-259. htt ps://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.581686
Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2012). Grounded theory. I: Lapan, S. D., Quartaroli, M., &
Reimer, F. (red.), Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and designs (s. 41-68). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass. htt ps://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n11
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Sleeman, D. (1986). The Challenges of Teaching Computer Programming. Commun. ACM,
29(9), 840-841. htt ps://doi.org/10.1145/6592.214913
UVM: (2018). Læseplan for forsøgsfaget teknologiforståelse. December 2018. htt ps://
www.uvm.dk/-/media/fi ler/uvm/aktuelt/pdf18/181221-laeseplan-teknologiforstaaelse.
pdf?la=da
Weinberg, A.E. (2013). Computational Thinking: An Investigation of the Existing Scholarship
and research. Afh andling, Colorado State University.
Wing, Jeannett e M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,
366(1881), 3717-3725. htt ps://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
Zeichner, K.M., & Tabachnick, B.R. (2001). Refl ections on refl ective teaching. I: Soler,
J, Craft, A., & Burgess, H. (red.). Teacher development – exploring our own experience (s.
72-87). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Forsøgsfagets hjemmeside: www.tekforsøget.dk
of technology for evaluation in Higher Education. Digital Education Review, 35, 170-185.
Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A
K-6 Computational Thinking Curriculum Framework: Implications for Teacher Knowledge.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 47-57.
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is Involved
and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads,
2. htt ps://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
Buitrago Flórez, F., Casallas, R., Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., & Danies, G.
(2017). Changing a Generation’s Way of Thinking: Teaching Computational Thinking
Through Programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834-860. htt ps://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654317710096
Calderhead, J., & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching; Student teachers’ early conceptions
of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(1), 1-8.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory – a Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis.
Thousand Oaks, Californien: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. I: Holstein, J.A.,
& Gubrium, J.F. (red.), Handbook of constructionist research (s. 397-412). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Charmaz, K. (2009). Shifting the grounds: Constructivist grounded theory methods. I:
Morse, J.M., Stern, P.N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A.E. (red.), Developing
grounded theory: The second generation (s. 127-154). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
htt ps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315430577 Ela
Choy, M., & Ng, Y.L. (2015). Mapping Teachers’ Perceptions on Technology Use Using the
iTEaCH Implementation Model: A Case Study of a Singapore School. Cogent Education,
2(1), Article 1035527, 1-20.
Ferreira, D.J., Ambrósio, A.P.L., & Melo, T.F.N. (2018). Application of Real-World Problems
in Computer Science Education: Teachers’ Beliefs, Motivational Orientations and Practices.
International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE),
14(3), 15-28. htt ps://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2018070102
Glaser, B.G. 1998. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B.G. 1994. The Constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. I: Glaser, B.G.
(red.). More Grounded Theory Methodology: A Reader. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B.G. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity. Sociology Press.
Hardisky, M. (2018). TPACK: Technology integration and teacher perceptions. Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global database. (UMI No. 10787472). Doktorafhandling.
Hartman, J. 2005. Funderet teori – udvikling af teori på empirisk grund. København: Alinea.
Hord, S.M., Rutherford, W.L., Huling, L., & Hall, G.E. (2006). Taking charge of change. (Revideret
udg.). Austin, Texas: SEDL.
Iversen, O.S., Smith, R.C., & Dindler, C. (2018). From computational thinking to computational
empowerment: a 21st century PD agenda. Proceedings of the 15th Participatory
Design Conference on Full Papers – PDC ’18, 1-11. htt ps://doi.org/10.1145/3210586.3210592
Iversen, O.S., Dindler, C., & Smith, R.C. (2019). En designtilgang til teknologiforståelse. Frederikshavn:
Dafolo.
Johnson, Daniel R. (2011). A Quantitative Study of Teacher Perceptions of Professional Learning
Communities’ Context, Process, and Content. Seton Hall University Dissertations and
Theses (ETDs). Paper 15.
Kale, U., Akcaoglu, M., Cullen, T., Goh, D., Devine, L., Calvert, N., & Grise, K. (2018). Computational
What? Relating Computational Thinking to Teaching. TechTrends, 62(6), 574-
584. htt ps://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0290-9
Madsen, Ulla Ambrosius (2003). Pædagogisk etnografi – forskning i det pædagogiske praksisfelt.
Aarhus: Forlaget Klim.
Margolin, J., Pan, J., & Yang, R. (2019). Technology use in instruction and teacher perceptions
of school support for technology use in Iowa high schools. National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
McRobbie, C.J., Ginns, I. S., & Stein, S.J. (2000). Preservice primary teachers’ thinking about
technology and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
10, 81-101.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-
9620.2006.00684.x
Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers’ beliefs in research on teacher thinking and decision
making, and an alternative methodology. Instructional Science, 11(3), 201-225.
Pepe, T.M. (2016). Teacher Perceptions and Att itud es of Classroom Technology Integration Related
to iPad Training. Afh andling fraWalden University.
Thornberg, R. (2012). Informed Grounded Theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 56(3), 243-259. htt ps://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.581686
Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2012). Grounded theory. I: Lapan, S. D., Quartaroli, M., &
Reimer, F. (red.), Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and designs (s. 41-68). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass. htt ps://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n11
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Sleeman, D. (1986). The Challenges of Teaching Computer Programming. Commun. ACM,
29(9), 840-841. htt ps://doi.org/10.1145/6592.214913
UVM: (2018). Læseplan for forsøgsfaget teknologiforståelse. December 2018. htt ps://
www.uvm.dk/-/media/fi ler/uvm/aktuelt/pdf18/181221-laeseplan-teknologiforstaaelse.
pdf?la=da
Weinberg, A.E. (2013). Computational Thinking: An Investigation of the Existing Scholarship
and research. Afh andling, Colorado State University.
Wing, Jeannett e M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,
366(1881), 3717-3725. htt ps://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
Zeichner, K.M., & Tabachnick, B.R. (2001). Refl ections on refl ective teaching. I: Soler,
J, Craft, A., & Burgess, H. (red.). Teacher development – exploring our own experience (s.
72-87). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Forsøgsfagets hjemmeside: www.tekforsøget.dk
Downloads
Publiceret
2019-12-20
Citation/Eksport
Christiansen, R. B., Nortvig, A.-M., & Hejsel, T. (2019). “Jeg er nogle gange kun én YouTube-video foran børnene”: Læreres forståelser og første erfaringer med Teknologiforståelse som forsøgsfag på grundskolens mellemtrin. Studier I læreruddannelse Og -Profession, 4(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.7146/lup.v4i1.117979
Nummer
Sektion
Artikler inden for tema
Licens
Studier i Læreruddannelse og Profession kræver ikke afgivelse af copyright ved publicering. Dvs. at artikler - efter publicering i Studier i Læreruddannelse og -profession - kan udgives i andre sammenhænge, efter anmodning til LUP-redaktionen.
Det indsendte manus må ikke tidligere være blevet publiceret i nordiske tidsskrifter, og det må heller ikke være sendt parallelt til et andet tidsskrift med henblik på at komme i betragtning til at blive publiceret.
For artikler publiceret i 'Studier i læreruddannelse og -profession' tillades at læsere kan downloade, kopiere, distribuere, udskrive, søge eller linke til og citere fra til ethvert lovligt formål. 'Studier i læreruddannelse og -profession' tillader således ikke at læsere bruger artikler eller dele af dem i egne artikler uden at citere, eller på anden vis anvender dem til kommercielle formål (CC BY-NC)
'Studier i læreruddannelse og -profession tillader at forfatteren kan arkivere publiceret artikel (post-print) på egen institutions bibliotek (Institutional Repository) , hvis samtidigt forfatteren linker til artiklens DOI nummer.
