8082 MD4 Dis2

INTRODUCTION Today the ubiquity of mobile technology is apparent across all ages. Some of the key findings by the Joan Ganz Cooney Cen- ter indicate rapid growth in young children’s exposure to and consumption of different types of digital media as well as use of mobile devices (Gutnick, Robb, Takeuchi, & Kotler, 2011). Gut- nick, et al. (2011) indicate that there is a drop in desktop com- puter ownership by 18% but an increase in laptop ownership by 31% among 60% of the families surveyed since 2005. Additional survey results indicate portability to be a popular feature in tech- nology devices. According to Rideout (2014), the use of mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets has grown in numbers for adults as well as for children.

The affordances of these mobile devices have created op- portunities for learning in some cases but also grave concern for young children’s development in other cases (DeCurtis & Ferrer, 2011; Patten & Valcarcel, 2007; Verenikina & Kervin, 2011). While there are studies to support positive outcomes for children us- ing technology, McManis and Gunnewig (2012) explain that there are some essential components to how the integration of the technology into the learning environment should be framed. They indicate that the technology needs to be developmentally appropriate for young children, and be integrated into the class- room. Also, tools need to be provided to help teachers imple- ment technology successfully.

There is a growing global community facing the challenge of how to integrate technology into educational settings. Although there is much research looking at this general problem, early childhood educators are faced with the additional challenge of limited research within the context of the early learning environ- ment (Guernsey, Levine, Chiong, & Severns, 2012). Early learning environments are a unique context that is different from other age levels (Guernsey, 2014). There is a need to explore what developmentally appropriate technology integration means and how to assist teachers to understand and implement technolo- gy integration successfully (Clements & Sarama, 2002; NAEYC & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media, 2012). One of the obstacles in assisting teachers to understand and implement technology integration successfully is lack of time for professional development (USDOE, 2010). McManis and Gunnewig (2012) recommend providing built-in support and creating effective learning communities as identified by Galinsky

(2012). In recognizing these challenges, it is imperative to pro- vide insight through research on how to assist early childhood educators to integrate technology within their pedagogical and content knowledge.

According to a policy brief published by New America, “the digital age brings a profusion of new challenges and opportunities for the field of early education” (Guernsey, 2014, p. 2). Guernsey (2014) proposed the need for redesigning the digital age archi- tecture in order to reform the system working with the birth- through-third grade continuum, thereby enhancing the benefits and facing the challenges with deeper understanding. According to Guernsey, five goals to promote this effort were to 1) set high expectations for the use of technologies when working with children of birth-through third grade, 2) boost the workforce by preparing and supporting pre- and in-service early childhood educators to appropriately integrate technology, 3) enhance current assets by distributing critical information, 4) connecting researchers, educators, and children’s media industries, and 5) encourage evaluation and research in the area of digital-age in- terventions and appropriate technology integration with this age group (Guernsey, 2014).

The purpose of this exploratory single-case study was to investigate how the affordances transpired within a technologi- cal pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework by four early childhood educators at a low-income family preschool. Early childhood education (ECE) is defined as education for birth to age eight although this study focused on the educators of preschools covering ages three to five.

The goals of the research were to address the two spe- cific needs: the need for evaluation and research in the area of digital-age interventions including appropriate technology in- tegration with this age group and the need to boost the ECE workforce by preparing and supporting pre- and in-service early childhood educators to appropriately integrate technology. The research question for this study was how did the affordances of iPad transpired within a TPACK framework for early childhood educators?

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The conceptual framework of this research is based on the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) mod- el. This conceptual framework originated from Shulman’s ped-

New Perspective on TPACK Framework in the Context of Early Childhood Education: The “A” Stands for Affective

Elizabeth K. Park1 and Jace Hargis2

1 Chaminade University of Honolulu, 2 Director, Center for Teaching and Learning, University of California, San Diego

(Received 6 October 2017; Accepted 18 January 2018)

The purpose of this exploratory single-case study is to investigate the affordances of iPad transpired within a tech- nological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework by four early childhood educators with varying Technological Knowledge (TK) at a low-income preschool. Pre/post and follow-up survey, group and follow-up interviews, classroom observations and document of iPad workshop data were analyzed using coding methods in two cycles. The exploration in how teachers discovered the iPad affordances indicated parallel progression in TK and change in their value system. The exploration in the progression of TK and change in their value system suggest a relationship between progression of TK towards TPACK and of affective-valuing (AV) towards affec- tive-characterization (AC).

1

IJ-SoTL, Vol. 12 [2018], No. 2, Art. 17

https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

agogical content knowledge (PCK) framework (Shulman, 1987), but added technological knowledge thereby providing a revised framework that integrated technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Mishra and Koehler (2006) introduced this concept and soon numerous researchers started to use this concept to frame their research. The intricacies of the different knowledge components and their relationships are illustrated in Figure 1. The desired knowledge for pre- and in-service teachers to gain is at the center of this diagram where they can integrate all three knowledge areas into practice.

It is timely to use an exploratory qualitative case study to discover the depth of the TPACK framework within the context of early childhood education since currently there is only one quantitative study within this context.

TPACK is a framework where the relationships between a teacher‘s knowledge of content (CK), pedagogy (PK), and technology (TK) are well orchestrated to bring about effective teaching. Mishra and Koehler (2006) and Koehler and Mishra (2009) further added the combination and intersections of these components as technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), ped- agogical content knowledge (PCK), and technological content knowledge (TCK).

Koehler, Mishra, Kereluik, Shin, and Graham (2014) indicate that numerous instruments were developed to assess pre- and in-service teachers within the TPACK framework but only 66 re- search publications met the inclusion criteria among 303 TPACK related articles. From those research articles, 141 instruments of various types were found. There were four categories to instru- ment types which were “self-report, open-ended questionnaires, performance assessments, interviews, and observations” (Koe- hler, et al., 2014, p. 104-105).

TPACK for Early Childhood Educators There were several studies that addressed content specific areas using TPACK (Graham et al., 2009; Hammond & Manfra, 2009; Niess, 2005) but to date, there is only one research study that addressed early childhood teachers. Chuang and Ho (2011) in- vestigated TPACK for early childhood teachers in Taiwan. They used a sample of 335 in-service teachers using a TPACK sur-

vey adapted from Schmidt et al. (2009). Early childhood teachers who were older had higher self-assessed PK and PCK than the younger teachers but younger teachers had higher self-assessed TK. Regardless of age, teachers who spent 20 hours or more using technology a week had higher TK and TCK than those who spend less than five hours a week.

This study indicated that technology was commonly in- tegrated into the early childhood classroom globally (OECD, 2006). For example, early childhood centers in Australia received more than 300 computer units through International KidSmart Early Learning Program (O’Rourke & Harrison, 2004). In Taiwan, there are more private preschools and those schools tend to have abundant resources including technology. Thus, Chuang and Ho (2011) concluded that early childhood teachers must devel- op TPACK to be effective teachers of today.

In addition, developmentally appropriate integration of technology in the early learning environment appears to be a controversial issue yet currently there is a lack of in-depth re- search on this topic (Parette, Quesenberry, & Blum, 2010). These variables contribute to the research design and methodology for this study.

METHODS This case study was grant-funded by Samuel N. and Mary Cas- tle Foundation with main purpose to explore the affordances of iPad for preschool teachers. The participants were selected using purposive sampling. The early childhood education context was important to this study and the four preschool teachers were carefully selected using two criteria. First, the preschool teachers needed to have some teaching experience and second, they had to be willing to learn and explore affordances of the iPad.

Instrumentation or sources of evidence (Yin, 2014) included surveys, interviews, observations, and documentation. The three types of surveys were pre-survey, post-survey, and a follow-up survey that included five follow-up questions. The main inter- view was a group interview with additional follow-up interviews. Extensive observations were conducted in each teacher’s class- room and documentations included transcription of the three iPad workshops, field notes, and email correspondences with the participants.

The data analysis used a two-stage coding method. Saldaña (2009) described these two stages as “cycles of coding.” The first cycle of coding established characteristics of different levels of technological knowledge and changes that occurred over time in relation to their technological knowledge. The second cycle of coding provided in-depth analysis of the data (Saldaña, 2009).

The initial data were collected without the TPACK frame- work in mind. However, when existing data were analyzed, some preliminary themes emerged (Saldaña, 2009). These preliminary themes provided general guidelines for the possible case study proposition that the characteristics of early childhood educators, the affective domain for learning, and developmentally appro- priate practices play an important role in analyzing the TPACK framework. Figure 2 provides the TPACK framework in ECE context.

With the insights gained from the initial review of exist- ing data, all data (both initial and follow-up) were re-coded with the conceptual framework in mind. Further, follow-up interviews were undertaken with the conceptual framework in mind to add depth to understanding the teacher’s knowledge and skills.

Figure 1. “The TPACK framework and its knowledge components” (Koe- hler & Mishra, 2009, p. 63)

2

New Perspective on TPACK Framework

https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

Participants and Context The selection process of the participants was a purposive sam- pling since the four teachers were selected using specific criteria for the purpose of exploring how they used iPads for assess- ment, teaching, and learning. In addition to their willingness to participate, the four participants needed to have differences in technological knowledge. It was also important that the teachers begin with established pedagogical and content knowledge. This meant that the teachers needed to have some teaching experi- ence rather than being brand new teachers. These variations in composition of the teachers helped us explore the viability and appropriateness of this approach and how different demographic characteristics may impact the use and effectiveness of technol- ogy-aided teaching in preschool setting.

Differences in characteristics among the participating pre- school teachers included technology literacy level, technology comfort level, and teaching experience. These variations in com- position of the teachers helped us explore the viability and ap- propriateness of this approach and how different demographic characteristics may impact the use and integration of technology in preschool setting.

The pre-survey from the existing data provided some gen- eral characteristics of the participants and their initial self-rated technological proficiencies as shown in Table 1. Pseudonyms for the teachers and the schools are used throughout this report to ensure participant anonymity.

DATA COLLECTION In preparation for the data collection, two steps were taken at the beginning of the grant project. To ensure the study was con- ducted ethically, an Institutional Review Board (IRB) form was

submitted and approved. Stake (1995) indicates the need to tri- angulate in order to validate the data collection and analysis pro- cesses. Among four types of data source triangulation (Denzin, 1984), the existing data for this grant project was fortunate to establish data source and investigator triangulation. This study afforded multiple sources of evidence and three investigators to collect and analyze the data.

The surveys consisted of three types: pre-survey, post-sur- vey, and a follow-up survey. All surveys were administered on- line and emails were sent to the participants reminding them to complete the surveys by a due date. The primary purpose for the pre-survey was to establish a baseline for their technological knowledge (TK), their demographics, their understanding of the project, and their concerns or desires for learning technology. The post-survey documented change in the teachers’ techno- logical knowledge (TK), technological content knowledge (TCK), and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK). Finally, the fol- low-up survey provided information regarding sustainability and applicability of their integration of technology in their current and future practice.

The interviews consisted of two types. A group interview was conducted at the end of the iPad workshops and follow-up interviews were conducted at the end of May 2014. The group interview was semi-structured and provided opportunity for the participants to share their responses to the three questions. The questions for the follow-up interviews were constructed after initial coding of the existing data.

The observations in the classrooms were conducted over two days. Two investigators observed four classrooms at differ- ent times during those two days. This established validity and reliability through investigator triangulation (Denzin, 1984).

The documentation was collected on different occa- sions. The main documentation consisted of the three iPad workshops conducted by three investigators. The recordings of the workshops were transcribed and field notes were coded for in-depth analysis.

Analysis of existing data using exploratory methods was the basis of the follow-up interview questions. Exploratory and af- fective coding methods were used to analyze the follow-up inter- views and a second cycle of coding determined in-depth analysis of all the data. Exploratory coding methods are exploratory in nature usually for “preliminary assignments of codes to the data” (Saldaña, 2009, p. 118). Affective coding methods “investigate sub- jective qualities of human experience by directly acknowledging and naming those experiences” (Saldaña, 2009, p. 86).

The existing data were collected and analyzed during the grant project that provided some pre-coding information. Al- though Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) was not used for this purpose, the researchers in- volved in the grant project noticed words, phrases, and concepts that stood out. While exploring iPad affordances, the themes emerged provided initial impression of the study. However, the shift from initial impressionistic to more in-depth analysis of the data required preliminary examination of the existing data. First, a grand perspective on the “units of social organization” (Saldaña, 2009, p. 14) was examined. The “units of social organization” is based on Lofland, Snow, Anderson, and Lofland (2006) notion that “the intersection of one or more actors [participants] en- gaging in one or more activities (behaviors) at a particular time in a specific place” (p. 212). These units intersect with cognitive

Figure 2. TPACK framework in early childhood education (ECE) eontext

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants Related to Technology

Pseudonym Years of Teaching

iPad Proficiency

Computer Proficiency

Jennifer Park 32 Novice Novice

Nina Chang 9 Intermediate Intermediate

Kristina Nakamura 34 Novice Novice

Hannah Nystrom 35 Intermediate Proficient

3

IJ-SoTL, Vol. 12 [2018], No. 2, Art. 17

https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

aspects or meaning, emotional aspects or feelings, and/or hier- archical aspects or inequalities. Second, evaluating which data to include and how much data to include were examined. Third, the condition of the data was evaluated for accuracy, consistency, and formatting in order to prepare for CAQDAS.

First Cycle Coding The data consisted of collection of documents, interviews, sur- veys, and observations. Data collected through recordings such as group interviews, individual interviews, and workshops were transcribed before the initial coding. The first cycle of coding in- volved two steps. The first step involved holistic coding method using only the existing data. From this coding, more focused in- terview questions were developed for the follow-up interviews. The second step involved a provisional coding method to create the three major coding categories of affordances, affective, and TPACK.

The first cycle of coding used affordances, affective, and TPACK categories. The subcategories for affordances were as- sessing, learning, teaching, and additional codings under “other” subcategory. The subcategories for affective were the five levels of affective domain taxonomy (Krathwohl et al., 1964; Krathwohl, 2002) and additional codings collectively clustered under “other” subcategory. The subcategories for TPACK consisted of the sev- en components in the TPACK framework (Koehler et al., 2014) with additional attention to technology related components di- vided up into iPad technology and general technology.

For reliability, three colleagues reviewed samples of the first cycle codings. The feedback provided by the colleagues were consistent with the initial codings but there was some confusion with the code descriptions. Thus, the descriptions were updated and other comments were incorporated into the coding process.

Second Cycle Coding After several iterations of the first coding cycle, many codes were consolidated, deleted, and revised. In the second cycle, the assumptions regarding the participants were reviewed and sub- categories were updated as indicated in Figure 3.

There were three assumptions made prior to data analysis. The first assumption in regard to affective domain taxonomy is that the participants had already surpassed the initial two levels

of the taxonomy, which are receiving and responding levels. The simple fact that the teachers agreed to participate in the study demonstrated that they were not only conscious of the challeng- es of technology integration in the context of early childhood but they were willing to respond to that awareness. The second assumption is that the participating teachers in this study were assumed to have high levels of pedagogy and content knowledge in the context of early childhood education. This assumption was made because all the teachers had extensive teaching experi- ence. The third assumption is that the affective domain taxonomy operates on a continuum. The nature of human affect is never in a vacuum but rather in a continuum at various levels. The first two assumptions were confirmed after first cycle of coding, there- fore we eliminated the affective subcategories of receiving and responding. For the same reason, the TPACK subcategories, PK, CK, and PCK were eliminated so this study could focus primarily on the technological knowledge and its relationship to content and pedagogical knowledge.

RESULTS In the second cycle of coding, the theming of data focused pri- marily on Technological Knowledge (TK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), and Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK).

Technological Knowledge (TK) The second cycle of coding for Technological Knowledge con- sisted of technological knowledge related to the iPad (TK-iPad), Technological Knowledge related to general technology/comput- er skills (TK-technology), and Technological Knowledge related to assessment (TK-assessment).

The pre-survey included six Likert-scale questions on com- puter experience and based on self-ratings of overall computing skills, Hannah indicated that she is proficient, Nina indicated she is intermediate, Jennifer and Kristina reported to be novices. All of them reported having some level of familiarity with mobile devices and all have used Apple products such as iPhones, iPods, and iPads. Hannah reported she has three years of iPad experi- ence and Kristina reported having one year. Nina, Kristina, and Hannah reported their self-rate on learning new technology as average whereas Jennifer indicated learning new technology is somewhat challenging.

Overall, the teachers had very diverse set of technolo- gy skills and knowledge. The post-survey indicated increases in technological skills and knowledge by teachers from the pre-sur- vey. In response to the item, “confidence level in using technology and digital media to plan activities with young children,” three teachers agreed that they were confident and one teacher re- mained neutral. Similarly, in response to the item, “confidence level in using technology and digital media to teach digital liter- acy concepts to young children,” one teacher indicated strongly agree that she is confident, two teachers agreed that they were confident, and one teacher remained neutral. In addition to Likert-scale responses, open-ended responses were indications of the increase in their technological skills along with their con- fidence in using technology.

In regard to their self-rated iPad proficiency, all reported an increase but Jennifer remained as novice. Jennifer’s self-rated iPad proficiency remained the same as novice but coding indicated that technological knowledge regarding the iPad (TK-iPad) did

Figure 3. Second cycle coding categories and subcategories.

4

New Perspective on TPACK Framework

https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

increase for Jennifer. For example, when she first started this project, she reported that she did not use iPad in the classroom because “[She] might do something wrong to jeopardize the function of the iPad.” However, during observation, she was com- fortably using iPad in the classroom. Figure 4 provides photos of her using the GOLD® app (first photo) and working on an app with children (second photo).

Nina and Hannah both increased iPad proficiency from in- termediate to proficient and Kristina increased from novice to intermediate.

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) refers to knowledge of the reciprocal relationship between technology and content. Again, the second cycle of coding subdivided TCK into Techno- logical Content Knowledge related to iPad use (TCK-iPad), Tech- nological Content Knowledge related to general technology/ computer skills (TCK-technology), and Technological Content Knowledge related to assessment (TCK-assessment). All teach- ers used iPads for teaching and learning in the classroom for various curricular content. Hannah reported how she adjusted the iPad app for math when she worked with a younger child. Jennifer was observed to use iPad app to enhance children’s learning by providing interactive four season song at circle time and Kristina also used the iPad photos and videos to enhance learning about butterflies, numbers, and shapes. Nina used iPad apps that provided enhancement of vocabulary building and lan- guage development. Figure 5 shows examples of how the iPad was used to enhance content knowledge. The first photo is an app Hannah used to enhance vocabulary building and letter for- mation. The second photo shows a child using the iPad app to practice her math skills.

There were some differences in how the iPad and technol- ogy were used by each teacher. However, all the teachers used the iPad similarly when assessing different content knowledge of the children. Since all the teachers were trained in the GOLD® Assessment System, they used the GOLD® Assessment System

app for assessment of the children’s progress. Although the fre- quency in use of GOLD® app varied by teacher, overall use of GOLD® app by all the teachers increased over time.

The general theme that emerged from the second cycle for TCK indicated that technological knowledge pertaining to vari- ous content increased over time and the majority of the teachers used technological knowledge to enhance content knowledge rather than as a main teaching method. One of the observation note stated, “[Hannah] uses iPad more and more everyday. She uses iPad for videotaping, photos, GOLD® app, literacy, math, and geography apps. She also takes pictures with camera, iPad, and iPhone.”

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) refers to an un- derstanding of how technology can constrain and afford specif- ic pedagogical practices. The subdivision of TPK also consisted of Technological Pedagogical Knowledge related to iPad use (TPK-iPad), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge related to gen- eral technology/computer skills (TPK-technology), and Techno- logical Pedagogical Knowledge related to assessment. The over- arching pedagogy in early childhood education is in reference to Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP). The pedagogy is to use methods that are appropriate for the particular developmen- tal level of the child. The general theme that emerged from TPK was all the teachers’ DAP integration of technological knowledge increased over time. Jennifer mentioned how her children used the iPad to take photos for an interactive app called, “Alien As- signment.” She said her three- and four-year-olds need handles that provide better grip when holding and carrying the iPad. Thus, she purchased an iPad case that was developmentally appropri- ate for her children. The photograph on the left in Figure 6 illus- trates how larger handles provided a secure grip for the child.

Nina expressed that she had to adjust how she worked with the children when she was trying out the storytelling app called, “Toontastic” during the observation visit. She realized that the multi-steps involved in creating a story through this app were

Figure 4. Examples of Jennifer’s increase in iPad proficiency

Figure 5. Examples of TCK

5

IJ-SoTL, Vol. 12 [2018], No. 2, Art. 17

https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

too complicated for the young four-year-olds but for the older four-year-olds and five-year-olds, they were appropriate. In the follow-up interview, she noted that she adjusted how she pre- sented this app when she worked with different age groups. She also experimented with the Educreations app to provide prac- tice opportunities for her student to write his name as shown in the lower photo in Figure 6.

During group interview, Kristina mentioned how she ad- justed her presentation of YouTube videos to children to make it appropriate. She said, “you kind of have to play them, because some of them are longer than others, some of them are not clear, some of them are too long. So I look for the time first, the short ones, and then you look to see who uploaded it, and you look at their things, so I figured out how to save those [to my] playlist.” Kristina works with three-year-olds and developmentally the children’s attention span at this age is limited, so she consciously chose videos that were the right length.

Hannah was initially afraid to let the children carry the iPad in the classroom. However, towards the end of the project, she created an iPad station where children can choose the pre-load- ed developmentally appropriate apps on her iPads.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge refers to knowl- edge about the complex relations among technology, pedagogy, and content that enable teachers to develop appropriate and context-specific teaching strategies. Evidence of this was provid- ed in the follow-up interviews related to TPACK.

DISCUSSION This study focused on understanding how early childhood educa- tors use technology, and how to provide support to increase their technological knowledge and integrate technological knowledge to provide developmentally appropriate learning environments.

Many educators are initially apprehensive about integrating technology in the classrooms mainly because of conflicting ideas about appropriate use with young children (Beach & Stefanick, 2010; Hutinger et al., 1994; Kelley et al., 2003). However, teach- ers’ attitudes and beliefs in technology impacting student learn- ing affected their willingness to explore and gain technological knowledge (Rivera et al., 2002; Wardle, 2000). In addition, the affective dimension was influential for educators (Pierre & Ough- ton, 2007; Saluja et al., 2002; Shephard, 2008) in making the shift in their attitudes and beliefs and in increasing their technological knowledge as it pertains to pedagogical and content knowledge.

Technological Knowledge and Change in Value System The participants of this single-case study included early child ed- ucators with varying technological knowledge (TK). TK included iPad skills and knowledge as well as general computer skills and knowledge. Initial survey indicated that all had previous person- al experience with mobile devices and two had previously used an iPad although neither considered to be proficient with this technology.

In post-survey, teachers self-rated an increase in technology skill and confidence over those indicated in the initial survey. The most novice and least confident of the four indicated improve- ment but was still tentative in her abilities. Those who experi- mented with personal uses in addition to classroom uses had greater learning gains.

Overall, teachers gained skills and knowledge in mobile technology as well as confidence and openness towards tech- nology use for learning, new insights into more efficient use of technology in assessment, and possible distinctions between age appropriate uses of mobile technology for children. Perhaps the most powerful evidence was obtained from Jennifer and Kristina who indicated that they were novices in the iPad and technology skills in the beginning of the study but gained enough confidence to volunteer to present at a conference. All four teachers indi- cated they were excited to continue to learn and explore new uses of iPads and to complete assessments successfully with the new tools.

The participating teachers improved skills and changed at- titudes about what was possible in using technology with chil- dren. The findings showed that there were intricate relationships between their change in attitudes and beliefs with increased technological skill integrated with their pedagogical and content knowledge.

Attitudes and Beliefs Matter The relationship between progression in affective taxonomy and TPACK supported that attitudes and beliefs mattered in not only gaining technological knowledge but also teachers moving from having TK towards TPACK. When looking at the frequency of coding in TK to TPACK and AV to AC, they both increased over time but when examining data more closely, it revealed that the progression from AV to AC was a necessary component to mak- ing TK to TPACK and vice versa.

Most of the research focuses on cognitive domain but there is a need to investigate cognitive objectives as a means to af- fective goals (Asch, 1952; Festinger, 1957; Heider, 1958; Rhine, 1958; Rosenberg, 1956) as well as affective objectives as means to cognitive goals (Bruner, 1960; Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959; Ja-

Figure 6. Examples of TPK

6

New Perspective on TPACK Framework

https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

hoda, 1956; Kelman, 1958; White, 1959). This study found that achievement of cognitive and affective goals happen simultane- ously similar to what Suchman (1962) suggested. The affective goal, in this case the varying affective taxonomy levels (AV, AO, AC) pushed the cognitive goals, in this case technological knowl- edge (TK, TCK, TPK, TPACK) but technological knowledge also influenced their affective knowledge.

Some of the open-ended questions addressed how they felt they learned to use their iPads, and the role that the professional development (PD) played in that learning. There were distinct differences in ways of learning among teachers: one preferred to research herself but another teacher, the most novice, preferred specific lessons and instructions. All appreciated opportunities for discussion during the workshops with the other teachers and wanted more of this as a focus of PD. In general, they said the PD opportunities were insufficient. They also noted that one ad- vantage was the chance to talk about the iPad uses and that this would be difficult without release time. When asked about con- tinuing issues, three indicated concerns about the fragility of the iPads when used in the classroom. General issue comment was not having enough time to learn everything they want to learn.

The teachers learned best when given the opportunity to share with each other and explore independently. However, for the most novice user more formal “how to” instruction was needed as well. Time was important for learning, particularly re- lease time for talking and PD.

This study adds additional insights to previous studies of TPACK framework. The contribution this study makes to previ- ous studies is adding another layer to the study of TPACK frame- work in the context of early childhood education. The use of mobile technology in educational setting less than a decade but the rapid spread of use in formal and informal educational setting is dramatic. Wu et al. (2012) reviewed trends from mobile learn- ing studies from 2003 to 2010 by analyzing 164 carefully selected publications. They provide distribution of mobile learning studies by research purpose which indicates small percentage addressing the affective domain during mobile learning and learner charac- teristics in the learning process. This study investigated the obvi- ous shortage in research which addressed the characteristics of early childhood educators and how affective domain factors into their technological skills and knowledge construct.

“A” for Affective Knowledge in TPACK The findings of this exploratory case study on how technology integration occurred within the TPACK framework revealed that affective knowledge was a key component in moving teachers toward integration of technological knowledge with content and pedagogical knowledge. Thus, this study suggests modifying the framework to include affective knowledge for TPACK frame- work. Mishra and Koehler (2008) explained that “A” in TPACK was added to make the acronym easier to pronounce by adding a vowel. However, this study suggests that “A” in TPACK could represent affective knowledge. Figure 7 represents how a new TPACK framework within the addition of an Affective compo- nent would look.

The expansion of additional affective knowledge to the TPACK framework now provides four foundation knowledge components and eight components within the framework that “address how these bodies of knowledge interact, constrain, and afford each other” as defined by Mishra and Koehler (2008). This

revised framework needs future studies in terms of how this knowledge will integrate but there are critical implications to future practice for in-service PD or pre-service teacher training.

This study addressed a portion of needs to further our un- derstanding of TPACK in the context of early childhood edu- cation. Currently, only one TPACK study has been conducted within the context of early childhood educators. The findings regarding “Affective Knowledge” being important when viewing from a TPACK framework can be also true in other educational contexts. It will be interesting to see if affective knowledge plays a larger role in further understanding the TPACK framework be- yond early childhood educators.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research project was funded by a grant from Samuel N. and Mary Castle Foundation. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the foundation.

REFERENCES Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. NY, NY: Prentice-Hall. Beach, M., & Stefanick, P. (2010). The use of digital media in Min-

nesota early childhood classrooms. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 1028– 1034). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from http:// www.editlib.org/p/33489.

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard University Press.

Chuang, H., & Ho, C. (2011). An investigation of early childhood teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in Taiwan. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 12(2), 99–117.

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2002). The role of technology in early childhood learning. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6),

Figure 7. Technological Pedagogical Affective and Content Knowledge (TPACK)

7

IJ-SoTL, Vol. 12 [2018], No. 2, Art. 17

https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

340–343. DeCurtis, L. L., & Ferrer, D. (2011). Toddlers and technology:

Teaching the techniques. The ASHA Leader. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2011/110920.

Denzin, N. K. (1984). The research act. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren- tice Hall.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203–210.

Galinsky, E. (2012). Learning communities: An emerging phenom- enon. Young Children, 67(1), 20–27.

Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., Harris, R., … Clair, L. S. (2009). Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. Techtrends, 53 (5), 70–79. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com. eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfview- er?vid=3&sid=90613bc0-579c-4891-afe5-1bd816dc8ab4@ sessionmgr4003&hid=4204.

Guernsey, L. (2014). Policy brief: Envisioning a digital age architecture for early education. Washington, D.C: New America. Retrieved from http://earlyed.newamerica.net/publications/policy/en- visioning_a_digital_age_architecture_for_early_education.

Guernsey, L., Levine, M., Chiong, C., & Severns, M. (2012). Pio- neering literacy in the digital wild west: Empowering parents and educators. Retrieved from www.gradelevelreading.net.

Gutnick, A. L., Robb, M., Takeuchi, L., & Kotler., J. (2011). Always Connected: The new digital media habits of young children. NY, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

Hammond, T. C., & Manfra, M. M. (2009). Giving, prompting, mak- ing: Aligning technology and pedagogy within TPACK for social studies instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 160–185. Retrieved from http:// www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss2/socialstudies/article1.cfm.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. NY, NY: Wiley.

Hutinger, P., Hall, S., Johanson, J., Robinson, L., Stoneburner, R., & Wisslead, K. (1994). State of practice: How assistive technolo- gies are used in educational programs of children with multiple disabilities. Macomb, IL.

Jahoda, M. (1956). Psychological issues in civil liberties. American Psychologist, 11, 234–240.

Kelley, M., Wetzel, K., Padgett, H., Kim, M., & Odom, M. (2003). Early childhood teacher preparation and technology inte- gration : The Arizona State University West experience. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(1), 71–87.

Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internaliza- tion, three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological peda- gogical content knowledge ? Contemporary Issues in Technol- ogy and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. doi:10.1016/j.compe- du.2010.07.009

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bish- op (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communica- tions and Technology (4th ed., pp. 101–111). NY, NY: Springer

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5 Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An

overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–219. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy

of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: The affective domain. NY, NY: David McKay.

Lofland, J., Snow, D., Anderson, L., & Lofland L. H. (2006). Analyz- ing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

McManis, L. D., & Gunnewig, S. B. (2012). Finding the education in educational technology with early learners. Young Children, May, 14–24.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Con- tent Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008). Introducing Technological Ped- agogical Content Knowledge. Paper presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Educational Research As- sociation (AERA), New York City, March 24–28, 2008. Re- trieved from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/presentations/ AERA2008/MishraKoehler_AERA2008.pdf.

NAEYC & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media. (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Joint position statement.

Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology ped- agogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.

OECD. (2006). Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us. Paris.

O’Rourke, M., & Harrison, C. (2004). The introduction of new technologies: New possibilities for early childhood pedago- gy Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29(2), 11-18.

Parette, H. P., Quesenberry, A. C., & Blum, C. (2010). Missing the boat with technology usage in early childhood settings: A 21st century view of developmentally appropriate practice. Ear- ly Childhood Education Journal, 37(5), 335–343. doi:10.1007/ s10643-009-0352-x

Patten, K. B., & Valcarcel, D. (2007). iPods and English language learners : A great combination. RedOrbit. Ken Haycock & As- sociates.

Pierre, E., & Oughton, J. (2007). The affective domain: Undiscov- ered country. College Quarterly, 10(4), 1–7.

Rhine, R. J. (1958). A concept formation approach to attitude ac- quisition. Psychological Review, 65, 363–370.

Rideout, V. (2014). Learning at home: Families’ educational media use in America. A report of the Families and Media Project. NY, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

Rivera, H., Galarza, S. L., Entz, S., & Tharp, R. G. (2002). Technol- ogy and pedagogy in Early childhood education : Guidance from cultural-historical-activity theory and developmentally appropriate instruction. Information Technology in Childhood Education, 173–196.

Rosenberg, M. J. (1956). Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 637–672.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. (p. 223). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Saluja, G., Early, D. M., & Clifford, R. M. (2002). Demographic char-

8

New Perspective on TPACK Framework

https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217

acteristics of early childhood teachers and structural ele- ments of early care and education in the US. Early Childhood Research and Practice.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Jour- nal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149. doi:10.1007/978-1-60761-303-9

Shephard, K. (2008). Higher education for sustainabili- ty: Seeking affective learning outcomes. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 87–98. doi:10.1108/14676370810842201

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

Stake, R. E. (1995). Data Gathering. In The art of case study research (pp. 49–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Suchman, J. R. (1962). The elementary school training program in scientific inquiry. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.

USDOE. (2010). Teaching: Prepare and connect. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technolo- gy/netp-2010/teaching-prepare-and-connect.

Verenikina, I., & Kervin, L. (2011). iPads, digital play and preschool- ers. He Kupu, 2(5), 4–19.

Wardle, F. (2000). The role of Technology in Early Childhood Pro- grams. Early Childhood News, 13–15.

White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered - The concept of com- petence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.

Wu, W.-H., Wu, Y.-C. J., Chen, C.-Y., Kao, H.-Y., Lin, C.-H., & Huang, S.-H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning stud- ies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817–827. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.016

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

9

IJ-SoTL, Vol. 12 [2018], No. 2, Art. 17

https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120217