Putting TPACK into Action in Learning Design: The Case of PeerLAND
Although previous research highlights the complementary relationship of learning design with TPACK, this is not the case for TPACK informing the development of digital learning design tools. In this paper, we present PeerLAND (Peer Evaluation of LeArNingDesigns). This learning design tool interweave...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2022-01, Vol.38 (6), p.53-74 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Although previous research highlights the complementary relationship of learning design with TPACK, this is not the case for TPACK informing the development of digital learning design tools. In this paper, we present PeerLAND (Peer Evaluation of LeArNingDesigns). This learning design tool interweaves design and peer evaluation in an integrated process based on TPACK, promoting teachers' roles as designers and reviewers. It adopts a modular design approach to support teachers as designers explicitly represent their design ideas starting from pedadogical content knowledge and gradually cultivating all the TPACK knowledge domains. The learning design process ends with peer evaluation where teachers use TPACK-based criteria to provide constructive feedback to peers. We report on a study conducted in a teacher education context to evaluate PeerLAND. Specifically, we investigate: (1) how student teachers' knowledge develops through the learning design process supported by PeerLAND, and (2) how they value peer evaluation through PeerLAND. Our findings suggest that putting TPACK into action through PeerLAND developed student teachers' knowledge in every TPACK domain, except for content knowledge. Furthermore, peer evaluation is considered advantageous to student teachers for getting timely constructive feedback and refining their designs, and several ideas for improving the peer evaluation mechanism are proposed. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1449-3098 1449-5554 |
DOI: | 10.14742/ajet.7556 |