Teaching Morally and Teaching Morality

      Student achievement is not the only topic of conversation in teachers’ lounges, parent-teacher organizations, and teacher education classrooms. There is also much discussion of the moral features of teaching and learning. Sometimes this talk centers on such issues as prayer in schools, sex education, and whether there are just grounds for teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. At other times, the conversation is about a teacher’s own moral values and whether or not these values should be communicated to one’s students. When the talk turns to a teacher’s own moral values, it often becomes entangled in whether it is even possible to provide a thorough and adequate education in the absence of certain moral values, as well as whether teachers are and should be the proper agents for the transmission of such values. These are thorny issues, which all too often get pushed aside because of their complexity and the ease with which they seem to foster disagreement. We believe there are ways to sort through these issues, ways that are not only helpful in resolving many of the tensions in the moral education debate, but ways that enable more powerful approaches to teaching and learning. To make our argument we introduce what we believe is an important distinction between teaching morality and teaching morally. In P-12 schools, the moral education debate often focuses on character education programs or other moral curricula. Such programs and curricula are championed as a means of teaching morality and transmitting moral virtue from one generation to the next. They are also derided as programs that have no place in the school curriculum because of the concern that morality is a matter of personal preference, religious conviction, or cultural commitment. Although this concern is worthy, it has, we believe, blocked us from attending to the more subtle ways that teachers, the larger society, and the state bring moral matters into the classroom, even when they do not adopt specific moral curricula. We understand these other ways of attending to moral matters as teaching morally. Is there any difference between teaching morally and teaching morality? We will argue that there is, and that there is much we can learn from exploring this difference. There are, however, many complexities and subtleties encountered in the course of distinguishing teaching morally from teaching morality. Our hope is that the value of this article will be found in its attempt to describe these complexities and subtleties, and to explain why they are important to our understanding of how teachers assist or impede the moral development of their students. The argument will lead to a number of vexing places, places where we have only questions and no answers. Perhaps there are readers who have answers and will contribute them to the growing study of the moral dimensions of teaching.

        The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A
        technological pedagogical content knowledge scale

        The purpose of this study is to develop a TPACK (technological pedagogical content knowledge) scale based on the centered component of TPACK framework in order to measure preservice teachers’ TPACK. A systematic and step-by-step approach was followed for the development of the scale. The validity and reliability studies of the scale were carried out with 995 Turkish preservice teachers. The sample was split into two subsamples on random basis (n1=498, n2 = 497). The first sample was used for Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and the second sample for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). After the EFA, the TPACK-deep scale included 33 items and had four factors. These factors were design, exertion, ethics and proficiency. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the whole scale was found to be .95, whereas the values of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for individual factors of the scale ranged between .85 and .92. The CFA was conducted within the scope of the validity study of the scale. In this way, this structure of the 4-factor scale was confirmed. In addition, the test-retest reliability coefficient of the scale was calculated as .80. The findings revealed that the TPACK-deep scale was a valid and reliable instrument for measuring TPACK. Consequently, various suggestions were put forward regarding the use the TPACK deep scale for applied research and for future studies.

        The lack of teacher knowledge, skills, abilities, or competencies related to use of technology in teaching process have been identified as the major barriers to technology integration (Belland, 2009; Bingimlas, 2009; Brinkerhoff, 2006; Chen, Looi, & Chen, 2009; Ertmer, 1999). The technology integration barriers include not only the lack of specific technology knowledge and skills but also the lack of technology-supported pedagogical and technology-related-classroom management knowledge and skills (Hew & Brush, 2007). Therefore, the approaches related to technology integration in education have changed from techno centric integration to techno-pedagogical integration. The techno centric integration approach focuses on technology and aims at helping teachers gain the skills and knowledge necessary to use various technologies. On the other hand, the techno-pedagogical integration approach is based on pedagogy and puts pedagogy as well as technology into practice in the integration process. One of the techno-pedagogical integration approaches in the field of technology integration in education is the framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK or TPCK). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge is referred to as TPACK today. However, it was used as TPCK in earlier publications in the literature. TPACK is a teacher knowledge framework developed by including technology knowledge into the teacher knowledge framework that Shulman (1986) basically determined as “pedagogical content knowledge”. This structure was created as a result of a five-year research program focused on teacher professional development and faculty development, and was carried out by using design based experimental research method (Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Mishra & Koehler, 2006)