Answer and do the following.

1.    Take the Digital Literacy Skills Self-Inventory on page 88. Then answer the question on page 89. Put your
answer here.
2.    Apply your digital literacy skills on information literacy by searching for the identified sample sites below.
Navigate around each site. In three to five sentences, share what information can be found in each.
a.   Professor Garfield with URL http://www.professorgarfield.org/pgf_home.html

b.   Common Sense Media with URL https://www.commonsense.org/education/digital-citizenship#digcit-program

c.    Lesson Plan Booster: Digital Literacy and Online Ethics with URL
https://www.educationworld.com/a_lesson/lesson-plan-booster/cyber-ethics.shtml

the Site is legitimate where the author is Jason Tomaszewski which EducationWorld Associate Editor
and studied at Robbert Moris University BA Communication. The article published in 2011. The information has legitimate
sources which it is indicated the names as well as the title of the article.
Research Objective (s)
the nature of technological
pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK) through
the use of a factor analysis.
Methodology
A Web-based survey
instrument was developed
encompassing questions
regarding 24 items
concerning online teachers’
technological pedagogical
content knowledge
(Archambault & Crippen,
2009). Responses were on a
Likert-type scale, ranging
from 1 ¼ Poor, 2 ¼ Fair, 3 ¼
Good, 4 ¼ Very Good, and 5
¼ Excellent. To establish
construct validity, the
instrument underwent
expert review and two
rounds of think-aloud
piloting (Archambault &
Crippen, 2009). 3.1.
Procedure The survey was
deployed to 1795 online
teachers employed at virtual
schools from across the
nation using Dillman’s
(2007) Tailored Design
survey methodology. Email
addresses for these teachers
were gathered via virtual
school websites. A total of
596 responses from 25
different states were
gathered, which
represented an overall
response rate of 33%. While
the response rate is modest,
it is recognized as
acceptable for a web-based
survey (Manfreda, Bosnjak,
Berzelak, Hass, & Vehovar,
2008; Shih & Fan, 2008). In
addition, this survey
represents a unique
examination of practitioner’s
responses to the TPACK
theoretical framework and
should be regarded as an
initial yet integral step in
understanding if this theory
is tenable. 3.2. Respondents
Participants were
predominantly female, with
456 responses (77%) versus
139 (23%) male (consistent
with the averages among
educators), and were
between the ages of 26 and
45 (63%). The majority of
Result & Discussion
To determine if the survey
items were reliable, internal
consistency (Cronbach’s
alpha) values were
computed. The values are
presented alongside
descriptive statistics in Table
1 and indicate that the
subscales, which have alpha
values from 0.89 to 0.70, are
reasonable for internal
reliability (Morgan, Leech,
Gloeckner, & Barrett, 2004).
Additionally, a factor
analysis was performed on
the 24 item survey. This
analysis confirmed the
existence of three separate
factors within the survey,
using the Kaiser
Normalization as indicated
by the components with
eigenvalues greater than
one. The amount of variance
explained by the three
factors was 58.21%. Tables
2–4 illustrate how the
survey items loaded by
factor, as indicated by the
rotated component matrix,
which converged in five
iterations. The
communalities for each item
are also presented. These
results indicate that the
highly accepted
sevenmutually exclusive
domains of the TPACK
theory may not exist in
practice. Specifically, the
respondents reported the
existence of three factors:
pedagogical content
knowledge, technological–
curricular content
knowledge, and
technological knowledge.
From the responses
provided, practitioners
indicated strong connections
between content knowledge
and pedagogical knowledge,
noted by the
interconnection of
responses to the content,
pedagogy, and pedagogical
content questions.
Insights Gained
This research examines
the validity of the
TPACK model, which
might be effective in
the hallways of
academia, but perhaps
provides limited
benefit to
administrators,
teachers, and most
importantly, students.
From the practitioner
data contained within
this research, it seems
that from the onset,
measuring each of
these domains is
complicated and
convoluted, potentially
due to the notion that
they are not separate.
The data emerging
from the current study
support such a
conclusion. This leads
the researchers to
consider what type of
model might more
accurately describe
teachers’ content,
pedagogical, and
technological
knowledge, and how
this model might better
inform colleges of
education and teacher
education programs in
preparing future
educators for the
challenges of teaching
in the 21st century
respondents (559, 92%)
reported having a bachelor’s
degree and 380 (62%)
indicated that they had
earned a master’s degree,
while 7 (2%) reported they
were currently working
toward their master’s
degrees. Of the 62% with
master’s degrees, 148 (48%)
were education (M Ed)
degrees, including those in
curriculum and instruction,
while 73 (19%) reported
having a degree in a
particular content area, such
as mathematics, science,
social studies, or English.
3.3. Analytic strategy The
responses to the survey
were analyzed using the
Statistical Program for Social
Sciences version 16. A factor
analysis using varimax
rotation was performed on
the total survey. The
purpose of a factor analysis,
according to Gorsuch (1983),
is to “summarize the
interrelationships among the
variables in a concise but
accurate manner as an aid in
conceptualization” (p. 2).
This method assists the
researchers in establishing a
level of construct validity
(Bryman & Cramer, 1990).
Coefficients of internal
consistency were obtained
for the total survey and by
the seven expected
constructs. Additionally, the
relationship between each
of the 24 items in the survey
with each
Respondents also reported a
connection between
technological content,
technological pedagogy, and
technological pedagogical
content questions. However
respondents did not
distinguish among these
constructs. Instead,
responses to these items
loaded together with no
clear separation. Finally,
respondents did separate
the technological knowledge
items, where no reference
to content or pedagogy was
used. In an effort to test if
these findings were a
reflection of the items
within the instrument or an
accurate reflection of the
perception of respondents,
each of the 24 items was
analyzed using a Pearson r
correlation to conduct a
Corrected Item–Total
Correlation analysis. The
overall internal consistency
of the instrument was,r ¼
0.94, and as indicated by
Table 5, the removal of any
one item does not improve
the reliability of the survey,
which is anindication that
the survey ismost reliable
retaining all of the 24items.
This also gives credibility to
the conclusion that the
previously described factors
accurately reflect the
perceptions of the
respondents rather than any
issues with the instrument.
Although the TPACK
framework is helpful from
an organizational
standpoint, the data from
this study suggest that it
faces the same problems as
that of pedagogical content
knowledge in that it is
difficult to separate out each
of the domains, calling into
question their existence in
practice. The fact that three
major factors become
evident is noteworthy, but
rather than being comprised
of pedagogy, content, and
technology, the only clear
domain that distinguishes
itself is that of technology.
Based on these results, it
seems that the technological
pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK)
framework experiences the
same difficulty as Shulman’s
quarter century old
conception of pedagogical
content knowledge. It is
possible that when
experienced educators
consider teaching a
particular topic, the
methods of doing so are
considered as part and
parcel of the content, and
when considering an online
context, the domain of
technology is added to the
equation as a natural part of
the medium, making it
difficult to separate aspects
of content, pedagogy, and
technology. This was
illustrated by the second
phase of the thinkaloud
pilot, for which the lead
researcher met with three
different teachers who all
taught various classes
online. After being provided
with definitions of each
TPACK construct, the online
teachers were asked to read
each item of the instrument
and decide under which
TPACK domain they thought
the item fits. In doing so,
they encountered difficulty
when trying to decipher
issues of pedagogy and
content. Three online
teachers were challenged
with separating out specific
issues of content and
pedagogy. For example,
Item d – “My ability to
decide on the scope of
concepts taught within my
class” was interpreted by
two teachers as belonging to
the domain of pedagogical
content rather than content
alone. The same
misinterpretation happened
with Item b – “My ability to
create materials that map to
specific district/state
standards.” The participants
saw this item as a part of
pedagogy content
(Archambault & Crippen,
2009). These examples,
coupled with the results
from the factor analysis,
support the notion that
TPACK creates additional
boundaries along and
already ambiguous lines
drawn between pedagogy
and content knowledge.
Confounding the
measurement of TPACK is
the difficulty in developing
an instrument or
methodology to assess for
each of the domains
described by the framework
that will apply in different
contexts. One of the major
problems surfaces when
attempting to measure
content knowledge, defined
by Mishra and Koehler
(2006) as knowledge of the
subject-matter to be taught
(e.g. earth science,
mathematics, language arts,
etc.). Items that were
developed to measure this
construct within the current
instrument were written
with the intent of being
generalizable so that
teachers could apply them
to their own subject-matter.
These included questions
regarding the ability to
create materials that map to
specific district/state
standards and the ability to
decide on the scope and
sequence of concepts taught
within in a class. The
challenge becomes creating
and validating an instrument
that is applicable in a
multitude of contexts,
including different content
areas. If this is not possible,
then the conceptualization
of TPACK may need to be
different for every
imaginable content area,
including subject domains
within each of these areas.
This questions the value of
the framework itself as a
cohesive, overarching
model. Despite the issue
with content-related items,
the inability to differentiate
between and among the
constructs of the TPACK
framework is significant, and
it calls into question the its
precision, namely whether
or not the domains
described by the model exist
independently (Gess-
Newsome & Lederman,
1999). Without the ability to
separate the components of
the framework, it suggests
that further refinement to
the framework may be
necessary. This is echoed by
Angeli and Valanides
(2009): .Koehler et al.’s
(2007) conceptualization of
TPACK needs further
theoretical clarity. It is
argued that if TPACK is to be
considered as an analytical
theoretical framework for
guiding and explaining
teachers’ thinking about
technology integration in
teaching and learning, then
TPACK’s degree of precision
needs to be put under
scrutiny.Furthermore, the
boundaries between some
components of TPACK, such
as, for example, what they
define as Technological
content knowledge and
Technological pedagogical
knowledge, are fuzzy
indicating a weakness in
accurate knowledge
categorization or
discrimination, and,
consequently, a lack of
precision in the framework
(p. 157). Because the TPACK
domains do not statistically
distinguish themselves, this
also leads to the heuristic
value of the model being
diminished. Specifically, the
heuristic value describes the
extent to which the
framework helps
researchers predict
outcomes or reveal new
knowledge. This is a
weakness in the current
model, as effective models
can be judged on their
ability to explain and predict
various phenomena (Järvelin
& Wilson, 2003). In addition
to a model’s explanatory
power, Järvelin and Wilson
(2003) lay out the following
criteria for evaluating
effective conceptual models:
Simplicity: simpler is better,
other things being equal.
Accuracy: accuracy and
explicitness in concepts are
desirable. Scope: a broader
scope is better because it
subsumes narrower ones
Systematic power: the
ability to organize concepts,
relationships, and data in
meaningful, systematic ways
is desirable. Reliability: the
ability, within the range of
the model, to provide valid
representations across the
full range of possible
situations. Validity: the
ability to provide valid
representations and findings
is desirable. Fruitfulness: the
ability to suggest problems
for solving and hypotheses
for testing is desirable. In
addition to weaknesses in
TPACK’s precision and
heuristic value, the
framework is also limited in
its ability to assist
researchers in predicting
outcomes or revealing new
knowledge. While it focuses
on three major areas of
teaching, namely content,
pedagogy, and technology, it
does not represent the
causative interaction or the
direction of the relationship
between and among these
domains. This makes it
difficult for TPACK to be a
fruitful model, as it does not
suggest problems for solving
or hypotheses for testing
within the field of
educational technology. It
would appear from this
study that there is room to
continue to build on TPACK
or even conceptualize other
models that provide a less
complex, more precise way
of representing the effective
integration of technology to
improve student learning.
Despite its fuzzy boundaries,
the TPACK framework has
theoretical appeal, providing
an analytical structure
highlighting the importance
of content knowledge when
incorporating the use of
technology. As Koehler and
Mishra (2008) recognize,
“Instead of applying
technological tools to every
content area uniformly,
teachers should come to
understand that the various
affordances and constraints
of technology differ by
curricular subject-matter
content or pedagogical
approach” (p. 22). This focus
on subject-matter content is
important when considering
the effective use of
technology. However, this
appeal is tempered by the
difficulty in measuring each
of the constructs described
by the framework. Further,
using this model, what
changes can colleges of
education enact to produce
more skilled teachers? As
Harris et al. (2009) point out:
TPACK is a framework for
teacher knowledge, and as
such, it may be helpful to
those planning professional
development for teachers by
illuminating what teachers
need to know about
technology, pedagogy, and
content and their
interrelationships. The
TPACK framework does not
specify how this should be
accomplished, recognizing
that there are may possible
approaches to knowledge
development of this type. (p.
403) There is confusion
among the field of
educational technology, not
only concerning the
definitions, but also the
specific activities and
methods to develop TPACK.
This makes it difficult to
implement knowledge from
a framework that is yet to be
fully defined, which limits its
practical application. This is
an important area for future
research, including detailed
examples of TPACK as it
pertains to teacher practice