<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Teachers&#8217; Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Learning Activity Types: Curriculum-Based Technology Integration Reframed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://hickstro.org/cccl/2009/10/02/teachers-technological-pedagogical-content-knowledge-and-learning-activity-types-curriculum-based-technology-integration-reframed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://hickstro.org/cccl/2009/10/02/teachers-technological-pedagogical-content-knowledge-and-learning-activity-types-curriculum-based-technology-integration-reframed/</link>
	<description>Exploring teacher education in digital environments</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:16:24 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: XYZZY</title>
		<link>http://hickstro.org/cccl/2009/10/02/teachers-technological-pedagogical-content-knowledge-and-learning-activity-types-curriculum-based-technology-integration-reframed/comment-page-1/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>XYZZY</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 06:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hickstro.org/cccl/?p=109#comment-7</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m still not sure what adding the &quot;T&quot; does to the construct, other than make it that much easier to pathologize teachers&#039; practices.  Considering how PCK is now being used most widely (i.e., as a means for measuring teacher quality), I can only imagine it won&#039;t be long before we use the added &quot;T&quot; in the service of additional discretization of the profession.  Perhaps that is what entices researchers to theorize such constructs?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m still not sure what adding the &#8220;T&#8221; does to the construct, other than make it that much easier to pathologize teachers&#8217; practices.  Considering how PCK is now being used most widely (i.e., as a means for measuring teacher quality), I can only imagine it won&#8217;t be long before we use the added &#8220;T&#8221; in the service of additional discretization of the profession.  Perhaps that is what entices researchers to theorize such constructs?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

