Taking a closer look at the TPACK model

Most problems I encountered with flexible learning and learning with technology were centered around teachers. They are the ones who have to put these kinds of learning into action. This is exactly where TPACK model of Koehler and Mishra comes into the picture.

Looking at the TPACK model, it is now easier for me to understand why it is difficult for teachers to incorporate technology into their lessons. It is not just about not knowing how to use a certain technology, it is often the integration with the content and the pedagogy that is lacking. Teachers have to learn how to creatively and flexibly apply TPACK knowledge to their teaching.

What the TPACK model also does, it puts implications on educational researchers. Most research is generic. It centers around a certain technology or pedagogy. It is not surprising that many teachers are not inclined to implement those technologies and pedagogies in their classroom. Teachers could benefit more from research that is aimed at an integration of TK, PK and CK.

Personally, the model taught me, that when I am talking or writing about technology, I often remain too general. I do not incorporate the interaction with the pedagogy and the content. This is the technocratic vision that Koehler and Mishra blame. It is seeing technology as an add-on. Thinking back to when I wrote the post about the possibilities of pedagogy and course management systems, I felt like something was missing. It seemed like aimlessly summing up possibilities for supporting pedagogy with CMS, without context and not directly suited for teaching and learning.

However, there is one problem with the TPACK model: it is merely descriptive. It does not give any advice for teacher training or how teachers can implement technological pedagogical content knowledge in practice. In a very recent article, Matthew Koehler and Punya Mishra, together with Judith Harris, introduced “activity types”. Activity types constitute a kind of TPACK-pick-and-chose, like the menu in fast food restaurants. It helps especially novice teachers and teachers with less experience with technology to decide what kind of TPACK-interaction fits conveniently with their instruction.

More about activity types and the TPACK model in:

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers‘ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416

How to integrate technology into teaching

This week’s lecture introduced the TPACK model of Matthew Koehler and Punya Mishra, a framework for effective integration of technology into teaching. What it makes really appealing to me is the way technology is not seen as an add-on but as integrated into teaching.

The model is centered on the teacher’s knowledge about pedagogy (PK), about the subject content (CK) and about technology (TK). Each of these knowledge domains is equally important in the model.

Even more important are the interactions of these three knowledge domains. Actually, in teaching practice none of the domains exists solely. Teaching certain subject matter is not possible without the use of pedagogical and technological knowledge. All parts are addresses and one choice affects the other. For example, in the interaction of technology and pedagogy - technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) - technology can make pedagogical approaches possible that were not attainable before (look at my post “Is Socrates still up to date in the digital age”). Of course technology can also put constraints on pedagogy, such as the use of a blackboard imposes a certain seating order and student-teacher interaction in class. Likewise, a certain pedagogy can also put affordances and constraints on technology. The other intersecting domains of the TPACK model are technological content knowledge (TCK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK).

Ultimately, at the heart of the model is the intersection of all three types of knowledge - technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Depending on the context and the target audience the teacher has to creatively and flexible apply content knowledge as well as pedagogical and technological knowledge in relation to maximize effective teaching.

Take a look at the TPACK model and become inspired:

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70

A short reflective note

As you can see from my last posts, I was pretty occupied with flexibility in education and with pedagogical and technological issues over the last couple of weeks. Now it’s time for a short personal reflection. What is the influence of these components on education and how do they all fit together?

Flexibility, the use of technology and a learner-centered pedagogy are the corner stones of prospective education. There are a lot of new challenges education has to face now and in the future. Just to name some buzzwords: knowledge society, competencies like communication and social skills, life long learning... Students are also more diverse, concerning their interests, prior knowledge and their social and living situation. There is no one approach that fits all. Students do not want traditional education. They want education adjusted to their needs. The flexibility- technology-pedagogy triad can be a very effective means in achieving that. For example, flexibility and technology can create possibilities that were not attainable before (see my earlier blog posts about dialectic pedagogy and Elgg).

But it’s not that simple. What these three components also have in common is that they place a lot of implications on the organization and the teachers. Flexibility causes logistical problems and will take up more time and will cost more money. The same is true for current pedagogies. With learner-centered pedagogies the teacher will have to fulfill the role of a coach or facilitator. This is more time intensive than just standing in front of the class. Although technology can offer a lot of new possibilities it is also very expensive and it takes a lot of time to develop suitable software. And of course not all teachers know how to use the technology or might not even want to.

Stay tuned to my blog and learn along with myself more about the possibilities and implications of flexibility, technology and pedagogy.

Boost collaboration by using social communities

What do high school and university students do in their free time? They socialize! Nowadays they often do so at online communities such as Facebook, Hyves, Myspace or StudiVZ. With Elgg you can easily set up your own social community for your course.

An online social community such as Elgg can provide your students with various possibilities for working together: profiles, activities, notifications, groups, blogs, media and files upload, …

Screenshot of Elgg's activity page (Source www.elgg.org)

With using online social communities in your course you mimic how students enjoy interacting in their free time. Collaboration via social communities can make learning more fun.

Visit Elgg at www.elgg.org

Course management systems and pedagogy - Does it go together?

A course management system (CMS) can do more than just help you managing your course. It can also support your pedagogical strategy. You will encounter 5 pedagogical approaches to illustrate how a CMS can support your pedagogy. These approaches will be briefly described before it is discussed how they can be supported in a CMS.

1. Collaborative learning (Smith & MacGregor, 1992)
   

   The main feature of collaborative learning is that learning takes place in groups of at least two students. The group members are jointly searching for understanding and meaning, seeking for a solution of a problem or creating a product. They pursue a common goal. The teacher coaches the students during the process.
   

   Possibilities to support collaborative learning with a CMS are mainly about communication. One can set up a forum or a discussion boards where students can interact by for example asking questions or discuss on a certain topics. The advantage of such a non face-to-face conversation is that everything sais is stored an can looked back. A CMS can also include a chat function, such as a chat room or a shout box, for the case that it is not possible to meet face-to-face. A CMS also offers the possibility to share documents.
   

2. Problem based learning (Boud & Feletti, 1997; Savery, 2006)
   

   Problem-based learning usually takes place in groups of 5 to 8 learners. The main premise of problem based learning is that the learner is solving ill-structured real world problems. After identifying the problem together with the group, each student conducts research individually. The gained knowledge and skills will be integrated with the group and applied back to the problem to solve it. At the end the students should reflect on the concepts and principles learned. The role of the teacher is a facilitating one; he supports students in all phases of the inquiry process. He designs the ill-structured problem around essential elements that are the driving force for inquiry. Assessment is formative and consists most times of self or peer evaluation.
   

   A CMS can support collaboration at the integration of knowledge and skills. A CMS can offer the same possibilities here as with the collaborative learning pedagogy (see 1). Formative self and peer assessment can be structured by the CMS and because one does not have to wait for the next face-to-face meeting it can provide faster feedback. A CMS can also help the students to reflect by displaying the process they have followed.
   

3. Workplace learning (Billett, 1998; Raelin, 1997)
   

   The key characteristic of work place learning is that learning takes place during everyday work. It is most times a rather informal way of learning that often is not experienced by the worker as learning. Acquired skills and knowledge are often tactic, meaning skills and knowledge the learner is not aware of. Workplace learning is a goal directed activity that takes place just in time. It is learner driven and learning is guided indirectly by the characteristics of the workplace and directly though guidance of co-workers and experts. It is a social activity and comprises some form of collaboration.
   

   You might say that it is impossible to support workplace learning with a CMS because learners are at the workplace and a computer is not always available. It is however possible to make a CMS accessible on different devices such as a computer, a PDA or a mobile phone. The learner can consult the CMS just-in-time, we he encounters a problem. A CMS can support workplace learning in the sense that it stores valuable resources for learning. It can further support collaborative elements (see 1). It is also possible to establish a community of practice by means of a CMS. This will offer the learner easy contact with co-worker and experts and the possibility to construct knowledge collaboratively within an organization or even with peers across the whole world.
   

4. Inquiry learning (Krajcik et al., 1998)
   

   Inquiry learning is closely linked to scientific research. Students learn about real phenomena through working on a real world problem. At the beginning, students are provided with a great collection of information around the problem. The process of inquiry learning starts with the creation of a hypothesis. Students then gather relevant information and construct new knowledge through synthesis. At the end students report the new knowledge and discuss and reflect on it. With inquiry learning, too, collaboration with peers is important.
   

   A CMS can be a place to share hypothesis, to store gathered information and to work on the synthesis. A helpful tool can be an online knowledge base. One possibility is for example to create a wiki. Discussion boards and forums can support making good hypothesizes and synthesizing knowledge. The teacher can take part of these discussions for coaching. Of course can a CMS also support collaboration in general (see 1).
   

5. Project-based learning (Barron et al., 1998)
   

   With project-based learning students usually have to design something, like for example making a website, constructing a robot or writing a business report. The teacher provides them with specifications for the desired end product. When the students encounter problems the teacher provides expert guidance, feedback and suggestions for better ways to achieve the final product.
   

   Project-based learning can be supported by a CMS by helping the students to manage their projects. A CMS can offer different facilities such as emailing, calendars and sharing documents. When the students use discussion boards and forums for getting help by the teacher, other students can profit from the guidance as well. Of course a CMS can also support collaboration in general here (see 1).
   

Some concluding remarks:

What all these pedagogical approaches have in common is that they are all learner-centered and that the teacher functions as a facilitator or coach. Collaboration is an important aspect of all of the above mentioned pedagogical approaches. It is exactly in those circumstances that a CMS can support teachers and students pedagogy and even make the pedagogy more effective through technical possibilities that are otherwise not attainable. It seems that course management systems and pedagogy can be a good match if extensive use of various features of a CMS is made and supported by the teacher.

References

Barron, B., Schwartz, D., Vye, N., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., et al. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7 (3&4), 271–311.

Billett, S. (1998). Understanding workplace learning: cognitive and sociocultural perspectives. In D. Boud, Current issues and new agendas in workplace learning (Vol. 50, pp. 47-68). Adelaide: NCVER.

Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). The challenge of problem-based learning (2 ed.). London: Kogan.

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Bass, K., Fredricks, J., Soloway, E., et al. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7 (3-4), 313–350.

Raelin, J. (1997). A model of work-based learning. Organization Science, 8 (6), 563-578.

Savery, J. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1 (1), 9–20.

Smith, B., & MacGregor, J. (1992). What is collaborative learning. In J. M. Anne Goodsell, Michelle Maher, Vincent Tinto, Barbara Leigh Smith, Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (p. 9–22). Pennsylvania: National Center of Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.