Running head: TPACK AS A LEARNING THEORY 1

Transcription

1 Running head: TPACK AS A LEARNING THEORY 1 TPACK as a Learning Theory Keith George University of Alabama Education Theory and Practice BEF 639 B. Atkinson April 25, 2014

2 TPACK AS A LEARNING THEORY 2 TPACK as a Learning Theory In recent years, technology use in schools has increased as more and more money has been invested in computers, interactive white boards, tablets, and similar technology hardware. Initially, there was a rush to get equipment into the schools and little attention was given to how the technology would be used or how teachers would be prepared to use it. As it became evident that that simply placing technology into the classroom would not be successful, many researchers began looking for effective methods to integrate technology into the classroom as well as developing viable programs to train teachers in these integration techniques. Meaningful technology integration is guided by content and pedagogy (Lu, Johnson, Trolley, Gillard-Cook, & Lei, 2011, p. 4388) Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler developed one of the frameworks that emerged to solve this dilemma. Their work in 2006 outlined a new framework that they coined as the Technological, Pedagogical, Content Knowledge Framework or TPCK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Building on the work of Shulman (1986), who articulated that knowledge of a subject or content area absent of pedagogical skill was not sufficient to develop a good teacher, Mishra and Koehler (2006) added technological knowledge as a primary component. Shulman (1986) specified teaching would be effective only when content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical knowledge (PK) were overlapped. This newly identified area of pedagogical content knowledge or PCK should, Shulman claimed, contain the most useful regularly taught topics in one s subject area, the most useful forms of representatives of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations in a word, way of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). In

3 TPACK AS A LEARNING THEORY 3 summary, that intersection between content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge marked the area in which good teaching occurred. The TPACK Framework Mishra and Koehler s (2006) seminal work added a third component to Shulman s idea, that of technological knowledge, claiming that, when referring to the ways of representation listed above, technologies play a critical role in each of those aspects (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1023). This role is compounded by the ever-changing nature of technology, especially as compared to pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge. As Mishra and Koehler (2006) explained, Teachers will have more to do than simply learn to use currently available tools, they also will have to learn new techniques and skills as current technologies become obsolete. This is a very different context from earlier conceptualizations of teacher knowledge, in which technologies were standardized and relatively stable (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1023). However, they cautioned against adding technology as a third, disconnected body of knowledge. The new framework they arrived at added technology to Shulman s model as a connected, overlapping body of knowledge. These interlocking three rings (See Figure 1) create seven components that can be considered. The framework emphasizes the connections, interactions, affordances, and constraints between and among content, pedagogy, and technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1025) and admits that these relationships are complex and nuanced (p. 1025). This complexity has resulted in a framework that can be difficult to teach. Harris and Hofer admit that it is a complex and highly situated educational construct that is not easily learned, taught or applied (Harris & Hofer, 2011, p. 213). They continue, explaining that, Given the comparatively new

4 TPACK AS A LEARNING THEORY 4 understanding of the multifaceted, interdependent, and nuanced knowledge required of teachers for curriculum-based technology integration to succeed, it is no small wonder why sustained, large-scale technology integration efforts in K-12 schools to date have been only minimally successful (Harris & Hofer, 2011, p. 213). Figure 1. The TPACK Framework. Reproduced by permission of the publisher, 2012 by tpack.org The Seven Components of TPACK

5 TPACK AS A LEARNING THEORY 5 Mishra and Koehler (2006) provided a basic description of each of the seven components of the technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. Content knowledge (CK), which was one of Shulman s original components, is the knowledge of the subject matter being taught. Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is a deep knowledge about the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1026). Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), the sweet spot of Shulman s work, is described by Mishra and Koehler as, knowing what teaching approaches fit the content, and likewise, knowing how elements of the content can be arranged for better teaching (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1027). PCK is often exemplified as knowing that one must regroup in order to subtract forty-four from one hundred, but also realizing that it would be more efficient to teach students to subtract using regrouping of two double digit numbers before they attempted regrouping with a three digit number. The first new component of Mishra and Koehler s framework is Technology Knowledge or TK, which is simply the knowledge that a variety of technologies exist, from the basic books and white boards to the more advanced computers, tablets, and digital interactive white boards. Technological content knowledge, or TCK, describes the knowledge a teacher may hold about how content is interrelated to technology. This includes knowing more than the content being taught and includes how adding technology to the content can change how it is taught. This is closely related, yet distinct from, technological pedagogical knowledge or TPK. TPK is the knowledge of the existence, components, and capabilities of various technologies as they are used in teaching and learning settings (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1028). In practical application, this is the teachers ability to select the best technology tool to effectively teach a concept.

6 TPACK AS A LEARNING THEORY 6 The heart of the TPACK framework is technological pedagogical content knowledge or TPCK. (TPCK as an acronym has been supplanted by the more appealing TPACK.) This is an integrated combination of all three of the major components. The importance of acknowledging all three components cannot be overstated. Mishra and Koehler call it the the basis of good teaching (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1029). Cox defines TPACK as having knowledge of the dynamic, transactional negotiation among technology, pedagogy, content, and how that negotiation impacts student learning in a classroom context (Emphasis added; Cox 2008 as quoted in Olatoye, Nleya, & Batane, 2013, p. 120). It is more than the sum of its parts. Koehler, Mishra, and Cain explicitly state, TPACK is different from knowledge of all three concepts individually (2013, p. 16). One often overlooked aspect of the TPACK framework is the dotted line that encircles the seven components, that of context. The framework places significant import on the teachers role as instructional designer (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). As Kelly (2008) states, An additional challenge is created by the framework s focus on integrating technology into instruction rather than merely using technology to teach. Meeting these challenges requires that teachers go beyond simply possessing knowledge about content, pedagogy, and technology. It requires that teachers combine these types of knowledge into original instructional designs that incorporate technology, adapting it to pedagogical content idiosyncrasies (p. 5257). Kelly continues to define context as the fourth area of knowledge teachers must incorporate into tier TPACKbased instructional designs if they are to be effective with all children (p. 5257). He defines context to include several things, including the physical features of the classroom; the demographic characteristics of students and teachers; the cognitive, experiential, physical, social

7 TPACK AS A LEARNING THEORY 7 and psychological characteristics of students and teacher, and teacher knowledge, skills and dispositions (p. 5258; See Figure 2). Figure 2. TPACK Context, Kelly (2008), p. 51) Rosenberg and Koehler (2014) claim that researchers use a variety of ways of approaching context and that it is not always made explicit in the research even as it has been accepted as central to the TPACK framework (Rosenberg & Koehler, 2014, p. 2626). Of the sixteen articles Kelly reviewed in his analysis, all of which were published between 2006 and 2009, only one even partially discussed context (Rosenberg & Koehler, 2014, p. 2627). Measuring TPACK The earliest attempts to measure TPACK were surveys designed to determine the TPACK level of pre-service teachers. Among these were Koehler and Mishra s (2005) survey of

8 TPACK AS A LEARNING THEORY 8 changes in teacher perception during a TPACK instructional sequence, a discourse analysis approach by Koehler, Mishra, and Yahya (2007), and the survey-based approach to measure TPACK by Archambault and Crippen (2009). The same year as the Archambault and Crippen study was released, a team of experienced TPACK researchers set out to develop and validate an in-depth assessment instrument for pre-service teachers. Schmidt, et al., (2009) sought to examine the development and application of TPACK during the teacher preparation program and practicum experience. The researchers developed the Survey of Preservice Teachers Knowledge of Teaching and Technology. The survey addressed all seven of the TPACK knowledge domains. As finally implemented, the survey consisted of seventy-five items and was administered as a self-assessment (Schmidt et al., 2009). The survey was given to 124 participants, all of who were enrolled in elementary or early childhood education teacher preparation programs. All were also enrolled in an Introduction to Technology course that had recently been redesigned to emphasize TPACK. An analysis of the results indicated that it was a promising instrument for measuring pre-service teachers selfassessment of the TPACK knowledge domains (Schmidt et al., 2009, p. 135). The survey has been revised and has been utilized in several studies with similar results. Kereluik, Casperson, and Akcaoglu (2010) used lesson plans created by pre-service teachers to assess the level of TPACK included by coding the lessons for the various components of TPACK. They determined that while important information about the TPACK awareness level of the teachers could be determined in this manner, such data are limited to measuring individuals beliefs (Agyei & Voogt, 2011, p. 2314). Agyei and Voogt (2011) expanded on the Kereluik, et al., study by using several different data to evaluate the TPACK level of twelve preservice teachers. They conducted surveys, interviews and observations, as well as the analysis of

9 TPACK AS A LEARNING THEORY 9 lesson plans. Two teams of pre-service teachers were involved and cooperatively designed lessons that were consequently presented to classroom students. The study participants completed self-reported surveys but the lesson plans were also evaluated, as was the classroom lesson. While the self reported scores were much higher than the scores of the interviews and observations, indicating that participants did, in fact, over estimate their pedagogical beliefs, there were some other important findings. As the teams were receiving professional development over the course of the study, the study did indicate that the TPACK awareness of the participants increased (Agyei & Voogt, 2011). Harris and Hofer (2011) conducted a descriptive study involving experienced teachers that participated in a five-month long professional development project specifically designed around TPACK. During the program, participants created unit plans, reflected on their practice and set for several in-depth interviews (Harris & Hofer, 2011). The interviews were transcribed and coded. The unit plans and reflections were also analyzed to identify previously introduced social studies activity types that had been selected to reflect both digital and nondigital choices that the study participants could utilize. While there were several outcomes that became evident by the end of the study, one particularly stands out. The teachers involved said that, they had become more thoughtful and deliberate in their selection of learning activities as well as the technologies they used to support them (Harris & Hofer, 2011, p. 224). Several of the participants commented that even though there was pressure to integrate technology, they focused more on how technologies should be used to enhance curriculum-based learning, rather than being used as an end unto themselves (Harris & Hofer, 2011, p. 224).

10 TPACK AS A LEARNING THEORY 10 Conclusion The framework originally outlined by Mishra and Koehler (2006) remains a viable tool for both the design of instruction and the assessment of teachers ability to integrate technology into the learning of students in the most appropriate way. By assisting teachers to develop activities that consider the technology in concert with the content and pedagogy as it applies in the current context that they are working, the TPACK Framework guides student learning and teacher instruction. A variety of tools now exist to accurately evaluate the TPACK level of the teacher, which will provide data necessary to tailor the professional learning necessary for the teacher to improve praxis and increase effective teaching. The availability of research that outlines ways in which the TPACK of teachers, both pre-service and inservice, should guide the development of teacher education programs and professional development initiatives alike.

11 TPACK AS A LEARNING THEORY 11 References Agyei, D., & Voogt, J. (2011). Determining Teachers TPACK through observations and selfreport data. In M. J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference AACE (pp ). Retrieved from Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved from Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in Action: A Descriptive Study of Secondary Teachers Curriculum-Based, Technology- Related Instructional Planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2009). Teachers technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research ontechnology in Education, 41, Kelly, M. A. (2008). Incorporating Context Into TPCK-Based Instructional Design. In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference AACE (pp ). Retrieved from Kereluik, K., Casperson, G., & Akcaoglu, M. (2010). Coding Pre-Service Teacher Lesson Plans for TPACK. In D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference AACE (pp ). Retrieved from

12 TPACK AS A LEARNING THEORY 12 Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, & technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), Lu, L., Johnson, L., Trolley, L. M., Gillard-Cook, T., & Lei, J. (2011). Learning by design: TPACK in action. Technology integration preparation for preservice teachers. In M. J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference AACE (pp ). Retrieved from Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, Olatoye, M. A., Nleya, P. T., & Batane, T. (2013). Effective classroom management and the use of TPACK: Implication for pedagogical practices. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(15), Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2014). Context and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Content Analysis. In M. Searson, & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference AACE (pp ). Retrieved from

13 TPACK AS A LEARNING THEORY 13 Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The Development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.