TPACK - a framework for technology integration

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Heidi Beezley on March 13, 2009 at 9:48am

I've heard of the "Learning by Design" model, but I'm not sure I understand enough about how to do this (especially with wide ranges of technological, pedagogical, and content proficiencies). I'd love to know more about it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by punya mishra on March 13, 2009 at 4:16pm

Heidi, a couple of issues/questions here that I will try to address to the best of my ability.

First, developing TPACK. There have been various strategies that have been suggested. Learning by Design is one of them (an overview can be found in a couple of pubs Matt and I have written, more info on TPACK.org or my website). Another is the activity structures approach advocated by Judi Harris (we have a paper coming out on this - please contact me directly if you want a pre-press version). I have also on my blog links to couple of courses taught at other universities (BYU and UFM) that attempt to develop TPACK, and I know Iowa State does something similar - though I don't have a link for that.

Second, the problem with developing TPACK given differential levels of knowledge. My response to this is that TPACK is not an end-state it is a continuum, so different people will be at different points on it. The important goal (and the learning by design approach does that quite well) is that opportunities to develop TPACK, whether for a beginner or an expert, deal with all three of these components together, not independent of each other - which has traditionally been the case (think special course or workshop on technology).

Hope this (however brief) note helps. Thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Townsley on March 13, 2009 at 7:32pm

Just a quite note to add here. The "Matt" Punya speaks of in the context of original TPACK research is not me! It is rather Matt Koehler, associate professor at Michigan State. I didn't want someone to mistake me for being your colleague, Punya!

Regarding the reference to Iowa State. If you're interested, Heidi, I would recommend contacting Evrim Baran (graduate student), Dr. Ann Thompson or Dr. Denise Schmidt. Punya knows them all personally, I'm guessing(!), because they've been involved in some of the TPACK research. I am not directly familiar with the courses it's being used in though. Ann and Denise both teach in the graduate program I'm in at ISU, so you can tell them I gave you their contact information. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by punya mishra on March 13, 2009 at 8:23pm

Matt T., I don't think that anybody considering us as being colleagues is making a mistake! I just happen to have two colleagues called Matt (doesn't everybody), I mean Matt's a pretty common name. Now if you had two colleagues called Punya! **That** would be strange!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heidi Beezley on March 13, 2009 at 8:40pm

Lol! Thank you both for the leads! I think finding ways of developing PD that coheres with the TPACK framework is tough since usually technology is its own entity separate from the content areas. So content area PD tends to use little technology and technology PD rarely directly considers and supports specific contents. That's one of the biggest obstacles I see (at least for k12).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Milan Sherman on March 14, 2009 at 10:21am

I wonder if teacher beliefs would be considered part of the TPACK framework? In other words, when we talk about a framework for teacher knowledge, does "knowledge" encompass beliefs? In my experience teaching pre-service secondary mathematics teachers how to integrate the use of technology in mathematics instruction, this is an issue that needs to be addressed before giving them opportunities to learn how to integrate their knowledge of T, P, and C. For example, many teachers believe that students should learn how to do everything by hand before using technology, or that technology (calculators in particular) are merely computational tools which can weaken students' skills and foster an unhealthy dependence. In other words, for these teachers T is in opposition to P and C, and therefore impossible to integrate. Addressing these beliefs seems like the first step. Believing they can be integrated would be a necessary (although not sufficient) condition for developing TPACK. Does that make it part of TPACK?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by punya mishra on March 14, 2009 at 1:09pm

Milan, thanks for bringing up the question of teacher belief - a critical issue, as you rightly point out. Ertmer (2005) reviews a ton of research that shows (in accordance with your note above) that technology is "unlikely to be used unless teachers can conceive of technology uses that are consistent with their existing pedagogical beliefs."

The issue here is at some level definitional i.e. how do we define knowledge in the first place. We do speak about this in the Koehler & Mishra (2008) chapter in the Handbook of TPACK. It is difficult in definitional terms to distinguish between beliefs and knowledge. Philosophers have typically defined knowledge as being "justified true belief" (for instance see the wikipedia entry on Epistemology. Please allow me to be a bit lazy and indulge in a bit of self-plagiarism by quoting directly from the chapter:

Although many philosophers have typically defined knowledge as "justified true belief" and have spent decades, if not centuries attempting to understand each of these words, the definition of knowledge used here [by us] is more pragmatic and is influenced by scholars such as Dewey, Schon and Perkins (Dewey, 1934; Dewey & Bentley; 1949; Perkins, 1986; Schon, 1983, 1987; 1996). Perkins in particular poses a provocative metaphor: that of "knowledge as design" (Perkins, 1986). In fact he goes on to argue that knowledge can be considered a tool that is designed and adapted to a purpose. As he says:

To think of knowledge as design is to think of it as an implement one constructs and wields rather than a given one discovers and beholds. The kinesthetic imagery implicit in knowledge as design fosters an active view of understanding worthy of emphasis in teaching and learning. (p. 132)

In this view of knowledge, the truth-value of the knowledge is less important than what you can do with that knowledge—what has also been called usable knowledge (Kelly, 2003; Lagemann, 2002; National Research Council [NRC], 2002).

The essential thing here is that I find it difficult to separate belief and knowledge. And it turns out that even if I could, changing beliefs often requires often requires acquiring new knowledge. So the end result is that even if there is a difference it may not be a difference that makes a difference.

So the point is that beliefs are important to consider. However change in beliefs can happen only through developing new knowledge.

For instance consider the example you give about math teachers and calculators. I would argue that there is nothing essentially wrong in teachers being skeptical about certain technologies and their role in teaching (calculators in teaching math). What is most probably happening is that their pedagogical beliefs lead them to see calculators as a replacement for calculation. However, math is more than calculation - and one has to be creative to rethink math in light of calculators. I don't want to get into details here - but the disjuncture you speak of fits right with the TPACK framework -- where a certain pedagogy leads to a certain kind of use of technology. If you see math with a different lens (as an open-ended exploratory activity) calculators provide many different opportunities.

So how is one to change beliefs. I would argue it would not be by telling them your belief is wrong (because in the frame of math they are thinking of it may be appropriate) but rather show them different creative pedagogical uses of calculators to teach math (or better still have them come up with some). Thus the technology becomes the "entry point" for re-thinking pedagogy and content.

I hope this makes sense...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Milan Sherman on March 15, 2009 at 7:13pm

This makes a lot of sense, and I agree completely. As the course I teach is a program requirement for the teacher preparation program at Pitt (as the technology course is in many teacher preparation programs), I cannot assume that everyone in the course is an enthusiastic supporter of instructional technology. I think some may even wonder why they're required to take a semester long course on how to use a calculator (not realizing there's much more to instructional technology in mathematics than calculators).

One thing I do is to have them experience a lesson on linear regression using a graphing calculator and a Java applet. This is a concept that is accessible to 8th graders, but the computations are not. This helps to address the idea that math is just computations (content), and that procedures must be learned before concepts or applications (pedagogy). I also introduce them to Computer Algebra System (CAS) and its ability to perform symbolic manipulations. This challenges their view of algebra as set of procedures for solving for x, since CAS can do this automatically. As you say, it becomes an entry point for re-thinking content and pedagogy when considering algebra.

In both of these examples their knowledge of technology, content, and pedagogy is enhanced, hopefully giving them a vision of how all three can work together to create better instruction and learning. That is, beliefs are (hopefully) altered by the acquisition of new knowledge. As you mention, it is often their view of mathematics, not technology, which puts the two at odds. While giving them a vision of mathematics as an open-ended creative endeavor is a program wide goal, technology plays an important role.

Later in the course they create, implement, and revise lessons which utilize technology. This creating/learning in context seems more clearly related to the TPACK framework. I was wondering if/how some of the activities I use to try to modify their beliefs or give them vision for meaningful technology use might fit in. But now it seems obvious to me. Thanks for your explanation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan McGuire on March 14, 2009 at 11:02am

I know you've probably put some long hours into this and getting new credentials has a practical side, but I don't think breaking up teaching and learning in the 21st Century into the pretty circles on a page is going to do all that much good. I think following Scott McCleod's blog (you must've heard of him at least) will get you a lot further. Another set of thoughts to follow would be Thomas Frey's at the daVinci Institute.

TPACK sounds like something to keep academics busy while life in the world happens. Buy a kid or two a laptop and teach them how to use. Keep notes if you need to, but continuing to buy more laptops for kids will do the most good.

I'm especially interested in McCleod's follow the money theme to get the administrators actually using this stuff.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Townsley on March 14, 2009 at 3:50pm

Thanks for the note, Dan. I have been following Scott for a few years now. In fact, he teaches at ISU where I am currently finishing up my graduate work! I think Scott would agree that "change" as it relates to educational leadership has strong connections to teacher education.

Schools, including mine, have been buying laptops for years now. My district, for example spends six figures each year on mobile laptop carts, LCD projectors, iPod Touches, document cameras, etc., but has it really changed the way students learn? How is creating an iMovie project or a PowerPoint presentation much different than a collage on poster board? How is lecturing via Keynote or a document camera any different than using an overhead projector or chalkboard? With any technology tool, it's too easy to "do old things in new ways." TPACK provides a framework, at least in my mind,for connecting teaching strategies with appropriate and effective technology use. You're right, Dan. Breaking it down in to circles on a page doesn't do any good at all until more educators see the how technology and pedagogy together can change the way they teach rather than help them do the same old stuff with new tools.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan McGuire on March 14, 2009 at 7:36pm

I'm definitely not saying we should continue to use more and bigger and slicker tools for pushing out information. That's not my point. When I say teach a kid to use a laptop, I mean really teach them how to use it as educated citizens of the 21st Century. We're not that far apart in this discussion, but I'm trying to put a little more Twitter in TPACK.

Don't get me started on laptop carts; that's a perverted use for laptops. IBM had it right when they called the tool a Think pad. Can you imagine them rolling a Think pad cart down the hall over at 3M headquarters - they're not any more appropriate in my K-8 school. We need OLPC right here in River City, USA., and teachers who know how to teach to kids who are already thinking in an OLPC way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heidi Beezley on March 15, 2009 at 1:27pm

I agree. I'd love to see OLPC, too. So I think you're right that we aren't really that far apart. I just don't know how we'll ever get there, as much as I'd love for it to happen, for two reasons:

First order barriers - where will the money come from to get the technology? we need the technology before the teaching and learning can take off
Second order barriers - once it's there, how will we get everyone on the technology bandwagon? so many people feel inept and tentative about using technology
(The idea of first and second order barriers is from buy named Brickner)

I hope we get there though! My hope is that frameworks like TPCK can help re-shape PD so that it is less about the tool and more about how it can be used to inspire and teach students. I think this is one of the quotes that was used in a TPCK paper, but maybe I got it somewhere else. I love it though:

"When you go to the hardware store to buy a drill, you don’t actually want a drill, you want a hole, they don’t sell holes at the hardware store, but they do sell drills, which are the technology used to make holes. We must not lose sight that technology for the most part is a tool and it should be used in applications which address educational concerns." (Fletcher 1996)

Sorry I keep jumping in, but I've really been sold on the TPCK framework! As you probably can tell : )

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page