TPACK - a framework for technology integration

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dawn on October 4, 2009 at 8:58pm

Heidi,
I love the quote too. And if we have two or three students that need holes but not enough money for three drills, how about if they cooperate and share that drill, maybe even learn more about hole drilling from each other.
I'm afraid we have too many instructional technologist out there enamored by the tools (twittering about their latest iPhone apps) but forgetting that "instruction" comes first. Too often the tool or lack of tool or banned tool is the topic of conversation. I have always found teachers to be quite creative in making the most of the tools (or egg carton or paper towel role) they have available when their instructional goals were clear.
I like the way TPACK puts all the components in perspective for me as a technology facilitator working with individual teachers and providing school/district staff developments. By acknowledging a teacher's expertise in their content area and pedagogical skills, they are less threatened by the technology and are more likely to see the benefits for their students. When I can give them the technology skills required to meet an instructional need, I find they are more likely to come back for more.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by punya mishra on October 4, 2009 at 9:27pm

Well said Dawn. The only thing I would add to your last sentence is to rephrase it as follows: When I can give them the technology skills required to meet an instructional need for teaching specific content..." etc. etc.

The words in bold are the ones I added.

Anyway, the more I think about it the goal of instructional technologist it not as much to teach as to facilitate teachers to help them discover their own TPACK rather than "hand it" to them.

take care
~ punya

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heidi Beezley on March 14, 2009 at 7:05pm

I've found the TPACK model to be very useful. For me, when I read several articles about it by Mishra and Koehler, I wondered why no one had ever proposed it before. The idea, as I understand it, isn't that teaching and learning is being broken into three circles but that the diagram shows all of the types of knowledge that a teacher would need to have in order to adeptly integrate technology into curriculum. So, I don't think it is as much about the students as it is about the teacher.

Here's what really resonated for me: Before the 80's, when teachers would be in their pre-service, they tended to take their content courses and pedagogical courses, and they were somewhat separate. For example, you would take science courses for a major and then take pedagogical courses to learn to teach. A guy named Schulman proposed that there was another type of knowledge other than pedagogy (P) and content (C) that teachers had to have in order to teach their subject well. Staying with the science example, a teacher would have to have Pedagogical Content knowledge (PC) which would be knowledge of how best to teach science content in particular (i.e. the strategies you use to teach a tough science concept are probably different than for math).

So what Mishra and Koehler have done, is proposed that when you consider technology, there are even more nuanced types of knowledge that you would need in order to use technology adeptly to teach content using appropriate pedagogy. Frequently when teachers learn about technology, they learn how to use a particular tool in a vacuum - without the tool being taught in a context of a particular content/pedagogy. You just learn about the tool itself. So I think Mishra and Koehler are saying that technology shouldn't be taught in isolation, but in a context, and that teachers who use technology well to teach a topic would consider what pedagogical strategies would best teach the topic and what technology tools could support that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan McGuire on March 17, 2009 at 10:47am

How do we know what works best to teach elementary math, science, and literacy without first getting the kids actually using the tools in context? What I'm suggesting is that any pedagogical strategy that is proposed is only theoretical, at best, until it is acually used and perfected in the classroom. I'm suggesting that we do less speculating about what works and start actually doing the teaching with the tools. I'm fully aware of all of the hurdles that need to be jumped before U.S. elementary teachers are actually teaching math, science and literacy with 21st Century tools. I'm afraid that TPACK is complicating things by parsing pedagogical theory without ever having tested the theory in the classroom and thereby creating a hurdle for actual implementation.

I know some pedagogical theoreticians who want to track the results of my 3rd and 4th grade Moodle reading and writing workshops on copied (I almost said 'mimeographed') forms that are stored in a paper file folder up on the second floor. They are suggesting that would be a learning framework within which to couch my practice. I'm thinkin about a couch in a different kind of office.
Happy St. Patrick's Day !

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by punya mishra on March 17, 2009 at 11:35am

Dan, I think that the TPACK framework does exactly what you are suggesting. It values technology as an agent of change. Most rhetoric in Ed Psy academic circles ignore the possibilities that new technologies bring. Be it twitter (or other form of microblogging) in the classroom or using a visual search engine in a language arts class.. Matt K and I have always emphasized the possibilities of new tools. I personally have often written and talked about how current research approaches (the pedagogical theoreticians you speak of in your post) completely miss the boat with regard to how these new tools and their possibilities are to be studied.

I am a great believer in getting kids and teachers to use these tools. How else are we going to know what is going on or what can be done. That said, the TPACK framework says that we should not just learn the tools but rather that these tools can be use, creatively, to teach some content (science, or math, or art, or music... ). Now I hope you agree that teaching science with technology may be different from teaching music with technology - even if you use the same technology, say an iPhone. That is all that the TPACK framework is trying to say.

Matt K and I have ALWAYS emphasized the critical role of the teacher - their creativity and agency. So I am totally in agreement with you when you say, "I'm suggesting that we do less speculating about what works and start actually doing the teaching with the tools." The only thing I would add is that at the end of the day we will need some way of knowing what works... not necessarily in terms of NCLB but maybe in terms of individual teachers and their classrooms.

So what do these three circles get us... I think for many people thinking about technology it gets us a frame - a frame that tells them that you cannot look at Content, Pedagogy and Technology in isolation. Good teachers have always known this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Storchan on March 17, 2009 at 12:57pm

Dan Said: "I'm afraid that TPACK is complicating things by parsing pedagogical theory without ever having tested the theory in the classroom and thereby creating a hurdle for actual implementation."

Dan, you make a very good point. Pedagogical theories on many occasions can only take a teacher so far. But as someone who works in schools under the umbrella of educational technology professional development, I can honestly say that TPACK has made a huge impact on the work I do with teachers and administrators. Many schools have a hard time grasping what technology integration is all about, and very often focus on the tools rather than the teaching and learning involved.

I used to get very frustrated when teachers would ask me to help them plan and implement a PowerPoint or iMovie project. And then a few years ago, I came across those three circles, and suddenly I had a framework I could turn to when I needed a helping hand. TPACK provided me with an entry point into the planning process. Developing technology infused units of study is challenging work -- especially when the best 21st century learning experiences make the technology transparent. Punya said it best: "...you cannot look at Content, Pedagogy and Technology in isolation. Good teachers have always known this." I couldn't agree more.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennette Kane on November 24, 2009 at 11:55am

I also work in educational technology professional development with K-12 teachers, Dan. I think (and I'm very new to TPACK and its implications) that the framework gives teachers meaning and a visual understanding of how the three areas work together for effective learning. Teachers often want to view technology in isolation, as a separate lesson, and this provides a HUGE barrier to true integration. If teachers understand the valuable learning outcomes, as demonstrated through this framework, they are more likely to consider and actually integrate technology into their teaching.

Looking forward to checking into all of the resources provided in this discussion!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by punya mishra on November 25, 2009 at 10:34am

Jeannette, thanks for your posting here. In some way we are all new to TPACK, particularly given how fast technology and contexts for learning are evolving. This discussion, on the other hand, hasn't really moved much in the past few months, which is not surprising, given how busy people are. That said, there are many resources that you can followup. The TPACK wiki (www.tpack.org) is one, as my blog (http://punya.educ.msu.edu/ ) and the TPACK newsletter. You can find older issues and sign up for future ones - details are on my website (follow the above link and click on TPACK newsletters on the left column for details).

Have a great Thanksgiving!
~ punya

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Milan Sherman on March 17, 2009 at 7:29pm

Dan, I think that one of the issues that you're addressing is how pedagogical theory is developed, and not necessarily the TPACK framework in particular. The shortcoming of the development of theory in a vacuum, or experimental research studies conducted in laboratory settings, is that they are often too far removed from real classrooms to have anything relevant to say about practice (or even theory, some would argue). This weakness of traditional educational research has given rise to a relatively new research methodology in education which is gaining credibility called design research. The idea is to create something that works in practice based on some hypotheses and an iterative design, just as good teachers already do. The research part of it is based on paying careful attention to which elements of the design seem to contribute to most to learning, and why. Thus, theories are tested and refined in classrooms.

Punya and Matt K. have developed the TPACK framework using design research, and it seems to me that this research methodology is a sensible way to advance it. I do not in any way want to contradict what Punya says below about the TPACK framework - it is a useful starting point for design research as well. It just seemed to me that part of the issue you bring up, and a valid one, is an issue with abstract pedagogical theory in general. I simply wanted to point out that the TPACK framework has actually been developed in context and not disconnected from practice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adora Fisher on March 17, 2009 at 2:14pm

I have just begun to research TPACK. Thank you Punya and Matt, your papers, website, wikipedia etc. are informative and easily navigated and understood. I think that if presented in the right context, TPACK is easily received. Teachers choose what tools to use to deliver content all of the time and in what ways to deliver it. When a teacher writes lesson plans, they consider the layout of the room, they consider the time frame of the lesson, they consider what tools they will need for their delivery and what tools the students will need. Often teachers even allow students to choose their own tools, ex. crayons, markers, paints etc. The difference is that we are using different tools. The concept is the same. What tools are best to deliver the curriculum, what strategies are best and fit with the tools and how will students demonstrate understanding and mastery.

Am I missing something, or are we making this more complicated than it needs to be.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by punya mishra on March 17, 2009 at 5:49pm

Adora, I think you placed it just right. And to give credit to the point Dan has been making, the tools we have now are more sophisticated than crayons, markers, paints etc.

On a slightly different note, it is always fun for me to see how different groups critique the TPACK framework. Dan for instance, finds a lack of emphasis on the transformative possibilities of Technology (the lack of Twitter in TPACK). Other audiences, say traditional educational psychologists, take us to task for giving Technology too much prominence. For them it is all about the Pedagogy (or instructional design)! Technology is in essence a pipe (or a dump-truck) and Content is irrelevant.

Content experts, on the other hand, are concerned by the fact that we are emphasizing P and (or) T over Content, or giving it equal value. In their frame, disciplinary knowledge is all there is - the rest is just methods for getting information from one location (my head, a textbook) to another (students head).

Teacher educators get the PCK part - they are somewhat suspicious of these new technologies, it all seems too new and untested.

Interactions with these different perspectives leaves me with a deeper understanding of how our professions or training frame our worldviews as well as a richer conceptualization of the framework as well.

Very interesting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adora Fisher on March 18, 2009 at 11:14am

One of the struggles we face in K12 education is to help teachers see the need for integration of curriculum delivery. In the classroom our students face content categorically. They are taught Math, Language Arts, Social Studies etc. as separate areas of knowledge. Outside of the classroom, in the real world, content is integrated and one subject area impacts the other. It is time for the "experts" to begin to help change this pedagogy, so that we can begin to see that change in the classroom for our students.

Technology is changing the way our students interface with the world around them, this is the reality, this needs to be reflected in the classroom so that PCK in the classroom aligns with what happens in the real world.

• ▶ Reply

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