• Save
C Yeates
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

C Yeates

on

  • 711 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
711
Views on SlideShare
706
Embed Views
5

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 5

https://jujo00obo2o234ungd3t8qjfcjrs3o6k-a-sites-opensocial.googleusercontent.com 4
http://jujo00obo2o234ungd3t8qjfcjrs3o6k-a-sites-opensocial.googleusercontent.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

C Yeates Document Transcript

  • 1. C. Yeates NOT FOR DISTRIBUTIONUnderstanding the TPACK model for improved teaching and learning in K-6 education.What is TPACK?Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a framework which attempts to capture theessential qualities of knowledge required by teachers for technology integration in the classroom. Mishra &Koelher, (2010) explain that in the centre of the TPACK framework (see figure 1) is the complex interplayof three primary forms of knowledge, technology, pedagogy and content; Technology (T) – encompasses modern technologies, such as computers, the internet and digitalvideo; and more commonplace technologies such as chalkboards, overhead projectors and books. Pedagogy (P) – describes the collected practices, processes, strategies and procedures of teachingand learning. It also includes knowledge about the aims of instruction assessment and student learning. Content (C) – is the subject matter that is to be taught or learned. Stage 2 Mathematics, Stage 1Poetry and Stage 3 Drama are all examples of content that are different from each other. (Mishra & Koelher,2005).The TPACK framework builds on Shulman’s (1987) construct of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK),which claimed that the emphases on teachers subject knowledge and pedagogy were being treated asmutually exclusive domains. The practical consequence of such exclusion was production of teachereducation programs in which a focus on either subject matter or pedagogy dominated. To address thisproblem, he proposed to consider the necessary relationship between the two by introducing the notion ofPedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). That is, confronting issues of content and pedagogy simultaneously(Mishra & Koelher, 2005).The TPACK model of technology integration in teaching and learning emphasises that developing goodcontent requires teachers to thoughtfully knit together all three key sources of knowledge: technology,pedagogy, and content. The TPACK model argues that there is no single technological solution that appliesfor every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching. “Quality teaching requires developing a newunderstanding of the complex relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy, and using thisunderstanding to develop appropriate, context-specific strategies and representations” (Mishra & Koelher,2006, p. 1028). The TPACK framework outlines that effective teaching and learning takes place in the K-6classroom when it is understood that technology, pedagogy and content knowledge cannot exist in isolationfrom each other (Wallace, 2004), but rather they “exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium” (Mishra &Koehler, 2006, p 1029). -1-
  • 2. C. Yeates NOT FOR DISTRIBUTIONWhy is it important for K-6 educators to understand the TPACK framework?Figure 2 represents the knowledge structures that underlie many teacher’s current view of implementingeducational technology, that the majority of educators teach technology separately to other learningoutcomes (Mishra & Koehler 2006). According to Mishra and Koehler (2005) good teaching is not merelyadding technology to the existing teaching and content field. Rather, the introduction of technology causesthe development of new ideas and requires increasing awareness to the “dynamic, transactional relationshipbetween all three components suggested by the TPCK framework” (Mishra & Koelher, 2005, p. 134).Many teachers are not confident in integrating technology, pedagogy and content and need professionaldevelopment, according to Ertmer (2010), only 44% of new teachers (three or less years in the classroom)feel well prepared to use technology in their teaching, furthermore only 20% of all teachers believe they areconfident in integrating technology into classroom practices (Pope, Hare & Howard, 2002). In researchundertaken by Archambault & Crippen (2009) a range of teachers were surveyed their confidence inimplementing the three knowledge areas outlined in TPACK. It was found that knowledge levels in thedomain of technology were significantly low when compared with knowledge levels in the domain ofcontent and pedagogy. In examining the results of their research within the TPACK framework,Archambault & Crippen (2009) concluded that it is evident that these teachers feel strongly about theirabilities to perform as traditional teachers, however they are less sure of themselves when it comes to theirskills associated with technology and using technology to convey content to students. This researchemphasises a strong theme of struggling with and learning new technology.The TPACK framework goes beyond seeing technology, pedagogy and content as being important in and ofthemselves, however integrating these three elements is a “wicked” problem (Rittel & Webber, 1973), that is, aproblem with incomplete, contradictory and changing requirements. Solutions are difficult to find because theground is effectively shifting even as the problem is presenting itself. The TPACK framework does not claim tooffer every solution the problem of integrating technology, pedagogy and content, however it is significant forK-6 teachers, this is because it understands that linear solutions will not work to solve the “wicked” problemand equips teachers with a deep understanding of how to integrate technology into their teaching effectively.What are the implications of TPACK for my own teaching?The idea of TPCK has significant implications for my own teacher education and professional development.This framework has motivated me to teach technology in contexts that honor the rich connections betweentechnology, the subject-matter (content) and the means of teaching it (the pedagogy). It has encouraged meto step outside of the box, to develop my teaching approaches so that learning would be challenging,engaging and integrated (Mishra & Koehler 2005). -2-
  • 3. C. Yeates NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION References Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. Retrieved Online 17th February, from: http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article2.cfm Ertmer, P. (2010). Transforming Teacher Education: Visions and Strategies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55 (1) 124-128. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017 – 1054. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2010). TPCK – Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Retrieved Online 15th February 2011, from: http://www.tpck.org/tpck/index.php?title=Main_Page Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2002). Technology Integration: Closing the gap between what teachers are taught to do and what they can do. Teacher Education (10) 135- 143. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169 Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22. Wallace, R.M. (2004). A framework for understanding teaching and the internet. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 447-488. -3-
  • 4. C. Yeates NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Appendicis Appendix 1. Source: http://tpack.org. -4-
  • 5. C. Yeates NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Appendix 2. Mishra & Koehler (2006). -5-