Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

On the Reasonableness of TPACK as an Implementation and Evaluation Framework

2,174

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,174
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Background informationMy job, the IDEA Studio, teacher education, etc.What is this?Critical look at some key difficulties and limitations of using TPACK for assessment and implementationTo get us to think about the models that we use to conceptualize complex phenomena (like tech integration) and to be wise and intentional in how we use them; highly theoretical discussion; goal not to give quick solutions, but to clarify theoretical misconceptions and limitations----- Meeting Notes (11/9/11 15:34) -----work with faculty to conceptually design course content AND conduct tutorials
  • Proliferation of TPACKWhen first proposed, treated as a necessarily incomplete model of teacher knowledge that, nonetheless, “allows us to tease apart some of the key issues that are necessary for scholarly dialogue about educational technology” (P. Mishra & M. J Koehler, 2007)to “view the entire process of technology integration as amenable to analysis and development work,” Primary domains, hybrid domains, and TPACK (whatever that is)TPACK is inherently “different from knowledge of all three concepts individually” and that it is important for us to understand, because it forms the “basis of effective teaching with technology.”Goal is to start thinking about technology integration and teacher knowledge in a way that “goes beyond all three ‘core’ components” to elicit “truly meaningful” and “deeply skilled” teaching (M. Koehler & Punya Mishra, 2009“there is no single technological solution that applies for every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching.”“[T]eachers need to develop fluency and cognitive flexibility not just in each of these key domains (T, P, and C) but also in the manner in which these domains interrelate, so that they can effect solutions that are sensitive to specific contexts. This is the kind of deep, flexible, pragmatic and nuanced understanding of teaching with technology that we advocate” (P. Mishra & M. J Koehler, 2007).Later viewed as a “wicked problem”
  • Critique or delineation
  • Fuzziness increases with complexityNewsome and Lederman (1999) point out, “identifying instances of PCK is not an easy task […] [M]ost authors agree that the PCK construct has fuzzy boundaries, demanding unusual and ephemeral clarity on the part of the researcher to assign knowledge to PCK or one of its related constructs.”Examples of educators: “I know what it looks like when I see it.”Archambault and Crippen’s research into TPACK development amongst K-12 online distance educators has found high correlations between TCK and TPK (.743), TPK and TPACK (.787), and TCK and TPACK (.733), while maintaining a high level of internal consistency for each (.85 or greater), which casts doubt upon the idea that TCK, TPK, and TPACK are in fact distinct domains (Archambault & Crippen, 2009)
  • Ignores nature of interactions and impact on students, practice, etc.Where is student learning in all of this (implied but not explicitly stated in the model as an overt goal)? Implementation is the goal, not learningDoesn’t lend itself to critical evaluations of technology and its impact
  • Can use to make logical arguments and justifications, which is what we do when we assess (e.g. see behavior x or witness artifact y, therefore the student learned, etc.)Other examples:Mammal, hair & mammary glandsPower:Based upon x & y, you can prove zLimitation:Often meaningless and tautological
  • Can also be used to represent complex concepts.Where do the Texas Rangers fall?Where do I fall?Where does a ballerina fall?Where does a weight lifter fall?Where does Michael Jordan fall? Lebron James?Best that this can do is (perhaps) reveal necessary causes, but not sufficient causesOther examples:Rabbit, small & mammalTwo essential or necessary elements, but not sufficient elements
  • Does this diagram show us sufficient or necessary causes? Tautological or non-tautological? BothSufficient RelationshipsWT + F = WFTNecessary RelationshipsM + WFT + WA = WR
  • In assessment, we use it as the former, but it should only ever be used in the latter.
  • Say we have a college professor of engineering that wants to teach elementary math. Where would she fall in this diagram? CK? PK? PCK?If someone knows calculus and has certain pedagogical skills (like scaffolding learning, classroom management, etc.) developed while teaching engineers, does it follow that she has the PCK required to teach elementary math? No, because merely having those discreet skills does not mean that she can teach math in an elementary setting, that she understands how to scaffold mathematical concepts in a contextually appropriate way, etc. Rather, the relationship is that PK & CK are necessary causes of PCK, not sufficient causes.IllustrativeProblematic for evaluating for PCK, because there is no logical power coming from PK and CK
  • Perhaps some translation, but requires the introduction of more variablesDoes little to help assessment, if we cannot clearly identify those variables; must clearly define what PCK is beyond just saying that it has CK and PK in it; PCK – Cake, CK & PK – Flour and EggsSo, yes it can, but it’s rather pointless to do so unless we want to really complicate our model. Complicating it reduces the simplicity of the illustrative model.Ultimately, what does it tell us? Only that PK & CK are necessary for PCK and that not all PK & CK are PCK.Also applies to TPK and TCK
  • Illustrative models are not powerful to logically prove the existence of an entityLogical models often have little meaningMisunderstanding the model and relationships between elements of the model can lead to misapplication or development of poor assessment instruments
  • Relationships between primary domains and hybrid domains are non-tautological
  • And still does not account for all complexity of TPACKImpossible to conceive of a situation wherein PCK, TCK, & PCK, but not TPACK
  • Relationships between primary domains and hybrid domains are non-tautologicalRelationships between hybrid domains and TPACK are tautological
  • Try to break it down and assess for pieces that logically imply the whole.
  • Since TPACK is so fuzzy, we attempt to conjure ways of finding it without finding itIf TPACK is too fuzzy to assess for or implementon its own, what else could we assess for or implement that would logically imply TPACK’s existence?Or, when implementing, we try to implement it without implementing iti.e. we focus on parts, which can lead to misapplicationsOne study described its approach to help teachers thus: “use strategies that combine content, technologies, and teaching approaches that I learned about in my coursework in my classroom” (Denise Schmidt, E. Baran, et al., 2009)
  • “I can choose technologies that enhance the content for a lesson” (Denise Schmidt, E. Baran, et al., 2009)Harris et al., 2009Niess et al., 2006 (even graphicallylabel it as such)Niess et al., 2009Evaluations of TPACK typically rely upon a hodgepodge blend of two or more of the six categories, thereby adding to its fuzziness
  • Best logical application to account for all that I think that the model calls for, because by focusing on hybrid domains, it takes into consideration all primary domains and their interactions with one another.Not easiest, because requires three complex components, but necessary for TPACKIgnore primary domains, they are logically implied if the hybrid domains are presentAlso ignore TPACK, too fuzzyIn the literature, however, TPK and TCK have been largely ignored; need to work to differentiate them, assess for them, etc.Our approach in the college, realization of the missing piece
  • TPACK is a tautology for TCK + TPK + PCKBoth necessary and sufficientCHALLENGE: If we can clearly define hybrid domains in practice, and focus on their implementation, then TPACK will follow. Otherwise, it will not.
  • Cannot think of an instance where TPACK and ~TPK, ~TCK, or ~PCKCan have targeted assessment that considers hybridsTaking into account all possible interactions between primary domains
  • Transcript

    • 1. On the Reasonableness of TPACK asan Implementation and Evaluation Framework Royce Kimmons University of Texas at Austin
    • 2. TPACK Model
    • 3. Difficulties & Limitations of TPACK for Assessment and Evaluation1. Fuzziness2. Techno-centrism3. Misapplication of the model
    • 4. [1] Fuzziness
    • 5. Evaluating for Fuzziness• “I can teach lessons that appropriately combine literacy, technologies, and teaching approaches[;]”• “I can teach lessons that appropriately combine science, technologies, and teaching approaches[;] [...]”• “I can provide leadership in helping others to coordinate the use of content, technologies, and teaching approaches at my school and/or district” (Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Mishra, Koehler, & Shin, 2009; emphasis added)
    • 6. [2] Techno-centrism• Can you have TPACK without T?• Is T always appropriate?• Where are the students in all of this? Learning?• How does T change the teaching? – R – Replacement – A – Amplification – T – Transformation (Hughes et al., 2006)
    • 7. [3] Misapplication of the Model
    • 8. Venn Diagrams as Logical Models Tautological R + W = WR Sufficient & Necessary Causes
    • 9. Venn Diagrams as Illustrative Models Non-Tautological A+S=? Merely Necessary Cause If No A or No S = No PBP
    • 10. Various Relationships
    • 11. How do we use PCK & TPACK? Logical Model Illustration vs. Tautological Non-Tautological Sufficient & Necessary CauseNecessary Cause
    • 12. PCK as an Illustration
    • 13. Can PCK be a Logical Model?
    • 14. Recap1. Theoretical Models like Venn Diagrams may be used in a Tautological (Logical or Sufficient & Necessary) or a Non-Tautological (Illustrative or Merely Necessary) manner2. A single diagram may be used in one or both ways if it shows multiple relationships; TPACK includes both types of relationships
    • 15. TPACK Model
    • 16. Logical Conversion: Overcomplication
    • 17. TPACK Model
    • 18. Assessing for TPACK
    • 19. Assessing for TPACK
    • 20. Misapplication: Type 1
    • 21. Misapplication: Type 2
    • 22. Solution: Assess for the Hybrid Domains
    • 23. What’s Missing in Ed Tech?
    • 24. Surest Method for Assessing for and Implementing TPACK
    • 25. Is this a Reasonable Approach?• Logically implies TPACK• Less fuzzy than attempting to assess for and implement TPACK directly• Does not sacrifice any inherent complexity of TPACK• Is this an unnecessary complication?• Should we even be assessing for TPACK at all?
    • 26. Questions? Thoughts?Royce KimmonsTwitter: http://twitter.com/roycekimmonsEmail: royce@kimmonsdesign.com

    ×