Unpacking TPACK

As I have progressed through the readings of EDPROFST 714 and followed the interactions between the group of elearners I have come across some interesting examples of teaching and learning practice and find them inspiring; so inspiring that I'm keen to rush out and try some for myself! However it is not just a case of rushing out to buy an interactive whiteboard, finding the power switch and letting loose. As with any effective learning experience, advance planning is the key.

Dias (1999) looks at successful integration of NET(New Educational Technologies) into classroom teaching and stresses the importance of making them a key part of teaching, not just using them as an add-on tool; technology should be integrated into the learning experience. She acknowledges that integration is not a simple process but can be achieved by creating an appropriate learning environment and addressing the barriers that get in the way. As others on the course have pointed out, in each school the barriers are going to be different and in some cases more insurmountable than others.


The TPACK model as devised by Kohler & Mishra and explored by Harris, Mishra & Kohler (2009) offers an approach to the integration of NET into the classroom environment. The model takes the three core areas of knowledge (content, pedagogy and technology) required to integrate technology successfully and explores the knowledge that develops as each of these areas overlap into the other, and meet in the middle as technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. It is a "form of professional knowledge that technologically and pedagogically adept, curriculum-oriented teachers use when they teach" (Harris, Mishra & Kohler, 2009).



Teachers need to develop a flexible working understanding of the relationships between the areas of knowledge and manipulate them as they develop effective learning experiences to meet the specific needs of their students (Harris, Mishra & Kohler, 2009). However this is easier said than done. Often teachers begin the planning process by choosing the NET that they want to use as a starting point, then they slot in the content learning goals and appropriate pedagogical approach afterwards. Harris, Mishra & Kohler (2009) suggest that teaching of content is compromised when this happens.



One way of achieving integration of NET is to approach planning from another angle. Harris & Hofer (2009) have developed a strategy to help teachers put TPACK into action which takes potential learning activities that students may undertake as a starting point and identifies technology that could enhance those activities. "Our approach . . . is to suggest that they [teachers] use curriculum specific, technology-enhanced learning activity types as the building blocks for instructional planning." (p.2)



The taxonomies that Harris & Hofer (2009) have developed, list examples of learning activity types for the core learning areas and offer teachers a tangible starting point. Primary teachers offering cross-curricular programmes can draw on learning activities from more than one taxonomy. The learning activities themselves are not new, however the advice on suggested technologies may be to many teachers. As teachers build confidence in understanding which technologies suit particular learning experiences, they will find that integrating NET into their classroom programme is achievable. Common barriers to integration identified by Dias (1999) include time, training and resources. As teachers identify activity types that suit the learning styles and needs of their class they can also identify potential technologies to use. By focusing on one or more appropriate NET, teachers can source specific training and resources thus saving time and concentrating their efforts in one area. As expertise develops then the range of technologies the teacher can add to their repertoire can also expand.

Dias (1999) indicated that there are 5 stages to integration, the work of Harris & Hofer may help some teachers move through those stages more smoothly than before.





References

Dias, L. B. (1999). Integrating Technology: Some things you should know. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(3), 11-13, 21.

Harris, J. & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum -based TPACK development. In C. D. Maddux, (Ed.) Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp.99-108). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology for Teacher Education (SITE) retrieved 30.9.09 from http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/file/view/HarrisHofer-TPACKActivityTypes.pdf

Harris, J, Mishra, P. & Kohler, M. (2009) Teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416

Reflections on e-learning

This post began in Sept but has been completed in Oct so is out of order. Another hike in the learning curve - you can't change the date in blogger or cut and paste!

The last few months on EDPROFST 714 have been an interesting learning experience with a number of parallels, such as using e-learning to learn about e-learning in practice.

It has been my first online paper and while I have appreciated the online interaction, I have missed face to face contact with fellow students and lecturer. Contributing to the forums is a challenge when beginning with very little prior knowledge; when the words stare back at you from the screen it can be harder to comment, however it does make one reflect and really think about what is worth saying. However the ease of access to online resources and the flexibility for a working, studying, forever juggling mother has been an absolute boon.

Participating in an inquiry about inquiry learning was interesting, especially when I came across the work of Carol Kulthau (2006) who describes the emotional journey of the inquirer as they progress. I could identify with the roller coaster of optimism . . . then uncertainty as I found information, then became aware of how much more I needed to find out; followed by the relief after uploading the assignment (and double checking that it had actually gone). The investigation revealed the benefits that e-learning brought to the classroom including the range of resources and the opportunities for collaboration; however the importance of teacher support to students was very clear, as was the need for teachers to be supported themselves.

Blogging about a blog; exploring the benefits of blogs as communication tools opened my eyes - there are some highly motivated students doing some great writing out there, their sheer enthusiasm made me want to comment on their work. Writing for an audience makes you try harder, it is authentic and (as Beth remarked in her blog), getting feedback is very positive. It was this interactive side of blogging that I was interested in as I explored improved communication opportunities between schools and a museum offering LEOTC opportunities. There are museum blogs already out there; the content is often for a specific audience which does not necessarily include school age students and the posting has much more prominence than the feedback. I am keen to trial a blog which encourages students to comment on the artefact or issue under discussion; these comments would be high profile so the comments themselves contribute as much information as the original post, thus building an ongoing community based child friendly information source.

Where to next?

• Doing my best to keep more current with technological developments so I am less behind than I was at the beginning of the course.
• Getting my hands on some IWB experience - my son's primary school starts up with new IWBs this term; I will be the nosy parent from hell.
• Following up my assignment proposal to link e-learning and museum education practice.
• Maybe even continuing to blog . . .
  

Thank you to Tony and other course members for their guidance and inspiration.

Reference

Kulthau, C. (2006) Information literacy through guided inquiry: preparing students for the 21st century. Keynote speech at IASL conference. Retrieved 28 August 2009 http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~kuhlthau/recent_presentations/iasl2/IASL%2