Curious about TPACK?

TPACK

In our fourth lecture Petra Visser introduced the TPACK model and explained the TPACK assignment. The goal of this assignment is to explain what TPACK is about en what the added value of this model is. I hope you will get (after reading this blog) a clear view about this topic. If not, feel free to contact me.

What is TPACK?

TPACK is a model designed for teachers the support them with integration of ICT in their curriculum. TPACK stands for Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge and it is introduced by Koehler and Mishra (2005). To integrate ICT successfully teachers need to have knowledge about Technology, Pedagogy and Content and there should be balance between these three topics.

TPACK visual:

Figure 1. the TPACK model (Koehler and Mishra, 2009)  

In figure 1 you can see that TPACK is the overlap between Pedagogical knowledge, Content knowledge and Technological knowledge. But what does this mean?

The elements:

Technological knowledge (TK): consist not only out of ICT but also other technological instruments like blackboard, beamer (projector) and a graphic calculator. Technological knowledge is a circle by it self because the development of technological knowledge go’s really fast. Teachers need to follow this fast development to decide if a technological instrument can benefit teaching and/or learning. According to Koehler and Mishra (2005) it is important that teachers see the positive effects of technology and adapt their teaching to it. That brings us to the second element.

Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is about the way learners learn and teachers teach. Each teacher has his own pedagogical way of teaching. Different pedagogical approaches can be: collaborative learning, problem based learning and the tradition way of learning. In every different approach the teacher has the knowledge to decide which instruments he/she will use and how he/she will integrate it in their lessons. The pedagogical approach depends on the subject matter of the lessons that brings us to the last element of TPACK….

Content knowledge (CK) is about the subject in which the teacher is teaching. This basically consists out of central facts, concepts, theories and procedures in a certain topic. For example a teacher geography knows a lot about the coordinates latitude and longitude.

The overlap

As you can see in figure 1. the circles overlap each other on three different places. This overlap can be explained as:

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK): is about how pedagogies change because of ICT, or how ict can support pedagogy. For example how an online discussion form can support collaborative learning.

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK): is about how subject matter changes because of ICT, or how ict can support subject matter. For example the geography teacher wants to explain how a tsunami arises with an online video on Wikipedia.  

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): is about how particular aspects of subject matter are organized, adapted and represented for instruction. For example students of the course pedagogies for flexible learning supported by technology need to learn about technologies. The teacher let all students experience working with different technologies by working out an assignment.

TPACK

Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) is the combination of the descriptions of the different overlaps. But this is not everything. Teachers also need to take care about the context, the target group and the situation. For example a teacher wants to use a beamer (TK) for projecting a PowerPoint presentation about TPACK (CK) in a traditional way of teaching (PK). In this presentation there is an overview from literature in Dutch. The teacher has to translate this overview in English because she also teaches international students (Context).  

Reflection

If I relate the topics of the last few weeks with TPACK it seems that all pieces of a puzzle come together. By first splitting up the different topics I learned every lecture some new information which I could construct on my prior knowledge. By presenting TPACK at the end these constructions really made sense.

Although flexible learning (one of the topics) is not integrated in the TPACK model I could found a connection. I think that when the TPACK model is integrated in the curriculum of teachers it provides all the opportunities for flexible learning. In this case flexible learning is an outcome of TPACK. I think that this is one of the added values of TPACK. Another positive aspect of TPACK is that it builds on the knowledge of a teacher. By let them integrate their content knowledge en pedagogical knowledge they can feel ownership about this development.

Some things that can be approved about TPACK is the way of implement it. I’m afraid that it’s hard to motivate teacher to implement the Technological knowledge into their Pedagogical and Content knowledge. If I think about teachers in Vocational Education I notice that they spend most of their time in adapting their content knowledge into a new pedagogical approach competence based learning (PCK). The technological part is mostly used as an instrument to make the PC more attractive. In this case there is a lack in balance between the three elements. To realize TPACK there should be paid more attention to the implementation of Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) en Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK).

That’s why I chose to design a professional development program for teachers as my last assignment for this course. Hopefully I can use this design to implement TPACK in the Vocational Education Center where I work.

Literature:

- Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

- Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, 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

- Kennisnet (2010). Hoe kan een leraar ICT integreren in het onderwijs? Maak kennis met TPACK. http://www.kennisnet.nl/

Preparation of lecture number 4

Reflection about Pedagogical, Technological and Flexible learning.

During the last few weeks these where the topics of the lectures:

- Flexible learning

- Pedagogical approachesa

- Technology

To prepare the lecture of next week I will write a reflection on the combination of these three tops. Although it’s clear that the combination is about TPACK I’m not allowed to talk about this definition (yet).

During the last few weeks I learned about each specific topic what it is about, and how you can implement it in education. Because of the pedagogical approach of our teacher I learned to transfer the knowledge during the lecture to my own words and ideas on my weblog. This approach helped me activating my learning process. That’s why I would like to use the pedagogical approach of Petra to reflect on the three different topics.

In the first lecture we learned about flexible learning. At that moment I became aware of the flexibilities in this course. You can deliver the theory on you own way on your own weblog. By using the weblog for the assignment I also became aware of the use of “new” technology in education. And at last Petra explained here pedagogical approach as a task oriented approach in which she combined flexible leaning and the latest technology.

I can’t give a better example of this specific combination!

Preparation of the 3rd lecture Technology

The 3^rd lecture is all about technology. To prepare this lecture worked out an example of a pedagogical approach which is supported by technology.
The example I’ve worked out is the one I use as a teacher in a Vocational Educational Training (VET) center. Since a few years the government stated that all VET’s should implement the pedagogical approach: competence based learning.


Competence bases learning differs a lot from the tradition way of teaching and assessing. For this example, I chose a way of assessment which my VET centre is using. This is a portfolio assessment. All student have an online portfolio where they can deliver evidence for the development  of a certain competence. This online portfolio tool is integrated in the Course Management System “Learning 4 u”.


I think this technology is really helpful because I’ve noticed that it motivates student by their learning process. In one view they can see which competence they still have to develop (red) and which are already developed (green). This tools also includes a feedback system where teacher deliver feedback and where students can react on. Within competence based learning student are 40% of their time on their internship. According to my experiences students like it that they can work on their portfolio during their internship (distance learning) and don’t have to wait for their next lecture.


If you are interested in this tool, feel free to contact me, or visit the website:
http://www.learning4u.nl/

Pedagogical approaches and the role of a course management system

As I told before I’m following the course pedagogies for flexible learning supported by technology. Last week I participate the second lecture about: pedagogies. In this lecture we discussed the different pedagogical approaches. To get more insight on this subject Dr. Petra Fisscher gave us the assignment to select 5 different pedagogical approached and summarize them. Because this course is all about the support of technology I will add some information to the summary about how the pedagogical approach can be supported by a Course Management System (CMS).  Enjoy reading it and if you have any questions about it please contact me.

Description of 5 different pedagogical approaches:

1.       Problem based learning:

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is an instructional method of hands-on, active learning centered on the investigation and resolution of messy, real-world problems.

The characteristics of problem based learning according to Barrow (1985) are:

-          Learning is driven by challenging, open-ended problems with no one “right” answer

-          Problems/cases are context specific

-          Student work as self-directed, active investigators and problem-solvers in small collaborative groups

-          Teachers are facilitators of learning, guiding the learning process

This pedagogical approach can be supported by a Course Management System by using this system as a toolbox where student can find information about the process of solving the problem. Because the teacher is a facilitator he/she can use the CMS to fulfill his/here role. This can be done by instructor-student messages or discussions.  The facilitator can also post a memo to stimulate student in the problem solving process.

2.       Experimental learning:

According C. Rogers and H.J Freiberg (1994) Experimental learning is an  instructional method where they distinguished two types of learning: cognitive (meaningless) and experimental (significant). Experimental learning is focused on  the needs and wants of the learner.

The characteristics of experimental learning according to Rogers (1994) are:

-          Leaner takes a central role

-          Focus on needs and want of the learner

-          The role of the teacher is to facilitate the learner

-          Self-initiated learning

-          Evaluation of learning by leaner

-          Learner has control over his own nature and direction of the learning process

Experimental leaning can be supported by CMS by helping the teacher by facilitating the learning process. This can be done by delivering different learning resources on blackboard, sharing feelings and thoughts with learners (but not dominating) in a chat. Put a online questionnaire on the CMS with questions that support the self-evaluation of the learning.

3.       Competence based learning

Competence based learning is an instructional method where learners learn competences. According to Parry, S (1996) a compentence is “ a cluster of related knowledge, skills and attitudes that affects a major part on one’s job (or role responsibility) that correlates with performance on the job, that can be measured agians well-accepted standards and that can be improved by training and development.”
The characteristics of competences bases learning according to Parry (1996) are:

-          Connecting education and laboure market

-          Learning in practice (by doing)

-          The role of the teacher is the facilitator

-          Assessment of learning (summative evaluation)

-          Portfolio use (formative evaluation)

Competence based learning can be supported by a CMS by putting assessments for student on line which they have to deliver in practice. CMS can be used for class enrolment if a student need theory to improve his skills or as a place where the facilitator and the (work)tutor  can give feedback on the working process of the student.  A least CMS can include a online portfolio system for students where they can collect evidence as prove for the development of their competences.

4.       Inquiry learning

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry-based_learning, inquiry learning is explained as open learning when there is no prescribed target or results which student have to achieve.

Characteristics of Inquiry learning are:

-          No target

-          Discover by them self

-          The teacher take the role of a guide

According to Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Showers, B. (1992) these are the steps in teaching in an inquiry learning method:

-          Confrontation with the Problem

-           Data Gathering – Verification

-          Data Gathering – Experimentation

-          Organizing, Formulating and Explanation - Formulate rules or explanations

-          Analysis of Inquiry Process - Analyze inquiry strategy and develop more effective ones

CSM can be supported these steps as a toolbox where the students can gather data or a place where the student can post the presentation of the outcomes of an experimentation. At least the teacher can use the CSM to guide the student by chatting of discussing the procedure each student is following.

5.       Project based learning

Project-based learning is a learner-centred instructional approach and can help students develop skills such as data collection, coordination, peer discussion, and information analysis (Blumenfeld, P.C. et al., 1991).

Characteristics of project based learning on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project-based_learning are:

-          Providing complex tasks based on challenging questions

-          Problem solving

-          Decision making

-          Investigation skills

-          Self reflection

-          Teacher in the role of facilitator

CMS can support Project based learning by putting assignments online for student to solve a problem. Provide information online about a topic which the student can use as input for their problem solving skills. The teacher start a discussion board where he puts reflective questions which each student can answer individually. At last the teacher can use a chat for facilitating student with answers on questions.

Conclusion:

It’s interesting to see that all these five different approaches have some major things similar. For example all these approaches the teacher take the role of a facilitator. According to my opinion a CMS can support the teacher by facilitating. This can be done by getting in contact with students by using a chat function, short massage board, discussions etc. I probably takes some extra time for the teacher to prepare his course but I think it will save time on a longer term.

References:

Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer Publishing Co.

Blumenfeld, P.C. et al. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398.

Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Showers, B. (1992). Models of Teaching (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Rogers, C.R. & Freiberg, H.J. (1994). Freedom to Learn (3rd Ed). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan.

Parry, S.B (1996). The quest for competencies. Training Magazine (33)7.