TPACK+Chapter+1+Reflections


 * TPCK Chapter One**
 * The Waldorfs (Jessica, Maryam & Jason)**


 * Abstract**

Matthew Koehler and Punya Mishra present the paradigm, framework and vocabulary of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) in the first chapter of the __Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators__. In light of the ill-structured and “wicked” complexity of teaching, it is argued that to be effective teachers must be dynamic problem solvers with an understanding of the interrelations between the various bodies of knowledge that influence their classroom. Particular attention is given to the integration of technology and understanding the affordances, constraints and characteristics of technologies both traditional and emerging. Rather than attempt to transform teachers into technicians, TPCK advocates a more holistic view on instruction that emphasizes creativity, flexibility, relevancy, and teacher autonomy and expertise. The multidimensional demands of teaching are not to be seen as a series of competing priorities, but instead practitioners of TPCK can simultaneously integrate their knowledge of technology, pedagogy and content to respond to the context of any given moment. https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/


 * Synthesis**

Every single one of us wrote about how teaching with technology is defined as a “wicked problem”; where there are no easy solutions, it is something that is always changing, it has to be integrated with content and teaching pedagogy, and you need to be comfortable with it in order to develop ways to use it beyond its “functional fixedness”.

In order to use technology effectively with students we all discussed how you have to learn to be flexible when working with technology, there must be good professional development and a chance to use or become familiar with the technology before you can develop ways to see beyond its “functional fixedness”. http://chnm.gmu.edu/research-and-tools/ Overall, everyone discussed how using technology, despite the frustrations, enhances learning for students when it is integrated appropriately.

We all discussed how chapter 1 outlines the model of TPAK; integrating content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and technological knowledge as they pertain to teaching. Someone quoted; Real “solutions lie in the ability of a teacher to flexibly navigate the space defined by the three elements of content, pedagogy, and technology and the complex interactions among these elements in specific contexts.” This quote summed up perfectly the essence of chapter 1.

toc

= Karl =

Chapter one in TPCK overview some of the issues that the book will be dealing with. It lays out some of the complexities of teaching, defining it as “and ill-structured, complex domain”. It also sets to create a working definition for technology, and lays out some of the many issues inherent in integrating technology into the classroom. The main conceptual focus of the chapter was based on the Venn Diagram pictured on page 12, and the accompanying TPCK model. This model seeks to integrate content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technology knowledge as they pertain to teaching. The book is careful to emphasize that these domains and their implications will be specific to each unique situation, and vary depending on teacher, classroom, students, and many other variables.

I have seen some of the principles outlined in chapter one in the technology professional development sessions I have lead. As a digital native, I have had to learn to tailor my technology lessons for people of all sorts of content backgrounds. Whereas I look at a new technology and think of the many possible uses for it, many view new technologies with a functional fixedness that limits their application. As a result, I have adapted many of these lessons so that they contained sections tailored to specific subjects, or built in a time and method for teachers to work together to figure out way to integrate these technologies into their own classroom.

Towards the end of the chapter, the book mentions that practice is one of the best ways to develop these skills. This is an idea that I would like to further develop in my technology related professional development sessions. Having teachers develop and implement a lesson with these new tools, and then following up on it, would likely be a beneficial step.

=Walter=

Chapter 1 introduces the concept of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Technology in education is presented as an ill structured, complex domain. At first I did not agree with this label, but as it is defined by the authors, pretty much everything is ill structured and complex. I guess you could blame chaos theory that the world does not work like a computer and behaves logically. The authors even point out that mathematics can break down and behave as a complex domain.

Digital Technology is protean in nature. As soon as you learn a technology, it will change. Understanding technology means evolving along with it. We are slow to accept things as critical knowledge worthy to pass on to our students until it is properly vetted with the test of time. We then plan it and proof it to death so our lesson finally comes out and kids have already mastered the skill.

Teaching with technology is a wicked problem. There are no easy solutions and no outright proof that solutions were complete. So many factors and variables interact in a classroom and with the integration of technology. This again has me blaming the idea of Chaos Theory, simple starting conditions can bring about chaotic and nonlinear results. In this part of the chapter I believe the authors are simply outlining the idea that there is much going on with technology and education that cannot be solved or done perfectly.

Teachers need to be curriculum designers that tackle and face this wicked problem head on, there is where the learning is that it is not perfect and needs wicked solutions.

=Heather=

While reading this chapter, I found three major things that I can relate to and appreciate. The first thing is the idea behind TPCK and teachers being “curriculum designers.” I find that year after year more emphasis is being placed on consistent and every classroom giving the same assessments and using the same mode to deliver instruction because each child should have a similar educational experience from classroom to classroom. This does not always allow teachers the flexibility to “design” curriculum. While I agree that there should be some similarities between classrooms, in many ways we are missing the big picture that all students are different, each day is different and each year is different, as pointed out with the quote by Schwab on page 20. Second, I greatly appreciated the acknowledgement that teaching is an art and its variability is never ending. Every day I am concerned with the comments from outsiders about teaching being like glorified babysitting and that the schedule must be great. Even research has shown that most of the country doesn't believe that teachers are consider “professionals” like doctors of lawyers. The last thing that intrigued me was the information about lacking of training for teachers in technology integration. In my district in particular this is lacking. We get training in some form each year on the “hottest” new piece of technology that the district has purchased but are never given enough time and the training is never ongoing. It is often a quick 2-3 hour tutorials and we are expected to continue on our own. I'm glad the chapter made mention of busy teacher schedules on page nine and that learning a new technology can be a “time intensive activity.” The other thing to note about training is the lack of training in what the chapter refers to as overcoming “functional fixedness.” Often times, a technology is used the same way year after year and students become bored and it is no longer engaging. If technology constantly evolves, we need to evolve with it, right?

=Tanya= Technology is a term that is ever changing and when you mix the other concepts of education, content, and pedagogy with technology it becomes what the authors refer to as a “wicked problem.” In my opinion, this alludes to the fact that you cannot set in stone a specific strategy that will always work with a specific content area. Similarly, teacher’s need to be open-minded when it comes to integrating technology into their classroom, being sure that they do not get stuck in a “functional fixedness” world. There are many benefits of using technology in the classroom, but there are also many disadvantages. There are social and institutional battles to fight, along with the lack of professional development that appears in schools today. We often do not work together as teaching staff and technology staff, which causes issues as well. Lastly, teachers are from many diverse technological backgrounds (digital natives vs. digital immigrants) which creates a disconnect amongst school staff. The major themes in Chapter 1 revolved around content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge, and most importantly, the interdependence of all three of those themes. In order to successful integrate technology into the classroom, one needs “an understanding that emerges from an //interaction// of content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge (pg. 17). Equally as important, is the fact that when you integrate technology into the classroom, the content has to fit the technology and the technology has to fit the content. As a teacher, one of the major ideas that I got out of this reading was that there is no easy fix and no right, or wrong answer. Using technology takes time, effort, and the ability and desire to continuously improve. Also when using technology it is important that you are doing so for the right reasons. My personal opinion was echoed in this chapter when the authors discussed that “learning about technology is different than learning what to do with it” (pg. 21). I am a firm believer that you do not use technology just because you have to, but because it enhances the content that you are trying to get across to your students.

=Jessica=

I would agree with the author that teaching; especially at the high-school level has a “high level of variability across situations as well as a dense context-dependent inter-connectedness between knowledge and practice” (Koehler and Mishra, 4). At the high school level we are all “highly qualified” in our content areas, but as an educator if you have ever sat through any technology professional development workshop you know that teachers are all on different levels when it comes to using and incorporating technology in their classrooms. I will say that most teachers especially at my high school, who are “good” at using technology, find ways to creatively repurpose existing tools toward pedagogical ends. Google Docs is an example of a program that we use consistently at our school in order to foster student collaboration on many projects. I thought that the Venn diagram on page 12 summed up well the idea of the TPCK framework. I will admit that when I first looked at the title of this book I was a little perplexed, technological pedagogical what? After reviewing the Venn diagram it was very easy to understand the three different types of knowledge and how they all fit together, but also made me think about the heavy demands placed on educators. Not only are we required to be an expert in our content areas, expect at teaching strategies and how students learn best, but we also need to keep up with the ever-changing world of technology in order to give our students real world skills.

=Jason=

The first chapter does not “teach” something new per se, but instead offers a framework and vocabulary to help one analyze what they already experience (and often struggle with) as a teacher. It certainly resonated with my experience and the difficulty I believe policy makers have in wrapping their heads around what technology integration really should look like for Maine schools.

The first step in appreciating the TPCK paradigm is to bring the term technology back to its roots as referring to tools, whether they be pencils or ipads. Each tool or technology lends itself to certain uses, known as “affordances,” and each also presents certain constraints. To become a more dynamic and effective teacher one must transcend the obvious affordances and constraints, and think creatively about how to use tools in a given context. Building a sculpture out of crayons (instead of drawing with them) could be an example of overcoming “functional fixedness” if it makes sense given the content and pedagogical objectives of the context. Yet, while creativity with crayons is one thing, optimally using new technology in the classroom is quite another. Indeed, emerging technology adds on to the “wicked problems” of education.

Despite popular hope to the contrary, there are no silver-bullet tech solutions for success in today’s classroom, but rather one must become dynamic and creative as a problem-seeker and problem-solver. The “wicked” dilemma of teaching remains the mostly same, plus a few the new variables. Unlike the traditional technologies of education, the emerging technologies are protean (many different uses), unstable and opaque (their inner workings are a mystery to many). Often the students are the “natives” with these new tools and already privy to tech language and culture, while the the content teacher is the outsider or immigrant. Despite these obstacles, veteran teachers cannot throw up their hands and shout “SEP.” We must be engaged with the reality in which our students live.

Knowledge is not static, it is itself a sort of tool or creation that has utility for whomever possesses it. For knowledge to be valuable, it must be relevant. This admits that knowledge changes over time. Content changes. Pedagogy changes, and not just over time but in different contexts. The technology of education of course is changing as well, but that doesn’t totally flip everything we know about teaching and learning onto its head. Do not be fooled, being a teacher is not going to mean becoming a technician. Real “solutions lie in the ability of a teacher to flexibly navigate the space defined by the three elements of content, pedagogy, and technology and the complex interactions among these elements in specific contexts.”

=Maryam= I have worked in a democratic environment in which I was empowered to participate and make decisions and I have worked in the alternative reality without any power and in the latter the school became disconnected without vision or sense of community, so I strongly agree that teachers must be given agency. As a historian I ask questions to help students ask better questions as they attempt to understand (h)istories and Historiography, this process is very similar to the protean unstable opaque nature of digital technologies in which the little (h)istories i.e. the African American experience is not as fixed or transparent as the Puritan experience. This is a ‘wicked problem’ for it does not fit within the linear fixed narrative of Progress and puts a critical perspective on civics. I love bricolaging, doing the best with what is at hand under existing circumstances. When all I had access to was a computer lab and an 81/2 x 11 printer for printing 36 x 48 posters no problem just divide the work into the appropriate sections with some overlap, print and construct, no one could ever tell it wasn’t just one sheet of paper. In social studies this act of construction begins with the deconstruction of the stories by critically looking at the sources, onceuponatime, these sources were rare and hard to find, now we have a gluttony of sources on the internet, the construction though needs more than sources but critical thinking skills and the means to represent their interpretations in creative imaginative and inspirational ways. Onceuponatime all I had was the lab and the 81/2 by 11 printer but we made journals, portfolios, newspapers, posters, now I have film making technology and web technology and a large printer so my options for expression have greatly expanded but my main goals remain the same.

=Eleni=

In reading and reflecting on chapter one of the Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Educators book, it provided me with a base understanding of the layout for the following chapters, which included but is not limited to; Teaching as an ill-structured complex domain, understanding technology, technology and its complex role in teaching in which the book broke down this section into the following: Digital Technologies are protean in nature, Digital Technologies are functionally opaque, Digital Technologies are unstable, Teachers often have inadequate (or inappropriate) experience, Technology is often considered to be somebody else’s problem, Classroom contexts are varied and diverse. The TPCK model broken down into seven sections: Content Knowledge, Pedagogical knowledge, Pedagogical content knowledge, Technology knowledge, Technological content knowledge, Technological pedagogical knowledge, Technological pedagogical content knowledge, the need for a greater emphasis on the demands of subject matter, Practice and content is important to learning and situating teacher knowledge. When reading under ‘digital technologies are functionally opaque’ on page 8 it states, “The inner workings of most contemporary technologies are hidden from those who use them. The computer becomes a virtual domain in which cause and effect relationships are divorced from everyday rule.” I immediately thought of the many times I’ve been in a teaching setting where I was unable to properly work and/or correct an issue with technology, as well as many college courses spent wasting time in a classroom where there are multiple technology issues that the professors are unable to locate the cause/effect to fix it. Using something in the classroom to support a planned lesson, with great dependency, is an issue when it fails without having the critical thinking skills and understand in dealing with complex technologies. When a tool used to support in executing a lesson malfunctions or the instructor is unable to understand it’s inner workings, plans deteriorate, and that piece of technology and in many cases the lesson planned around it are discarded for the time being. Brining to surface the relevance this book may hold for teachers. On page nine it addresses my thought on this by stating, “Learning to become flexible, creative educators who can transcend functional fixedness and other barriers is an ongoing and complicated process and must be confronted at both pre-and in-service levels.” This I feel is a critical piece in using technology in the classroom and teaching student’s technology use properly. Educators must be trained and somewhat comfortable with what they are using. This also provides the teachers an opportunity to learn what it feels like to learn something new, which provides them empathy when teaching students who are new to the program or piece of technology being used. Throughout the introduction, the book speaks on critical thinking issues through content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge, addressing how critical thinking and understanding is necessary and can be the barrier for educators from using technology in a meaningful way in their classrooms. The introduction touches on a critical problem with technology in the sense that “Approaches that merely teach skills (technology or otherwise) do not go far enough. Learning about technology (how to use email, word processing, or the latest version of a computer operating system) is different than learning what to do with it.” Proposing that, “Clearly a solid understanding of knowledge in each individual domain would be the bases for developing TPCK.” Proposing the use of the TPCK approach as a solution to addressing issues in and around technology use as an educator.

=Don =

Integrating technology into the curriculum has been a struggle for many teachers over the years. There are many reasons for this, and chapter one begins to layout those differences, and the associated struggles for both the school, and the families being taught. In this chapter it lays out the foundation for the book, and the areas to be covered.

Chapter one talks about hoe knowledge both book, and technological is not static, but dynamic and ever changing. Not only is it always growing and evolving, it does it with amazing speed, and this in itself is a struggle. We as teachers and learners must evolve with it, and use it to move forward at a faster pace. By integrating content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge into the curriculum students have the best chance at ultimate success.

Complicating the integration of technology is that the students are “native” to many of the software and hardware available, but teachers are often so far behind the technology curve it is difficult to use that technology in meaningful ways. We have all been in a classroom with what we believed to be a great teaching lesson that includes technology. The lesson is about to begin and we suddenly realize that the projector won’t come on, or the cable we need to send the information is missing………utter chaos ensues and the great lesson starts to deteriorate into something other than what it could have been. I have known teachers so terrified of that happening they won’t even plan a lesson that is dependent on technology.

Of course, the only way to get better at adding and using technology in the classroom is to continue to expose your lessons to it, so being afraid only makes it that much harder. There is not question that technology enhances learning for students. That being said it only enhances it when the curriculum and the technology are designed to work together in a way to invite the teacher and student to learn from it. Simply projecting notes on a screen or creating a power point, does not mean the lesson plan is better or more is learned from it even though it is technology in use.