Approaches to Developing TPCK

From TPCK

Learning Technology by Design

The Learning By Design approach is used to help teachers develop a flexible and situated understanding of technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2005). In this approach, inservice teachers work collaboratively in small groups to develop technological solutions to authentic pedagogical problems. In order to go beyond the simple “skills instruction” view offered by the traditional workshop approach, we have argued that it is necessary to teach technology in contexts that honor the rich connections between technology, the subject matter Content (content), and the means of teaching it (the pedagogy).

This approach has been influenced by a number of theoretical traditions, including: social constructivism (Cole, 1997; Vygotsky, 1978); constructionism (Harel, 1991; Harel & Papert, 1991); and personally motivated and meaningful design projects for students (Blumenfeld et. al, 1991; Carver, Lehrer, Connell, & Erickson, 1992; Harel & Papert, 1990, Kafai, 1995; Kafai & Resnick, 1996; Kolodner, 2002; Lehrer, 1993).

In practice, this approach has been used by Mishra & Koehler over semester long projects, such as the design of online-courses, the design of educational films, or the re-design of existing web-sites. This approach, and the subsequent study of teachers who participate in the environmnent, has been instrumental in the theoretical building of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) Framework.

TPACK Development via Instructional Planning using Learning Activity Types

Given that educational technologies are not yet well-integrated into instruction in most K-12 classrooms (Levin & Wadmany, 2008; Russell, O’Dwyer, Bebell & Tao, 2007); that teachers’ instructional planning tends to be activity-based and content-focused (John, 2006; Yinger, 1979); that learning activities are conceptualized and enacted differently in different disciplines (Shulman, 1986; Stodolsky, 1988); and that effective technology integration requires interdependent content, technological, and pedagogical knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, Koehler & Mishra, 2008), Harris & Hofer (2006, Harris, 2008) suggest that a logical approach to helping teachers to better integrate technologies in their teaching is to directly link students’ content-related learning needs with particular content-based learning activities and related educational technologies that will best support the activities’ successful implementation.

Note that the emphasis in this approach is upon content-based learning activities -- the primary elements in teachers’ instructional planning -- rather than the affordances and constraints of educational technologies that can support learning activities for students. Since teachers’ planning is conceptualized around content goals and organized according to learning activities, technology integration methods should be similarly focused. Possibilities for technology use should be considered according to the types of learning activities that each digital tool or resource best supports. Possibilities for learning activities to use should be considered according to the curriculum-based learning goals most appropriate for students' learning in a particular learning context and at a particular time.

To plan technology-integrated, content-based learning activities in a maximally efficient way, comprehensive collections of learning activities in each curriculum area can be offered for teachers’ use, with suggested educational technologies indicated for each type of activity included. Since the numbers of possible learning activity types – even within a single content area – can be large, these collections should be organized into functional subcategories. Such learning activity taxonomies can then serve as organized collections of options for teachers to consider, once content goals are selected, contextual constraints are acknowledged, and student learning styles and preferences are noted. Since compatible technologies are suggested within these taxonomies for each type of learning activity, as teachers select learning activities (to match content goals, student needs and preferences, and pedagogical/contextual realities), they are concomitantly – and authentically – learning to integrate educational technologies into their instructional planning, building their TPACK while doing so.

Curriculum-based learning activity types taxonomies in multiple content areas are offered for vetting and use (with attribution) via the Activity Types Wiki. They are revised periodically according to user feedback, which is collected using interactive surveys (one per taxonomy) on the wiki.

References

Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborativecommunities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37–40.

Carver, S.M., Lehrer, R., Connell, T. and Erickson, J. (1992). Learning by hypermedia design: Issues of assessment and implementation.Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 385–404.

Cole, M. (1997). Cultural psychology: a once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Harel, I. (1991). Children designers: Interdisciplinary constructions for learning and knowing mathematics in a computer-rich school. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–32.

Harel, I, & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Harris, J.B. (2008). TPACK in inservice education: Assisting experienced teachers’ planned improvisations. In AACTE Committee on Innovation & Technology (Eds.). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 251-271). New York, NY: Routledge.

Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2006, July). Planned improvisations: Technology-supported learning activity design in social studies. Session presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, San Diego, CA. Retrieved March 9, 2009 from http://center.uoregon.edu/ISTE/NECC2006/program/search_results_details.php?sessionid=13514149

John, P. D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483-498.

Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation & Technology (Eds.). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 3-29). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning by design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education. Retrieved June 29, 2004, from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/projects/lbd/pdfs/faclbdprac.pdf.

Lehrer, R. (1993). Authors of knowledge: Patterns of hypermedia design. In S. Lajoie & S. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 197–227). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.

Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16, 233-263.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Russell, M., O’Dwyer, L. M., Bebell, D., & Tao, W. (2007). How teachers’ uses of technology vary by tenure and longevity. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37, 393-417.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Stodolsky, S. S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in math and social studies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Vygotsky, L. S.(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yinger, R. (1979). Routines in teacher planning. Theory into Practice, 18(3), 163-169.