I really like the PCK and TPACK frameworks. It’s important to take into consideration the context in which each of these elements are framed and applied.
Thinking back to teacher’s college, I had general education courses that linked to pedagogy knowledge and in the final year of my concurrent program, we had curriculum/instruction/assessment courses in our teachables that link to the PCK intersection. Within just the PCK realm, I notice there are many inherent assumptions around how a subject should be taught. For example, in STEM courses at the secondary level, we often assess through tests although we may have other products (e.g., reports, assignments, presentations). Other courses, like visual arts, lean less towards written tests. In the last high school I was teaching in, PCK was not always respected and there was a general push from the administration and department heads from other departments saying that there shouldn’t be written exams (e.g., phys ed, special ed, arts) when these individuals either do not do exams in general, or do not teach science.
In terms of technology, it’s important to consider how it’s used for learning. These needs to be addressed with the general challenges involving pedagogy and the discipline specific needs (e.g., conventions, preconceptions, skills). Without the context, the specific technology becomes a stand alone software/hardware that will likely be replaced through technological turn over and its affordances skimmed over.
Example of PCK
Chemistry nomenclature of binary ionic compounds
As part of a different course, I created an e-module to illustrate the need for constructivism when learning how to name binary ionic compounds. This was based on my experience as a student teacher when I worked with an English Language Learner. There’s a scenario block included that lets you talk to a student and you can work on using constructivist methods like probing. It also highlights the importance of assessment.
Using the usual naming method of keep the name of the metal and use the name of the non-metal, drop its ending, and add -ide, there are misconceptions that arise from the instructional method if it’s left just like this.
Strategy to overcome this:
- Introduce the strategy and have students try naming something
- Start with success strategy: build the momentum by highlighting that students are doing well already, praise them (e.g., magnesium bromide)
- It would be helpful to also explain why we’re doing this (i.e., naming the ions that the compound is formed from)
- Repeat with another example (e.g., lithium iodide)
- Introduce disequilibrium with a targeted question (e.g., aluminum nitride; the idea is to use something that is not a halide)
- Depending on the population of learners, people may think that the ending of a non-metal is the last three letters. This is observed with the halogens, but it’s not the case for all non-metals. It’s more based on the sound of the word rather than an actual pattern
- Take up the answer and highlight that the ending of a non-metal isn’t always the last three letters of the word
- Iterate with more assessment, introduce another targeted question (e.g., some oxide)
- Students will likely be confused at this point and frustrated that there really isn’t a pattern
- Have students create a word wall for the non-metal to non-metal ions
- Transition to practice
- With technology, I’ve used Kahoot! to get students to name compounds. The distractors are based on common misconceptions (e.g., just using the names of the elements with no change, not using the periodic table and picking a similar sounding element like Mn vs. Mg, incorrect non-metal endings, and adding -ide to the metal name) As students progress with the concepts of nomenclature, the distractors will mix with the naming methods for covalent compounds, multivalent ionic compounds, and polyatomic ions.