Monthly Archives: June 2017

Shulman (1986) defined pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as blended pedagogy and subject matter knowledge for effective teaching. PCK requires educators who are knowledgeable about their subjects and who can teach those subjects in a clear and effective manner utilizing their previously accumulated instructional experience. Mishra and Koehler (2007) extended Shulman’s concept of PCK by introducing technology, an aspect that has become a crucial part of modern education. Educators practice teaching in highly complex, dynamic classroom settings (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986) that require them to shift and evolve their understanding regularly. Thus, effective teaching depends on integrated knowledge from different areas: knowledge of student understanding and learning, knowledge of subject matter, and further, knowledge of technology. TPCK incorporates all the teaching elements educators need to understand to create an effective technology-enhanced learning environment for different types of learners.

One example of TPCK in a beginner programming class can be the use of Scratch. Scratch is a graphically oriented programming tool that can alleviate the steep learning curve or fear of programming as a beginner. Also, it helps learners understand difficult programming concepts easily.

References:

Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J.G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75-95.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 2214-2226). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

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

Shulman (1986) highlights why teacher assessments should move beyond evaluations of content knowledge related to subject areas. He argues for the importance of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) which “represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction” (Shulman, 1987). PCK refers to practices and decision-making regarding how to teach particular content. He argues that our understanding of teaching knowledge should include the capacity ‘to transform the content knowledge he or she possesses into forms that are pedagogically powerful and yet adaptive to the variations in ability and background presented by the students” (Shulman, 1987). Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006) introduce the concept of TPCK, in which knowledge of the how technology connects to PCK. I think the conception of teachers as deliverers of content is still somewhat prevalent. The TPCK concepts provide a valuable framework to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the knowledge required to design optimal learning environments.

One example I have done recently was using Minecraft to design and build a research-based HBC fur trading fort that we went on a field trip to. They designed the landscape to resemble land around the Hudson Bay and studied the habitats of beavers. We then designed a game to play inside the Minecraft world that was representative of how the Canadian fur trade functioned.  Math was integrated throughout due to the fort construction and trading. We used the actual ratios for trade that the HBC used. Throughout the game-play kids had to convert different types and amounts of pelts into various quantities of trade goods represented in the game.

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

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. The foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1)1-23.

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

I first came across the concept of PCK and TPCK in ETEC 511 last summer and the concept has stuck with me since then because I think it perfectly captures what I wish to learn from my experiences in the MET program. Before I was a Math teacher, I worked several co-op jobs in the IT industry, where I worked with many people that had strong technical backgrounds. They had experience not only in using technology, but also in building software and the likes. Upon reflection, if those people were put in a classroom, would it make them effective teachers? Not necessarily, because teaching with technology versus utilizing technology are very different things. On the flip side, being a seasoned veteran teacher doesn’t mean that they would be able to pick up any piece of educational software, and be effective at using it to teacher. Between knowing how to use technology, and teaching, there must be a bridge between these two very different knowledge domains, and I think Mishra and Koehler (2006)’s TPCK presents the idea quite well.

One of the most classic example what I consider to be TPCK in the realm of Mathematical teaching comes with the use of graphing technology. As a high school math teacher, one of the most important tools at the senior levels is graphing technology because it allows learners to visualize many of the concepts taught in class. The graphing calculator is a tool that can be used to simplify calculations, to assess learning, and for users to potentially explore creating mathematical tools through programming. In order to effectively teach with a graphing calculator, a teacher must first have the requisite mathematical knowledge and also the pedagogical skills to deliver the content, or otherwise, they must have the PCK needed to teach the course. TPCK takes this knowledge to another level, as teachers must learn ways to teach students how to use the calculator effectively, or in different situations, use graphing software to demonstrate concepts to students.

• Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Text accessible from Google Scholar.

Shulman’s (1986) PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge) theory and Mishra & Koehler’s (2006) more developed TPACK/TPCK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) framework are two acronyms that I had never heard prior to these articles. Mishra & Koehler (2006) delve into both of these terms and explored, during a five-year period, ways in which technology can be added into a teacher’s educational pedagogy. They suggest, as has been mentioned in previous articles throughout this course, the implementation of technology into a classroom is not sufficient enough to make an educational impact.

Shulman (1987) began his research by comparing the teaching practices of new and experienced educators and recorded the ways in which their pedagogy dictated what was (or was not) taught in their classes

Mishra & Koehler (2006) discuss that in order to obtain a proper understanding of “thoughtful pedagogical use of technology” (p.1017), one must develop Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). They realized that technology was being added into lessons but not pedagogically thought out as to its usefulness for the students. In a quote from the Mishra & Koehler (2006) article, they state, “In other words, merely knowing how to use technology is not the same as knowing how to teach with it” (p. 1033). Educators have to have a purpose for adding/using technology in their class. As the diagram I added in the previous post demonstrated, technology has to be added for a number of reasons.

One example of PCK in my classroom is by using the Jigsaw Method. The Jigsaw Method is a cooperative learning strategy that allows students to become well versed in one topic and then break off into mini groups to teach the concepts to their peers. This concept allows students to understand a larger concept but taught by their peers. I find that when my students are engaged in the content with their peers, as opposed to me ‘being the sage on the stage’, the learning curve that occurs is significant. I act as a facilitator and can then roam around to the different groups checking for understanding. While I have not yet added technology to the Jigsaw Method, I could get students to prepare mini summaries of their topic on a Google Doc where they could then share with their peers. The students could add their own thoughts to the shared document and it would expand on this collaborative learning method.

References

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

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. The foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1)1-23. Text accessible from Google Scholar.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Text accessible from Google Scholar.

Shulman (1986) described how testing teacher knowledge and competence in subject matter is not a new idea or practice. Historically, teachers were tested on skills in literacy and numeracy, losing points for different errors. Tests were focused on content and subject matter to be taught. However, today’s teachers are assessed on their “capacity to teach,” focusing on, “organization in preparing and presenting instructional plans, evaluation, recognition of individual differences, cultural awareness, and understanding youth” (Shulman, 1986). Shulman’s view encompasses what British Columbia’s Ministry of Education introduced with the redesigned curriculum model. The “Know-Do-Understand” model contains three elements, “the Content (Know), Curricular Competencies (Do), and Big Idea (Understand) all work together to support deeper learning” (BC Ministry of Education, 2015). Shulman’s view on the role of the teacher demonstrated that there was a greater need than competence in subject matter and knowledge from the teacher, but rather providing a learning environment where students take ownership over their learning. “Teaching necessarily begins with a teacher’s understanding of what is to be learned and how it is to be taught. It proceeds through a series of activities during which the students are provided specific instruction and opportunities for learning, though the learning itself ultimately remains the responsibility of the student” (Shulman, 1987).

PCK includes a fusion of knowledge about pedagogy, content, and pedagogical knowledge, with the addition of specialized knowledge. TPACK extends further by including a specialized knowledge of technology, and how it can provide opportunities for deeper learning and enhanced learning communities. Mishra and Koehler (2006) discuss that one of the problems surrounding technology integration is the lack of support for teachers. “Part of the problem, we argue, has been a tendency to only look at the technology and not how it is used. Merely introducing technology to the educational process is not enough” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

As a district coding teacher, I spend one day a week visiting different classrooms to support teachers with the new Applied Design, Skills, and Technologies curriculum, specifically on how to implement coding. Many teachers are hesitant to teach coding because the concept is new to them, and they feel they lack the pedagogical knowledge. Facilitating unplugged activities that teach the fundamentals of computer science, such as algorithms, helps provide scaffolding to learners and teachers. This program set up by the district provides support for teachers, providing them a teacher with specialized knowledge and resources to teach coding, aligned with the new ADST curriculum. Activities and content include introduction to basic programming and algorithms. Students work through unplugged activities to begin building computational thinking skills. I also spend time with teachers after the workshop to demonstrate how I am using coding cross-curricular to demonstrate deep thinking about learning specific concepts or skills that transfer to science. In my classroom, as we worked through our understanding of algorithms, we related it to our life cycle unit in science. We looked at how we use algorithms in our daily lives. After we planted our seeds, students worked in pairs to write out an algorithm for planting a seed. Providing rich learning environments that are cross-curricular help students develop computational thinking. Providing students with these building blocks set them up for success when they begin coding in Scratch. Students are connecting how coding relates to math and language arts, and how they are developing their core competencies through their learning journey.

References:

BC Ministry of Education, Introduction to British Columbia’s Redesigned Curriculum, 2015. https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/sites/curriculum.gov.bc.ca/files/pdf/curriculum_intro.pdf

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

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. The foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1)1-23.

I found the concept of PCK very related to James Gee’s (2007) concept of “semiotic domains” which deals with groups or concepts that are hard to understand from the outside. Consider the analogy of being introduced to hockey.  It is not enough to read and learn the rules of hockey.  Nor is it enough for an outside party to be really good at explaining it.  To truly understand, you must also watch and be invited to play the game (at whatever level), observe the history, rivalries, etc.  You must get involved and become a “tribe member” at level that transcends mere anthropological observation.  The same idea can be applied to jazz music, physics, gourmet cooking…whatever.  So, in some sense, PCK is about knowing the best way to induct new tribe members.  The addition of technology to the mix, or TPACK, is PCK while using technology without falling into the trap of “tech for the sake of tech” or limitations of “enhancement only” in Sarah’s SAMR model from our Design of TELEs posts.

Here is a recent example of PCK from my own practice.  In one of my courses, we do PBL all year.  Billy chose to design and make a bike speedometer because he “always wanted to know how fast he was going, but couldn’t afford a speedometer.”  We knew enough to first teach him how to code and use Arduinos (simple computer boards) as well as basic algebra.  Then, over three weeks he delved on his own into the content for calculating speed and how magnetic switches work, and came up with this.
We knew enough to create the conditions in which he could follow his passion to learn more about technology, math, and physics.  Through these experiences, the core of my practice is evolving into “how can I best guide students to become tribe members?”

Gee, J. 2007. Semiotic Domains: Is playing video games a “waste of time?” In What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (pp.17-45). New York: Palgrave and Macmillian.

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