Monthly Archives: June 2017

This is the first time I have encountered these acronyms, but have found them very useful when assessing my own teaching philosophy and practice. I see Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) as “the how”, “the why” and “the what” of teaching. How and why we go about teaching our students. The best practices to foster engagement and the strategies we use to work alongside our students. The “what” is the content (C) – the curriculum that students are to learn. The addition of T for technological knowledge (TPCK) are the additional tools that we use in conjunction with our pedagogy to facilitate the delivery of content. Mishra and Koehler (2006) point out that how this technological knowledge is used is important. Technology should not be there just for the sake of having technology, but should serve a meaningful purpose.

An example of TPCK in my teaching was the design and construction of the Sphero Olympics. This combined the basics of block coding in Lightning Lab for the Spheros in order to compete, and the engineering challenge of creating events (and equipment) for the Olympics. Students were given the opportunity to just explore Sphero, driving it around like a remote control car. It was interesting to see how quickly they became interested in the “coding” aspect. When they noticed the shared forums on the App they became interested in what they could “do” with Sphero. From there students brainstormed the type of events that Sphero might participate in. Swimming. Track (including relays). Wrestling. Long jump (complete with sand pit). Dance (they got creative). Archery. Students were grouped into events and created the competition space and any equipment needed. For example, the construction of the ramp for the long jump with scraps from the woodwork exploration. When this was complete, students were given the opportunity to move from one venue to another participating in dry runs of each of the activities. Some were timed, others a goal needed to be met. The students programed their Spheros for each event (except wrestling – they got to knock their wrestlers off the mat) and the competition was on!

It was a bit messier (!) and took longer than I anticipated  and some events ended earlier than others, but students were thrilled to have the opportunity to explore different features of the program and create other challenges while they waited. At the closing ceremonies students reflected on their learning – the successes and challenges – and suggested new events that the next rotation of students could participate in. I had many reasons “why” I chose to incorporate technology into this design challenge. One of the most important was that it brought together a very diverse group of students (many with written output challenges) and leveled the playing field for them. Students could shine in their own areas and took leadership roles with their peers who were struggling and didn’t understand how to do something (figure out some of the programming for example). It wasn’t perfect, but a great start.

References

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

Shulman talks about PCK or Pedagogical Content Knowledge and the intersection of these areas and the how it is a “special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form of professional understanding.” (Shulman, 1987) PCK 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). In his paper he provides a framework to observe teacher instruction and what is needed to create a knowledge base for teachers. He identifies that it is much more than knowing the content or knowing how but the connection of the two that creates superior lessons.

Mishra and Koehler (2006) extend Shulman’s work with the addition of T to PCK which incorporates technology into the framework. “TPCK is the basis of good teaching with technology and requires an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge and to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones.” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, Pg. 1029) They aim to extend Shulman’s work with a framework that supports effective integration of technology into today’s classrooms as well as an idea of how to support teachers learning around developing lessons that maximize the interaction of these TPCK elements.

An example for me around TPCK would be the work that I have done this year with coding. We have been started with hour of code, which is a sequenced program that teaches the basics of coding. From there we moved into Scratch and went through a list of tasks designed to build awareness of the different aspects of coding. Finally students created a story or an inquiry question, generally related to a topic of study this year, and created a game to either tell the story or support a student learning the knowledge from the inquiry question. The result was better than I could have imagined and feels like I discovered the spot in the middle that Mishra and Koehler describe where pedagogy, technology and content mix perfectly. Students have truly had a multidisciplinary approach as they used math to solve movement issues, design skills as they tried, failed, and tried again to make their games work, and much more. Pedagogically as each student worked through the process with their own design using an inquiry lens they were definitely captivated and motivated to preserve through the tough time. As we get ready to take our games to student arcade I am excited for them to be able to show off their learning.

References:
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. The foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1)1-23.

One of the key points I took away from Shulman’s article was the concept of transformation. This idea seems timeless to me and even though he was focused on the PCK framework the idea that “comprehended ideas must be transformed in some manner if they are to be taught.”(Shulman, L.S. 1987) can be applied even in our 21st century context.  He stated that preparation, representation, instructional selections, adaptations and tailoring are a continuum from “personal comprehension to preparing for the comprehension of others”(Shulman, L.S. 1987). I especially like how he describes adaption and tailoring as “fitting a suit” or as we describe it “a personalization of learning.”  I believe that technology has opened up this idea of  “tailoring” to such an extent that students if given the right technological tools can customize and explore learning goals in ways that my generation could never have imagined.  For example take Scratch if you run students through the google CS First lessons you notice they will start to build projects that are completely individualized and often done on their own time.  Tailoring is when you give them the ability to control their own learning and this when they start to self regulate.

I wanted to look at this quote in Mishra& Koehler’s paper on TPACK; “newer technologies often disrupt the status quo, requiring teachers to reconfigure not just their understanding of technology but of all three components.”Mishra, Koehler (2006).  This is struck a chord because 3 years ago I introduced Minecraft into my grade 5 class and it has really changed the way I teach my students.  When I want to take my students to Mars we build a rocket in Minecraft and blast off to the red planet. When I want them to learn about the Coast Salish people we run a survival server where they build a longhouse and have to find food and shelter before they perish.  When I want them to learn about France we build the Eiffel tower and place a French restaurant inside it complete with menu’s.  The virtual space has transformed the way I teach my students effecting my pedagogy and content. Before Minecraft I would certainly have used many interactive tools or apps to teach my students about these subjects but a Multi User Virtual Environment’s sandbox, interdisciplinary nature brings a level of excitement and intrinsic motivation from my students I have never before.  I have also had many other technologies guide my pedagogy and content in a new direction. Google cardboard VR, 3D printing and raspberry Pi’s are all fairly new pieces of “Tech” to me and have altered my PACK framework significantly.

References

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

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

“Teaching necessarily begins with a teacher’s understanding of what is to be learned and how it is to be taught.”   (Shulman, 1987)

Shulman’s view on the role of the teacher encompasses more than simply a vast knowledge of subject matter. At the time of the paper, this concept was perceived as new. Today, however, education has already taken on the corkscrew roller coaster, blending pedagogical knowledge of how to teach well, with content knowledge of the facts of what to teach. Shulman goes on to say “… the learning itself ultimately remains the responsibility of the students” (Shulman, 1987, p. 7), clarifying that both the teacher and student play a vital role in one’s learning journey. Content cannot simply be conveyed, nor can teacher’s knowledge of pedagogy be applied without the involvement of the student.

Mishra & Koehler (2006) expand on the framework of the PCK to include technology.

“Teachers need to know not just the subject matter they teach but also the manner in which the subject matter can be changed by the application of technology.” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Essentially in combination with each other, TPACK would be effectively knowing how to teach a subject with technology. Therefore, one particular example comes to mind in my own practice, in relation to STEM learning.

Recently, I had the opportunity to explore landforms with my students as part of our geology content in science. The content aspects of this unit we were exploring had to do with how landforms change over time (due to erosion, deposition and human activity). In order for my students to gain their best understanding of the difference between erosion and deposition, we conducted several sand, water and ice experiments as a class. I combined what I knew about hands-on learning, questioning and scaffolding to assist the students in understanding the scientific content and vocabulary (PCK). However, for my tech hungry students, this was not enough. Since I teach a relatively young age group very much into video games, I also incorporated my knowledge of Minecraft to deepen their learning.

As an extension to our unit, we used Minecraft to explore various landforms that could exist and why they might exist in some biomes and not others. Very quickly, my students gained a solid grasp of what landforms existed on Earth and how they differed. We then furthered our investigations to examine changes over time. Linking Minecraft with our sand, water and ice experiments, students demonstrated their understanding of the processes of erosion and deposition through a series of Minecraft landforms they built. In order to do so, students had to question the nature of the changes and provide concrete examples on their Minecraft servers. Overall, their understanding of the content had been changed and improved upon with the application of technology, in conjunction with sound teaching practices and solid content understanding.

References

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.

Shulman (1986) described how qualification and eligibility tests historically revolved around basic content like reading, writing, arithmetic skills, needing teachers to demonstrate subject matter knowledge before teaching. However mere knowledge does not guarantee effective instruction, requiring interplay between content and pedagogy. The pendulum swings back and forth regarding how new knowledge is acquired, with implications for classroom management, organizing activities, planning lessons and judging understanding among others. Content is represented in different ways to accommodate students, with teachers asking questions at various Bloom taxonomy levels, probing alternative views to accumulating wisdom of practice. Shulman (1987) highlights an issue that teaching is conducted without a history of practice or audience of peers. Though learning ultimately remains student responsibility, educators design teaching for comprehension, reasoning, transformation and reflection so unknowing comes to articulate what they know. Transformation involves preparation, selection, adaptation within instruction and evaluation, bridging comprehension and thinking for students through lecture and demonstration towards cooperative learning and reciprocal teaching. Learners work through misconceptions and expectations, reasoning through discussion cycling seamlessly between phases.

An example of PCK that comes to mind is teaching basic motion concepts, going beyond reading definitions of displacement, velocity and acceleration in textbooks, to comparing and contrasting scalars and vectors, making everyday connections to speedometers and marketing to help audiences build upon previous knowledge. The significance in distinguishing quantities that have magnitude with and without direction, needs to convince learners why they cannot maintain pre-existing beliefs when confronted with contradictions. Science naturally has self-corrective features in building increasingly complex models to explain observations and make predictions. Labs can be teacher-directed or student-centred to investigate terminal velocity and ramp height for example. Technology comes in when motion sensors are utilized to construct position-time and velocity-time graphs in real time, learning how to interpret and change between graphs. Simulations like PhET Moving Man can be used to introduce, teach or reinforce concept knowledge.

References

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.

TPACK is a framework for online learning that has three distinct areas: Technological Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge and Content Knowledge.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) relates to the pedagogical strategies we use to teach our course content. This area is created with the intersection of Content Knowledge (this is what we are teaching) and Pedagogical knowledge (method we use to teach the content).  Content knowledge is generally acquired through undergraduate studies in a subject area or professional development.  Examples of Technological knowledge can be things such as video services such as YouTube and Khan Academy, or laptops and projectors, cameras, Google Apps for Education (Docs, Sheets, Classroom) to name a few.  Further, Pedagogical knowledge can be using methods such as direct instruction, inquiry, or project based learning etc.

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) is knowing which type of technology will be most well suited to deliver the content to our students.  

When these three areas overlap, we are left with TPACK: the idea that we can use technology to aid in our pedagogical approach to teaching the content to our students.

An example of how I use PCK in my practice is in my Marketing 11 class.  Students need to be proficient in the concept of a target market.  My current class is made up of individuals who are all very interested in fast, expensive cars and so I found this to be a great opportunity to explore the course content.  Students often think that just because they purchase something, they are automatically the target market for that product.  For example, a couple of the students own new, full size trucks and through classroom discussion thought that Ford and Dodge were actively advertising to them.  Through different exercises (classroom discussions, extensive print and video ad analysis) we were able to learn about target markets; the hope with choosing vehicles was so that students could interact with the content, reflect on their own biases and opinions and construct new knowledge leading to deeper learning.

References:

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