Tag Archives: TCPK

Transforming Teaching and Learning through PD – {a better late than never posting;)}

During Module A discussion, the need for educational technology related professional development for teachers was highlighted as necessary in equipping teachers for technology use in their classroom. The specifications of professional development were not thoroughly described in the discussions, which welcomes Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) detailed explanation of effective professional development using a “learning-technology-by-approach design” (p.1035). This approach incorporates TPCK and focuses “on learning by doing, and less so on overt lecturing and traditional teaching. Design is learned by becoming a practitioner, albeit for the duration of the course, not merely by learning about practice (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p.1035). TPCK encourages professional development in an alternative process than is typical through workshops; professional development needs to be an integration of learning about the technology (content) and learning to use the technology in an authentic learning context (pedagogy). “Standard techniques of teacher professional development or faculty development, such as workshops or stand-alone technology courses, are based on the view that technology is self-contained and emphasize this divide between how and where skills are learned (e.g., workshops) and where they are to be applied (e.g., class- rooms)” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 31). Also key to TPCK, is the learning not of specific programs – software or hardware, but of the underlying principles of technology use. This is essential as “newer technologies often disrupt the status quo, requiring teachers to reconfigure not just their understanding of technology but of all three components [i.e. content, knowledge, pedagogy]” (Mishra & Koehler, 2016, p.1030). Developing a repertoire as described by Wasley, Hampel and Clark (1997) and quoted by Mishra and Koehler (2006) as ‘‘a variety of techniques, skills, and approaches in all dimensions of education that teachers have at their fingertips’’ (p. 45) helps to equip teachers to move from a professional development experience into their classrooms and choose the technology tools that will best meet the needs of their students. This supports Petrie’s (1986) extension of Schulman’s aphorism, “those who can, do; those who understand, teach” (Shulman, 1986b, p. 14) as he describes understanding as needing to be “linked to judgment and action, to the proper uses of understanding in the forg­ing of wise pedagogical decisions” (as quoted in Schulman, 1987, p.14).

The term “transformation” that Schulman (1987) uses to refer to the experience that occurs as content knowledge is passed from teacher to student provides an effective visual image. He describes this transformation as  “the capacity of a teacher 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 (p.15). This transformation offers opportunity for individualized learning, teaching for the student rather than at the student, and aligns well with my teaching experience at present:

One example of incorporating PCK in my own teaching is in constructing individualized student learning plans for each of my students. As a distance learning teacher, I work with each student individually rather than offering a standard course or program. Conversations are held prior to the start of the learning year to design a student learning plan that consists of curriculum, resources, activities, etc. that cover the content area prescribed for the student’s grade level, but also adheres to the student’s interests, abilities, learning environment and effective ways of learning. Throughout the year, the student learning plan evolves as necessary, but again with the individual student’s needs guiding the changes. As students share their learning with me throughout the year, I provide specific feedback often suggesting areas that they can grow in their representation of ideas, as well as designing or recommending specific assignments to further their learning experiences. Although the forms of transformation may look different in a distance learning context, the process of moving from “personal comprehension to preparing for the comprehension of others” (Schulman, 1987, p.16) still occurs through preparation, representation, instructional selections, adaptations and tailoring. (Schulman, 1987).

 

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. (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.

Elementary TPCK – PCK

As an elementary school teacher, albeit in the upper grades, I have to teach every subject all the time. Of course, I am not an expert in everything that I am called upon to teach and this is where the PCK framework is essential in order for me to be successful in my teaching practice. Because I am with my students for the entire day I am able to form a relationship with them as a class, which then informs my knowledge about the processes and methods required for successful teaching and learning in the class. Over the years I have been able to increase my content knowledge of all the subjects, through my own learning and through interacting with the students, finding new and different ways to present the materials as I become more knowledgeable in the content. The advent of digital technology has enabled me to be more knowledgeable about the curriculum and the specific content that I am teaching as the information is more readily available, and there is a plethora of ideas suitable for use in the classroom to create my own lessons to benefit the learning styles and abilities of my students. I have noticed over the years as I become more comfortable with the content I am teaching, that the pedagogy of teaching becomes easier, I can focus on the learning of the students rather than making sure my understanding is clear. Also in being with one classroom of students throughout the day makes it easier for me to relate the content of what we are learning in mathematics to what we are learning in science, or art, and show the students how all things are connected and not in convenient compartments. It is a standing joke in my grade 7 class that whenever I point out that we are doing math in science, or reading in math, the students all say “It’s all connected – mind blown”, but at least they are starting to get the idea.

One of my favorite science units to teach is Structures, Mechanisms, and Forces. During this unit the students build a variety of structures out of different materials, for different purposes, and make observations about the process. As a way to bring the unit together at the end we do a study of Rube Goldberg and his fantastic machines. As a whole class we look at a variety of his cartoons depicting a few of his fantastic machines. We brainstorm about the actions that we are seeing as a class. Then we focus on just one of them to determine how the machine works and what forces are acting upon each structure to cause the movement or action. Each student writes out the process of the machine from start to finish. We then compare them to note any discrepancies and students justify the reasoning behind their process. The next step is for them to get another fantastic machine that has been divided into the individual actions and put it together like a puzzle to show the actions and functions of each part of this specific machine. This is usually done in a small collaborative group so the students can benefit from the collective ideas. After this practice, the students design and draw their own fantastic machine in the style of Rube Goldberg. They have to show all the actions and forces used to create the machine, and the process in which functions using at least 10 steps and three types of simple machines. This is done on grid paper as a scale drawing. The last step is for the students to work with a partner to create one of their own fantastic machines for a specific purpose, such as make a ping pong ball fall into a cup using at least 10 steps and a few metres away from the start. This is a way to take the ideas from the drawing board into a working model. Lots of trial and error, students learn perseverance and the value of testing for mistakes,  but lots of fun in the learning too.

 

 

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