As a teacher who was trained first in a faculty of education and then went back to school for degrees in French and English I found this week’s reading interesting. In Alberta and Saskatchewan at least, elementary generalists are trained to know a little bit about everything and an undergrad degree in education contains one class in each of the content areas plus many courses in pedagogy. Moving into the classroom, however, teachers realize they need to not only know how to teach (PK) but also what to teach (CK). I have been in the classroom long enough to see a pendulum swing from phonics instruction to whole language to phonics instruction and I see that many teachers are missing an understanding of phonics and how language is structured and are not able to include that in their teaching. As such, professional development opportunities become essential. In my division in the past couple of years there has been a fund developed to send school teachers back to university for maths courses (once I’m done my masters I’m definitely planning on taking advantage of this). As Shulman argues, there is definitely a balance for classroom teachers between all of the elements of TPCK and I think an effective teacher must be a master of not only the content (many is the university prof who knows their content inside out and backwards but is unable to teach it) but also the pedagogy and how technology augments the learning. As an elementary teacher, I see the math and science we do as being foundational and this is where a teacher with a tenuous hold on math concepts can still teach the math but may inadvertently introduce misconceptions to students that have to be corrected later in their learning journey. Something as innocuous as using “makes” instead of “equals” (ie. 3+7 makes 10 instead of 3+7 equals 10) makes it difficult for a learner to make sense of algebra later when the equal sign does not always appear at the end of a question. For this reason, I think it’s a good thing that many universities are moving to an education degree that begins with a bachelors in a content area followed by a 1-2 year education after degree.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 -14
Dear Tracy,
I like that you are tackling a key area of debate.
Transdiciplinary is a recent buzz word. I see this as challenging the idea about having content knowledge and the concept of generalist. As much as it is important to have specialized teachers, educators are still expcected to teach skillsets and connect content in a transdiciplinary way. What are your thoughts about generalist and the idea of transdiciplinary?
Alice
Yes, I think transdisciplinarity is essential. Last year, our board worked hard to introduce the concept of disciplinary literacy to classrooms and I have to admit before delving into it that I thought I was already doing this… teaching reading and writing in science and social… without realizing that “reading like a scientist” is not really the same as “reading in science”.
Lent, R. (2015). This is Disciplinary Literacy. Corwin Pr.
Hi Tracy,
Reading your post reminded of this discussion we had during one of my recent classes at UBC. We were all high school teachers in this class. There were a few students who had done with bachelors that were combined with their teaching degree and the rest of us had done a separate bachelor’s degree that had a major in a teachable subject and then did the undergrad in teaching. I understand your point where you think it is important to have complete content knowledge before having pedagogical knowledge. However, I don’t think if that is possible for teachers who get a general degree without a teachable major and want to teach elementary schools. Although, the misconceptions (like the example you gave) take place in elementary education. Therefore, I am curious if there is a solution to bring balance between CK and PK after all. Thank you for your insights!
It’s a good question. Even as I wrote the post I wondered if I was actually suggesting that teachers should have both an undergrad degree in a content area and a degree in teaching… what a perfect world that would be where we all have 6-8 years to get credentialed and then head into the classroom in a position that pays teachers commensurate with their education… It’s just not possible. I think there is some degree of learning while on the job and there must be an expectation of continuing education in order to meet the demands of the classroom. Technology is constantly changing and there is no way to graduate from a program and just be done learning… especially when considering the interplay of all TPCK elements.
Hi Tracy,
I like what you are saying about the balance between pedagogy and content (and I suppose then how that impacts technology). It reminded me of the first year I was selling an online tool for math learning. I would go into EVERY faculties office regardless of what they were teaching and try to peddle it. I was laughed out of some offices as they taught 3rd or 4th year combinatronics or something equally as challenging and my tech tool was so obviously NOT appropriate for the ways of learning in that class. I learned from that experience to understand a bit about the course content and common teaching strategies to see IF my tech tool would really support their learning BEFORE I entered the office. It was probably my first experience with the TPCK triad, even though I didn’t realize it at the time.
All this said – I think you are right about finding the sweet spot between the two/three in order to be most effective!
It’s true what they say… know your audience! I find every time I approach a kindergarten teacher with a digital portfolio for students they push back with “5-year-olds can’t do it alone!” and I push back with, “it takes a lot of patience, but yes they can…”