Technology is here to stay. Yet education is still one of the only businesses asking whether or not we should use technology. If we take the time to understand the constraints of how these technologies influence what teachers do or do not do in their classrooms we have the opportunity to rethink teacher education and teacher professional development. If we fail to do this we run the risk of teachers having and inadequate experience with technology for teaching and learning (Koehler, Cain, & Mishra, 2013). Many teachers having not been educated in a digitally rich environment do not feel they are sufficiently prepared and do not appreciate or value technology as relevant to teaching and learning (Koehler, Cain, & Mishra, 2013). We are battling the changing of mindsets instead of changing technology. At the end of the day we have to remember that whether we like it or not “technology is used to support student-centred, personalized, authentic learning for all students” (Learning with Technology, 2015). Aristotle himself declared that the ultimate test of understanding is based on the ability to transform what you know into the ability to teach (Shulman, 1986). It is imperative to ensure that teachers have an experience of technology that translates to actual application to the classroom. Teacher training thus far has equated to the click training of Pavlov’s Dogs. “Click here” has not transformed into actual influence in the classroom as technology has been long held as siloed professional development. We have spent many years responding to the lack of integration by deskilling of teachers and promoting the use of black masters, teacher guides, and recipes for learning. We have reduced teaching to a transmission of knowledge. We in many ways have done this to ourselves hiring teachers who are teaching with their nose in a book in combination with the expectation of teaching to the standardized test. Here and now we have the opportunity to achieve standards without standardization (Shulman, 1987). One sure fire way to make sure that technology is part and parcel with everyday knowledge and content is to stop inservicing teachers that technology is a separate and independent knowledge domain (Mishra, & Koehler, 2006). There are those who demand that we fire any teacher who will not comply with the mindless transmission of ready made knowledge. . (Loveless & Griffith, 2014). Have we gone to far in the deprofessionalization and deskilling of teachers as experts who can navigate the content, knowledge, and needs of the individual student?
My role is to ensure that PD transcends simple click training that is outside of the context and content of the classroom. This type of professional development is neither trivial nor obvious when we are asking teachers to convert these tools to actual classroom practice (Mishra, & Koehler, 2006). Teachers do not simply be need to be trained in the use of technology. There needs to be an established purpose, environment, and use of tools than enhances the content alone in a pedagogical way that meets the individual needs of the student. The TPACK we were presented with parallels the Learning and Technology Policy Framework here in Alberta. We are invited to have a conversation with all stakeholders about how technology enhanced environments affect student centred learning. Take for example the examination and demonstration of learning for this UDL (Universal Drawing for Learning…excuse the pun). Students were asked to examine the nature of Osmosis of Cells. In this case students had the freedom of expression based on their needs, interests, and abilities using a Google Drawing or traditional paper to share the understanding of the YouTube video demonstration. In another example students were able to represent their understanding of the excretory system using a sequence of GIFS. In each case the teacher was able to navigate the knowledge and content based on the needs of the child using technology as a vehicle for this type of transformative learning.
Here you can also see my reflection of the TPACK with the LTPF found here in Alberta
References:
Koehler, M.J., Cain, W., & Mishra, P. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?
Learning with Technology | Overview. (2015, September 23). Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/learning-with-technology/overview/
Loveless, D & Griffith, B. (2014). Critical Pedagogy for a Polymodal World. Sense Publishers. Read Chapter 1, Pages 1- 22
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
Nicely stated, Trisha. I agree with you that we need to stop looking at technology as a separate tool from the learning environment. The work that I have looked at related to teacher onboarding to the use of digital tools in the classrooms suggests that teachers seeing the utility of it as being essential to the adoption of the tools.
Love the diagram! Excellent example of tools serving the learning! Thank you for sharing.
Hi Trisha
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I have to agree that the change necessary in the education world needs to begin during the professional development program. Having only graduated from the program two years ago I have to admit that I was surprised by the lack of information that was passed down regarding using technology. We have a check list of things that we needed to cover (aboriginal education, special education and technology) and it was presented as more of an obstacle.
As my career has progressed I have learned myself that technology is not just an add on. For our students learning experience to be truly enriched it needs to be connected and intertwined with our pedagogy and content.
What experiences could we provide to new teachers or student teachers to help with find their confidence in TPACK? How do we help more experienced teachers change their approach to technology?
Shayla
I think we really have to examine our professional development for educators with a critical eye. Just as we are so intensely focused on the education and pedagogy of our young students, we need equal attention and planning for the Andragogy of our adult learners. We need to look beyond the simple transmission of knowledge of information that could have been Googled to begin with . To be honest speaking as a consultant for educators, many of my colleagues are not trained, nor even know the premise of andragogy for their professional development experiences. I appreciated this article comparing the two terms and the advice of 5 key premises that can help shape an authentic and effective learning experience for our teachers https://elearningindustry.com/pedagogy-vs-andragogy-in-elearning-can-you-tell-the-difference
Can the learning bridge the gap between the PD and the classroom? What makes the learning become action?
I really enjoyed your extremely thorough examination of TPCK, especially as it relates to Alberta. I resonated with “Teachers do not simply be need to be trained in the use of technology. There needs to be an established purpose, environment, and use of tools than enhances the content alone in a pedagogical way that meets the individual needs of the student.” Preach!
Too often teachers are provided with PD that shows what could be done, but not necessarily how to do it, and even more rarely how to do it in their particular context. I could, for example, show my teachers around Google Classroom and show them a bunch of its capabilities, but I still feel they would be lost unless I was to model its classroom use for them with a specific course they’re teaching. In that vein I have a couple questions.
1) Do you feel that this modelling approach to training is the way to go?
2) My institution teaches many different courses, even within the math department, that are quite different from one another. Each of these courses may have several different tools that would be best. How would you suggest approaching training such a wide range of teachers on such a wide range of tools? It seems like such a monumental task 🙁
Thanks!
Scott
Scott you hit the nail on the head as always! You are right that this is the everest of PD models, but here is how I approach it:
1. INFORMED CHOICE. There is no perfect tool, perfect device, perfect platform. But we will encounter something that we love, that speaks to us, that we feel we (or more importantly our students) could do. There was a time in my district that the term “unified solution” was thrown around aggressively by our IT department. It has taken me two years of equally aggressive pushback to question the pedagogy informing this decision. In fact our school act outlines the imperative that educators be able to make the choice of the right tool to meet the learning needs of our students. Teachers making the choice, not our IT personnel. I have more that once had to ask for someones teaching degree when I was called out for introducing Google, coding, VR and more. The hopes of us being a Microsoft stronghold for business solutions in an educational environment is starting to crumble. Just as we cannot rely on transmitting one idea, one fact, or a specific knowledge set to our students, I need to apply the same methodology to my teachers. If I teach a tool then in 6 months it is going to change. Then you hear the outcry of “why would I learn this when it is just going to change”. I approach it from the skills of tool selection, tool functionality, and how to learn. If I teach you the concept of formative feedback in Google, teachers can apply this to other apps, extensions and programs. It is about what it can do not what the tool is. This has empowered my teachers in ways I did not imagine possible. I have had feedback from my teachers who are close to retirement who are in my Google Ninja program describing how they have never felt so capable in their careers. Choice allowed for this.
2. I have to WALK THE TALK! If I am using technology and training technology I have first been in a classroom beta testing it in the most rigorous ways possible. I make lessons, student templates, and classroom examples to support my suggestions and training. And yes I will be in the classroom with you to implement it after the PD as well. It is crazy busy, but this is where we see the uptake. I do not train you just how to use Google Slides for example. I have created a series of visual math lessons, or creative literacy activities using Google Slides…we will learn the tool through the teaching of transformed tasks. They have a reason to learn where to click. This has allowed for a completely transformed adoption of technology in the schools that we have not seen previous to this last year.
How does PD look at your school environment?
Hey Trish,
That’s an easy one – we barely have any PD at our school. I mean, we have instructors that hold sessions for each other to share ideas, techniques and so on. We also have a branch called the “Centre for Teaching Excellence” that is supposed to hold workshops for us but everything is optional and the workshops they hold don’t contain much Walking of the Talking, and the one workshop that has hands-on components is on Instructional Skills and they simply repeat that one over and over. It’s a disheartening. I’ve been trying to compile some ideas on what would be helpful for my department in order to give a PD of my own but I’ve never organized PD before so it’s slow-going for me, even with the theoretical knowledge I’ve gathered over the years related to it.
Our school, next year, for the first time in many years, is carving out 3 days for the entire year in order to squeeze in some PD. 2 of those days are back-to-back near the beginning of a semester, and the other lies somewhere in the middle. I’m curious as to what they’ll come up with… but considering admin rarely asks our opinion on what we’d like to be trained in I’m not holding my breath!