As I was reflecting on the concepts of PCK and TPCK this week, I was reminded of the importance of planning as part of sound PK whether with an additional C or T or just in general. Specifically, the idea of “backwards design”, or “assessment up” planning, where teachers start with the end in the mind, usually the assessment of specific curriculum expectations to be demonstrated in a certain way, and then work back from that end point to discover the nitty gritty of content delivery to best position students to be successful in their eventual learning demonstration.
I believe this is a foundational practice for teachers who produce successful learners and who hope to use a technology integration framework, such as TPCK, or analyze their current and future integration using the SAMR lens, effectively. As with all things that get suggested for teachers to do or add or implement for their practice, however, it becomes a question of how does one start? There is a lack of time and a sense of wasting one’s time “re-inventing the wheel” that goes unaddressed. Having some guidance already prepared to assist teachers in their backwards planning with TPCK goes a long way, in my opinion. Like others mentioned in their posts, this is not my first exposure to TPACK. A 2009 paper by Harris, Mishra & Koehler included the importance of adding what they’ve termed “Learning Activity Types” to the toolkit of the teacher using TPCK to backwards plan lessons that provide higher level/rich-technology integration. It’s not enough just to know what we want to teach and try to fit technology in as an afterthought. As Mishra and Koehler (2006) mentioned, “Merely introducing technology into the educational process is not enough” (p.1018). These authors go further in their 2009 paper and state, “effective teaching requires knowledge of both the activity types that are appropriate for teaching specific content and the manners in which particular technologies can be utilized as part of the lesson, project, or unit design” (p.406, emphasis added). This, to me, sounds like the essence of backwards design planning.
I once took an ISTE Schoology Course (cleverly named iPadeology) which had specific resource pages about TPCK, SAMR, differentiation with technology, and various instructional models, including STEM. They provided two very useful forms (licensed under Creative Commons for our use) that I’d saved and wanted to share in light of this week’s topic. I hope you find them useful:
On a personal professional note, I’ve recently found myself applying some PK in my creation of group structures for our school’s newly formed Minecraft: Education Edition STEAM Club. This year’s club challenge is building our school, to scale, where 1 metre = 1 Minecraft block. There are many different areas in our school to be measured, graphed, and built and I’ve spent the last week creating multi-grade zone crews to oversee each area. As I finished, I suddenly recalled something I’d read in a previous MET course about the effects of gender on gaming technology behaviour. The gist of the relevant findings of the research study were that when dual genders were given the chance to play a digital game, the girls always back-seated themselves while the boys took over. However, if placed in same gender groupings, the girls often excelled, taking risks, learning socially from each other, and expressing a greater sense of accomplishment, satisfaction, and enjoyment with the game and with themselves as users of technology. I think this relates to the Math confidence piece Christopher brought up in the news article he posted in announcements this week, as well. I wanted to give the girls just as much opportunity to problem solve, get “mathy”, and create with this challenge as the boys, and I believe my initial grouping based on “fairness” was actually about to work against that. Therefore, I revamped my entire crew list to reflect this research-enhanced PK and will hopefully provide an equally fun and fulfilling learning experience for both boys and girls. If I had actively been using a framework guide for TPCK such as the one provided above, I wonder if I would have tweaked the memory of that research before I started the planning, rather than having it come up as a sort of pedagogically sound coincidence? It certainly would have saved me time!
References
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Learning Activity Types. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ844273)
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Retrieved from http://one2oneheights.pbworks.com/f/MISHRA_PUNYA.pdf
Hey Jan,
I really liked it when you said “There is a lack of time and a sense of wasting one’s time “re-inventing the wheel” that goes unaddressed. ” I can connect with that currently as my school district is rolling out a few different initiatives currently. Some that involve technology, some that don’t.
The approach that is being taken goes primarily like this:
1. Here is a new tool we want you to use
2. Change everything you are doing to incorporate this new tool, and do a good job of it
3. What you were doing previously worked great? Oh well, do this instead.
Now I don’t necessarily see the problem as their push to do something new. Rather it comes with the lack of direction with the new tool. Give me a unit or series of lessons incorporating that new tool. Let me see it work as-designed, and then I will be able to apply it to different areas. Currently, it’s like they want the ship to stop sailing, plot a new course and see how it goes.
So I’m totally with you, when implementing new concepts/methods, whether that be P, C or T…we need to be acutely aware of doing this constructively with time as a priority.
Hi Caleb,
Thanks for the reply. Sadly, this pattern seems to be the norm with most teachers. So much so that it actually became part of the issue I chose for our upcoming assignment. I loved your idea of a better way to provide integration options for teachers. May I mention it in my Framing Issues paper if it fits? 🙂
Dear Jan,
I like that you introduced backwards design into the discussion. I am a huge fan of UBD and it is employed throughout my school. I believe regardless of TPCK it is the best approach to truly planning effective units for students.
As it pertains to “reinventing the wheel” I couldn’t agree more. One of the best pieces of Ed Tech we have invested in is Atlas Rubicon at our school. Teachers do all of their unit planning and year planning using this tool, attaching all resources used. Year after year ideas are taken from previous years and adapted. This has shown to strengthen our teaching community and curriculum design. Teachers do not feel as if they are overworked and are more prone to trying new things.
I think the perceived time investment in TPCK is a very valid point and the best way to combat it is to provide as many opportunities for professional growth to teachers as possible by removing as many obstacles as possible (time, investment, etc.)
Dear Ryan,
Thank you for your reply, apologies for the late response I’ve been in the “Finish Assignment #1” zone. Atlas Rubicon sounds like a valuable investment from both a practical and a pedagogical standpoint. I will definitely be checking it out, thanks for sharing! I couldn’t agree with you more about how the best way to overcome the constraints of time and effort for teachers being encouraged to design TELEs that also reflect constructivist principles and TPCK is to find realistic ways to remove those obstacles. The resource you mention that keeps all the teachers materials and plans in one, easy-to-access place is just such a solution. I also think when the function of ET is to enhance or assess student learning then co-teaching in schools with a Library/Technology teacher is one of those ways, as well as providing user-friendly, curriculum-linked lesson plans using specific resources are invaluable tools for teachers. Teachers are then able to focus on increasing their knowledge in PK or CK without having to simultaneously navigate TK, or vice versa.