Category Archives: B. PCK

The construction and necessity of knowledge is one of the most compelling issues in education today, in my opinion.  What knowledge do we need to have?  How much time should we devote or focus on knowledge versus skill development?  Is knowledge synonymous with information?  Do we have a universal understanding of knowledge?  The rate at which information changes and the fluidity of knowledge has left structures and institutions burnt out and feeling disconnected in their attempts to maintain the interplay among knowledge in the TPACK (2006) framework. Yet still, the TPACK framework finds relevance among the halls and walls of 21st century schools.   

Since this was not my first experience with the TPACK framework, I decided to refer to some additional resources.  I came across a website and post by Matthew Koehler (2012).  There he writes that “Effective technology integration for pedagogy around specific subject matter requires developing sensitivity to the dynamic, transactional relationship between these components of knowledge situated in unique contexts” (Koehler, 2012).  This reminded me there are specific skills related to reading in each subject area that we must teach.  I was involved in a provincial pilot project to implement Reading Apprenticeship, (https://readingapprenticeship.org/) which specifically teaches reading in content areas.  Specifically, there are reading strategies and skills that scientists or mathematicians have and need to develop in order to be successful.  Similar to this, the TPACK framework explains that there are technological content area requirements that teachers need to attune to in order to meet students’ needs. 

Last year, a group of grade five and six students and I submitted an application to the Samsung Solve for Tomorrow challenge.  It required the students to select a problem in their community and use STEM to solve it.  After I submitted our application in the first round, we were 1 of 150 finalist in Canada who had the opportunity to turn our plan into actions!  We also won some Samsung technology to help us out.  My group of eight students attempted to build a dual garbage and recycling bin prototype to post in our school yard to clean up the litter.  They also made a website to spread the message about cleaning up the environment.   

I think this experience would have been better if I had used the TPACK framework more effectively and thought more about how scientists use the tools and technology to combine it with pedagogy.  We didn’t think enough about how someone in a STEM field might build a garbage can; what materials would they use?  How would they test it?  What tools would they use?  It is a good opportunity for me to reflect on how to improve my learning and teaching to enhance that of my students’.   

Koehler, M. (2012). TPACK Explained. TPACK.ORG. Retrieved 3 February 2018, from http://matt-koehler.com/tpack2/tpack-explained/ 

MISHRA, P., & KOEHLER, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x  

The TPACK Framework, as described by Koehler, Mishra and Cain (2013), seeks to explain how teachers understanding of Pedagogy, Content and Technology interact with one another.  In 1986, Shulman introduced the idea of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) to focus on the relationship between the spheres of knowledge in hopes of balancing methods of teaching. Mishra & Koehler discuss an ideal learning environment is created when knowing what teaching approach and methods appropriately fits the content to make it comprehensible to learning (2006). Increasingly technology has become an ever present component to teaching and has been added to the original TPACK. Now it appears, teachers need to focus on what technologies can best aid in appropriate teaching methods for students to learn the content.  Learning is a balance between what teachers know (Content) how teachers teach (pedagogy) and what tools (technology) is available.

Koehler, Mishra and Cain (2013) describe three approaches for the development of TPACK in the classroom.

1. From PCK to TPACK

Teachers draw upon their existing pedagogical content knowledge to form insights into which technologies might work well for specific learning goals.

2. From TPK to TPACK

Teachers build on their knowledge of technology in general to develop expertise and identify and develop specific content that benefits from it.

3. Developing PCK and TPACK simultaneously

Teachers gain experience and knowledge through projects that require them to define, design and refine solutions for learning problems focused on providing teachers insights into the ways technology, pedagogy and content interact.

Which of these three do you think would be most effective?  Do you think there might be a smoother journey towards full integration towards TPACK?  As teachers begin to experiment with technology, it is often simpler to view technology as an “add-on” to their practice.  Instead, it is important to remember that focus is the connection among technology, content, and pedagogy and redesigning the classroom to simultaneously integrate each component.

In my own classroom, we are working on elements of a story with my grade 2 students.  In previous years I have had students write each section of a pop-up story book as we walk through the writing process.  In the end, we type out their story and glue each section on a page and students draw out the corresponding scene.  Last year, once the students had created their books I had them use the ipads to 1) use a drawing app to illustrate their puppets 2) create a video of their book.  The idea was to demonstrate how books can be transformed into movies.  The students absolutely loved the experience and it opened up a great conversation to compare and contrast books and films.

Shayla

Koehler, M., Mishra, P. & Cain, W. What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. The Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19.

This week for me was one of the most beneficial weeks of learning that I’ve had in a long time.  I’ve taken other courses where peers have frequently referred to the TPACK model. Group mates have brought it up repeatedly in conversation. Up to this point, I have only done enough study of it so I’m not lost when in these situations.

This week has truly been illuminating for me, and now I feel both knowledgeable and informed about PCK and TPCK.  When reading through the first Shulman (1986) article, I was really taken aback by how rigorously teachers were tested on their content knowledge. Nowadays I’ve heard the statement dozens of times that a teacher only need be “one lesson ahead of the students” in terms of their understanding of the content.  Shulman (1986) clearly posits that content knowledge should not be left behind, yet should not be the entire focus of teacher training. It needs to be coupled with the more recent focus on pedagogy.

Incorporating technology into the dynamic is a necessity given the direction the world is headed in. My incorporating Technology into PCK, we are able to incorporate the best of teaching content and pedagogical knowledge with the learning affordances available through technology. (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)

In my own classroom, we annually tackle the concepts of 2-digit by 2-digit multiplication. 48×75 seems to be a challenging question for most 10 year olds. My first few years of doing this, I taught directly what the textbook had, and had the students answer textbook questions. (Rather PK in nature.) As I grow as a teacher, I have been able to teach the concepts with many of my own tips and tricks, while still incorporating information from the textbook and other resources. Students then answer the questions from the textbook. (Getting into that PCK zone.) Currently I am using a similar teaching method, but completely avoiding the textbook questions. I have been using an online game called Prodigy that lets me select the type of questions students answer. Students receive immediate feedback about their answers, and practice their math skills in a manner that is highly engaging and doesn’t at all feel like ‘work.’ (Now arriving the TPCK zone.) For good measure, I ask students to come and check-in with me if the every get 2 questions wrong in a row. In addition to this, I have a full table that shows students’ instant results.

I can easily say that teaching this multiplication in a more TPCK-style is incredibly successful, especially when compared to just PK. When compared to PCK, it is highly engaging and more motivating for students. As I continue to teach, I am constantly looking for more math and science concepts that I can move towards the TPCK arena of teaching.

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

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

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

I don’t have the same classroom experience as others taking this course but I can speak to this topic quite well as I was involved in the integration of a technology teaching tool across much of the first and second year undergrad math curriculum in a higher education institution.

The major need that faculty/teachers were expressing is that students were not getting enough formative or realistic feedback about their abilities prior to midterms and  finals. In large undergrad classes there is not a realistic way to provide feedback to all students in a timely and consistent manner. Yes, there are tutorials – but one of the issues was the length of time to return quizzes and huge discrepancy in quality of feedback students received. As a result students, especially struggling students, didn’t have a realistic picture of what they knew and didn’t know.

While I didn’t at the time when devising this solution I can see now that the formulation of this solution demonstrated the application of a TPCK framework.

In order to determine the solution for this problem I had to understand the pedagogical issues that were underlying the student needs. In this case it was timely feedback back and awareness of misconceptions just in time. Additionally I also knew from my understanding of the content that ample opportunities for practicing was required to be able to master the procedures being taught.

Understanding those two sides I could then select a technology tool that would support and align with the these goals. There are various tools available to support math learning however not all would fit the needs of this particular scenario. Knowing the technologies settings, how it can be configured to support various learning situations, its limitations, etc all are important in allowing you to select and integrate the tool to support the learning goals.

For my particular example we implemented a gated practice/quiz set up with embedded help/hints to reduce unaddressed misconceptions and reduce over confidence prior to midterms/finals. Students would use the technology to practice questions. If they got a question wrong they knew right away. They could then access hints or help tools to learn/relearn how to approach the question (question values changed after they viewed these help/hints so they never were provided the right answer). Once they achieved a pre determined score on their ‘homework’ they unlocked the quiz (for marks) on which they only had one chance. If they did poorly on that quiz they could go back and practice the homework some more (or go to the help centre/instructor for more help). We saw a significant improvement on attendance to the help centre and  improvement on midterm and final scores.

Without understanding the content, the pedagogical strategy, and the technology tool I wouldn’t have been able to devise this strategy that supported learner goals.

I first learned about TPCK and PCK frameworks in my very first MET course. These frameworks are something I always think about as I integrate technology within my instruction. From the reading, this part stood out for me, “Newer technologies often disrupt the status quo, requiring teachers to reconfigure not just their understanding of technology but of all three components” (pg. 1030). I’ve taught for 6 years and currently in my 7^th and so every year the way I teach has changed as newer technologies emerge and I need to adapt and change they way I teach. Some of my colleagues haven’t adapted to the 21^st century way of learning and teaching and still are very traditional with their teaching practice. This brings up the notion again of why teachers need good quality professional development and training so they are able to learn and apply newer technologies with confidence for example.

I specifically teach Math as a Learning Support Specialist Teacher. When teaching new math concepts, I ensure that I activate prior knowledge and make connections to material learned prior to the new unit, as this is essential for my students.  One of the very first units I always teach and review is Place Value. I use various materials to teach Place Value. I use visuals, hands on manipulatives and virtual manipulatives on iPads for example.

For example, for my Grade 3 class block as an introduction I will put up a number on the whiteboard and leave out manipulatives and let the students use manipulatives (base-ten blocks) to represent the number.  After exploring for a few minutes, the students share their responses and collaborate.  During this time, I can assess which students understand and are connecting the Place Value with the correct Base-Ten Block and where further instruction is needed.

Next, I thoroughly go through each place value spot with the corresponding manipulative to ensure students are making the connection. Students first listen and watch, and then they work together with their group to demonstrate their understanding. Once student understand the value of each place value position, we focus on representing the place value of numerals in three notations: Standard, Expanded and Written and focus only until the thousands position until everyone has a good understanding.  Students can demonstrate their knowledge by using manipulatives, using whiteboard place value mats, or recording their thoughts on paper or digitally. For students who struggle and require another explanation, they can watch the tutorial videos on Khan Academy, which they always find very useful.

Once  the students have “mastered” each place value spot and can represent it various ways (standard, expanded and written), we move onto the next until of addition with regrouping. Since I have just been teaching math the past few years, I have become very specialized in this area and have received training in specific programs and concepts.

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

PCK and TPACK are usually acquired through experience, teacher’s schools do not provide an extensive training on these. I think the reason for this is that we need a specialist in mathematics and pedagogy to deliver extensive PCK lessons in math, and we do not always have such teachers in teacher training schools. So, during their training, the teachers are usually limited to broad PCK concepts from specialist either in math or in pedagogy. The lack of specialists in both PK and CK, and in TK, PK and CK is the reason why we usually do not have extensive trainings in PCK and TPACK in teacher’s education. I have personally acquired substantial PCK and TPACK over years of experience in teaching. An exposure to students’ misconceptions and immersion into technology versed environments has been very helpful in this process.

Geogebra and Desmos are two software that changed the way I teach functions and transformations in mathematics. The transformation of functions and graphs has become easy to teach and easy for the students to understand because the dynamic character of the graphs allow to visualise the changes on the graphs as parameters in the functions change. The lessons over functions transformations and graphs became more accessible to the students because, when the parameters are introduced in a function, the students are able to see and test all the dynamic changes on the graph of the function. Before, I used to draw static graphs and show how a graph would transform or translate into another one, using two images, the initial graph and its image after the transformation or translation occurs. Whereas with Desmos or Geogebra, the initial graph will move till its image, and all the changes during the transformation or translation can be seen. This facilitates student’s conceptualisation and understanding of functions transformations and graphs.

Here below is an example with sinusoidal functions on Desmos.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) is a topic that came up in one of my earlier courses. I hope that after this week’s readings I have an even better grasp on this theory, as I have been able to reflect on it since first learning about it.

PCK is having a depth of pedagogical knowledge and understanding and using this to select and deliver a method that appropriately fits the content being delivered. It is complex as there are so many aspects to be considered: as Mishra and Koehler (2016) argue, “PCK is concerned with the representation and formulation of concepts, pedagogical techniques, knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn, knowledge of students’ prior knowledge, and theories of epistemology” (p. 1027). Mishra and Koehler go on to explain that Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) is the theory that pedagogy, content and knowledge cannot be thought about in isolation and that “developing good content requires a thoughtful interweaving of all three key sources of knowledge” (p. 1029). Technology in this scenario is not an extra or an add-on: it is fully part of the process and this is difficult as it requires teachers and designers to think about differently about the pedagogy and content they already work with.

A useful illustrative example of TPCK – one that I have encountered through my teaching experiences – relates to fairy tales. As an elementary school teacher, I have used fairy tales with a variety of grade levels in a multitude of ways: they are very accessible as most students have experience with them. Throughout a unit, we often start with a familiar tale, discuss different features that identify a fairy tale, look at character development and at alternative versions of the same story. Consistently, the same pedagogic tools are important: modelling; different levels of questioning for different ability levels; and, both collaborative and individual work. The tools I choose to use, however, depend on the makeup of the class. Are there more EAL learners who many not relate to these fairy tales? Are there certain tales that will have a greater and more meaningful impact? My knowledge of the students is crucial in this instance to ensure successful engagement levels and for students to feel success.

Last year, instead of adopting a prescriptive approach to my grade 5 students’ writing at the end of the unit, I incorporated technology to facilitate greater flexibility as to how the task at hand would unfold. It wasn’t me deciding what the students should be getting out of the unit: rather, the onus was on the students to take ownership for their own learning. The students formed groups and I asked them to create a stop motion video as the culmination of our fairy tale unit. Some students chose to recreate a well-known tale. Other groups created their own fairy tales using the features we had already discussed. There was one group who created just one scene from Cinderella in meticulous detail: it was fabulous! By asking the students to create a stop motion video, I took a back seat, and allowed the students to be more creative (many used plasticine to create their characters), develop new skills (some had never made a stop motion video before!) and were able to demonstrate their learning to me in much more personalised way. I feel this is a moment when all the TPCK came together and worked in harmony!

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

Since I just finished my teaching degree 2 years ago, I still have my practicum experience fresh in my memory. I remember that my faculty advisor was always encouraging me towards using technology in my classroom along, whereas my school advisor was not a big fan of technology use in a math classroom. I was always a big fan of using PCK in my classroom and felt a bit uncomfortable using TPACK (whenever I used it). Reflecting back on the experience now, I still cannot pinpoint why I was not comfortable using TPACK in my classroom, even though I consider myself technology-friendly compared to most people.

One of the instances I remember using PCK in my class was to give an introduction to the unit of Volume for my grade 8 students. I came up with a story where a crow is thirsty and is flying around looking for some water. He finally comes across this beaker that has some water but the crow cannot reach the water as it is at the bottom of the beaker. The crow comes up with an idea and starts collecting small rocks that he throws into the beaker. Eventually, after throwing a couple dozen rocks into the beaker, the water level rises in the beaker and the crow drinks water and flies away. I remember asking my students why they think the water level rose after the crow threw rocks in it. I had a few students come up with the right answer, that was that the volume of the beaker rose as the rocks were added and water level became higher. I consider this lesson of my practicum one of the best lessons as students were able to understand the concept of volume without me having to give them the textbook definition of what volume is. I remember being very pleased with this lesson by the end of the class, where my faculty advisor was observing me. I sat down with my advisor to go over the lessons’ strengths and weaknesses and the first thing he told me was that the lesson would have been better if I incorporated some technology in it. I was hurt by this comment as I was confident that my lessons went great and the PCK fulfilled the purpose of the lesson, therefore, why should there be TPCK when PCK is doing the job right.

After this, I realized that sometimes my advisor would ask me to include technology in my PCK teaching just because it is the “cool” thing to do. I think if I have to answer the question I asked myself earlier that why do I prefer PCK over TPCK, it would be that maybe because it was being forced on me. I was doing a good job using PCK but was seen as not good enough just because the technology was not a part of my PCK.

As Shulman states, “Isn’t teaching little more than personal style, artful communication, knowing some subject matter, and applying the results of recent research on teaching effectiveness?” (Shulman, 1987, p. 5). I personally believe that teaching isn’t any more than personal style, artful communication, knowing some subject matter and applying the results of recent research on teaching effectiveness. Teaching requires a teacher to be personally comfortable with whatever pedagogy they are keen to apply in their classroom instead of being forced by the administration that you must use technology or any other enhancement in one’s classroom. I did use a lot of TPCK in my classroom throughout my teaching experience but there are certain topics and concepts that are well taught without technology and some that are taught better with technology.

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