“Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
is a framework for the integration of technology within teaching,” (Koehler,
Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg, 2009). This is something that I think that a
lot of teachers are probably already doing, but maybe haven’t read about this
framework. You are trying to have a perfect collaboration of three types of
knowledge, “technological knowledge, content knowledge, and pedagogical
knowledge,“ (Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg, 2009). By doing this
it helps to raise the effectiveness of the classroom and the knowledge they are
receiving. There are a variety of ways that people have tried to accomplish
this task, differentiation, activity based curriculum, and many others. The difficulty
is which works best, and I think that depend on the teacher.
Each teacher will face many obstacles when trying to
incorporate the TPACK framework in the classroom. Students can be an obstacle,
certain students may have specifications about what technology they can and
cannot use, based on ability or responsibility. Technology can be an obstacle depending
on what the school has available for access and if tools are malfunctioning.
Time can be an obstacle depending on the amount of time you are given the
technology for use, the amount of time that you have with the students. There
are many obstacles for teachers when implementing technology into the classroom
and this makes veteran teachers nervous to do so.
“The type of teacher knowledge required to teach
effectively with technology is essential,” (Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, &
Rosenberg, 2009). Teachers need to feel confident and comfortable with
technology to teach effectively and this takes time and training. “Good
teaching, with technology, requires a shift in existing pedagogical and content
domains,” (Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg, 2009). Technology and
pedagogy work together to make the unit and the lessons what they need to be.
The “How” is the most important point, “how teachers integrate technology in
their practice is more important than the emphasis upon what teachers integrate
in their practice,” (Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg, 2009). But “How”
do we do this?
The method that I found to be most effective in my
mind was to have “teachers first formulate goals for student learning,” (Koehler,
Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg, 2009). What do they expect the outcome of
student knowledge to be? “Then, they choose activity types appropriate for the
specified goals,” (Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg, 2009). What
activities lead to the accomplishment of these understandings? Figuring out
activities or assessments that work well in the classroom and actually
accomplish what you want take years to adjust and develop to what you need. The
activity chart that is displayed in the paper by Harris and Hofer, give you a
variety of activities that are already being used and then show how you could
adjust to include technology. This is a helpful chart, but some of the
activities would not be an option depending on the technology available. “Finally,
they select specific technologies based upon their choice of activity types,” (Koehler,
Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg, 2009). Incorporating the technology is the
last step and it needs to apply to what the students are doing in the
classroom. For example, if they are painting in an Art class, technology would
not be effective, but if in History they are researching dictators there is
much more need for technology.
As I stated earlier many teachers are already doing
this they may just not be aware of the TPACK framework, but they are living it.
“Teachers’ ‘planning’ could be characterized as decision making about the selection,
organization, and sequencing,” (Harris & Hofer, 2009). which are directly
related to pedagogy, technology and content knowledge. Teachers need to feel
comfortable and confident in the activity and technology they choose to do. “The
development should begin with relatively familiar technologies and to gradually
progress to those that are more advanced,” (Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, &
Rosenberg, 2009) as their comforts grows.
Levels of
Technology Integration
1. Sparse: rarely used or available.
2. Basic: used or available occasionally/often in
a lab rather than the classroom.
3. Comfortable:
used in the classroom on a fairly regular basis.
4. Seamless:
employ technology daily in the classroom using a variety of tools to complete assignments
and create projects that show a deep understanding of content.
Source: (Edutopia,
2007).
“Individual teachers, grade-level,
school-specific factors, demographics, culture, and other factors ensure that
every situation is unique, and no single combination of content, technology,
and pedagogy will apply for every teacher, every course, or every view of
teaching,” (TPACK Org. & Koehler, 2014). Therefore TPACK is something that
each individual teacher will need to figure out for their individual needs in
the classroom.
Works
cited:
Edutopia. (2007). What Is Successful
Technology Integration?
Harris,
J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles
for curriculum-based
TPACK development. In C. D. Maddux, (Ed.). Research
highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99-108). Chesapeake,
VA: Society for Information Technology in
Koehler,
M., Mishra, P., Akcaoglu, M. &
Rosenberg, J. (2009). The Technological
Pedagogical
