TPACKChapter+1

toc

**Sam, Leigh, Erica**
The introductory chapter of the Handbook of [|Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TCPK)] for Educators asserts that TPCK is critical to effective teaching with technology. The framework for TPCK was developed as an extension of Shulman’s Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) for the purpose of integrating technology into teaching. Along with this concept, the practicalities of integrating technology into the classroom are discussed throughout chapter 1.
 * Abstract**

A Venn diagram is included to visually demonstrate the nature of the relationships and intersections between each of the components of TPCK. Each knowledge type is defined and put into context: for example, Content Knowledge (CK) might be described as the actual subject matter that is to be taught. While the intersection of Technology and Content Knowledge (TCK) demonstrates how technological advances in a given field might lead to advances in content knowledge, for example, the discovery of X-Rays opened up the whole field of radiology.

The chapter is careful to point out that juggling the interactions of the three knowledge types - within the context of teaching - is complex, and unique to each classroom, and requires flexibility and creativity from the teacher.


 * Synthesis:** **Points agreed upon**
 * Educators need to be trained in [|how to use technology effectively] and as content support.
 * Many feel that the Venn diagram helped them understand the material and content of chapter 1.
 * There is resistance to technology among many teachers
 * TPCK framework requires teachers to be flexible, adaptive, and open to change.
 * “The world changes. We must adapt”


 * Synthesis:** **Points of contention**
 * [|Veteran teachers] are pushed into professional development with younger teachers who are more experienced with technology and this makes them very uncomfortable.
 * Information on technology can be understood broadly enough to allow adaptation.
 * Too much technology can wear students out and turn them off to technology. Especially if the students are not familiar with technology or are of a lower ability.
 * Why bother to spend time and effort on [|incorporating technology into your class] when it is constantly changing or never works?

Sammie
I appreciate the editors’ willingness to openly admit the complexity of intertwining these three issues. Any one of these facets, content, pedagogy or technology, has a depth that can be explored in greater detail. The three become increasingly complex, yet well defined as we examine the unique intersections in the Venn diagram. Perhaps it is the math teacher in me coming to the surface, but I found this diagram very helpful when sorting through the descriptions of each intersection. The very clear boundaries for each combination of the three enabled me to consider areas of strength and needs in my own classroom. I found myself contemplating the impacts of TPK and “how teaching and learning changes when particular technologies are used”(p.16) in my classroom. I must agree that the process of using technology well is messy and that there exists a “dynamic equilibrium among all three elements”(p.18). Along the same line, the complexity of technology alone was addressed as it relates to an older generation of teachers as well as the new. The editors recognize that the transition to utilizing digital technologies in the classroom is a difficult one. The use of such technologies, without a deep understanding of how to use them can often make things more complicated for the classroom teacher. That is why it is so fundamental for educators to receive an adequate amount of quality training in specific, content-based classroom technologies. I agree with the emphasis that is placed on there are “affordances and constraints” (p.22) of different technologies and that each content area should be approached uniquely and within that level, there are unique situations that require different “pedagogical approaches”(p.22).

Lisa
In found the reading in chapter 1, Introducing TPCK, to be very dense and dry. The content of the chapter was about the reasons technology complicates the process of teaching and if teachers create a framework of understanding of how technologies and pedagogical content knowledge go together it will produce effective teaching with technology.The Venn diagram was creative and I personally had never thought about technology integration that way and it does make sense. In my classroom my students use graphing calculators a lot. I have the software on my laptop. Along with that a projector and the Smartboard are used. I have also used the Tandberg equipment and laptops.The text listed three reasons that technology complicates teaching; social & institutional contexts are unsupported, inadequate training/lack of experience, how to teach and engage learners at the same time. There is also the issue of malfunctions that frustrate the teachers and then it seems that it is not worth the hassle, for some anyway.In my classroom I try to use technology to enhance and support the lessons I teach, with visuals and/or applications. There is a program that we have had on our MLTI laptops for a few years, Geogebra. I would love to learn how to use this software but it just seems like I never have the time. I know that I should make time to do this but it hasn’t happened yet.Technology does impact my classroom and I need to be more aware of the TPCK framework and really try to support that within my teaching.

Melody
It was definitely refreshing to read chapter one as it defended the teaching profession and the difficulty level of our job. It is an ever changing career that will need to continue to change as we attempt to prepare the children for the also every changing future. When discussing technological approaches to teaching one cannot ignore the immense amount of resistance that many teachers bring to the table. Chapter one addressed this issue. I find that while many of my colleagues get excited about new technological strategies and search them out willingly, many more of them are discouraged by learning new concepts. Their mind frame is: why put all this time into learning something new that will eventually be outdated and that I will have to stop using. I struggle with my sympathy for this frame of mind. I understand getting attached to how you do certain things in the classroom, but I also think that a teacher who refuses to accept change is doing a giant disservice to their students. The world changes. Me must adapt.

Impact On My Classroom Teaching:

Luckily, I’m a teacher who is not afraid of change. I’m open to suggestion and I want to make sure that I’m fairly up-to-date with what my student need for technology skills. I’m not the most advanced teacher with technology in my classroom, but I’m open to it, which is more than I can say for many of my colleagues. Sometimes it’s fun when I don’t know how to answer a technology question for one of my students if we can figure the answer out together. Other times students can teach me new things, which is a really rewarding experience, as well. When I’m struggling with technology I’m not one to scrap everything I’ve done and give up. I will seek out help from other tech savvy teachers and students so I can learn how to do it. One problem I’ve noticed is that those teachers who are hesitant with technology are pushed into professional development situations with younger/more tech experienced teachers. This can create a strange disconnect for those two groups of teachers. The inexperienced ones don’t feel appreciated and the more savvy teachers are overworked and spread very thin.

Questions/Comments:

Thought the chapter was fairly wordy, but in a very unnecessary way. Just felt like I had to sift through a lot of stuff to get to what the author really wanted to say.

Sam
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) is described as an understanding (i.e. a knowledge) that emerges from the interaction of Content, Pedagogy & Technology knowledge within the context of teaching (AACTE, 2008). Use of the three specified knowledge types in conjunction with each other is noted as being “the basis of effective teaching with technology” (p 17). Each knowledge component is important of itself, as are the inter-relationships between any two of the three components. It seems that the TPCK framework requires teachers to be flexible, adaptive and open to the idea that their knowledge (and their student’s knowledge) may evolve according to unique circumstances. It is a complex idea, but not one to be afraid of, because I suspect most teachers already mix different types of knowledge in their efforts to meet the unique needs of each student. Within the definition of Technology Knowledge (TK), the idea of Technology FITness (Fluency of Information Technology) is discussed. As an Information Technology Professional, I identified with the concept that Information Technology can be understood broadly enough to allow adaptation within a constantly changing environment. I do find that I am able to learn new technologies quickly based on my understanding of the inner workings of similar technologies. I also appreciate the creativity required to identify and match circumstances with beneficial use of use of appropriate digital technologies. So if a technology professional can intuitively understand new knowledge within their realm of expertise, the same is likely true of teaching professionals. That is, they are able to adapt their teaching to fit the circumstances of their current students, even if those circumstances are not completely the same as they have experienced in the past. Adapting ones knowledge to meet the needs of their profession will likely lead to increased knowledge of their profession.

Erica
As I was reading through this chapter, many cautious and interesting ideas about implementing technology in classrooms were expressed. When I think of technological resources, I think of the internet, blogs, websites, webpages, cameras, etc. I tend to not think of chalkboards, overhead projectors, and calculators as technology. So when teachers are asked to implement technology into their classrooms, I feel that we do it everyday without perhaps realizing it. Although I feel that using some technology in your classroom is important, I think that many times it tends to be less effective and detrimental to students and their learning. Technology should be used as a resource to better explain and support content, as opposed to literally teaching the material for you. Several teachers tend to rely way to heavily on technology to do all the work for them, and therefore it turns students off to technology and teachers lose credibility. Technology is both good and bad for schools and students. When used correctly, technology could enhance the learning and ability from your students. Yet, when used incorrectly, many things could go horribly wrong. Not only is misuse a downfall to technology, but staying current with constant changes to programs is also difficult. On the flip side, technology provides a wide range of resources and information that we as teachers, would not know otherwise. One thing I did not know when reading this chapter is the difference between content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technology knowledge (TK), technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). After reading about each type of knowledge, it became easy to understand what TPCK was. TPCK builds off of all the other separate forms of knowledge to create an umbrella meaning that touches upon each. TPCK is an understanding that emerges from an interaction of content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge (pg 17). After learning about each type of knowledge, I have figured out that I definitely lack technology knowledge (TK) in my classroom. I am not so surprised about the fact that I hardly use technology; more so, of the negative effects it could have on my students. I think that I need to incorporate more technology into my everyday lessons as a way to show students how to find information and use it correctly from technological sources.

Leigh
When reading chapter 1 of the TPCK handbook, I was amazed at all that could be said on the subject of technology in the classroom. As a K-2 PE teacher, technology is not something that I strive to include in every lesson. The majority of my lessons do not include any technology, so to read about the TPCK model and the definitions of all of the components was a bit overwhelming. I was able to relate to all of the problems the authors associated with using technology. It has been difficult for me to find ways to add technology into my lessons, the biggest problem being that I see my kids once a week so I have a time issue. As the authors’ mentions on pg. 19 in regards to computer games, there is a time constraint for me. Do I want to spend the time figuring out the various technologies (not to mention not having the funds to purchase them in the first place) or should I spend the time teaching specific sport skills? I do understand that more in-depth learning can come from using various technologies but, at this time, I am unwilling to spend the time to learn and figure out how to incorporate them into my lessons. I agree with the authors that there is no “perfect solution” to the technology issue I face in my classroom. I know I have to do a better job of leaving my comfort zone and exploring different teaching techniques in regards to technology. That being said, the students I teach need to be learning cognitive, psychomotor, and affective behaviors which can be primarily learned by doing.

susan
In order to become a more thoughtful, skillful teacher we need to explore distinct aspects of the relationship between student/teacher. Part of that human interaction is what is being taught. The authors seem to broaden the definition of content to include not only what and how we teach, but also the technology we include in our instruction. They describe three domains of knowledge and, though not easily separated, suggest skilled teachers can identify and maintain balance between the three. As an adult educator, my classrooms are typically small (2-8 students) and oriented to low or middle level skills. My students are often uncomfortable, or at least unaccustomed to using technology. I would also say that the typical adult learner enters the classroom with clear and deep expectations regarding content and pedagogy domains. By initially addressing the perceptions of what learning has been for each student and how this current experience will be different, demonstrates in part what the authors are presenting in this first chapter. It does in fact “…involve many different conceptual structures and perspectives that play out in novel and unique ways even in instances that may seem superficially similar.” (p.4) Successfully teaching fractions to a 40 year old woman demands that instruction address her specific strengths and weaknesses in all three domains. I believe this book offers great insight to the world of adult education. There is not a day that goes by when I don’t reflect on the process of working with adult learners and how I learn from them. This may be at the center of what this book is about. As teachers we are engaged in a unique “…interactive, bi-directional relationship between thought and action….” (p.23). And I would include the same relationship between student and teacher.

Lynda
This chapter addresses the challenge of teaching in general, specifically in this digital age. Learning how to combine and balance T (technology), P (pedagogy), C (content), and K (knowledge) is the ultimate challenge for teachers as “curriculum designers.” “Nuanced understanding that goes beyond the general principles of content, technology, and pedagogy” is required.

The author explains that software tools are mostly business oriented, creating a challenge for educators to understand their inner workings (opaqueness) and to adapt for educational purposes. As well, “teachers have often been provided with inadequate training for this task.”

// While schools may be trying, educators are lagging behind (sometimes with just the basics) because there is little or no training. This obstacle is compounded by the fact that: //

“Expertise in teaching is dependent on flexible access to and application of highly organized systems of knowledge that must continually shift and evolve based on the contexts within which they are applied.” (p. 4).

// One size does not fit all. Because of the complex nature of technology, its many variables, and the fact that it is never fixed and changes quickly, creating presentations for training or learning from such trainings are daunting tasks. //

The nature of teaching is an “ill-structured problem” where there are “no general principles that apply to every situation.” Furthermore “practitioners have to “learn to see through design-colored glasses” and “be inventive.”

// In my work with students with severe disabilities, flexibility is paramount by virtue of the fact that each disability manifests in unique ways, and each child is different even though the same diagnosis may affect several children. Teaching is an “ill-structured problem” for each student. Cognitive ability, family beliefs, assistive-technology, physical ability, physical equipment as well as the talents and limitations (and functional fixedness) of the teacher herself come into play. Technology is a Godsend for many students with severe disabilities because of its protean quality. //

// What I learned most from this chapter is that the frustration I feel when working with and learning technology can be explained. This provides some comfort. Fortunately, I enjoy challenge. //

Darlene
The introductory chapter explained in considerable detail the importance and challenges of integrating technology, pedagogy and content in the classroom. The authors described the components of the TPCK model and the complexities of integrating these elements. In addition to rapid changes in technology, the processes of teaching and learning are not fixed. Teachers need to be flexible, knowledgeable, and willing to work in an every changing environment. I found myself nodding my head in agreement of much that was stated. I smiled at the comment concerning a famous philosopher’s “reasoning” that the “new technology”, writing, may have a negative impact on a person’s memory. This comment made me think of the many forebodings I’ve heard in regard to student’s use of the laptop, cell phones, and tablets. A paragraph in the chapter also made me think about the educational software we use and how it does focus on basic skills. Even though the software offers lots of graphics, often the content is repetitive and tedious. However, the practice sessions fit within the schedule. At present I am not teaching, but rather I have the pleasure of observing others teaching in the classroom. I do agree that the effort of integrating technology, content and pedagogy is an essential one in reaching our goal of engaging learners. By their nature, young learners manipulate what is found in their environment to develop further understanding and technology is ever present within those environments. I also strongly agree with teaching being an art. The teacher creates, reflects, and refines their work continually.