Facebook Lessons for students in London

The school of Business and Finance developed a lesson program available via a Facebook application. Students of the Master of Business Administration can follow the whole program online. The application is free and provides lesson materials by video’s and documents. Next to that, a discussion environment is available on Facebook. Only if students want to do an exam, they have to pay the fee.

Interesting! I am curious how that works out!

Link: http://www.idealize.nl/2010/10/londense-school-introduceert-lessen-via-facebook/

The added value of TPACK

The previous post explained what TPACK is. This post focuses on how TPACK is related to the other subjects I discussed in this blog; flexible learning, pedagogical approaches and how these can be supported by technology.

Flexible learning is what I started with in this blog, after which I discussed a few pedagogical approaches. In the post about flexibility, the locus of control between the teacher and the students played a central role. How much is controlled by whom? Or… how much does a teacher want to control? And how much does the student want to control? The amount of control for each party is to be defined by the teacher (which of course is influenced by what student want to control and can control), which means that it is a characteristic of the pedagogical approach the teachers chooses. In the post about pedagogical approaches I learned that the ongoing developments in technology actually influence pedagogical approaches. Therefore technology is an important factor in flexible learning. So, considering the TPACK model, flexible learning seems to have a strong link with technological- and pedagogical knowledge. The post about flexibility finished with the note that the balance between flexibility and control needs to be well chosen to get an optimal result. Thinking about that while having the TPACK model in mind, this can be translated to a broader perspective. An optimal result in learning means balance between all components of the TPACK model.

Technology is a tricky one. Although this one is already discussed in the post about the framework, I would like to elaborate a little more on it.  When we are talking about technologies in relation to the TPACK framework, we are talking about all kinds of materials we use to support our teaching. These could be digital materials, like computers, cameras and mobile phones, but these could also be ‘analogous’ materials, like a ruler or a chalkboard (Koehler and Mishra, 2009). Not every technology we use or can use in teaching is actually produced with the aim to support teaching.  This is where the teachers come in, they are the ones who have connect these technologies to their teaching practice in such a way that it is supports learning. The TPACK model is a way of supporting teachers in integrating technology in their teaching. This model is useful for teachers because it is viewed form a teacher’s perspective and It helps teachers to think in a structured way about their teaching. This means the model could be used before the teaching, to construct a lesson for example, but also after teaching took place, to evaluate how a lesson went, whether the balance between the TPCK elements was optimal or not, etc.

On the other hand, using this model is probably not obvious for teachers. They could feel that they are forced to think in terms of the three basic components (C, T, P) to shape their teaching while In practice, the patterns (overlapping parts in the model) is what they see and what they experience in practice. This means that the overlapping parts are more concrete for the teacher and decomposing them makes it more (maybe too?) abstract. To make the model more concrete for teachers, Harris, Mishra and Koehler (2009) describe a few activity types in relation with TPACK, options for teachers to use in their teaching. During the start of this master program, we discussed about this a little bit and acknowledged that a pitfall of using the TPACK framework and especially the activity types, is that it might be a barrier for creative thinking.

Looking back at my previous posts, every conclusion somehow mentions that this all is not an easy job for teachers. Combining pedagogical knowledge, technology knowledge and content knowledge is something new for teachers. New means change and change always cost more time and effort than the old ’routines’. Teachers need to go through a professional development process to accept these kind of changes. In the previous post, I finished with the different tastes educational artists (teachers) have and how these differences influence the way they integrate technology in teaching.

This means that in this process, the understanding of TPACK, beliefs and attitudes need to be developing towards a ‘TPACK minded’ teacher, which starts with being aware of the added value TPACK can offer to their teaching. This process should start in teacher education, but of course we should not forget all the teachers that are already out there. New teachers that just finished teacher education where they learned about TPACK would probably run enthusiastically to their new job to ‘work with their TPACK’ but this won’t work if the rest of the school does not share their vision. Not only individual teachers are important in this process, but also the rest of the environment should support this process. 

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

What is TPACK?

Figure 2: teachers as 'educational artist' in the
metaphore about TPACK

As mentioned in my last blog post, I think teachers are ‘educational artists’ and do need a creative mind to (for instance) choose the most appropriate pedagogical approach to explain about certain content and to find ways to support their teaching with appropriate technologies.  Koehler and Mishra (2009) developed a conceptual framework that describes the knowledge teachers need to (valuable) integrate technologies into their own practice, based on the key elements highlighted in the previous sentence (Knowledge about Content, Pedagogy and Technology. TPCK for short), shown in figure 1. Considering this framework, the ‘educational artists’ (teachers) have a painting palette with some ‘basic colors’.  These ‘basics colors’ are, just as artists do in painting, mixable and should be mixed to make it fit to the rest of the painting. Figure 2 shows a representation of this metaphor. In this metaphor, the basic colors are content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and technological knowledge (elements of the TPCK model), and the ‘rest of the painting’ is the context teachers teach in. It emphasizes that out of the box thinking (and thus creativity) is crucial by stating that the colors should be mixed, instead of using them (thinking about them) separately. This post is about TPACK*. What is it? And how are teachers supposed to ‘paint’ with it? 

Figure 1: Visual representation of the TPACK model
(http://www.tpack.org/)

As already noted in the introduction of this post, the TPACK model consists of three knowledge domains; ‘technological knowledge’ (TK), ‘pedagogical knowledge’ (PK) en ‘content knowledge’ (CK), which together make four new domains;  ‘technological content knowledge’ (TCK), ‘technological pedagogical knowledge’ (TPK), ‘pedagogical content knowledge’ (PCK) en ‘technological pedagogical content knowledge’ (TPACK).

Content Knowledge is the knowledge about the subject matter that is to be teached (e.g. history), Pedagogical Knowledge is about educational processes, teaching strategies, teaching methods, etc. in which teaching and learning play a central role, and Technological Knowledge encompasses knowledge about what technologies are available, how they work and how technologies can be used to support learning. The four new domains are the result of integrating these three domains with each other.

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge is the knowledge teachers need to use technologies in a pedagogical way. Important here is the teachers’ understanding that teaching and learning can change through the use of these technologies and how technologies can support pedagogies.  Technological Content Knowledge reflects knowledge about the way technology and content are related. Understanding the influence of technology on the presentation of certain content is important here. This works in two ways; the way subject matter changes because of technology and the way technology can support subject matter. Teachers need to be able to choose (the most) appropriate technology for presenting certain content in order to make it transparent and understandable for students. This also works the other way around: not every content is appropriate for a certain technology (e.g. teaching about grammar might not  be as effective when using a calculator). Pedagogical Content Knowledge is the knowledge needed to make content understandable and meaningful for students with different interests and different intellectual levels.   

Integrating all these elements results in Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, shown in the middle of the model. This middle element is about the knowledge needed to integrate content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and technological knowledge in practice in a valuable way.  Teachers need to understand the way in which these knowledge domains are related and how to keep a balance between them (Koehler and Mishra, 2009). For example: students need to make a website about a history subject. To guide this activity, the teacher needs knowledge about the subject matter (CK), about the software the websites are constructed with (TK) and about pedagogies to help students carry out the activity (e.g. making a choice between working in groups or using traditional instruction).

Knowledge and skills needed to integrate technology in practice is more than understanding content, pedagogies and technologies. The same principles are not valid in every specific situation. This means the context should also be accounted for, so the teacher should understand how context characteristics influence technology integration (e.g. student population, ICT infrastructure of a school, etc.).

The artist’s taste

Using technology in a valuable way is not obvious for teachers, as is finding the right balance between the elements from the TPACK model.  This certainly is not an easy job. The TPACK framework is a great step in supporting teachers in integrating technology in their teaching.  Just as artists have their own taste about their work (style, favorite colors etc.), so do teachers. Teachers have for example different opinions and different preferences (Hermans et al., 2008). However, this is not accounted for in the TPACK model, which is purely about knowledge. In addition to the TPACK teachers have, beliefs, attitudes and former experiences that also play an important role. As So and Kim (2009) suggest: owning knowledge is not enough, owning knowledge does certainly not mean the teacher is actually going to use it. Other important factors are for example self efficacy and educational orientation. In the next post I am going to elaborate on the added value of TPACK.

*As you might have noticed, the A is not in the explanation. The change from TPCK to TPACK was done to emphasize the ‘total package teachers need. Next to that TPACK sounds better than TPCK.

References

Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1499–1509. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.001

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

So, H. J. & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: Student teachers integrating technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 101-116.

”The art and science of teaching”

This is what pedagogy is called very often (e.g. Reeves, 1994). What is the art about? And why is it an art? According to Koehler and Mishra (2009) pedagogy is about the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning. This week we talked about pedagogy. It was interesting to find out that there are many pedagogical approaches and that the ongoing developments in technology actually influence these pedagogical approaches. For instance, these days a lot of the approaches can be supported in a course management system (CMS) in many different ways. In this post I will discuss five pedagogical approaches and give an example of a way in which the approach can be supported by a CMS.

Little note: To write this post I used DragonNaturallySpeaking, a speech software, so to write this down I just spoke the words. This is the first time I use this software, at the end of this post I will let you know how that worked out! :-)

 

Traditional learning (http://www.clipartpal.com/
clipart_pd/education/desk_10579.html)

Traditional learning is probably a pedagogical approach that we all know. The content is provided by the teacher (often face-to-face) and there is minimal interactivity with the students, communication goes in one way (teacher to student). In general this approach encompasses classical instruction and is teacher centered. Through a CMS this approach can, for instance, be supported by putting assignments and content information online.

Problem-based learning is “a form of enquiry-based learning, in which learning is driven by a process of inquiry” (Kwan, 2009). Different from traditional learning the teacher supports the students in their learning process instead of providing the content. Students collaborate in small groups to find a solution to a meaningful problem. In this process students develop self-directed learning skills and construct knowledge by sharing their experiences (Hmelo, Kinzer, Lin & Secules, 1999). Typically problem-based learning is student centered and has a constructivistic way of teaching.  This constructivistic approach can be supported through a CMS by, for instance, by providing mindmapping tools. This way the learning processes is supported.

The description of Kwan (2009), stated above, suggests that inquiry learning is in the same “pedagogical approaches group” as problem-based learning. So in what way do they differ? In inquiry learning the teacher provokes learning by starting with a question. Students will collaboratively ‘search’ for the answer to the question. After finding the answer the students discuss and reflect on their learning process or the appropriateness of their answer. The teacher is again supporting the learning process, but next to that also provides information. The latter differs from problem-based learning, where getting information about the content is the responsibility of the learner (Savery, 2006) and delivery of information is thus more teacher independent. Since in inquiry learning the teacher is responsible for delivering the relevant information but the student still needs to be able to discover, a CMS can support this approach by providing content related simulations or games. Also options to chat with peers or the teacher, a discussion board and a forum are ways a CMS can be of support.

Collaborative learning
(http://www.marant.nl/portfolio.php?q=112) 

During problem-based learning and inquiry learning, collaborative learning takes place. Collaborative learning is another pedagogical approach. The main characteristic of this approach is that learning takes place when two or more students work together and share their knowledge in order to complete a task (Boer, 2004). Again this approach is learner centered. The teacher guides the learning process and often determines preconditions based on the content. A CMS can provide tools to collaborate in order to support collaborative learning. Think about possibilities for filesharing or communication (e.g. chat, discussion boards and forum).

Workspace learning (http://www.cdsbeo.on.ca
/Student_Success/SHSM.htm)

Nowadays the workplace more often is conceptualized as an environment where people learn. Workspace learning is a form of on-the-job learning, or learning in practice. Most of the time workplace learning is about gaining experience and bringing theory into practice. Students learn from an expert. In this approach learning can happen formally or informally. Briefly, formal learning is planned while during informal learning can happen accidentally. A way a CMS can support workplace learning is for instance offering the possibility to contact workplace experts and organizing video conferences. Also a forum in which experts and students can communicate is an example.

How about that....

These descriptions already suggest that there is no fixed set of rules or conditions which the teacher has to apply in order to use these pedagogical approaches. Many approaches have at least some overlapping elements (for example problem-based learning also includes elements of collaborative learning). In practice one of the most important thing for teachers is to never forget the context in which they teach. So in order to do a good job teachers need to adjust the general ‘rules or conditions’ to the context. This also means that teachers could combine certain aspects of these approaches in order to optimize their teaching for the context. I can imagine this requires lot of creativity! Next to that, Because of the ongoing developments in technology, for the teacher it requires not only the knowledge about these technologies and the options related to this, but also a creative mind to find ways to support their teaching with these technologies.

Of course the way teachers work with these approaches and fill in the approaches, is dependent on the society they teach in. Workspace learning, for instance, will be more popular and far more appropriate in a knowledge society where the workplace is commonly conceptualized as a ´place to learn´ instead of a ´place to work´. Maybe that is something the teacher also keeps in mind.

So is teaching art? I would like to think so!

About the speech software: I must admit that it took me quite a while to make this post but it was a nice way to write. In the beginning I really had to get used to talking out loud instead of formulating the sentences in my head. Next to that it took me some time to make corrections when the program misinterpreted my words. But I think a little more practicing will do most of the job!

Boer, W.F. de (2004). Flexibility support for a changing university. Doctoral dissertation. Faculty of Educational Science and Technology, Univeristy of Twente. Enschede, NL: Twente University Press.

Hmelo, C., Kinzer,C.K., Lin, K. & Secules, T.J. (1999). Designing technology to support Reflection. ETR&D, 47 (3), 43-62.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Kwan, A. (2009). Problem-based learning. In: Huisman, J., Mok, K.H., Morphew, C.C. &Tight, M. (Ed.). The Routledge international handbook of higher education (pp. 91-109). New York: Routledge.

Reeves, T. C. (1994). Evaluating What Really Matters In Computer-Based Education. In: M. Wild & D. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), Computer Education: New perspectives, pp. 219-246

Savery, J.R. (2006). Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9-20.