Pedagogical Technologies in Teaching Activities

Document Sample
Pedagogical Technologies in Teaching Activities Powered By Docstoc
					Pedagogical Technologies
  in Teaching Activities.
      Pedagogical Technologies in
      Teaching Activities.

  Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a
framework to understand and describe the kinds of knowledge
needed by a teacher for effective pedagogical practice in a
technology enhanced learning environment. The idea of
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) was first described by Lee
Shulman (Shulman 1986) and TPACK builds on those core ideas
through the inclusion of technology. Punya Mishra, full professor,
and Matthew J. Koehler, associate professor, both at Michigan
State University, have done extensive work in constructing the
TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra 2008, Mishra & Koehler
        Pedagogical Technologies in
        Teaching Activities.
   The TPACK framework argues that effective technology integration for
    teaching specific content or subject matter requires understanding and
    negotiating the relationships between these three components: Technology,
    Pedagogy, and Content. A teacher capable of negotiating these relationships
    represents a form of expertise different from, and (perhaps) broader than, the
    knowledge of a disciplinary expert (say a scientist or a musician or
    sociologist), a technology expert (a computer engineer) or an expert at
    teaching/pedagogy (an experienced educator).
   The TPACK framework highlights complex relationships that exist between
    content, pedagogy and technology knowledge areas and may be a useful
    organizational structure for defining what it is that teachers need to know to
    integrate technology effectively (Archambault & Crippen, 2009).
Pedagogical Technologies in
Teaching Activities.
   TPACK consists of 7 different knowledge
    areas: (i) Content Knowledge (CK), (ii)
    Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), (iii) Technology
    Knowledge (TK), (iv) Pedagogical Content
    Knowledge (PCK), (v) Technological Content
    Knowledge (TCK), (vi) Technological
    Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), and (vii)
    Technological Pedagogical Content
    Knowledge (TPCK). All of these knowledge
    areas are considered within a particular
    contextual framework.
Pedagogical Technologies in
Teaching Activities.
   Technology knowledge, within the context of
    technology integration in schools, appears to
    most often refer to digital technologies such
    as laptops, the Internet, and software
    applications. TK does however go beyond
    digital literacy to having knowledge of how to
    change the purpose of existing technologies
    (e.g. wikis) so that they can be used in a
    technology enhanced learning environment
    (Harris, 2008).
Pedagogical Technologies in
Teaching Activities.
   Content knowledge may be defined as “a
    thorough grounding in college-level subject
    matter” or “command of the subject”
    (American Council on Education, 1999). It
    may also include knowledge of concepts,
    theories, conceptual frameworks as well as
    knowledge about accepted ways of
    developing knowledge (Shulman, 1986).
Pedagogical Technologies in
Teaching Activities.
   Pedagogical knowledge includes generic
    knowledge about how students learn,
    teaching approaches, methods of
    assessment and knowledge of different
    theories about learning (Harris et al.,
    2009; Shulman, 1986). This knowledge
    alone is necessary but insufficient for
    teaching purposes. In addition a
    teacher requires content knowledge.
Pedagogical Technologies in
Teaching Activities.
   Pedagogical content knowledge is knowledge
    about how to combine pedagogy and content
    effectively (Shulman, 1986). This is
    knowledge about how to make a subject
    understandable to learners. Archambault and
    Crippen (2009) report that PCK includes
    knowledge of what makes a subject difficult
    or easy to learn, as well as knowledge of
    common misconceptions and likely
    preconceptions students bring with them to
    the classroom.
Pedagogical Technologies in
Teaching Activities.
   Technological content knowledge refers
    to knowledge about how technology
    may be used to provide new ways of
    teaching content(Niess, 2005). For
    example, digital animation makes it
    possible for students to conceptualize
    how electrons are shared between
    atoms when chemical compounds are
Pedagogical Technologies in
Teaching Activities.
   Technological pedagogical knowledge
    refers to the affordances and
    constraints of technology as an enabler
    of different teaching approaches
    (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). For example
    online collaboration tools may facilitate
    social learning for geographically
    separated learners.
Pedagogical Technologies in
Teaching Activities.
   Technological pedagogical content knowledge
    refers to the knowledge and understanding of
    the interplay between CK, PK and TK when
    using technology for teaching and learning
    (Schmidt, Thompson, Koehler, Shin, &
    Mishra, 2009). It includes an understanding
    of the complexity of relationships between
    students, teachers, content, practices and
    technologies (Archambault & Crippen, 2009).
   Context

   Teachers are limited by what they are able to
    do within their own environment. For
    example, teachers with limited access to
    technology are unable to use Web 2.0 tools
    available to students in schools that have
    ubiquitous access to the Internet. Time,
    training, and the nature of assessment in
    schools also impacts on how technology may
    be used in classrooms.
   The TPACK framework is becoming increasingly popular as an
    organizing frame for the development of educational technology
    professional development programs for teachers. The use of
    TPACK in this way has created a need to be able to measure
    teacher TPACK. Research in this field is currently ongoing as it is
    proving to be difficult to define the boundaries of the different
    TPACK knowledge areas (Archambault & Crippen, 2009).

   TPACK framework does not necessarily mean that new
    technologies must be introduced, but instead relating creative
    ideas to using the technologies already available to educators.
    Each component: Technology, Pedagogy, and Content must all
    be within a given contextual framework.
   The student has knowledge and experience
    about education, instruction and teaching
    methods; recognizes and understands the
    importance of social interaction in a child's
    learning; has knowledge about a child's
    development and learning; is consciously
    aware of the teacher's role in the learning
    process of child; has an understanding of
    music therapy to help children with
   Our teaching has a history, too. Traditional pedagogical approaches
    emphasized the teacher as knowledge broker and the student as
    receiver of knowledge. The work was about content mastery. The
    "new" pedagogy - some refer to it as critical pedagogy, others as social
    constructivism - emphasizes the student as learner in a social context
    and knowledge as produced within a social context. This student-
    centred pedagogy seems to have been more thoroughly adopted at the
    elementary level where teachers are working to accommodate
    individual differences and build social systems. It is our argument that
    the pedagogy that characterizes much of the teaching at the post-
    secondary level is presently inadequate for evaluating the opportunities
    and the dangers of educational technology. Insights from student-
    centred elementary contexts along with ground-breaking work with
    educational technology at the post-secondary level provide the basis
    for our insistence that in considering educational technology,
    pedagogical concerns and support for professional development should
    receive top priority.
   Technology in the World - Promises and Paranoia
   The introduction of new technologies on a mass scale in North America
    has relied upon a widespread and systematic marketing campaign, one
    that equates the adoption of new technology with achievement (or
    increasingly, retention) of the "good life", and ties the failure to adopt
    new technology with dire individual and social consequences.
    Historically, a utopian vision has ushered in technological change. It is
    not until we find ourselves virtually enslaved to it (Mander, 1991) cites
    the examples of the automobile and the telephone) that we start to
    identify the wide range of implications, intended and unintended, of its
    use. The same corporations are using the same marketing plan to urge
    post-secondary educators to adopt educational technologies - promises
    and paranoia. There are promises that inadequate pedagogy will be
    made good by the technology; there is paranoia that without
    technology societal slippage in international trade will continue, and
    lowered standards of living will be the consequence for post-secondary
    graduates who will not have the skills necessary for decent
   We are told that North American economies are becoming less competitive internationally.
    Declining trade advantages are supposedly behind the deficit and the accompanying cuts in
    social spending. The "good life" is threatened. The only way to revive it is through
    technological advances. Rising unemployment is blamed on a lack of job related training,
    and computer skills are portrayed as the means by which individuals can participate in the
    technological revolution. For this economic revival, we are told we must re-tool our
    educational institutions to produce a highly skilled workforce.
   This marketing strategy ignores the fact that jobless growth has been one consequence of
    new technologies the introduction of which has been accompanied by the globalization of
    capital, the internationalization of work, and the downsizing of government.
   Rather than delivering the "good life," the impact of computer technology on the economies
    of the industrialized world has been dehumanizing. Jeremy Rifkin documents the grim story
    in his book, The End of Work - The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the
    Post Market Era. Between 1989 and `93, more than 1.8 million workers in the
    manufacturing sector in the United States lost their jobs. The steel industry cut its
    workforce in half in fifteen years. In 1850, 60 per cent of the working population of the
    United States was employed in agriculture; today it is less than 2.7%. The numbers from
    Germany, Finland, Canada and Japan are equally sobering.
   If you think these workers have landed on their feet in new technologies jobs, or in the
    expanding service sector, Rifkin suggests you think again. Of the 1.8 million displaced
    manufacturing workers, one third found new jobs in service, but at a 20 per cent drop in
    pay. These low-paying jobs are often part-time, and without benefits. Guy Standing refers
    to the trend of replacing well-paying permanent blue-collar jobs with poorly paying, part-
    time, temporary, service jobs as the "feminization of labour" (Standing, 1989, pp. 1077-
    1095). This change in the nature of work has enabled major corporations to pay $22 million
    less in wages over the decade of the 1980s.
   The jobs that haven't been automated out of existence in the industrialized countries have
    been moved out of reach of their incumbent workers moved off shore to poor countries
    where poor wages and poor working conditions put more pressure on the remaining
    workers in Canada and the US to keep their expectations low. This movement has itself
    been facilitated by the automation of financial work and the virtual world of banking
    supported by technology.
   Promises of the "good life" via the computer revolution have not been realized for most
    people. The winners of this revolution are referred to by Rifkin as "the new cosmopolitans,"
    as he records the fact that in 1953 executive compensation was 22 per cent of corporate
    profits; in 1987, 61 per cent. In 1979 the CEO earned 20 times the wage of the average
    manufacturing worker; in 1988, the CEO took home 93 times as many dollars as her/his
    employee. And in some macabre sense of balance, the number of people living in poverty
    has grown remarkably, too. In 1989, 31.5 million Americans lived in poverty, in 1991 it was
    35.78 million, in 1992, up to 36.9 million (Rifkin, 1995).
   Technology has definitely delivered on its promise of efficiency and productivity
    growth. Market forces and globalization have turned these productivity gains
    into handsome profits for a very small sector of society. We have to wonder
    what substance lies behind the promises associated with emerging technologies
    in education, and whether the distribution of advantage will be as uneven as it
    has been in the manufacturing sector.
   The silicon snake-oil sellers (Stoll, 1995) do not draw to our attention the
    dangerous consequences of technology. The same automobile that promised
    freedom and adventure has fouled the neighbourhood, snarled our adventure
    with congestion, threatened our supply of fossil fuels, made a mockery of "rush"
    hour, and killed many of our citizens. Chernobyl, the greenhouse effect, PCBs in
    breast milk, the Love Canal, and asbestos come to mind as we reflect on our
    technological "progress".
   The naive view of technology as value neutral has been challenged by scholars
    who have demonstrated that technology is conceived and constructed within
    specific social circumstances and has implications for social relations. Ursula
    Franklin makes a distinction between holistic technologies and prescriptive
    technologies, the former being technologies that enable egalitarian relationships
    by their use, the latter being technologies that are founded on hierarchical
   Holistic technologies are normally associated with the notion of craft. Artisans,
    be they potters, weavers, metal- smiths, or cooks, control the process of their
    own work from beginning to finish. (Franklin, 1990, p. 18)
   In contrast, prescriptive technologies entail a division of labour whereby "the
    making or doing of something is broken down into clearly identifiable steps"
    (Franklin, 1990, p. 24). A worker or group of workers carries out each step in
    isolation from other workers performing different steps. It is this very
    combination of the division of labour and atomism of tasks that necessitates a
    supervisory relationship. The distinction between prescriptive and holistic
    technologies is one between control-related and work-related production
   Franklin counsels us to attend not only to what technology enables, but also to
    what it prevents. The efficiency and potential for precision associated with
    prescriptive technologies have produced products that have raised our standards
    of living while at the same time creating a "culture of compliance" through
    inappropriate application of this model to virtually every sphere. She warns of
    the danger of imposing a prescriptive model on education, for example:
   If there ever was a growth process, a process that cannot be divided into rigid
    predetermined steps, it is education. (Franklin, 1990, p. 29)
   Postman notes that "the uses made of any technology are largely determined by the
    structure of the technology itself... functions follow from its form" (Postman, 1993, p. 7).
    Encoded within the technology are criteria for social relationships.
   Just as technologies, or specific uses of technologies can separate bosses from workers,
    they can create insiders and outsiders in other ways. Rifkin's data speaks to the winners
    and losers of the technologically restructured economy. Postman identifies the insiders who
    "can do" when he observes, "those who cultivate competence in the use of a new
    technology become an elite group that are granted undeserved authority and prestige by
    those who have no such competence" (Postman, 1993, p. 9). Insider and outsider status
    along gender lines is documented by Wajcman who notes, "As with science, the very
    language of technology, its symbolism, is masculine" (Wajcman, 1991, p. 156). The earliest
    contacts children have with computers leave a masculinist imprint - from the home-
    computer usually purchased for the boys in the family to the harassment of girls in schools
    by boys monopolizing computers, from the war-game based video games and software
    culture to the association of computing with mathematics rather than language. Girls are
    either denied access to this sphere or not encouraged to become involved in it the way that
    (especially middle-class) boys are (Hickling-Hudson, 1992, pp. 1-21). In the world of work,
    the kind of contact women have with computers tends to reinforce women's
    marginalization. Computer technology reflects and reinforces existing relations of power in
   Postman has special concerns about the impact that technology
    in the classroom can have on social relationships.
   In introducing the personal computer to the classroom, we shall
    be breaking a four-hundred-year-old truce between the
    gregariousness and openness fostered by orality and the
    introspection and isolation fostered by the printed word. Orality
    stresses group learning, cooperation, and a sense of social
    responsibility ... Now comes the computer, carrying anew the
    banner of private learning and individual problem-solving. Will
    the widespread use of computers in the classroom defeat once
    and for all the claims of communal speech? (Postman, 1993, p.
   The Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) project in the United States, launched ten years
    ago to study the productive use of technology in schools reported recently that "What
    happens in the classroom is largely the responsibility of the teacher. More or better
    technology isn't enough" (Fisher et al, 1996, p. 215). Fisher et al concluded that the
    problems holding back the use of technology in schools are social, not technological (1996,
    p. 219). If technology alone could improve teaching and learning, their research would have
    documented improvements in student learning in all subject areas, improvements they say
    were simply not to be found. They cautioned schools against the rush to "glittery
    application", recommending instead "technology use ... grounded firmly in curriculum goals,
    incorporated in sound instructional process, and deeply integrated with subject-matter
    content" (Fisher et al, 1996, p. 200)
   At the post secondary level, too, researchers are cautious about crediting technology with
    educational improvement. Schierman and Jones acknowledge that there is an assumption
    that technology is de facto beneficial to educational endeavors. However, they conclude
    from comprehensive, large-scale analyses of reports of benefit (e.g. Wilkenson 1980; Clark
    1983) "that claims of large gains in achievement are not warranted and, indeed, that the
    attribution of measurable gains in achievement to the use of any educational technology
    should be viewed with caution, since factors other than those cited as the cause of
    achievement gains may be responsible" (Schierman and Jones, 1996, p. 65).
   Nonetheless, the technology has its champions who say that achievements
    online are equal or superior to those generated in face-to-face situations
    (Harasim et al, 1996, p. 27). Harasim and her colleagues argue that the primary
    goals of the virtual classroom are to improve both the access to educational
    opportunities, and the quality of the educational process itself. They claim that
    in the majority of cases, these goals were achieved (Harasim et al, 1996, p. 88).
   Furthermore, they argue that, "Active learning is a major outcome of learning
    networks" (Harasim et al, 1996, p. 29). Indeed, they seem to claim that because
    of technology, learning environments are more democratic, teachers and
    students are more respectful of group knowledge, interaction is increased, and
    is of better quality (Harasim et al, 1996, p. 28).
   Chris Dede is another who extols the virtues of virtual education claiming that,
   The innovative pedagogies empowered by these emerging media, messages,
    and experiences make possible an evolution ...into an alternative instructional
    paradigm: distributed learning. In particular, advances in computer- supported
    collaborative learning, multi-media/hypermedia, and experiential simulation offer
    the potential to create shared 'learning-through-doing environments' available
    any place and any time. (Dede, 1996, p. 4)

Shared By: