Chapter+1+TPACK


 * 1) Click on "Edit This Page".
 * 2) Use the down arrow on your keyboard to get the cursor underneath the last horizontal bar.
 * 3) Type your name, highlight your name and then select Heading 3 at the top.
 * 4) Copy and paste your reflection underneath your name.
 * 5) Insert a horizontal bar under your reflection.
 * 6) Click save.

Abstract
Matthew J. Koehler and Punya Misrai, “Introducing TPCK”, Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators, Edited by The AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology, A Co-Publication of Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group and the American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education, p. 3-29, 2008

In chapter one the concept of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) is introduced as the knowledge and skills that teachers require to effectively integrate technology into the classroom. Furthermore, teaching is described as being an “ill-structured domain” that is often context dependent. A wide range of organized knowledge (and understanding), including knowledge of technology, content, and pedagogy, must be effectively connected with everyday practice. The authors state that technology is not unbiased or without inherent characteristics that make it more applicable in some situations than others. This protean nature of digital technologies is a viewed as a strength, but it also makes successful integration into the classroom challenging. Integrating technology is further complicated by the instability of digital technologies, requiring teachers to be constantly learning and developing an ability to deal with technology's ambiguous characteristics and move beyond functional fixedness. This critical, flexible knowledge depends on an understanding of the complicated interaction between content, pedagogy, and technology. The chapter concludes with a discussion of “knowledge as design”, stressing the need for teachers to be curriculum designers who are inventive and can create balance between thought and action.

Synthesis
Overall, [|technology integration] is seen as an "ill-structured domain" and a "[|wicked problem]" that creates a multitude of barriers to teaching. Although these barriers exist, a handful of us find them to be learning opportunities to educate and improve instruction and learning for both our students and ourselves. In addition, there is a necessity to create our own style in implementing technology to fit what works for us within our curricula. Technology integration can be a "burden" to some, but we can all agree that as education moves forward, the integration of technology is a necessary part of our teaching. The major concern that we have as educators, is "how" do we implement and utilize technology? When will we ever have the time for this planning? Who can help us get there? We have classmates from both sides of the digital divide (which is representative of most teaching environments), and, thankfully, our “immigrants” and “natives” are more than willing to try to bridge the implementation gap. Professional development, through the varied forms it takes, will be a critical element in increasing awareness, growth, and flexibility regarding technology integration throughout the faculty. Growth is what we expect from our students; we have an obligation to demonstrate it and serve as models. toc

Jennah I.
I thought it was interesting how the authors considered teaching an “ill-structured” domain. The comparison of teaching to the topic of biomedicine was surprising. In my experience, teaching is not given the credit of being so complex. This was a refreshing perspective. The concept of constraints and affordances (p. 6) was thought provoking. Especially when the authors discussed email. This example struck a cord because I rely very heavily upon email in our school. This is a culture shift that I have a love/hate relationship with. The affordances of having everything written down, sending out messages to several people at once, and being connected online are all too often balanced by the constraints. These include the intended tone of an email, the interpersonal communications, and the climate of the school in general. For example, we have very few announcements read over the intercom. Although this leads to fewer interruptions, we certainly have a very non-social dynamic during the school day. Also, we have students and staff who do not always “get the memo” because they missed an email posting. I appreciated that the authors noted that most technologies were intended for the business world, and that we teachers have the (sometimes daunting) task of reconfiguring them for pedagogical purposes (p. 8). They went on to talk about how programs can be “riddled with bugs” and are “too often unreliable”. This could not be any more true. There have been many days that I have entered the classroom with a great lesson, relying heavily on a working network, to find that the server is down, or some other tech difficulty. It is on those days that we have to think on our feet, and produce a Plan B in 30 seconds or less. It can lead you to feel defeated and utterly frustrated. There is a part of me that knows that some lessons are only as good as the physical technology allows. We also have ongoing issues with our grade book database, and reporting through our portal grade account with parents. These are the days that technology gets in my way rather than helps. The overview and Venn diagram of the TPCK model was useful and I have a pretty clear general understanding of how the three components work individually and combined. I did make a note on page 14 that whoever the teacher is that “understands how they [students] develop habits of mind and positive dispositions towards learning” should let me know what he/she has figured out, because I would like a piece of that pedagogy. Sometimes TK can be completely overwhelming. I like the concept of it being more of a mindset that is open to how technology ever evolves. Technology is so vast it is irrational to think we will always be on the cutting edge of everything as it progresses. However, I can be open to what it can bring, and I am amazed at its potential. I thought the video games study was enlightening. Students LOVE gaming. They come to school bleary eyed and beat. It would be great if we could access this passion with educational games, but I see how constraints don't make school gaming as fun to play. I would think more along the lines of taking the fun games, and finding the content lessons that are embedded. I know the manuals are sometimes allowed as independent reading for my Sophomores.

Abby
I found this chapter interesting as I had never really thought how everything that is done in the classroom everyday is connected. The TPCK model makes it clear how it all comes together to make up how a classroom functions. I had never really thought about how content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and especially technological knowledge was all connected and how much they all have in common and depend on each other for a well functioning classroom to prepare students for the future. I have always used a lot of technology in my classroom but never really thought of it as part of the subject area, I had always thought of it as another way to learn the required information or content knowledge. Another section in this reading that was really eye opening was the section about the two different groups of people teaching in schools. I have always known that there are people that are very comfortable with technology and there are others who see it as a waste of time and still others who simply are not as comfortable with it. I had never really though about how the other side sees the group I am apart of nor had I never really thought about how I thought of the other group. This chapter really made me think about this divide of thought when it said: // Technologists view non-technologists as Luddites, conservative, resistant to change and oblivious to the transformative power of technology. On the other hand, non-technologists tend to view technologists as being shallowly enthusiastic, ignorant of education and learning theories, and unaware of the realities of classrooms and schools. // This divide does exist in the school I teach but I doubt it is such a divide as this quote describes. This makes me really think though how others may look at my classroom with the use of daily technology and project that rely on the use of technology on a weekly basis. This chapter really started me thinking about these two different things and may make the way I look at my classroom change a little bit.

Jennifer B.
Basically constructed as an overview of the theory of teaching as a complex task that requires significant considered intention and reflection to be effective, this chapter provided several key concepts that I expect will become the basis of the rest of the book. One such concept is the understanding of teaching as both ill-structured and a “wicked problem,” a term that I like not only because its phrasing connotes subversiveness and (in Maine-speak) indicates it is a serious issue, but because it gets at the heart of the difficulty of teaching and learning. All too often (and by this, I mean every day), we teachers are confronted with a journal, a support professional, a parent, or a consultant telling us the “correct way” to teach in order to attain a successful outcome. Although the definition of “correct” changes constantly, the level of frustration that occurs when we feel forced to integrate such-and-such a theory or concept or tool into our classroom remains high, especially when it creates unforeseen complications with which we then have to contend. What the idea of a “wicked problem” provides is the understanding that the aspects of teaching, including assessing developmental readiness, social interaction, discipline, methods of assessment and so forth, are so complex and interrelated that there is no final answer. We can certainly work on our methods with due consideration to student outcomes, but with every change we make, we must be aware that another difficulty may arise and that, even when we are satisfied with portions of the result, it may not be generalizable to other specific classrooms and/or a new wave of “correct” pedagogy may present itself. Realizing that educational theory and research supports this experience of my own helps me realize that because I am unable to perfect my practice does not necessarily mean that I have failed but that the nature of the problem requires ongoing manipulation and indeed may never be entirely solved. Another aspect of this chapter that intrigued me was the honest discussion of roadblocks that many educators may come up against when attempting to or considering whether to integrate technology into their curriculum. Although I went to college during a time when email was a novel idea and letter writing was still more common, I don’t consider myself particularly old or “out-of-the-loop.” Even so, it can be difficult with the ever-changing world of technology (including the Internet, information, and software available to us) to know exactly what exists and how best to incorporate it into our curriculum. Indeed, even when we know of and are familiar with a particular technology (ex. digital cameras), our “functional fixedness” can cause us to see its use as limited (of no use in the English classroom), whereas with the help of other creative educators, we might suddenly open our eyes to untold possibilities (using them to capture the idea of “perspective” in my unit on point of view and avoiding prejudice). Thankfully, in our district, we have had some in-service days in which just this kind of sharing our own novel technological experiences has been showcased for others and which I have found immeasurably helpful.

Zachary
The thought of teaching as an “ill-structured domain” was unnerving. Teaching is as much a science as it is an art, and the only way to train for it and learn what works in the classroom is through practice and experience. Through experience (and subsequent classroom success) is easy to become complacent with how we do our job versus actively seeking ways to improve. Our ways have consistently demonstrated what we see as success in our classrooms through how our students perform. Without a clear vision or mission regarding the incorporation of technology throughout the organization, technology integration will remain superficial and stuck in the limited knowledge non-digital natives and digital natives alike have regarding how teaching and learning can be made stronger through proper, meaningful application. We will remain doing what we believe works because, in our minds, it has been successful. Complacency is bred through organizational structure. In order to make meaningful learning experiences that promote problem solving through the application of technology, there will need to be both a desire to learn something that is difficult by all stakeholders and an effort made by all to remove individual biases regarding technology and its application in the classroom. This will need to be intrinsically initiated by the faculty and outwardly promoted by the administration. Because technology exists as a medium that is supposed to be manipulated and adapted to benefit a number of educational situations and settings (much like pedagogical strategies exist to be adapted to a number of educational and learning situations), we need to reject what we know about technology application to education like we have in developing the teaching strategies we have become accustomed to, so it does not add constraint or bias in how we incorporate or perceive we incorporate technology in our teaching. Regarding how this is going to impact me, I have been afforded a unique opportunity to take a leadership role from within my faculty in a number of capacities. As the chapter pointed out, technology is frustrating. When compounded with the thought of incorporating said technology in a classroom to promote the Quadrant D high application high knowledge learning (Rigor-Relevance Framework) that is at the heart of our school's mission and the 21st Century Skills Framework, it can seem daunting and near impossible. With many members of my school as non digital natives, I feel that it is part of my collegial duty to learn what I can about applying the technology at our disposal and feeding what I can to those interested in learning. This has started as a loosely run professional development system. The thought is that I can help bridge the cultural divide surrounding technology by providing useful developmental conversation in my department. We informally meet and share when we stumble across something of interest with the potential for cross curricular benefits. Schools are supposed to function as a unit. As the chapter suggests, we need to incorporate methods for teaching through technology that will fit how and where we need them. We are catering to fit our needs. The “wicked problems” that only beget more problems will provide me with a chance to be part of helping colleagues break from their biases of technology and help the organization create classroom application and staff development that comes from within the school, by a member of the school. With the push for standards-based assessment systems and heterogeneously designed classrooms the need for the entire organization to meaningfully incorporate technology to promote learning and problem solving is necessary. How technology can be used to develop skills and conceptual knowledge over straight knowledge is going to challenge all of my conceptions of what my practice and experience has given me. I know what works in my classroom. Let me rephrase. I know what works in my classroom with admittedly superficial application of technology as a concept builder. With 1 to 1 laptops, handhelds, iPods, and the myriad other technologies at our disposal, I look forward to challenging what I know pedagogically and helping my faculty do the same.

Megan
Throughout my short four years of teaching special education I have become frequently frustrated with the tasks I am expected to do and do well. I was sure that when I graduated form college, I held all the answers to the teaching profession in my hand. What I found was a profession with no easy answers. Koehler and Misher stated in their introduction “teaching is an ill structured, complex domain.” I believe that this one statement explains my frustration. There are no easy answers in a profession where there is no consistent structure and is full of “wicked problems.” I face many “wicked problems” every day and in multiple contexts. Every problem must be dealt with differently and it eases my mind to have Koehler and Misher agree with me. They further stated that these “wicked problems” cannot be solved in a linear fashion. This relates directly to my teaching and working with other teachers for help with my students for each “wicked problem” I face, I deal with independently and with only those issues in hand. Yet another frustration with teaching is working to successfully integrate technology. This is my first year with a SmartBoard in my classroom. Despite the rave reviews, I am still struggling with how to integrate it successfully. In Koehler and Misher's introduction they stated that technology plays a complex role in teaching due to many reasons such as digital technologies being unstable, opaque, teachers having inadequate training, and technology often being considered to be someone else's problem. I can relate to each of these complexities with technology. I also found it interesting to read what the Technological Pedagogocial Content Knowledge is and the many parts it has to make it function. When I finished reading this section for the second time it made my head spin. Koehler and Misher argue that TPCK is the basis of effective teaching with technology. When one thinks about the parts that make up the TPCK model it makes it very difficult to be an effective teacher. Not only must we (teachers) be master of our curriculum, our students learning style, and our style of teaching, but we must now be master of integrating technology into our curriculum. Overall this introduction was intriguing and full of topics that I find interesting. I am looking forward to the readings and learning more about the TPCK design.

Lindsay
The goal of TPCK seems to be to develop the “perfect” teacher, where technology helps students learn their content of a particular topic. It is key to understand that students construct knowledge and acquire skills in different ways. We must tailor to the needs to students. Be flexible! Although I like to think that I am on my way to being this “perfect” teacher, it is a challenge for many (and most) of us. I am considered to be a //digital native// while the majority of my coworkers are //digital immigrants//. AS I have become a technology leader in my school, I am have found it very challenging to get everyone else on board. Teachers are comfortable with what they already know, and are uneasy that a student might possess more TK than they do. Of course they do! So what!?! Let them help us all out! I am constantly reinforcing the idea that we just need to “reconfigure” these lessons to meet the needs of our students. They also feel as though this new technology will just provide more issues and constraints, but these can be dealt with. The benefits are much greater than the “issues” that will pop up. I think that it is important to point out that the solutions to these “wicked problems” are not always right or wrong. Just as teachers need to custom design their curriculums, our road blocks will also be custom designed. There is a great emphasis on the idea of teachers being “curriculum designers.” Through the integration of technology, content and pedagogy, teachers are not only being told what to do, but they are being told to be creative as they can to design a curriculum that supports the “perfect teacher” model. It is important to realize that technology is ever changing, as are the students.

Linnea
I started a Facebook page! It's interesting to realize how much time can be wasted on social networking site. Of course I'm sure that I am not recognizing/acknowledging potential value of the site. Instead, I am looking for the drawbacks and pitfalls. Does anybody ever get in trouble for "potential value"? It was enlightening to field a question from one of my students within three days of putting up my Facebook page. There was a lot of terminology that I didn't understand (tagging, etc.) but I am naturally cautious enough to keep settings as private as possible. This becomes a talking point with my students. First and foremost, why I wouldn’t want to friend a student. No wonder people get into trouble on a social networking site! It is way too easy to misuse intentionally or otherwise. I do have a better understanding of some of the influence it has on my students. If you don’t get to the first element correctly, you will never get to the second. What is the first element in TPCK? This appears to be developed further in Chapter 2. Teaching as an ill-structured, complex domain I really like this idea. I don't think it comes as any surprise to teachers. It may start to explain why teachers are generally such poor advocates for themselves. Our priorities require us to react and revise continually, instead of strategizing. Developing a strategic plan and delegating responsibility tends to be a lower priority than communicating with students and managing the classroom and entering grades. Digital Technologies as Protean, Unstable, and Opaque The idea of instructing preservice teachers as a primary means to encourage use of technology has some flaws. It will take 25 years or more to build the base of tech-savvy teachers. Trying to educate in-service teachers by means of isolated professional development events is ineffective. There needs to be continuity of support and a connection to the classroom responsibilities. Why don't I spend more time exploring technology on my own? It takes a lot of time, it's hit or miss in the learning of a new application, and it's uncertain if it can be applied to the MLTI technology. In the past I have spent a great deal of time developing entire units using software from NASA and from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Imagine my surprise when the technology that worked on my MacBook did not work on the students' MLTI computers. After that happens a couple of times I’m somewhat less motivated in investing effort in innovation. "No matter how hard you push the envelope, it's still stationery." So on the one hand, I'm excited about the potential for integrating various types of technology in the classroom. Concept mapping software seems to have a lot of potential as a tool for a wide variety of students. Then again, the concept mapping software on my MacBook can be exported easily to a wordprocessing program, but the student computers lack that capability. As a result, I need to repeat any unit development that I do. First, I need to develop it on my computer, and then redevelop it on a student computer, if I can get hold of one. One sneaky way around this problem is to ask a student to start developing the unit. This accomplishes a few things: tests the software for compatibility, saves me time, and makes a student feel (rightfully) like in important collaborator. This is not a bad thing.

Tara P
Chapter one of “Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Educators” caught my interest from the very beginning. Many of my beliefs about teaching was stated in this chapter. On page 6 when the author talks about how technology has, “certain constraints and affordances.” I believe this is an important concept to understand and to take your teaching to the next level. Many educators do not see the constraints and affordances. There are numerous pieces of technology that are protean. With technology being protean it is important to stay caught up on new information. This is very time consuming, but with collaboration I believe this is feasible. I really enjoyed the part in the chapter when the author talks about how technology is designed for others not educators. This is very true and it is our job to take the pieces of the technology that fit our realm and collaborate about the constraints and affordances. Not all educators have bought in to the idea of technology. In my experience, the educators that don’t use technology or use technology at a basic level do not know a lot about programs or about information on the web. The book describes this idea well. “These two groups read different journals, visit different conferences, and can have fundamentally different visions of the role of technology in the classroom.” (p. 8) I was entertained by the idea of a “wicked problem.” There is no one right answer that helps every situation an educator has. There are many factors that contribute to a “wicked problem.” The TPCK model is very interesting. I have never heard it used before. The core components of TPCK are obvious, but the explanation in the book is excellent. It takes a lot of work to be a teacher that is teaching at the heard of the model. All parts of the model are crucial in my classroom. I believe in content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and technological knowledge. Each part brings students something that they need to succeed in life. In my classroom I try to find creative ways that reach the students that are assessable to all. Creating a classroom that is rich in content and using my bag of tricks to reach all learners topped off with the use of technology is my goal everyday. At the heart of TPCK all core components are used together. Creating an assembly line of teachers does not work. Every educator has their own style of teaching. I have never thought of a teacher being the curriculum designer, but it is so true. We do have curriculums to follow, but not every student learns the same way. There are multiple ways to teach subject matter, and it is the teachers job to ensure that all students are learning. We are the curriculum designers and what and how we teach are a vital part to our students learning. In conclusion, I am really excited about this book. I think that many teachers can reach to goal of TPCK. I have learned that my ideas about teaching are not crazy according to TPCK and actually I am right on track. I look forward to learning new strategies to bring to my classroom. I believe that my role as a teacher at SAD 17 is to help with the digital divide amongst students and to educate teachers about the importance of technology in the classroom.

Jen F.
There were a few key terms and definitions that were new to me in this chapter, but mainly I felt that the authors reiterated ideas in a neatly synthesized way, that I have already had. In our last course (Research Methods), I did a short research project on the integration of technology in the preschool classroom. My research agreed with Koehler and Mishra about many issues, including the barriers to the use of technology in the classroom. What I did find interesting was the study described on page 19 that found commercial software games to be more difficult and cognitively demanding than educational games. I had never given this real thought, but it does make sense, because teachers want games that can be easily used without a lot of direct instruction and teacher support. Students need to be able to master their game in a short amount of allotted time. When I think this through, educational games usually want to teach a direct skill, so negotiating the game is not as important as being able to complete the assignment. Whereas software that is designed for play usually requires problem solving, exploration and practice in order to master the game. What are the real skills we want to teach with computers? Koehler and Mishra also discuss the “wicked problem” of integrating technology into the classroom as a problem that cannot be solved with one approach. Since teachers operate autonomously and should have some control over their curriculum design and also come to technology with their own apprehensions and understanding, a prescribed training will not fix the problem. My before mentioned research led me to believe that training opportunities may correct the issue of teacher barriers, but now I am thinking that it may be a more complex issue. It leads me to believe that it would be more important for the teacher to be interested and connected to the process, rather than fed a diet of trainings that may not lead anywhere. This really might be a “wicked problem”.

Myrna
My ﬁrst reﬂection on this reading would have to include the complexity of the vocabulary being used. I am still trying to determine if that speciﬁcity is required for understanding or if the authors are simply throwing the terms out to look good. That being said, there was a great deal of information included in these twenty-four pages.

I have been struggling with integrating many aspects of digital technology this year and was encouraged by the deﬁnition of a “wicked problem” introduced by Rittel and Webber. The idea that there may be no ﬁnal answer and that it may be enough to simply ﬁnd a satisfactory solution has a freeing air to it.

I am encouraged by the idea of knowledge as design and have long believed that we need to teach our students how to learn. I am also humbled by the magnitude of the job at hand. I think sometimes you get stuck in the trenches and you spend most of your time simply trying to keep the walls from caving in around you. As you determinedly dig out, more and more is thrown in. Some of us are lucky enough to be able to take classes that offer a fresh perspective and provide the tools to dig quicker, more efﬁciently and with greater conﬁdence. I have a feeling this class is going to provide just that.

When I think of my class, I know the needs of each student are different and I work and work and work to meet them all at their level. I am getting a glimpse of a future where the technology can help me to meet some of those basic needs. Having immigrated into this realm, I am on a massive learning curve. The excitement is there and the drive to provide my students with the knowledge they need to be successful continues to push me forward.

Peggy
As I read the beginning of this chapter that introduced the TPCK framework, I found some rereading was needed. When I came to the part where the authors described the nature of teaching—that it is complex, dynamic and must increasingly integrate a firm grasp of technology, it became more familiar. On page 8, the authors stated, “the instability of digital technologies requires that teachers become life-long learners who are willing to contend with ambiguity, frustration, and change.” This statement caused me to really consider the characteristics of technology that will always be there—instability, ambiguity, changeability, and anxiety. I knew this to be true from my own experiences with technology—just when I thought I had a problem figured out, there were new problems to be solved that I wasn’t prepared for.As I read further, it became clear that viewing technology integration as simply “problem solving” is too simplified. My first reading of the chapter seemed like confirmation of some things I already knew, yet as I reread it, I began understand how content, pedagogy, and technology are three kinds of knowledge that must be integrated effectively. Technology definitely complicates teaching, and the authors explored a variety of reasons. I have experienced some of these issues firsthand over the past few years. For example, their discussion of the protean nature of digital technologies can be strength; there are definitely many ways to consider the use of technology in the classroom so it allows for creativity. At the same time, their rapidly changing and opaque nature makes it difficult for classroom teachers to keep up with the changes and feel confident. Then there is the issue of teacher training and support that has decreased over the past several years. In our school, hardware and software glitches have often caused setbacks, and delayed progress. The book made an excellent point that running out of support, money, resources, and time require us to find new ways of dealing with the complexity and imperfections of using technology effectively in education. Sometimes we have to settle for a satisfactory result, rather than the perfect vision. In reading the part about diverse classroom contexts, it is clear that more “digital natives” come to elementary school every year. Thus, my awareness of my own status as a “digital immigrant” grows accordingly, as well as the need for a greater understanding of the interaction between many kinds of knowledge that are necessary. What I will remember most from this chapter is that the TPK model means educators must be “forward-looking, creative, and open-minded”.

Heather Ross
When it comes to technology, I am definitely a digital immigrant. As I was leaving high school the use of a computer, outside of a simple word processor, was just beginning. I knew what the Internet was but it was not something that I had access to at school or at home. It was something fancy that the businessmen used. The average person did not have the privilege. The world we exist in today is totally different. As a teacher, I interact regularly with students that are digital natives and this represents a serious challenge for me. In terms of TPCK, I fear I will always lack mastery of the “T” portion of the term. I have taken numerous technology courses and stay in regular contact with the technology integrationist at the school. Despite my efforts, I always encounter what I refer to as the wicked problem of technology – the constant changing nature of technology. I just learned Power Point and now the school is encouraging the use of Key Note. I would love to learn the program but now I am into midterms, which is followed by a new semester. As usual, technology integration will have to be put on the back burner. In the meantime, the technology skills of my students are on the front burner and they will continue to surpass me. As I was reading this chapter, I was thinking about a recent meeting I had with my department that we were working on defining the skills needed as prerequisites into the honors courses offered at our school. We discussed rigor, quality reading and writing skills, and higher order thinking. A member of our department mentioned technological skills. We discussed it briefly and the majority of us, myself included, decided that we needed to focus on reading, writing, and higher level thinking skills. After having read this chapter, I realize that I may need to reevaluate my professional opinion on the importance of technology for students of 21st century.