Conclusion
Using TPACK certainly was a challenge. I am really glad that within the course Pedagogies for Flexible Learning Supported by Technology we did not only got the opportunity to learn about the theory of TPACK (and of course about different pedagogical approaches, different forms of flexibility in learning and about different technologies that can be used) but we also got challenged to really work with TPACK. I noticed that because we had to bring theory into practice, this framework becomes way more alive than when you only would read about it. Because of using the framework I got confronted with the decisions that have to be made when working with TPACK. If I would only have red about it, it certainly would not have made as much impression on me than it did now. Because now I experienced for myself what the difficulties for a teacher can be when integrating technology (as an instructional tool). I think as an educational designer, it is really important to know what teachers experience. Now I used the TPACK framework myself, I believe I know a bit more about how teachers can use TPACK, how it can help them but also what the problems while working with it can be. I do believe using TPACK is a good way of integrating technology. The framework gives teachers a basis of how they can approach technology and the other aspects within TPACK. Therefore I want to suggest to other educational designers as well as teachers to take their advantage of the TPACK framework. At first sight it may look simple, but beware it is more complex than it looks! But after understanding it and working with it, it will turn out to be a nice framework for integrating ICT. Just try it!
vrijdag 20 november 2009
Using TPACK, what a challenge! (6)
The implications for instructors
In the previous post I suggested that teachers should take their advantage of using the TPACK framework to integrate ICT to adopt new approaches for instruction. But in order to do so it is important to have knowledge of all the aspects/components of TPACK. Therefore teachers will have to get provided with this knowledge, and become aware of how to use it and what the advantages can be for them. I think Professional development is one of the main factors involved. As well as for pedagogy based knowledge, but especially how to integrate pedagogical knowledge with technological knowledge. Learning how to use a technology is one thing (also part of professional development) but learning how to combine a pedagogical approach with a technology is more difficult. And eventually knowing how to combine content with a pedagogical approach and a suitable technology is a real challenge.
The lesson, which me and my teammates designed, is an example for the teachers of grade 5/6 of primary education on how to integrate ICT as an instructional tool. After using this lesson, teachers can start making their own lessons based on the TPACK framework. This can be seen as a pilot-phase. If it goes well enough, the school can start implementing it on a greater scale (for instance in all classes and letting work all teachers with designing material based on TPACK to integrate ICT as an instructional tool).
During this process the teachers (instructors) have to be provided with pedagogical based support, as well as with technological based support (see previous post). This kind of professional development has to be supported. It can for instance be supported by an educational specialist and when the implementation process contineus, teachers can learn from each other (peer collaboration). The presented idea, in the figure above, suggests when the implemenation process from pilot-to-implementation continues, teachers will develop more pedagogy based knowledge. Not only from a educational specialist, but also from sharing knowledge and experiences. Furthermore they need to get technnological based knowledge, therefore they need to be provided with technological based support. This can for instance be provided by an ICT coordinator. Once a teacher has developed a basis of technological knowledge, and has also developed more pedagogy-based knowledge the teacher will propably be able to decide for him/her self what kind of technology is suitable with the specific content and pedagogical appraoch. I think this way technologies will get more integrated in the educational program of a school, without losing important pedagogies or content. When used well, technology will strengthen the content and pedagogical approach of a lesson.
To make this work in practice I believe good leadership is needed. Teachers will first have to become aware of the advantages which the use of technology in educational settings can have. Good leadership can motivate them to work on it. Leadership does not intrinsically have to come from a top-down approach. Collegues or students can also take the initiative to motivate teachers in designing their own lessons (based on the TPACK framework).
In the previous post I suggested that teachers should take their advantage of using the TPACK framework to integrate ICT to adopt new approaches for instruction. But in order to do so it is important to have knowledge of all the aspects/components of TPACK. Therefore teachers will have to get provided with this knowledge, and become aware of how to use it and what the advantages can be for them. I think Professional development is one of the main factors involved. As well as for pedagogy based knowledge, but especially how to integrate pedagogical knowledge with technological knowledge. Learning how to use a technology is one thing (also part of professional development) but learning how to combine a pedagogical approach with a technology is more difficult. And eventually knowing how to combine content with a pedagogical approach and a suitable technology is a real challenge.
The lesson, which me and my teammates designed, is an example for the teachers of grade 5/6 of primary education on how to integrate ICT as an instructional tool. After using this lesson, teachers can start making their own lessons based on the TPACK framework. This can be seen as a pilot-phase. If it goes well enough, the school can start implementing it on a greater scale (for instance in all classes and letting work all teachers with designing material based on TPACK to integrate ICT as an instructional tool).
During this process the teachers (instructors) have to be provided with pedagogical based support, as well as with technological based support (see previous post). This kind of professional development has to be supported. It can for instance be supported by an educational specialist and when the implementation process contineus, teachers can learn from each other (peer collaboration). The presented idea, in the figure above, suggests when the implemenation process from pilot-to-implementation continues, teachers will develop more pedagogy based knowledge. Not only from a educational specialist, but also from sharing knowledge and experiences. Furthermore they need to get technnological based knowledge, therefore they need to be provided with technological based support. This can for instance be provided by an ICT coordinator. Once a teacher has developed a basis of technological knowledge, and has also developed more pedagogy-based knowledge the teacher will propably be able to decide for him/her self what kind of technology is suitable with the specific content and pedagogical appraoch. I think this way technologies will get more integrated in the educational program of a school, without losing important pedagogies or content. When used well, technology will strengthen the content and pedagogical approach of a lesson.
To make this work in practice I believe good leadership is needed. Teachers will first have to become aware of the advantages which the use of technology in educational settings can have. Good leadership can motivate them to work on it. Leadership does not intrinsically have to come from a top-down approach. Collegues or students can also take the initiative to motivate teachers in designing their own lessons (based on the TPACK framework).
Using TPACK, what a challenge! (5)
The opportunities/challenges of Flexibility
During the design process we thought about opportunities for flexibility in the lesson design. There are flexible opportunities for the teacher as well as for the learner. But flexibility is also a challenging aspect, because how much flexibility can be considered responsible? For example for the learners, in this case it are learners from primary education (grade 5/6), how much flexibility can be offered to them? How much structure is needed and how can flexibility be still part of the designed lesson?
Flexibility for the learners
Although the lesson is designed for children from grade 5/6 of primary education, this does not mean that the lesson can not be made flexible. Children are able to deal with flexibility, but of course some structure is needed to let them also accomplish the learning goals. Within inquiry learning a certain independence from the learners is asked. Although this does not mean that they don’t have to be supported! The teacher has to guide the entire learning process of the learners.
Also the technology provides in a certain amount of flexibility. Within the WebQuest the learner can find resources needed to find answers for the predictions that he or she has made in advance. The resources are given, and therefore structured (the teacher can provide the learner with those resources on the WebQuest) but the learner has to find out him or herself what to do with the resources and how to use them. The teacher can in this case also be flexible by providing the learner with more or different resources.
Next to that, we thought about the possibility to let the learner choose when he/she wants to work on the lesson (with the WebQuest) this provides a lot of flexibility for the learner. When the learner can for instance choose two moments in a certain period when he/she wants to work with the WebQuest, the flexibility will be higher than when the whole class has to work on the WebQuest at the same time. Another advantage of not working with a whole class at the same time on the WebQuest is that less computers are needed at the same time.
Another flexible part of this lesson can be found in the fact that the learners can perform a self-assessment on the WebQuest. The teacher does not have to assess every learner, he has to guide the learning process. This leaves flexibility options for the learner to assess when he/se thinks to have finished the lesson. It also recalls to the part that learners can decide for themselves when they want to do the lesson on Electrical circuit on the computer, using the WebQuest.
Flexibility for the teacher
When the learners get the opportunity to choose for themselves when they want to work on the lesson within a certain period, this can mean a problem for the teacher. It could mean that the teacher has to prepare the lesson every time for only one or two students (learners). But in our design this should not be a problem, because of the way technology is integration in the lesson. Explanation: some lesson activities have changed because of the technology. By making use of a WebQuest new approaches became possible. Learners can now try how a electric circuit works in a simulation. They can switch wires, lights, batteries and switches as much as they want to see what happens with the lights and the electric circuit. The teacher does not have extra preparing time, in contradiction when learners have to test their hypotheses (predictions) by making an electrical circuit with real wires, real lights (that can break), real batteries and switches. When learners (especially in primary education) are going to “play” with real material (and real electricity) the teacher will have much more preparing time, because all the materials should be there and should be save. Afterwards all the materials have to be cleaned up again. While, when a simulation in the WebQuest (in the resources) is used, the learner can practice safely, without extra preparing time for the teacher and without making a mess out of it. (This can spare the teacher also a lot of time, now it is possible to spend this ‘extra’ time on guiding the learner in the learning process, while he/she is doing their own investigation based on the resources of the WebQuest).
The learners can perform a self-assessment on the WebQuest. The teacher does therefore not have to prepare the assessment of the lesson, and to correct it afterwards. Although it is possible that the teacher wants to test other knowledge or skills about electrical circuits than are presented in the self-assessment. When the self-assessment is being used, the teacher does of course have to guide the learner when necessary and monitor the learner when completing the self-assessment. This also has flexibility options, because the teacher does not have to monitor all the learners at the same time.
The teacher has flexibility options in organizing the lesson. It is possible to give the learners the opportunity to decide for themselves when they are going to work on the lesson, but the teacher can also decide how many learners at one time will be working on the lesson. Although the lesson has an inquiry approach, this does not mean that there is no structure within the WebQuest. The learners can decide for themselves how they attain in the WebQuest, but the structure will lead them to the goal. This gives also flexibility to the teacher, because the learners can work independent on the lesson. The teacher can help them, if they have questions.
A flexibility challenge can be found in the fact that the teachers can make their own WebQuests. Next to pedagogical based support, they will need to get technological based support to do so. But when they have learned how to make WebQuests themselves, they can choose to use them for different topics. This provides the teacher with a lot of flexibility in integrating ICT to adopt new approaches in instruction, by applying inquiry learning in using WebQuests.
Personally I think flexibility is really important for the learner as well as for the teacher. I believe people are more motivated to learn when they can have some influence in their own learning process. Whether it is because they can decide for themselves when they are working on a lesson (or with a WebQuest), or how they use the resources in the WebQuest. I also believe that a teacher will be more motivated to use a lesson if he/she has designed it him/her self or was part of a design team. Whether it is because they have made their own WebQuests or because they used the whole TPACK framework to design their lessons. Therefore I do believe that teachers should try to work with the TPACK framework, it can help them integrating ICT suitable with the pedagogical approach and the content in an innovative way. I see it as an change on flexibility for teachers in designing their own lessons.
During the design process we thought about opportunities for flexibility in the lesson design. There are flexible opportunities for the teacher as well as for the learner. But flexibility is also a challenging aspect, because how much flexibility can be considered responsible? For example for the learners, in this case it are learners from primary education (grade 5/6), how much flexibility can be offered to them? How much structure is needed and how can flexibility be still part of the designed lesson?
Flexibility for the learners
Although the lesson is designed for children from grade 5/6 of primary education, this does not mean that the lesson can not be made flexible. Children are able to deal with flexibility, but of course some structure is needed to let them also accomplish the learning goals. Within inquiry learning a certain independence from the learners is asked. Although this does not mean that they don’t have to be supported! The teacher has to guide the entire learning process of the learners.
Also the technology provides in a certain amount of flexibility. Within the WebQuest the learner can find resources needed to find answers for the predictions that he or she has made in advance. The resources are given, and therefore structured (the teacher can provide the learner with those resources on the WebQuest) but the learner has to find out him or herself what to do with the resources and how to use them. The teacher can in this case also be flexible by providing the learner with more or different resources.
Next to that, we thought about the possibility to let the learner choose when he/she wants to work on the lesson (with the WebQuest) this provides a lot of flexibility for the learner. When the learner can for instance choose two moments in a certain period when he/she wants to work with the WebQuest, the flexibility will be higher than when the whole class has to work on the WebQuest at the same time. Another advantage of not working with a whole class at the same time on the WebQuest is that less computers are needed at the same time.
Another flexible part of this lesson can be found in the fact that the learners can perform a self-assessment on the WebQuest. The teacher does not have to assess every learner, he has to guide the learning process. This leaves flexibility options for the learner to assess when he/se thinks to have finished the lesson. It also recalls to the part that learners can decide for themselves when they want to do the lesson on Electrical circuit on the computer, using the WebQuest.
Flexibility for the teacher
When the learners get the opportunity to choose for themselves when they want to work on the lesson within a certain period, this can mean a problem for the teacher. It could mean that the teacher has to prepare the lesson every time for only one or two students (learners). But in our design this should not be a problem, because of the way technology is integration in the lesson. Explanation: some lesson activities have changed because of the technology. By making use of a WebQuest new approaches became possible. Learners can now try how a electric circuit works in a simulation. They can switch wires, lights, batteries and switches as much as they want to see what happens with the lights and the electric circuit. The teacher does not have extra preparing time, in contradiction when learners have to test their hypotheses (predictions) by making an electrical circuit with real wires, real lights (that can break), real batteries and switches. When learners (especially in primary education) are going to “play” with real material (and real electricity) the teacher will have much more preparing time, because all the materials should be there and should be save. Afterwards all the materials have to be cleaned up again. While, when a simulation in the WebQuest (in the resources) is used, the learner can practice safely, without extra preparing time for the teacher and without making a mess out of it. (This can spare the teacher also a lot of time, now it is possible to spend this ‘extra’ time on guiding the learner in the learning process, while he/she is doing their own investigation based on the resources of the WebQuest).
The learners can perform a self-assessment on the WebQuest. The teacher does therefore not have to prepare the assessment of the lesson, and to correct it afterwards. Although it is possible that the teacher wants to test other knowledge or skills about electrical circuits than are presented in the self-assessment. When the self-assessment is being used, the teacher does of course have to guide the learner when necessary and monitor the learner when completing the self-assessment. This also has flexibility options, because the teacher does not have to monitor all the learners at the same time.
The teacher has flexibility options in organizing the lesson. It is possible to give the learners the opportunity to decide for themselves when they are going to work on the lesson, but the teacher can also decide how many learners at one time will be working on the lesson. Although the lesson has an inquiry approach, this does not mean that there is no structure within the WebQuest. The learners can decide for themselves how they attain in the WebQuest, but the structure will lead them to the goal. This gives also flexibility to the teacher, because the learners can work independent on the lesson. The teacher can help them, if they have questions.
A flexibility challenge can be found in the fact that the teachers can make their own WebQuests. Next to pedagogical based support, they will need to get technological based support to do so. But when they have learned how to make WebQuests themselves, they can choose to use them for different topics. This provides the teacher with a lot of flexibility in integrating ICT to adopt new approaches in instruction, by applying inquiry learning in using WebQuests.
Personally I think flexibility is really important for the learner as well as for the teacher. I believe people are more motivated to learn when they can have some influence in their own learning process. Whether it is because they can decide for themselves when they are working on a lesson (or with a WebQuest), or how they use the resources in the WebQuest. I also believe that a teacher will be more motivated to use a lesson if he/she has designed it him/her self or was part of a design team. Whether it is because they have made their own WebQuests or because they used the whole TPACK framework to design their lessons. Therefore I do believe that teachers should try to work with the TPACK framework, it can help them integrating ICT suitable with the pedagogical approach and the content in an innovative way. I see it as an change on flexibility for teachers in designing their own lessons.
Using TPACK, what a challenge! (4)
Working with TPACK
As stated in the previous post, we have been designing a lesson based on the TPACK framework starting from the Content.
The figure above, shows the three circles which establish TPCK in the middle. The context is not added in this figure, the context in normally presented as a big circle around the three circles (see other posts). I will come to that later on in this post.
Before starting this project, I expected that it would be easier to start from the content knowledge than starting from pedagogical knowledge or technological knowledge. I have to say that I found out rather soon that it was not as easy as thought it would be.
The TPACK-framework exists out of circles, there is not one best order to work from. When writing a report about designing a lesson based on TPACK you have to decide in which order you are going to write, you can not “write in circles”. Me and my teammates had the assignment to start at the content, so we did. We build up our report to finally reach TPCK, the following way:
1. Defining Content knowledge
2. Defining Pedagogical Content knowledge
3. Defining Technological Pedagogical Content knowledge
We soon found out that to reach step 3 (TPCK) we could not approach Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge and Technological knowledge separately, the circles are all connected to each other, we noticed this while thinking about our strategy. Since we started from the content we decided to use an instructional planning strategy (the activity-based strategy) as described in the article of Harris and Hoffer (2009). In the context we described that the school already used ICT in their educational program, but they wanted to integrate more ICT to enrich the learning and teaching processes within their educational program. The pedagogical approach had to be suitable to teach the content, and the technology had to fit into the defined pedagogical approach to teach the defined content. With ever step we took, the lesson changed and got more developed.
As mentioned in the previous post the content of the designed lesson is about “Electric circuits”. Based on the content, the stated learning goals and the vision of the school, we decided that “inquiry learning” could be a suitable pedagogical approach to teach this content (PCK). I noticed that it is almost not possible to think in the steps as 1,2,3. As said the framework exists out of circles, therefore it is a constant process of going back and forward. I noticed that when I thought about the content and a suitable pedagogical approach I was already thinking about possibilities for a suitable technology. I don’t think it is possible to not-think about it yet at this point. But realize now that this does not matter, since the whole lesson gets adapted with every step towards TPACK. Therefore it would have been possible that the content knowledge would have changed because of the pedagogical content knowledge and that the pedagogical content knowledge would have completely changed because of the use of a certain technology. Our lesson did change with every step. For instance, based on the knowledge about inquiry learning we noticed that it should be better if some parts of the content changed; Within the inquiry learning approach the learners had to explore their own houses for electrical devices which contain electrical circuits. This meant that the content had to be extend with information about the link from theory (about what an electrical circuits is and how it works) to practice (daily use of electrical circuits).
At the next step (from Pedagogical Content Knowledge to Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) the lesson reformed and changed at some points again, since we have used ICT to adopt new approaches to instruction, instead of keeping the same lesson but only make it quicker and faster. This is the reason why teacher will need support when it is getting implemented. Not only technological support in using the technology, but also pedagogical support for the combination of using the pedagogical approach within the technology. The content of the lesson is still based on inquiry learning, but the technology did add some new approaches to the lesson. We have chosen to use a WebQuest. A WebQuest is suitable with the inquiry learning approach. It offers the learners resources where they can find information during their quest. In the process part of the WebQuest the activities are stated, one of the differences with PCK is that the learners can use resources on the internet to look for answers on their predictions, by using simulations they can find out themselves how a electric circuit works, investigate their stated predictions and perform self-evaluation on the WebQuest.
When thinking about the structure we could use, I noticed that it is difficult to not change the starting point form a more pedagogical view. This became clear when we tried to define a context. When defining a vision or strategy of a school, the pedagogical approach of the school is one of the main aspects of the characteristics of the school. Therefore it turned out to be difficult to not get seduced to chose a pedagogical approach first. In this case we had to situate our own context, this was only hypothetically, in real practice the context would already be declared. I can imagine that when you have to design a lesson for a school with a strong vision on a certain pedagogical approach it is hard to start at the Content, instead of the Pedagogy. But on the other hand, TPACK is a framework which remains out of circles, the circles have to be combined. That is why I think in practice the starting point will probably be more intertwined. Our starting point in the assignment was really clear: start from the Content Knowledge, but in practice as an educational designer as well as a teacher you are more restricted to certain precondition, in our case we could define our own preconditions and adjust them to our ideas. Therefore we decided to chose a context with broad possibilities for using a pedagogical approach and in which technology would be accepted.
References:
Harris, J. & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In: C.D. Maddux, (Ed.) Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99-108). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE).
Using TPACK, what a challenge! (3)
The process of designing a course as an educational designer
The last few weeks I felt what it is like to design a lesson from the role of an educational designer. In the previous years of my study I took this role several times before, but this was the first time I based it on the TPACK framework. TPACK is not a design-model, it is a framework. A framework that is useful to integrate ICT to adopt new approaches to instruction. When me and my teammates started our project the role of the TPACK framework did cause some confusion. We had to design a lesson, but were provided with a framework instead of a designing model. I believe using a framework such as TPACK is a really nice way of designing, but I felt I had to get used to how to approach it at first. I noticed I found it rather difficult to determine the exact role as an educational designer. We struggled with questions such as; how much we should go into detail in the design of the lesson, Should we take it to a instructional level, or more stay into the curriculum-level of the lesson? Although it is only one lesson, it is still possible to look at it from a curriculum view for instance on the micro-level (and meso). And what about further implementation? Should it “just” stay with this one lesson, or should we provide a plan for implementing more than just this one lesson? This lesson could for instance be seen as an example of how teachers can teach certain content with a pedagogical approach supported with technology. This way ICT can maybe even get more integrated to adopt new approaches to instruction within the school...
The process
We had to design a lesson for a physics or science course in primary education. We chose to design a lesson that would fit within Key Learning Goal 42 (defined by the Dutch Ministery of Eduation & Culture in 2006).
Key learning goal 42: Learners learn how to investigate materials and physical phenomena, like light, sound, electricity, power, magnetism and temperature.
We decided we wanted to design a lesson to learn about the subject "Electricity". Based on the sub-goals that are stated for primary education on the subject electricity we chose one sub-goal to achieve in our lesson. When defining the context we had stated that the lesson should be suitable for grade 5/6 in the Dutch primary education. Within the subject Electricity in primary education, the sub-goal defined for grade 5/6 was appointing to the fact that electricity has a flow in a closed circuit. Our lesson would be about “Electric circuits”.
We formulated learning goals for our lesson to achieve the stated sub-goal, which became the main learning goal of our lesson.
Based on the content-based activity type approach, using the instructional planning startegy (Harris & Hoffer, 2009), we searched for a suitable pedagogical approach after defining the content knowledge needed for the lesson. We decided that inquiry learning could fit with the defined content. Although we had to adjust the content while defining the Pedagogical Content Knowledge (this will be more specified in the next post). Within the TPACK framework the circles are all connected and should be combined, therefore the lesson will be adjusted with every step towards reaching TPACK.
The TPACK-framework exists out of circles, therefore there is not one starting point. I noticed that because of this, it was hard to think in steps (as would be practical with a design-model). Once again it became clear to us, that we should really see it as an Framework and not as a design model.
We tried to choose a technology that was suitable within the Pedagogical Content Knowledge. From there we changed certain activities in the lesson. We decided to use a WebQuest, which suited inquiry learning and it is a clear way of providing the content.
Although at first the TPACK framework caused some confusion, it eventually became more clear how we could approach it. Specially when we started using the instructional planning strategy, we noticed that the “ puzzle-peaces” got on the right places. We had been considering to define the Pedagogical Content Knowledge after defining the Content Knowledge, but we were unable to give a good explanation of this choice. As an educational designer it is really important to explain decisions about the design, so we wanted and needed to have good arguments for our choice to go from CK to PCK. Using the instructional planning strategy gave us insight in using this order according to reach TPACK.
The last few weeks I felt what it is like to design a lesson from the role of an educational designer. In the previous years of my study I took this role several times before, but this was the first time I based it on the TPACK framework. TPACK is not a design-model, it is a framework. A framework that is useful to integrate ICT to adopt new approaches to instruction. When me and my teammates started our project the role of the TPACK framework did cause some confusion. We had to design a lesson, but were provided with a framework instead of a designing model. I believe using a framework such as TPACK is a really nice way of designing, but I felt I had to get used to how to approach it at first. I noticed I found it rather difficult to determine the exact role as an educational designer. We struggled with questions such as; how much we should go into detail in the design of the lesson, Should we take it to a instructional level, or more stay into the curriculum-level of the lesson? Although it is only one lesson, it is still possible to look at it from a curriculum view for instance on the micro-level (and meso). And what about further implementation? Should it “just” stay with this one lesson, or should we provide a plan for implementing more than just this one lesson? This lesson could for instance be seen as an example of how teachers can teach certain content with a pedagogical approach supported with technology. This way ICT can maybe even get more integrated to adopt new approaches to instruction within the school...
The process
We had to design a lesson for a physics or science course in primary education. We chose to design a lesson that would fit within Key Learning Goal 42 (defined by the Dutch Ministery of Eduation & Culture in 2006).
Key learning goal 42: Learners learn how to investigate materials and physical phenomena, like light, sound, electricity, power, magnetism and temperature.
We decided we wanted to design a lesson to learn about the subject "Electricity". Based on the sub-goals that are stated for primary education on the subject electricity we chose one sub-goal to achieve in our lesson. When defining the context we had stated that the lesson should be suitable for grade 5/6 in the Dutch primary education. Within the subject Electricity in primary education, the sub-goal defined for grade 5/6 was appointing to the fact that electricity has a flow in a closed circuit. Our lesson would be about “Electric circuits”.
We formulated learning goals for our lesson to achieve the stated sub-goal, which became the main learning goal of our lesson.
Based on the content-based activity type approach, using the instructional planning startegy (Harris & Hoffer, 2009), we searched for a suitable pedagogical approach after defining the content knowledge needed for the lesson. We decided that inquiry learning could fit with the defined content. Although we had to adjust the content while defining the Pedagogical Content Knowledge (this will be more specified in the next post). Within the TPACK framework the circles are all connected and should be combined, therefore the lesson will be adjusted with every step towards reaching TPACK.
The TPACK-framework exists out of circles, therefore there is not one starting point. I noticed that because of this, it was hard to think in steps (as would be practical with a design-model). Once again it became clear to us, that we should really see it as an Framework and not as a design model.
We tried to choose a technology that was suitable within the Pedagogical Content Knowledge. From there we changed certain activities in the lesson. We decided to use a WebQuest, which suited inquiry learning and it is a clear way of providing the content.
Although at first the TPACK framework caused some confusion, it eventually became more clear how we could approach it. Specially when we started using the instructional planning strategy, we noticed that the “ puzzle-peaces” got on the right places. We had been considering to define the Pedagogical Content Knowledge after defining the Content Knowledge, but we were unable to give a good explanation of this choice. As an educational designer it is really important to explain decisions about the design, so we wanted and needed to have good arguments for our choice to go from CK to PCK. Using the instructional planning strategy gave us insight in using this order according to reach TPACK.
dinsdag 17 november 2009
Using TPACK what a challenge! (2)
I promised to keep an update of the workinprocess of designing a lesson based on TPACK. I hoped to write more on this blog during the process, but me and my teammates spend all time on working on the design. But I will make it up by reflecting about the activities of the last few weeks when me and my teammates worked on a lesson based on TPACK. :-)
In the following posts I will reflect on:
- The process of designing a course as an eduational designer
- Working with TPACK
- The oppurtunities / challenges of Flexibility
- The implications for instructors
In the following posts I will reflect on:
- The process of designing a course as an eduational designer
- Working with TPACK
- The oppurtunities / challenges of Flexibility
- The implications for instructors
zondag 8 november 2009
Using TPACK; what a challenge!
On this blog I posted a lot about the theorie of using TPACK: Technological Pedagogicial Content Knowledge. Now it is time to expand the theorie with the practice. Together with two teammates I will be designing a lesson based on TPACK. This way we will experience the practical use of TPACK. I will reflect on this proces by posting on this blog. I expect that we will find out whether the use of TPACK is useful in designing a lesson, and what the difficulties can be of using TPACK. By really using TPACK, instead of only read about the theorie, I expect to find out and learn a lot more of the practical use of TPACK.
About two weeks ago me and my teammates started to desgin a lesson based on TPACK. Every student who is taking the course Pedagogies for Flexibile Learning Supported by Technology will experience what it is like to use TPACK in practice, but all from a different point of view. Our team will start from the Content. Other teams will start with different Pedagogies, and other teams will start with the technology that will be used in the lesson. This way we hope to find out what the advantages and disadvantages of a certain starting point can be. Reflecting on the proces in this blog helps to determine the difficulties and/or nice aspects of the practical use of TPACK.
About two weeks ago me and my teammates started to desgin a lesson based on TPACK. Every student who is taking the course Pedagogies for Flexibile Learning Supported by Technology will experience what it is like to use TPACK in practice, but all from a different point of view. Our team will start from the Content. Other teams will start with different Pedagogies, and other teams will start with the technology that will be used in the lesson. This way we hope to find out what the advantages and disadvantages of a certain starting point can be. Reflecting on the proces in this blog helps to determine the difficulties and/or nice aspects of the practical use of TPACK.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)
