Talkin' 'bout my cerebration.

I’ve been reading, thinking, concept mapping, reading again, thinking more about Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework as briefly outlined in my previous post.  In particular I have been thinking how this might actually look within the context of my practice.  Reflecting on the diagram embedded from the official TPACK wiki (in my previous post) the focus of intent is the represented in the centre, as the intersection between the three knowledge types.

However, in thinking about how I progress through a unit of work and how it can be related to the TPACK diagram, I come to the conclusion that I tend to act like a circling shark.  I don’t begin at the central point of the TPACK framework, but rather aim to end up there.  I see that focal point as the point at which the students are experiencing a range of learning experiences within which they negotiate the pathway.  If the three arms of the framework have been implemented effectively, learners may not see the distinction between the separate knowledge types.  I am aware there are times where I focus specifically on development of content knowledge.  I am also aware that simply because Content Knowledge is the focus at that specific time, I am not ignoring Pedagogical or Technological knowledge.

Within the discussion on the Classroom 2.0 site where TPACK is presented, Punya Mishra (one of the professors credited with development of the TPACK framework) states that the framework is a continuum, in reference to teacher development.  I am beginning to think that it may also be a continuum in reference to point in time learning management.  I envisage myself as a single point roaming through the diagram, progressively getting closer to the central focus.

The reflection above does take the point of view of the TPACK framework as a working / implementation framework.  If I consider it as a planning framework then I recognise a very different approach.  I’m not quite sure how this might look in application.  The point Punya Mishra makes on the Classroom 2.0 discussion is important though – The important goal is that opportunities to develop TPACK, whether for a beginner or an expert, deal with all three of these components together, not independent of each other.

As I write this, it becomes clear to me that the three types of knowledge are well known.  Whilst at university I took many courses built on Content Knowledge and a few built on Pedagogical Knowledge.  Since teaching I have had many opportunities to experience Professional Development built on Technological Knowledge.  Rarely have I experienced them in partnership though.  So this will be a real challenge for me.  Especially as I (possibly) use it to develop my ability to build capacity of teachers.  Currently within my school I am working in a range of paths represented by this framework.  For some teachers I am definitely focused on pure Technological Knowledge.  I don’t believe that individually I can target the convergence of the three knowledge types.

Consider that I am trained within a specific subject discipline, and therefore have specialist knowledge.  This would suggest as an individual I could only build the TPACK capability of teachers within the same subject discipline.  As an individual I could address the convergence of Technological and Pedagogical Knowledge within teachers not teaching within my subject discipline.  And this in itself highlights a very important factor in the continual development of teachers – an individual approach cannot be completely effective.  Any person responsible for the Professional Development of teachers needs to engage in a team setting, and I suggest this is most effectively done with the specific clientele who have elected to attend your seminar, workshop or session.

My brain is exceptionally jumbled with the thinking around this framework (could you tell?) at the moment, hoping for some clarity on Tuesday.

The title to this post is grabbed from the title of a professional development session I have been fortunate enough to have been invited to next week.  I have indulged in some pre-reading around the concepts which I have to say has been enlightening and somewhat thought provoking.  I have assumed from the agenda that the we will be exploring two frameworks as tools to design learning experiences that encourage critical thinking.  The two frameworks are Bloom’s Taxonomy and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK).  I have worked in depth with Bloom’s taxonomy throughout my teaching career, however this is the first I have experienced of TPCK.  The concept maps that are published in relation to it explain the concept simply enough.

When I viewed this for the first time, my initial thoughts were “Of course, that’s obvious.”  My initial reaction was one that teaching and learning should be targeting the juncture of technological, pedagogical and content knowledge.  But as I continued to read it has caused me to reflect – “Do I actually target this juncture?  Do I purposely plan and implement for learning to occur where these three concepts meet?”  This is a question that I am not so sure about.  No doubt my involvement in the professional development next week will provide me stimulus for reflection and planning to ensure that this is my targeted area. Currently I fear that perhaps I target the three areas, but do not converge them effectively.

My researching found me this blogpost from Sean Nash, which has two videos.  Watch these in order and you get an idea of the focus of TPCK. http://nashworld.edublogs.org/2009/04/08/a-tpack-video-mashup/

There is also a great wiki with lesson ideas – http://clifmims.wetpaint.com/page/TPACK.

I encourage anyone on their journey with digital pedagogy to explore the concept of TPCK.  During the PD session there will be a twitter backchannel running, using the hashtag #WTDW, feel free to watch this to get an idea of the discussions we are having.  After the event I will no doubt reflect further on my own practice and ramble on about it here.  I am excited about this opportunity, and can see it not only driving my development of my personal practice, but informing and guiding my training of others.