7 things you should know about...

TPACK
Scenario
Carrie is a fourth year high school chemistry
teacher who has been just been trained over the
summer in the use of TPACK. She is ecited to
a!!ly what she has learned to her lessons
knowing that her students" if done correctly" will
have greater learning gains. #ver the ske!tic"
she has decided to collect data on students$
learning gains for the year and com!are it to
!ast years to determine if TPACK might really
work for her students. As far as content
knowledge" Carrie is considered an e!ert in the
%eld. After graduating from the &niversity of
'ichigan with honors where she majored in
chemistry she worked () years for *ow
Chemical. +efore becoming a teacher" she
com!leted her 'aster$s in #ducational
Technology and has continued taking classes to
further im!rove her teaching skills.
#ach year begins with a unit on matter. ,n !ast
she would begin by looking at the learning goals
and make assessment decisions" search for ways
to include technology then design activities
around those %ndings. -inally" based on the
chosen activities she would then decide the
!edagogical decisions"
,n following the TPACK framework model ./arris
and /ofer" 01123 she still begins with the
learning goals then focuses on the !edagogical
decisions4 an array of teaching strategies. She
wants the unit to include a teacher
demonstration" a classifying activity" short
videos" some inde!endent readings" gra!hic
organi5ers" class discussions" a small grou!
!resentation" and 6 science labs. 7et"
assessment strategies to gage students learning
are formed. -inally" she begins !icking the
technologies to use with each selected learning
activity only choosing those that focus on the
learning goals.
8ike years !ast" Carrie begins and ends each unit
with a short assessment based on the learning
goals. The data collected for the unit on matter
shows a 29 higher learning gain over last year.
She is ha!!y with the results. Carrie continues
designing units following the TPACK framework
for each unit throughout the year" collecting
data and reali5ing higher learning gains each
time. At the end of the year she is convinced
that TPACK might work" she shares her results
with her colleagues who decide to join in the
net year with her hel!.
(. :hat is TPACK;
TPACK4 Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge" is a framework for those in
education to use when designing lessons that
integrate technology. +y combining the 6 ty!es
of teacher knowledge4 Technology .TK3"
Pedagogy .PK3 and Content .CT3 into
subdomains of Technological Pedagogical
Knowledge .TPK3 " Technological Content
Knowledge .TCK3" and Pedagogical Content
Knowledge .PCK3" TPACK teachers understand
and successfully a!!ly this interconnectivity
when designing lessons. ,t is more than just
utili5ing one or two teacher knowledge$s but all
three. A TPACK teacher is a subject matter
e!ert who not only knows how to teach but has
a strong understanding of the best technology
that will heighten the lesson. ,t is im!ortant to
make clear that TPACK is more than just the use
of technology within the lesson but using the
best available technology based on the learning
goals for highest student achievement.
0. :ho is doing it;
TPACK is being used by school districts and
curriculum designers in the &nited States and in
countries around the world. School *istricts are
conducting !rofessional develo!ment on TPACK"
teacher trainers are holding worksho!s" and
schools are looking for means to obtain the
technology teacher need. At the university level
the TPACK framework is currently being taught in
teacher education !rograms to im!roving
technology integration in K < (0 classrooms. -or
eam!le" at ,owa State &niversity TPACK is the
framework for the introductory technology
course taken by all !re=service teachers .+aran
67)3. This course has changed from technology
instruction to teaching future teachers the ste!s
re>uired to design and im!lement lessons using
content=based technology.
6. /ow does it work;
&sing a set of curriculum standards the teacher
selects the learning goals to be taught. The
teacher then makes the !edagogical decision on
the nature of the learning e!erience. 7et" the
teacher will select and se>uence the learning
activities to form the a!!ro!riate learning
e!erience. -ollowing this" the teacher needs to
select the a!!ro!riate formative and summative
assessments that will reveal how well the
students learned the content that was taught.
The last ste! is where the teacher selects the
best" curriculum=based technology tools and
resources that will bene%t the student. ,t is
im!ortant to remember that even your !referred
technology resources must enhance the
learning. ./arris and /ofer" 01123
?. :hy is it signi%cant;
TPACK framework is signi%cant because it shows
the teacher how to enhance their lesson !lans
with curriculum=based technology. TPACK brings
together the Pedagogical Knowledge" the
Content Knowledge" and the Technological
Knowledge into the lesson !lan" it is a new way
of thinking. TPACK can be used when designing
lessons for all grade levels and all content areas.
&sing the TPACK framework the digital world is
brought into the classroom with !ositive learning
gains. Students of today learn very di@erently
than when their grand!arents were students in
school. Today students are growing u! with all
ty!es of technology from as sim!le as an
overhead !rojector or as com!licated as a
AoiceThread on the internet4 schools are using
technology to learn. The days of !encil and
!a!er tests are being re!laced with com!uter=
based tests4 even our state of -lorida is moving
to com!uter testing. :e live in a digital world"
and our teachers need to bring that digital world
into the classroom. The TPACK model could hel!
sha!e the future of an all=digital school where
tetbooks will be on tablets" assignments will be
turned in on wiki sites" and !rojects will be
com!uter=based. The more we embrace the
TPACK framework now the more !re!ared the
teacher of tomorrow will be and the more our
students will learn.
). :hat are the downsides;
According to Koehler B 'ishra .01123" CTeaching
with technology is com!licated considering the
challenges newer technologies !resent to
teachers. 'ost of the technologies under
consideration in current literature are newer and
digital and have some inherent !ro!erties that
make a!!lying them in straightforward ways
diDcult.E ,t is also !ossible that technology can
be used too much. According to 'arshall +aker
and F. C. +unch .01(13" technology can Cbecome
a tool that" when overused" can have short=and
long=term negative im!acts on students$
learning.E +aker used the eam!le of dissections
to e!lain his reasoningG CAt times" dissecting
the eye of a cow virtually just does not have the
same e@ect as grabbing a scal!el and cutting an
eye. The o!!ortunity to hel! deliver a calf" grow
!lants" create a Hower arrangement" give an
injection" ehibit an animal" identify a tree
disease and landsca!e a school cam!us are the
>uality e!eriences *ewey s!oke of that build
student motivation" self=eDcacy and life=long
learning. Technology can su!!ort these learning
e!eriences" but cannot re!lace them.E
Another downside to the TPACK framework is
that it is based on the construct of Shulman$s
.(2IJ3 PCK .!edagogical content knowledge3
model" which lacks research to measure how
these domains interact with one another and
whether the domains eist inde!endently
.Archambault B Cri!!en" 01123. This inability to
di@erentiate these domains .!edagogy and
content3 also weakens the heuristic value of the
model .Kess=7ewsome B 8ederman" (2223. This
!er!leity has made it diDcult to validate
!edagogical content knowledge as a framework"
to de%ne what constitutes knowledge from each
of the domains of !edagogy" content" and the
com!le notion of !edagogical content
knowledge. Adding technology to Shulman$s PCK
model only adds to the confusion of the
framework.
J. :here is it going;
:hile Koehler" 'ishra" and others have
attem!ted to de%ne and measure TPACK" the
framework is not yet fully understood .Angeli B
Aalanides" 01123. So far" the e!lanations of
technological !edagogical content knowledge
and its associated constructs that have been
!rovided are not clear enough for researchers to
agree on what is and is not an eam!le of each
constructL the boundaries between them are
still >uite fu55y" thus making it dif%cult to
categori5e borderline cases .Archambault B
+arnett" 01(13. The confusion among the %eld of
educational technology concerning the
de%nitions and the s!eci%c activities and method
to develo! TPACK makes it diDcult to im!lement
knowledge from the framework which limits its
!ractical a!!lication. This is an im!ortant area
for future research" including detailed eam!les
of TPACK as it !ertains to teacher !ractice .Co
B Kraham" 01123. There is room to continue to
build on TPACK" or even conce!tuali5e other
models that !rovide a less com!le" more
!recise way of re!resenting the e@ective
integration of technology to im!rove student
learning.
7. :hat are the im!lications for teaching and
learning;
The TPACK framework has theoretical a!!eal"
!roviding an analytical structure for researching
what teachers should know and be able to do
and highlighting the im!ortance of content
knowledge when incor!orating the use of
technology. These are im!ortant elements" as
currently a greater em!hasis on the use of
technology is needed as it !ertains to s!eci%c
subject matter. As Koehler and 'ishra .011I3
elaborated" C,nstead of a!!lying technological
tools to every content area uniformly" teachers
should come to understand that the various
a@ordances and constraints of technology di@er
by curricular subject=matter content or
!edagogical a!!roach.E This focus on subject=
matter content is im!ortant when considering
the e@ective use of technology. Too often"
teachers %nd themselves lured into the
technology before !lanning instruction. To
ensure that teachers merge !edagogy and
content with the technology" as TPACK would
!rescribe" they should always start with their
objectives and not the technology .+aker B
+unch" 01(13.