TPACK revolves around three forms of knowledge and the ways in which these forms of knowledge link (Koehler, 2012). These three forms of knowledge include: content knowledge (the subject matter taught) and pedagogical knowledge, (the understanding of teaching/learning) (Koehler, Mishra, and Cain, 2013), as well as technological knowledge (how and why to utilize technology) (Koehler, 2012). Further TPACK covers the ways all these forms of knowledge overlap, like a sort of multi-Venn diagram (Koehler, et al., 2013).
The entirety of TPACK is framed by “context,” as no knowledge exists free of outside influences (Koehler, et al., 2013). Punya Mishra (2019) argued “context” be changed to “contextual knowledge” giving it equal weight amongst the other core knowledges. This strikes me as a misstep; context informs all aspects of existence far beyond areas of knowledge. As such, I feel it works better as an amorphous “thing to consider” (as in the original methodology), than a separate knowledge area in its own right. Context only matters in how it interacts with other entities; it doesn’t exist on its own.
SAMR is a hierarchy of classifications for incorporating technology into learning. As explained by Rommell, Kidder and Wood (2014), the lower levels consist of substitution (in which technology substitutes a more standard form of learning without adding much to the process) and augmentation (similar to substitution but with some added benefit). The higher levels consist of modification (in which technology fundamentally changes the form of learning) and redefinition (in which technology creates a new method of learning not otherwise possible). The article focuses on SAMR when used with mobile devices, though the method would seem to apply to technology in a broader scope as well.
Hamilton, Rosenberg and Akcaoglu (2016), criticize SAMR, stating, “When integrating technology, the purpose of this integration should be on enhancing and supporting student learning rather than using a particular technology.” Their complaint hinges on SAMR’s seeming tendency to push technology for technology’s sake, and framing more complete technological integration as desirable over basic technological integration. I tend to side with this critique. SAMR seems more beneficial as a reference once a lesson plan is mostly formed, not a framework from which lesson plans are developed. It would seem to go against the tenets of backwards design to focus on the technology over, “important processes of meeting instructional objectives and achieving learning outcomes (Hamilton, et al., 2016).”
My takeaway from Digital Competencies is that it is a sort of umbrella term designating any method involving a list of technological skills and understandings. Depending on the venue (or, say, context), these competencies may be very different. The digital competencies needed to be successful in college (project management, data queries and reporting (“Digital Competencies,” 2019)), are not the digital competencies necessary to be an effective teacher (digital citizenship, digital content and instruction (“Digital Teaching & Learning,” n.d.)).
Digital competencies could function as a compliment to state mandated standards; another set of necessary skills/knowledge in which students are to demonstrate proficiency.
Of the three methods we read about this week, TPACK strikes me as the most reasonable, or at least the easiest to seamlessly integrate into classroom learning. TPACK is relatively open ended and vague; the broad knowledge categories are in place, but what they entail and what the educator does with them is undefined. There is not a hierarchy to the knowledge (SAMR), and the content is not rigid and defined (Digital Competencies). As an example of use, knowing how to check student research papers for plagiarism is a necessary function, but understanding how to use digital database tools to do so is effective technological pedagogical knowledge. It shows, “An understanding of the affordances of technology and how they can be leveraged differently according to changes in context and purposes (Koehler, Mishra, and Cain, 2013).”
SAMR would be the least useful for my teaching. For example, using audiobooks to replace in class read-alongs seems like sacrificing necessary literary skills for the sake of adding technology. This puts technology at the forefront, when “Technology and other instructional tools are intended to play supporting roles in the learning process (Hamilton, et al., 2016).”
The video selection for this week forces us to consider how technology makes possibilities but can often function in a loop (Maeda, 2012). My takeaway is technology can both fundamentally change what we do as educators (change the process, perhaps change the necessary content as well), but we should utilize it under a critical eye; everything comes back around and we may just be straining to reinvent the wheel.
References:
Digital competencies. (2019). Bryn Mawr College. Retrieved from https://www.brynmawr.edu/digitalcompetencies
Digital teaching & learning: about the NC digital learning competencies for classroom teachers. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gDU1MXlJ4KnbO-us78t0Hsf-kmdA-PMR/view
Hamilton, E.R., Rosenberg, J.M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model: a critical review and suggestions for its use. Tech Trends, 60, 433-441. DOI: 10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y
Koheler, M.J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193:3, 1319. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HAjxut5WBH3oB4a0iIpApQqNLYFFgYKf/view
Koheler, Matthew J. (2012). TPACK explained. Retrieved from http://www.tpack.org/
Maeda, John. (2012). How art, technology and design inform creative leaders [Video file]. TEDglobal. Retreived from https://www.ted.com/talks/john_maeda_how_art_technology_and_design_inform_creative_leaders
Mishra, Punya. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: the TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35:2, 76-78. DOI: 10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611
Romrell, D., Kidder, L.C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mLearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning. 18:2, 1-15. DOI: 10.24059/olj.v18i2.435
Nossen_CI5630_Final Project EPortfolio 