The TPACK model
“Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)” is a model that identifies the expertise required for teachers to integrate technology into teaching practice (Koehler, 2012). Effective teaching with technology requires a combination of knowledge: content (or subject), pedagogy, and technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 60). TPACK suggests that quality teaching with technology requires a balance. Technology must be unified with innovative pedagogies and content knowledge in order to be successful.
Applying TPACK to teaching
As a pre-service teacher (with a background in the media industry), I consider myself to have adequate technology knowledge, moderate pedagogical knowledge, and limited content knowledge. This is because I am yet to fully engage with all of the content of my chosen discipline (subject English). A more experienced teacher is likely to have advanced content knowledge (having studied numerous texts for many years). However, said teacher may require additional technology knowledge to successfully integrate it. The TPACK model is useful because it can be used to map knowledge, thus identifying areas for improvement. Therefore, I can note a present need to increase my pedagogical content knowledge (rather than my technical knowledge).
Lesson planning
TPACK can be integrated into teaching using the “Technology Integration Planning (TIP) Model” (Roblyer, M., & Doering, 2014, p. 66). The benefits and challenges of the TIP Model have been discussed in a previous blog. However, the model primarily concerns the analysis, planning, and revision of technology integration in the classroom. Krauskopf, Zahn, & Hesse suggest that the affordances of technology should be considered when planning lessons (2012, P. 1194). If web-based video supports visual learning, then this can be mapped to corresponding syllabus outcomes or content. While this approach makes intelligent use of resources, it would be advisable to begin lesson planning with syllabus outcomes before selecting technology (as in the TIP model).
Haynes identifies teaching as a three-step activity;
“the first step consists of activities – planning and preparation – required before teaching a class; the second of activities in the classroom – classroom management, teaching, learning; and the third of activities that take place after the lesson – assessment, with associated activities such as recording and reporting, and evaluation” (Haynes, 2010, p. 1).
Planning and preparation requires consideration of educational aims, the needs of students, the context and unit, as well as cognition (or assessment) (Haynes, 2010, p. 4). Personally, the most daunting aspect of lesson planning for me is the time required. I anticipate late nights in my first years of teaching; developing units of work for the first time and studying texts. Finding time on top of teaching and family commitments will be demanding. Hopefully the support of faculty, combined with the wealth of online lesson planning resources (such as The Department of Education and Training, as well as TES) will ease this strain (2012).
Technology and classroom behaviour management
Successful ICT integration requires adept classroom management; including the establishment of order, “effective instruction, handling of misbehaviours, attending to students’ emotional and cognitive needs and managing group processes” (Lim, Pek, & Chai, 2005, p. 392). One positive intervention strategy is to ensure students are assigned “appropriately difficult work” that is curriculum-centred (Finley, 2016). Challenging tasks can engage students and prevent maladaptive behaviour from occurring.
Santosh Bhaskar lists a range of technologies to assist with classroom management in his article ‘How Technology Helps Teachers to Manage their Classroom’ (2013). These technologies include: Schoology (a suite of classroom management applications), Smart Seat (a student organisation app), and Teacher Vision (a website with management resources and lesson plans) (Bhaskar, 2013).
OPINION: banning mobile phones in school
Technology has the ability to distract students, so much so that:
“…the use of student-owned laptops, netbooks, cell phones, handheld devices, iPods and MP3 players, and portable game players are on the banned list in many classrooms. Educators are discovering that students are more interested in online resources like social networking sites, game sites, chat, and streaming media than they are in classroom lectures or textbook chapters about the Crimean War, square roots, or past participles” (Johnson, 2012, p. 137-138).
Johnson outlines three solutions to technology distractions: ban the technology, ignore the distraction, or limit its use (2012, p. 139). While these are logical solutions, they may negatively impact learning by limiting technology application, or by encouraging overuse. If I were a principal, I’d allow mobile phones and personal devices but insist students uphold conduct as noted in the school Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). Failure to do so would result in the privileged technology being withdrawn from individuals. During lessons students would be required to leave their mobile phones in their school bags, which are to be left at the front of class (out of reach). The technology can be retrieved as required for lesson activities.
REFERENCES
Hi James, great post. I like your inclusion of an Acceptable Use Policy extending to the frequency of personal technology-use in schools. I previously had only considered in context to the guiding the content and the ways in which children communicate online. Your proposed rationale seems fair to me, and makes more sense than prohibiting mobile-use all together and being more likely to face constant enforcing of relative consequences. I also think your suggestion of beginning the TIP process with syllabus outcomes is a wise one. On this note there are some more specific guidelines for integrating ICT with the English Curriculum you can find here: http://syllabus.bostes.nsw.edu.au/support-materials/integrating-ict/ – All the best!
Hi James, thank you for your thoughts/opinion on banning mobile phones in the classroom.
Mobile phone are poised to be a greater distraction to 21st century students then benefit. Although mobile phones can engage students in collaborative, student-centred or self-paced work, teachers need to be able be aware of what is happening in the classroom. Effective teachers communicate this awareness to their students and create policy agreements to protect students (Chai, Lim, & Pek, 2005). By removing the distraction students are going to be more engaged in listening to the content being taught, developing their own knowledge but also create a safe, secure and comfortable learning environment for all students and leaning needs (Santosh, 2013). It is important that we encourage the use of technology in our teaching practices but as teachers we need to look at the safety of all our students and removing the mobile phone from our classrooms reduce the risk of cyber-bullying, equity and access, and distractions not only to the user but others around them.
References:
Chai, C., Lim, C., & Pek, M. (2005) Classroom management issues in information and communication technology (ICT)-mediated learning environments: back to the basics. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(4), 391.
Santosh, B. K. (2013). How technology helps teachers manage their classrooms. Retrieved from:http://edtechreview.in/trends-insights/insights/472-technology-helps-teachers-manage-classrooms