TPACK has always stood out for me as the more helpful, holistic model of technology integration compared to others out there. Its three circles (plus the contextual frame around the outside) represent the bulk of what teachers could or should be considering when planning learning experiences; content, pedagogy, and technology. It doesn’t privilege one aspect above the other but seeks to find a balance which makes sense for the group of students you’re planning for.
That’s from a theoretical perspective. In reality, when sitting down with TPACK and planning, I find it a bit more problematic - in particular, the wide open space of the “technology” circle. The article “What Is Successful Technology Integration?” states that TPACK represents the “knowledge that educators need”, but if you’re just beginning your technology integration journey, you don’t have much of a toolkit - I know I didn’t when I first got going. That empty circle would sit there staring at me like “C’mon man, whatcha got?”. I didn’t know what I didn’t know. I required more professional scaffolding, the help of an experienced mentor or coach, and more research and PLNing before the TPACK planning method came into its own.
I also think the overlapping sections, while occasionally useful, are a bit convoluted and not always necessary. There is enough meat on the bones within the three main circles to plan effective teaching and learning without overly complicating matters with TPK, TCK, and PCK. Extra for experts I guess.
Nowadays I use TPACK less as a pre-planning tool than a post-planning “wellness check”. I plan out a session then when I’m finished, put it through a TPACK filter - can I see evidence of purposeful and authentic T, P, and CK? It ensures I’m not under-cooking or over-cooking any of the three aspects, keeping learning experiences balanced, pedagogically-sound, and technology-integrated where appropriate.
That’s from a theoretical perspective. In reality, when sitting down with TPACK and planning, I find it a bit more problematic - in particular, the wide open space of the “technology” circle. The article “What Is Successful Technology Integration?” states that TPACK represents the “knowledge that educators need”, but if you’re just beginning your technology integration journey, you don’t have much of a toolkit - I know I didn’t when I first got going. That empty circle would sit there staring at me like “C’mon man, whatcha got?”. I didn’t know what I didn’t know. I required more professional scaffolding, the help of an experienced mentor or coach, and more research and PLNing before the TPACK planning method came into its own.
I also think the overlapping sections, while occasionally useful, are a bit convoluted and not always necessary. There is enough meat on the bones within the three main circles to plan effective teaching and learning without overly complicating matters with TPK, TCK, and PCK. Extra for experts I guess.
Nowadays I use TPACK less as a pre-planning tool than a post-planning “wellness check”. I plan out a session then when I’m finished, put it through a TPACK filter - can I see evidence of purposeful and authentic T, P, and CK? It ensures I’m not under-cooking or over-cooking any of the three aspects, keeping learning experiences balanced, pedagogically-sound, and technology-integrated where appropriate.
 |
| Image source http://tpack.org |
Comments
Post a Comment