Integrating+content,+pedagogy+and+technology


[|Matthew J. Koehler, Punya Mishra, and Kurnia Yahya]

Abstrakt:

En effektiv integrering av teknologi i undervisningen av faginhold krever kunnskap ikke bare av innhold, teknologi og pedagogikk, men også av deres forhold til hverandre. Artikkelen tar for seg resultatene av en undersøkelse av utviklingen av TPCK i løpet av et seminar, der fakultetets medlemmer jobbet sammen med master studenter med å utvikle nettbaserte-kurs.Den kvantitative analysen viser at deltakerne beveget seg fra å se teknologi, pedagogikk og innhold som uavhengige begreper mot en oppfatning som vektla forbindelser mellom de tre kunnskapsbaser. Analysene våre tyder på at det å utvikle TPCK er en multigenerational prosess, med utvikling av dypere forståelse av det komplekse nett av relasjoner mellom innhold, pedagogikk og teknologi og de sammenhenger der de virker.

Nøkkelord: Samarbeidslæring; Vurderingsmetoder; Læringsfellesskap; Pedagogiske spørsmål; Undervisnings-/læringsstrategier

(Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007) //-// Sammendrag laget med Diigo


 * //Learning technology by design//**
 * Viewing teachers’ knowledge as including rich relationships between content, pedagogy, and technology, has significant implications for teacher education and teachers’ professional development. Clearly, de-contextualized, didactic approaches that merely emphasize the acquiring of technology skills are unlikely to succeed, since they do not address difficult but crucial relationships between technology and content, and technology and pedagogy ([Brand, 1997], [Koehler and Mishra, 2005a], [Milken Exchange on Education Technology, 1999], [U.S. Department of Education, 1999] and [Mishra and Koehler, 2003]).
 * Philosophically and pragmatically, this approach is closely related to constructivist and project-based approaches such as learning-by-doing, problem-based learning, collaborative learning frameworks, and design-based learning.
 * The learning technology by design approach extends these ideas to a consideration of authentic design problems for developing skillful teachers’ reasoning about educational technology.
 * In contrast to a standard workshop approach that puts teachers in the role of passive consumers of technology, the learning technology by design approach puts teachers in a more active role as designers of technology


 * //Context for the research study//**
 * Does learning during open-ended design activities actually lead to the development of more complex forms of knowledge? How does TPCK develop over time and through collaborative activity? How is design-talk in a learning technology by design seminar structured and what does it reveal about the development (if at all) of TPCK? How can the evolution of TPCK be represented, tracked and understood?

//**The study**//
 * The design task (developing an online course) was an authentic one – the College of Education at our university began offering an online Masters degree program, and courses had to be developed for the program. However, most faculty members were not prepared to meet the demands of teaching and learning in an online environment, and the College began to seek ways to develop the faculty expertise in technology. One of the strategies chosen to address these challenges was to integrate faculty development into the already existing learning technology by design courses offered as a part of the Masters program in educational technology.
 * The faculty and students met once a week for three hours in a computer lab. Students were assigned to groups led by individual faculty members. A typical class period included a whole-group component used to discuss readings and issues that applied to all groups, and a small-group component in which the design teams worked on their semester-long projects. In many ways, this design course was a typical graduate class experience for the participants – they read articles, discussed ideas, and were responsible for meeting course deadlines. However, there were some important differences. All the participants (faculty members and teachers alike) worked collaboratively on designing an online course.
 * The design task went beyond creating a website for the course and required the faculty members and students to work together to develop the syllabus, the course structure, the readings, student assignments, and assessment rubrics. They had to determine the nature of student interaction, how the course content would be offered and delivered, how technology would be used to accomplish course goals, and how the course website would be designed to make it both user-friendly and fit with course content and pedagogy.
 * //Participants//**
 * Each of the professors was teamed up with students who were more or less of equal ability and interest in technology. Team formation was based primarily on student interest in the professor’s project. Dr. Jackson’s group (called Jackrabbits) had three student collaborators: Rahul, who had worked as a computer instructor in his home country and was currently an educational technology masters student; Hillary, a doctoral student in Family Ecology, had a “high regard for the movement towards online, interactive technology”; and Andrew, a Masters student in educational technology, was “excited to participate” in this project. Dr. Adams’ group (called The Adams Family) included graduate students Sandra, Mandy, and David. Sandra was a student in the Masters program and worked as a graphic designer at the university. Mandy and David were both teachers working on their Masters degrees.


 * //Results//**
 * Adams family discussions initially focused on technology and, at times, it’s relationship to pedagogy. Somewhere during the middle of the course, however, technology ceased to be treated in isolation and was discussed mainly in relationship to pedagogy. Finally, issues of content and pedagogy (and their joint relationship) become the primary focus for this group. Most importantly, Fig. 2 shows a growing tendency for the group to discuss issues of content, pedagogy, and technology in relationship to one another (note the growth CP, CT, PT, and CPT over time).
 * In summary, an analysis of the graphical arrangement of the conversations reveals a complementary picture to the group level analyses presented earlier. That is, content, pedagogy, and technology seem to (at least initially) exist in the conversation, but remain unconnected as the three topics reside in the separate contributions of individuals. Over time (with the help of Mandy), the individuals seem to mirror the group in that they have a more connected use of content, technology, and pedagogy as evidenced by what they bring to bear in a conversation.
 * Dr. Jackson said she was unable to find suitable cases for the course, so she had to write one. In the meantime, she suggested, the group should continue to work on the web-templates (Technology). So, six weeks into the course, there was still only one member responsible for Content issues (Dr. Jackson) and the group as a whole only had technological and pedagogical issues to talk about. This division of labor stayed in place for the remainder of course, it seems, as Dr. Jackson had a hard time writing a case.
 * 6.3. Comparing the two groups
 * There are many possible reasons for these divergent results from a very similar problem solving design-based experience.The simple one may be that design-based approach enables this growth to occur, but does not guarantee it
 * some potential changes in the course structure are worthy of pursuing. For example, future participants might benefit from our attempts to find more implicit and explicit methods for involving students in the content and faculty members in the technology so that the intellectual ferment we were looking for is more likely to happen.
 * Effective technology integration for pedagogy around specific subject matter requires developing a sensitivity to the dynamic, transactional relationship between all three components taken together.
 * The idea of TPCK has significant implications for teacher education and teachers’ professional development. In order to go beyond the simple “skills instruction” view offered by the traditional workshop approach, we have argued that it is necessary to teach technology in contexts that honor the rich connections between technology, the subject-matter (content) and the means of teaching it (the pedagogy).

References: Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. //Computers & Education, 49//(3), 740-762.