TPACK and its relation to flexibility, pedagogy and technology

In the previous blogs, the focus has been more on the perspective of a learner, so when talking about for example flexibility, the emphasis was on how to make learning more flexible for the learner. Although it has become clear that flexibility, pedagogy and technology have an influence on the teaching practice, not a lot of attention was paid to the teacher with regard to the consequences of developing materials. The TPACK model is aimed at providing such support for the teacher. All elements come back in this model. As explained in the blog ‘TPACK – T what?’ the TPACK model is aimed at teacher knowledge. In this blog, the three concepts and the connection with TPACK will be described.

Flexibility is an integral part of content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and technological knowledge, but is also determined by the context. The greater the knowledge of the teachers on these concepts and their relationships, the more flexibility the teacher will have in finding a good balance between the three different concepts and actually reach TPACK.

With regard to technology, the focus by teachers has mainly been on presentation software, learner-friendly websites and management tools to enhance current practice. This relates to a ‘technocentric’ approach (Papert, 1987; in Harris, Mishra & Koehler, 2009) which means that the starting point is the opportunities and constraints of certain technologies and as a second step, how it can be integrated in the current content-based learning environment.

In the TPACK model, the role of technology is aimed to support inquiry and collaboration which leads to reformed practice. Although a lot of courses now work with a CMS such as Blackboard, it generally has been implemented as an ‘add-on’ rather than to reform practice. It functions more as a notice board for messages and assignments than as an active collaborative learning environment. This is a clear example of the fact that introducing a new tool does not automatically lead to reformed practice, even if it does change learning practices somewhat. This is also closely related to the fact that learning how to use a tool is different from learning how to use the tool in instruction (Harris, Mishra & Koehler, 2009).

With this last example, it becomes once again apparent that it is difficult to see the three concepts in isolation, as teaching practices has a lot do with pedagogy. There are some sources now available to assist teachers in selecting appropriate technologies with chosen pedagogic approaches. JISC (2009) has a nice example of choosing pathways, which can assist teachers in assessing the amount of technological knowledge they have and how they can use that to enhance e-learning. E-learning is defined by JISC as: ‘enhanced learning through the use of digital technology’ (p.6).

Also Harris, Mishra & Koehler (2009) have developed support by dividing learning activity types into knowledge-building activity types, convergent knowledge expression activity types and divergent knowledge expression activity types, linked to technologies that can support these type of activities. This support does not prescribe certain technologies to be used with certain pedagogies, but gives teachers more insight in how different technologies could be used. This may help them in choosing technologies that they may not have considered otherwise.

Offering support to teachers may also support the implementation process. Staff engagement is very important if the goal is to achieve reformed practice, which TPACK essentially advocates. Teachers need to be convinced of the effectiveness of introducing technology into the course and should confident to use it for instruction. This includes sufficient technological support (Collis & Moonen, 2001).

All in all, TPACK takes a broader perspective on the three concepts of flexibility, pedagogy and technology and focuses both more on the teacher’s perspective and the interrelationships of the different concepts. I believe that TPACK is a very good model to help understand teachers the complexity of these concepts and by creating awareness of the different (and complex) relations can help them in developing new courses, in which they can integrate these concepts.

Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: experiences and expectations. New York: Routledge.

>Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.

JISC (2009). Effective Practice in a Digital Age. A guide to technology-enhanced learning and teaching. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.