Learning With, From, & Through Technology

Learning With, From & Through Technology: Re-Designing TPACK as TPACK9

LEARNING WITH, FROM & THROUGH TECHNOLOGY: RE-DESIGNING TPACK AS TPACK9

Tieu-Tieu Le Phung, 2013 Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) – Tieu-Tieu Le Phung (2013), Version G0105

1



Tieu-Tieu Le Phung

Master of Learning Science & Technology University of Sydney, CoCo July 2013 Version G0105

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) – Tieu-Tieu Le Phung (2013), Version G0105

2


http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en_US


3


4

Abstract This design paper addresses the theoretical limitations of the TPACK [Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge, also formerly TPCK] paradigm (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006), particularly the component of technological and pedagogical knowledge [TPK] integration. Most notably, Harris et al’s (2009) propensity to equate technology with tools excludes the pedagogical value of technology as media or social actors. As TPACK is often used to benchmark training requirements for the professional development [PD] of teachers, particularly learning with technology as tools, such limited instrumental perspective constrains the pedagogic value of experiences and interactions made possible from and through technology.

By incorporating the three functions of computers [tools, media, and social actors] from Fogg’s (Fogg, Cuellar, & Danielson, 2002; Fogg, 1998) triadic taxonomy, TPACK can be extended to more comprehensive formulations of technological integration in education. Moreover by compounding these three technological roles with Chi’s (2009) three types of learning activities [active, constructive, and interactive], 9 possible combinations of TPK can be derived, hence TPACK9. The criteria of TPACK versus TPACK9 comparison do not measure whether interventions such as teachers’ PD designs are viable, legitimate and efficient (Nieveen, Akker, et al, 2006). Instead at this preliminary stage of designbased research [DBR], namely the pre-experimental/ intervention/ treatment phase (McKenney & Reeves, 2013), the first criterion of comparison between TPACK and TPACK9 is the conceptual distinction in the learning process of technological functions. The theoretical implications of Fogg’s (1998; Fogg et al., 2002, p. 200) triadic functions are also explored on the basis of their educational design purposes. In short, as a validation study of possible conceptual frameworks for supporting teachers’ PD, this design paper redesigns the prevailing TPACK (Harris et al., 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and provides a theoretical exploration of TPACK9 as alternative model.



5

Keywords Active, Constructive, Interactive, Learning Activities, Learning Activity Types, Design-Based Research, Integration, Teachers, Professional Development, Tools, Media, Social Actors, Technology Pedagogy Content Knowledge, Technology, TPACK, TPACK9, Development Studies, Validation Studies.

Abbreviations DBR – Design-Based Research PD – Professional Development

TPACK – Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge [CK] - Content Knowledge [PK] - Pedagogical Knowledge [TK] - Technological Knowledge [PCK] - Pedagogical Content Knowledge [TCK] - Technological Content Knowledge [TPK] - Technological Pedagogical Knowledge [TPAK] - Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Cover Photo Source: https://plus.google.com/105510898890305423678/posts/HicPkuTSyxm



6

Table of Contents

Learning With, From & Through Technology: .............................................................................. 2 Re-Designing TPACK as TPACK9 ................................................................................................ 2 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Keywords ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. 5 Design Brief .................................................................................................................................... 7 Domain: Theoretical Conceptualisations of Technology in TPACK ......................................... 7 Issue: The Pedagogic Implications of Technological Functions ................................................ 7 Goals: Theoretical Validation of TPACK through Design Research ......................................... 9 Solution Criteria & Comparison ................................................................................................... 10 Theoretical Insights “Through” TPACK & TPACK9 .............................................................. 10 Alternative Solution for TPACK: Justification & Elaboration of TPACK9 ................................ 11 Reflection ...................................................................................................................................... 16 References ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 21



7

Design Brief Domain: Theoretical Conceptualisations of Technology in TPACK Central to the notion of integrating teachers’ pedagogic and content knowledge with technology is the TPACK paradigm (Harris et al 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Often deployed as the theoretical framework to identify teachers’ professional development [PD] and training needs (Doering, Veletsianos, et al, 2009; Harris & Hofer, 2011; Niess, 2011; Niess, Ronau, et al, 2009), TPACK consists of seven main components (Figure 1 & 2)1, especially technological pedagogical knowledge [TPK].

Issue: The Pedagogic Implications of Technological Functions Whilst content and pedagogical expertise have been traditionally fostered in teachers’ training, technological knowledge components [i.e., TK, TCK, TPK and TPAK] often surface as gaps in teachers’ range of competencies (Atsoglou & Jimoyiannis, 2012; Guzey & Roehrig, 2009; Miller, Doering, & Scharber, 2010; Niess et al., 2009). In TPACK, the instrumental conceptualisation of technology as tools underscores key knowledge categories such as TK and TPK.

1

[1] Content Knowledge [CK], [2] Pedagogical Knowledge [PK], [3] Technological Knowledge [TK],

[4] Pedagogical Content Knowledge [PCK], [5] Technological Content Knowledge [TCK], [6] Technological Pedagogical Knowledge [TPK], and [7] Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge [TPAK] (Harris et al 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) – Tieu-Tieu Le Phung (2013), Version G0105


Teachers will have to do more than simply learn to use currently available tools; … Technology knowledge (TK) is knowledge about… skills required to operate particular technologies… [and the] ability to learn and adapt to new technologies… Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) is knowledge… include an understanding that a range of tools exists for a particular task, the ability to choose a tool based on its fitness, strategies for using the tool’s affordances, and knowledge of pedagogical strategies and the ability to apply those strategies for use of technologies… [and] knowledge of tools for maintaining class records, attendance, and grading, and knowledge of generic technology-based ideas such as… chat rooms. (Emphasis added; Mishra & Koehler, 2006, pp. 1023 – 8)

In TPACK, particularly TCK, are recognitions of technology constraining or freeing the scope for content representations. Remarkably, however in itself, technological knowledge is not representational media from which information, knowledge, and meanings are constructed.

Technology can constrain the types of possible representations, but also can afford the construction of newer and more varied representations. Furthermore, technological tools can provide a greater degree of flexibility in navigating across these representations. (Emphasis added; Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 65).


8


9

Thus the technological function of TPACK is essentially instrumental. The propensity to equate technology as learning with tools, however, leads to a limited view of TPK. Essentially this prevailing assumption of technology revolves around increasing one’s capabilities (Fogg et al., 2002; Fogg, 1998; Photo 1).

Goals: Theoretical Validation of TPACK through Design Research Whilst the learning value of increasing one’s capabilities with tools is obviously important, there are however other equally vital roles provided by technological integration such as media representation/ immersion (Photo 2) and identity formation based on interaction with technological actors (Photo 3 as cyborg metaphor). The theoretical goals, for this design paper, therefore entail: 1.

Creating alternative solution [TPACK9] to TPACK as possible benchmarks for technological integration in teachers’ PD design research;

2.

Examining the conceptualisation of technology in TPACK9; and

3.

Assessing the pedagogical implications based on TPACK9’s conceptualisation of technological knowledge.



10

Solution Criteria & Comparison Theoretical Insights “Through” TPACK & TPACK9 When DBR criteria are couched “through …certain phenomena relating to teaching and learning in authentic settings” (McKenney & Reeves, 2012, p. 24), one is oriented towards the theoretical [re]formulations of teaching, learning, and design.

The theoretical contributions … relate to (among others): teaching (e.g. patterns in how teachers develop pedagogical content knowledge); learning (e.g. factors influencing pupil motivation); and design (e.g. models describing ideal and actual instructional design trajectories) (McKenney & Reeves, 2012, p. 24).

In contrast to the “through” approach, DBR “on” whom and under what conditions (McKenney & Reeves, 2013) focuses on quantifiable, mostly empirical and positivist factors like [1] viability, [2] legitimacy, and [3] efficacy (Nieveen et al., 2006, p. 80). These types of design research, often in the experimental phase articulated by development studies, are “problemdriven, situated in the educational settings, and involves close interactions between practitioners, researchers, experts, and other stake holders” (Nieveen et al, 2006, p. 153). Instead, the criteria proposed for this design paper are based the goals of validation studies. Namely “through” design research, one gauges how well given theories “develop, elaborate, and validate… both process of learning and the resulting implications for the design of learning environments” (p. 152). Hence the following criteria and actual cross-comparisons between TPACK and the proposed alternative solution, TPACK9, are presented in Table 1 & 2: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) – Tieu-Tieu Le Phung (2013), Version G0105


1.

Technological Functions in Learning Processes (Table 1), and

2.

Educational Design of Technology (Table 2).

11

Alternative Solution for TPACK: Justification & Elaboration of TPACK9 TPACK, though a pertinent starting point for designing teachers’ PD programs, provides a limited perspective of technological functions in TPK integration. Here I propose to adapt TPACK with:

1.

Fogg’s (1998; Fogg et al, 2003) triadic functionality of computers (Table 3), and

2.

Chi’s (2009) three types of learning activities (Table 4).

When fused together with TPACK, the resulting TPACK9 (Table 5) can potentially clarify teachers’ knowledge of technological functions and their underlying pedagogical implications. Fogg’s (1998; Fogg et al., 2002, p. 200) functional triad, for instance, highlights the multiple roles assumed by computers in relation to their users. Specifically, the three main functions of computers are:



1.

12

As tools, computers, by extension other technology, increase capabilities and selfefficacy, by reducing barriers [time, effort, costs] and provide information for better decision-making.

2.

As media, computers/ technology deliver experiences through direct learning, insight, and visualisation, promote understanding of cause-effect relationships, and motivate through experience and sensation.

3.

Lastly as social actors, computers/ technology create relationship by establishing social norms, invoking social rules and dynamics whilst providing social support and sanction.

From Chi (2009), we have the conceptual means to classify observable [external behaviours] activities and their underpinning [internal cognitive] processes into three main categories. Firstly, active learning entails overt activities such as engagement based on “look, gaze, fixate, underline, highlight, gesture, point, paraphrase, manipulate objects or tapes, select, and repeat” (Chi, 2009, p. 77). The internal cognitive processes are based on attention such as activating, assimilating, encoding, storing and searching existing knowledge. Secondly, constructive learning activities are based on self-construction such as “explain, elaborate, justify, provide reasons, connect or link, construct a concept map, reflect, or self-monitor, plan and predict outcomes, and generate hypothesis” (Chi, 2009, p. 77). In turn, the corresponding cognitive processes are creation such as inferring, integrating, organising, repairing and restructuring one’s own knowledge with new ones. Thirdly and lastly, the overt manifestations of interactive learning activities are either [A] guided -construction in instructional dialogue or [B] sequential/ co-construction in joint dialogue. The corresponding internal cognitive processes include for [A] Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) – Tieu-Tieu Le Phung (2013), Version G0105


13

guided - construction, responding to scaffoldings, or revising errors from feedback, and for [B] building on partner’s contribution, the learning activities are arguing, defending, confronting or challenging. Therefore as underlying cognitive processes, interactive learning activities are joint creations based on “creating processes that incorporate a partner’s contribution” (Chi, 2009, p. 77).

To be sure, subsequent refinement of TPACK by Harris et al (2009) with learning activity types points towards the same direction as Chi’s (2009) learning activities. Harris et al (2009) offer the following classifications with recommended compatible technologies (Table 6 & 7): 1.

Written knowledge expression

2.

Visual knowledge

3.

Conceptual knowledge expression

4.

Product-oriented expression

5.

Participatory knowledge expression

But with a total of “42 social studies activity types” (Harris et al, 2009, p.411), the fusing of processes with objects in such taxonomy risks being indefinite and ungeneralisable to form clear PD benchmarks or coding criteria for DBR. There are also many overlapping technologies considered compatible for selected learning activity types such as the use of word processing, presentation software and wikis being found in most activity clusters. Most crucially, technology as tools continue to underpin Harris et al’s (2009) TPACK.



14

There are, however, ways of thinking about and working with technology that can apply to all technological tools, regardless of when they emerged… Our goal… [entails] identifying and sharing activity types, and… the different ways that digital and nondigital tools support each (Emphasis added, Harris et al, 2009, p. 398 & 411).

In contrast to Harris et al’s fixed connections between learning processes and objects, for example in write [process] an essay [object] (Table 1), the proposed solution here is to make Fogg’s (1998, Fogg et al, 2003) triadic functions of computers interchangeable with Chi’s (2009) learning activities (Table 8). Consequently, one can arrive at a more systematic and streamlined taxonomy of TPK. Namely, TPACK could be instead sub-divided as three versions of TPACKS based on tools, media, and social actors. From Chi (2009), another three versions of pedagogic knowledge could be further compounded, resulting in 3 [technological roles as tools, media, and social actors] x 3 [active, constructive, and interactive learning activities], hence TPACK9s (Table 1, 2, 5, 8). With Fogg’s (1998) original triangle (Figure 3) replicated three time from Chi’s (2009) active, constructive, and interactive activities (Figure 4), one could then deploy a triangular pyramid to encapsulate this revised version of TPACK (Figure 5).

Starting with the teacher/ learner as subject actors, Chi’s (2009) learning activities provide interchangeable means for describing the learning processes as largely ways of doing, thinking and being. The triadic functions of technology [i.e. tool, media, and social actors] complete the equations of the subject actor and learning processes, hence creating systematic and yet interchangeable learning objects complement (Table 9). In other words, firstly, when the learner Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) – Tieu-Tieu Le Phung (2013), Version G0105


15

is doing something physically “with” (Figure 6) technology as tools, the overt activities are engagement based on manipulating object [i.e., technology]. Secondly, when learning “from” technological outputs, the learner infers, integrates, organises, repairs and restructures his/ her knowledge. In a constructive perspective, technology functions as media representations “from” which the learner encodes his/ her inputs to form or revise a mental schema in his/ her mind [e.g., experiences generated “from” context construction in game-based learning or immersive virtual reality]. Thirdly, when technology operates as a social actor, the subject-object distinction between learner and technology dissolves, if not, interchanges and fluctuates, “through” which learner and technology both assuming actor positions [e.g., digital pet and human carer]2. Hence unlike the fixed connections between learning processes and objects in the Harris et al’s (2009; Table 1 & 2) activity types, TPACK9 stresses practical flexibility through its methodical interchangeability of components among types of learner, learning activities/ processes, and technology as variable learning objects (Table 8 & 9).

Therefore in terms of PD design, a more nuanced and yet systematic conceptualisation of technology than TPACK is vital for teachers to have better grasps of technological integration. Through the flexibility of interchanging technological roles and types of learning activities (Table 1, 2, 5, 8), teachers may be able to pin-point not only assessment procedures, but also situate types of learning tasks/ activities by designing relevant scenarios and roles assumed by

2

Here as only preliminary sketches are the issues of subject/ object identity fusion, resulting in what I

proposed as “Sobject” identifications (Table 9 Commentary). Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) – Tieu-Tieu Le Phung (2013), Version G0105


16

themselves, their students, and technology. Hence TPACK9 operates as “a means through which deeper insight can be gained into certain phenomena relating to teaching and learning in authentic settings” (McKenney & Reeves, 2012, p. 24). The theoretical contributions may include a more systematic definition of technological functions [i.e. tool, medium, or social actor] and types of learning activities [active, constructive, and interactive] for a given content knowledge.

Reflection According to Chi (2009), there is a possible hierarchical ordering as implicated by these three types of learning activities. To encapsulate their normative value for learning, Chi (2009) cites the Chinese proverb3. Namely information and knowledge are best learnt through interactive activities, followed by constructive and, lastly, active variations. Chi (2009) does not refer to Bloom, Engelhart et al’s (1956) comparable taxonomic ranking of higher order thinking skills over lower ones. But both taxonomies (Bloom et al, 1956; Chi, 2009) suggest progressions from basic to complex learning. If so, it may well be that, there are active, constructive, and interactive learning for each technologic function [i.e., tool, medium, social actor].

But in actuality, perhaps using Photo [4] as hypothetical reference for a single event, say three research participants playing an epistemic game (Commentary from Photo 4; Shaffer 2006 ).

3

“Teachers open the door. But you must enter by yourself. Tell me and I forget. Teach me

and I remember. Involve me and I learn” (Chi, 2009, p. 73). Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) – Tieu-Tieu Le Phung (2013), Version G0105


17

Here one could arguably maintain the eye contraptions and joysticks are tools, the visual representations viewed by the participants function as media, and their possible digitised avatars are social actors. In all, one may say that there is active learning based on the participants’ manipulation of the tools, just as also cognitive constructions possibly going in their minds as well as digitally mediated interactions perhaps among the players. In short, one learning event, several learning activities and technological functionalities are all possibly occurring simultaneously through multitasking

Lastly, for future exploration, knowledge as represented by the “K” in TPACK, may need to be also refined along the lines of skills, knowledge, identity, values, epistemology (Shaffer, 2006) or alternatively expressed as KSAVE [knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and ethics] (Binkley, Erstad, et al, 2012). However to conclude, as a diagnostic method for teachers, TPACK9 paves the possibilities of mix-match TPACKs to curricular activities, freeing the teachers to experiment with multiple [i.e. active, constructive, interactive] learning possibilities “with” [as tools], “from” [as media, resources, and learning artefacts] and “through” [as social actors] technology. At this stage, it remains admittedly as a hypothetical exercise in theoretical exploration and analysis.


References Atsoglou, K., & Jimoyiannis, A. (2012). Teachers’ Decisions to Use ICT in Classroom Practice: An Investigation Based on Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence (IJDLDC), 3(2), 20 – 37. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., & Ripley, M. (2012). Defining Twenty-First Century Skills. Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills, (January), 17–66. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2 Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay. Chi, M. T. (2009). Active‐Constructive‐Interactive: A Conceptual Framework For Differentiating Learning Activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73-105. Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using The Technological, Pedagogical, And Content Knowledge Framework To Design Online Learning Environments And Professional Development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319–346. Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. The knowledge management yearbook 2000-2001. Fogg, B. J. (1998). Persuasive Computers: Perspectives And Research Directions. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings (Vol. 98, pp. 225–232). Los Angeles, CA, USA: ACM, New York, NY, United States. doi:10.1145/274644.274677 Fogg, B. J., Cuellar, G., & Danielson, D. (2002). Motivating, Influencing, And Persuading Users. The human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications, L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ.Retrieved from http://itp.nyu.edu/~kd49/fun/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/motivating_influencing_persuading_users.pdf Guzey, S., & Roehrig, G. (2009). Teaching Science with Technology: Case Studies of Science Teachers’ Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 25–45. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/29293/ Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. M. J. (2011). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in Action: A Descriptive Study of Secondary Teachers’ Curriculum-Based, Technology-Related Instructional Planning. JRTE, 43(3), 211–229. Retrieved from http://ites.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/file/view/What+is+TPACK.pdf/385898910/What is TPACK.pdf

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) – Tieu-Tieu Le Phung, 2013


19

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. Retrieved from http://learnonline.canberra.edu.au/file.php/5963/TPACK_UC/pdf/harris_mishra_koehler_jrte.pdf Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70 …. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/29544?nl Lyon, D. (1994). The electronic eye: The rise of surveillance society. U of Minnesota Press. Lyon, D. (1994). The Electronic Eye: The Rise Of Surveillance Society. U of Minnesota Press. Maes, P. (1994). Agents that reduce work and information overload.Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 30-40. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting Educational Design Research. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Miller, C., Doering, A., & Scharber, C. (2010). No Such Thing As Failure, Only Feedback: Designing Innovative Opportunities For E-Assessment And Technology-Mediated Feedback. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 21(1), 65–92. Mishra, M., & Koehler, M. J. M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 017–1054. Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge Growth In Teaching With Technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299–317. Retrieved from http://baywood.metapress.com/index/030W0118T317611H.pdf Niess, M., Ronau, R., & Shafer, K. (2009). Mathematics Teacher TPACK Standards And Development Model. Contemporary Issues in …. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/29448 Reimann, P. (2013). Views of Learning. Sydney: University of Sydney. Sewell, G. (1998). The Discipline Of Teams: The Control Of Team-Based Industrial Work Through Electronic And Peer Surveillance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 397-428. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Epistemic Frames For Epistemic Games. Computers & Education, 46(3), 223–234. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.003 Siemens, G. (2008). Learning And Knowing In Networks: Changing Roles For Educators And Designers. ITFORUM for Discussion, 1–26. … Retrieved from http://www.ingedewaard.net/papers/connectivism/2008_siemens_Learning_Knowing_in_Networ ks_changingRolesForEducatorsAndDesigners.pdf Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) – Tieu-Tieu Le Phung (2013), Version G0105


20

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects Learning.Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. Turkle, S. (1984). The second self (pp. 211-12). New York: Simon & Schuster. Turkle, S. (1994). Constructions And Reconstructions Of Self In Virtual Reality: Playing In The Muds. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(3), 158–167. doi:10.1080/10749039409524667 Turkle, S. (2011). The Tethered Self: Technology Reinvents Intimacy and Solitude. Continuing Higher Education Review, 75, 28-31 Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2006).Educational design research. Taylor & Francis.



Appendices Figure 1: Original Version of Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge [TPACK]

Source: http://www.tpack.org/


21


Figure 2: Technological Pedagogic Content Knowledge (TPACK) with Explanations

Source: http://ictevangelist.com/technological-pedagogical-and-content-knowledge/


22


Figure 3: Fogg’s Original Triadic Functions

Source: (Fogg, 1998, p. 227).


23


Figure 4: Chi’s Three Types of Learning Activities Overlaying Fogg’s Triadic Functions

Background Source: http://richardoconnell.wordpress.com/


24


Figure 5: TPACK9 Quadrant as Triangular Pyramid


25


26

Figure 6: Learning “With”, “From”, and “Through Technology

Source: (Reimann, 2013)

This paper acknowledges the starting inspiration of technological functions as indicated by “with” and “from” is derived from a power-point slide in EDPC 5021 by Reimann (2013). “Through” is added to the social actors’ functionality of technology. Though Reimann’s (2012) slides equate technological function mediating “with” situated activity, and learning “from” which cognitive learning is mediated by technology, it seems that perhaps as suggested by Chi’s Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) – Tieu-Tieu Le Phung (2013), Version G0105


27

(2009) taxonomy, three kinds of learning activities are possible in each of Fogg’s (1998, Fogg et al, 2003) triadic functions: “with” tools, “from” experiences, and “through” interactions. Take technology as tool, for example, for learner novice unfamiliar with the tool, he/ she would require interactive and constructive learning activities to master the tool [Photo 1 as metaphorical illustration; Figure 5; Table1, 2, 5 8 & 9]. In other words, a novice-learner may initially require intense cognitive loading (Sweller, 1988) of interactive and constructive learning activities. Once certain knowledge / skills are cognitively encoded and stored, the now expert individual may perform given tasks with the relative ease of active, but routinized activities. Once accomplished, the now master tool user can simply manipulate the instrument for other learning outcomes. In relation to technological integration, to conclude, learners may require two interlocking pathways to mastery – one for particular technological function, and another, for content knowledge expertise. For their teachers, there is the additional pedagogic component, thus three interlocking pathways to mastery. Having illustrated with tools as example, one could learn actively, constructively, [Photo 2 as metaphorical illustration] and interactively [Photo 3, as likewise metaphorical illustration], hence same might be applied to media and social actors. But then again, as illustrated in Photo [4], such learning activities could occur simultaneously within one single learning event. In all, a great deal of learning and need for mastery that could be potentially underestimated for adequate TPACK integration.

Whilst TPACK9 draws much from Chi (2009) and Fogg (1999, Fogg et al, 2003) for each of their triadic pedagogic / technological components, one wonders about possible further theoretical connections to behaviourism, cognitive/ individual- constructivism, and connectivism. Though each of Chi’s (2009) learning activities types consists of behaviour (overt) Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) – Tieu-Tieu Le Phung (2013), Version G0105


28

and cognitive (covert) components, one wonders still if certain emphases are implicated through her active, constructive, and interactive taxonomy. Photo 1: Learning “With” Technology as Tools

Source: http://www.bespoken.biz/#!innovation-is-the-only-way-forward/zoom/c1mw1/imagesqv

As Siemens (2008) has indicated, behaviourism can best explain task-based learning, cognitivism with reason, clear learning objectives, and problem-solving, whilst lastly, connectivism with complex learning involving rapid core changes, and diverse knowledge sources. Again, these kinds of classifications are best taken on a triangular spectrum [like Figure 3 & 4] rather than absolute distinctions as hybrid combinations and grey areas do occur. Yet should one begin to map, for example, behaviourism and its task-based learning emphasis with tools and active learning activities, whether such combinations would in turn highlight certain Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) – Tieu-Tieu Le Phung (2013), Version G0105


learning trajectories. Thus also whether cognitivism/ individual constructivism with media combined with constructive activities would yield another type of learning pathway. And not least, whether connectivism with social actors and interactive learning activities would point towards a distributed form of identity-based learning within “a, social, technologically enhanced” (Siemens, 2008, p. 10) network. For now, these conjectures would have to simply remain as potential future avenues to further explore and analyse in yet another reiteration of theoretical validation.


29


Photo 2: Learning From Technology as Media

Source: http://www.ibisworld.com/media/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/mA-tech.jpg


30


31

Table 1: Cross-Comparisons of Technological Functions in Learning Processes Design Research Through: TPACK

Design Research Through: TPACK9

(Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Harris et al, 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2009) Technological integration as tools for pedagogical and content knowledge. Potential learning activities include:

(Le Phung, 2013; Citing Chi, 2009; Fogg 1999; Fogg et al, 2003) Technological integration as:

1. Written knowledge expression  Write an Essay  Write a Report  Generate an Historical Narrative  Craft a Poem Create a Diary 2. Visual knowledge  Create an Illustrated Map  Create a Picture/Mural  Draw a Cartoon 3. Conceptual knowledge expression   

Develop a Knowledge Web Generate Questions Develop a Metaphor

4. Product-oriented expression  Produce an Artefact  Build a Model  Design an Exhibit  Create a Newspaper/ News Magazine  Create a Game  Create a Film

1. Tools with which learners engage active learning activities:  Look, gaze/ fixate,  Underline, highlight,  Gesture/ point,  Paraphrase,  Manipulate technology,  Select or repeat 2. Media from which information/ knowledge can be constructed by learner:      

Explain/ elaborate, Justify/ provide reasons, Connect/ link, Construct concept/ map, Reflect/ self-monitor, Plan & predict outcomes

3. Social Actors through which learners and technology interact: 

Guided-Construction Activities in Instructional Dialogue: Respond to scaffoldings, revise errors from feedback



Sequential/ Co-Construction Activities in Joint Dialogue: Build on partner’s contribution, argue, defend, confront or challenge

5. Participatory knowledge expression    

Do a presentation Engage in Historical Role-play Do a Performance Engage in Civic Action



32

Table 2: Cross-Comparative Educational Design of Technology Design Research Through: TPACK

Design Research Through: TPACK9

(Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Harris et al, 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2009)

(Le Phung, 2013; Citing Chi, 2009; Fogg 1999; Fogg et al, 2003)

Technologies, as compatible tools, are deployed mostly to do something:

Technology as:

                     

Blogs, Brainstorming aids, CAD/CAM software, Cartographic software, Clip art, stock art, Concept mapping software, Desktop publishing software, Drawing/painting software, GoogleMaps Graphics editing software, Hand- held drawing tools, Image banks, graphics editors, multimedia authoring tools, Interactive whiteboards, Modeling, Multimedia editing tools, Multimedia production tools, Presentation software, Web authoring tools, Simulation construction, Timeline software, Virtual reality creation software, Wikis, & Word processing.

1. Tools designed to increase capabilities by reducing barriers [time, effort, costs], self-efficacy, and provide information for better decision-making.

2. Media designed to deliver experiences through direct learning, insight, and visualisation, promotes understanding of cause-effect relationships, and motivates through experience and sensation.

3. Social Actors designed to create relationships by establishing social norms, invoking social rules and dynamics whilst providing social support and sanction. 

Sequential/ Co-Construction Activities in Joint Dialogue: Build on partner’s contribution, argue, defend, confront or challenge



Table 3: Fogg’s Triadic Functions of Computers

Source: (Fogg et al, 2002, p. 140).


33


Table 4: Chi’s Three Types of Learning Activities

Source: (Chi, 2009, p. 77).


34


Table 5: TPACK9 as Basic Three Alignments


35



36


Table 6: Knowledge-Building Activity Types in TPACK


37


Table 7: Convergent Knowledge Expression Activity Types in TPACK

Source for Table 6 & 7: (Harris et al, 2009, p 408 – 9).


38

39


Table 8: TPACK9 as 9 Quadrants of TPK Technology

Tools

Media

Social Actors

Tools - Active

Media – Active

Social Actors – Active

[T1P1K]

[T2P1K]

[T3P1K]

Media – Constructive

Social Actors – Constructive

[T1P2K]

[T2P2K]

[T3P2K]

Tools - Interactive

Media – Interactive

Social Actors – Interactive

[T1P3K]

[T2P3K]

[T3P3K]

Learning Activities Active

Constructive Tools - Constructive

Interactive

Table 9: Subject, Learning Processes & Objects/ Sobjects Complementary Interrelationships Subject - Learning Activities/ Processes Actor

Technology as Learning Object/ Sobject*

Learner

Active, Constructive, & Interactive

Tools, Media, & Social Actors

Teacher

Chi (2009)

Fogg (1998, Fogg et al, 2003)

*For want of better word, “Sobject” as purposed in this design paper, is the part subject, part object relations “through” which technologies, as social actors, fuse with subject/ identity, resulting in what I proposed as “Sobject”, cyborg like identifications with bionic abilities [empowered by technology as tools]. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) – Tieu-Tieu Le Phung (2013), Version G0105


Photo 3: Learning From Technology as Social Actors

Source: http://sporttencen.blogspot.dk/2010/09/musica-cristina-aguilera-bionic-deluxe.html


40


41

Photo 4: Learning With, From, & Through Technology as Tools, Media, & Social Actors

Source: http://news.7127.com/Public/pic/upload/2013/04/29/1367227633.jpg

Particularly pertinent to the proposed “Sobject” concept are the writings of Turkle (1984, 1994, 2011) that chart ways in which technologies no longer function merely as tool objects, but rather are integral to the fluidity of people’s identities, resulting in the hybrid cyborg selves that defy clear binary distinctions and linear progressions. Such issues of identity and bionic social actors functionalities are relevant to the exploration and analysis of epistemic games (Schaffer, 2006). This is a rich area concerning TPK, particularly as explanatory modelling, for the learning activities arising from epistemic frames. As a comprehensive learning mechanism generated “through” computer games and other interactive learning environments, epistemic frames Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) – Tieu-Tieu Le Phung (2013), Version G0105


42

purportedly help students to deal more effectively with real world situations. Learners, acting “with” tools, constructing “from” media, and interacting “through” actor-like interactions generated through these computer games, epistemic technologies raise issues of how learning, and possibly also surveillance, is manifested via increased capabilities, broadening and yet filtering experiences, simulating life-like, but ultimately fabricated, social interactions.

With a workforce being increasing re- tooled/ trained/ skilled with, from and through technology, via the engagement, construction, and creation of skills, knowledge, identity, values, epistemology (Shaffer, 2006), and ethics [i.e., KSAVE as abbreviation of knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and ethics] (Binkley, Erstad, et al, 2012), the knowledge worker (Drucker, 1999) may yet to be superseded by the rise of the “Sobject” worker. Such workforce would draw on multiple [i.e. active, constructive, interactive] learning possibilities “with” [as tools], “from” [as media, resources, and learning artefacts] and “through” [as social actors] technology, resulting in a cyborg like identity compounded by bionic abilities but yet constrained by an all too human cognitive architecture (Sweller, 1988). Whether agents like epistemic games (Shaffer, 2006) or other simulations, can reduce work and information overload (Maes, 1994) or actually form oppressive surveillance regimes (Foucault cited in Lyon, 1994; Sewell, 1998) remains to be seen in DBR as it seems, we are really still grasping with what technology means, ontologically, epistemologically, and practically, in training and education.


Learning With, From, & Through Technology

Learning With, From, & Through Technology

Suggest Documents

Learning From Technology or Learning With ...

Technology-enhanced science learning through remote laboratory ...

Transforming higher educaTion Through Technology-enhanced learning

Thinking and learning through technology - Mediating ...

Learning Microelectronics Through Technology and ...

Learning & Leading Through Technology

Empowerment through Service-Learning: Teaching Technology to ...

Enhancing Learning Through Technology: When Students ... - CiteSeerX

Technology-enhanced science learning through ...

Learning & Leading Through Technology ...

Technology-enhanced science learning through remote laboratory ...

learning mathematics through utilization of technology - wseas.us

Professional Connections through the Technology Learning Community

Learning science and technology through cooperative ...

technology transfer and technological learning through cern's ...

Learning & Leading Through Technology ...

Fostering Foreign Language Learning Through Technology ...

Learning & Leading Through Technology

Technology-enhanced science learning through remote laboratory

Learning with Technology: Language Learning Strategies ... - AsiaCALL

From psychomotor to 'motorpsycho': learning through gestures with ...

Learning to Teach with Technology: From Integration to ... - CiteSeerX

Learning With Technology from a Constructivist Point of View

pig welfare through behavior learning from camera