Shift%20Happens

=Shift Happens: Technolgy Integration Decisions via Learning Activities, not Aids= Tuesday, June 29, 2010 12:34 PM Judi Harris and Mark Hofer College of William and Mary

My notes:

TPACK -
Technical Pedogical content Knowledg (TPACK) Knowledge: Pedagological Knowledge (PK) Contend knowledge (CK) Technical Knowledge (TK) Pedagological Content Knowledge (PCK) Technological Pedogogical Knowledge (TPK) TPACK has gone viral 150,000 google hits Knowledge that you need to teach elem is much different thanknowledge you need for teaching other classes. There are general Shift: thinking about shifts over time. Think of gears in a car…how do we know when we need to be in what gear? Look for articles inlearning and leading with technology fromthese two., activity groups? Learning activities? When we don't think about all the psossibilities we have we get constrained by time. "activity types" [|http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net] Shift from focus on the tools to TPACK approach use the website above. Because tpack has gone viral...
 * 1) Tools
 * 2) Curriculum Resources
 * 3) Teaching with Tools
 * 4) TPACK
 * 5) Tpack in contexts.

Their notes: To date, most technology integration efforts have focused upon what’s most unfamiliar to many teachers: the technologies themselves. Though it’s true that we must first become familiar, comfortable, and competent with technologies to be able to integrate them into instruction effectively, doing this alone (or primarily) does not ensure effective educational technology use. Most technology integration professional development begins with and focuses upon the technologies’ affordances: what they can help us to do; and constraints: their limitations. This approach, unfortunately, does not ensure that educational technologies will be well-integrated into instruction that is keyed to specific //content-based learning// goals, as opposed to //technology use// goals. New understanding (e.g., Koehler & Mishra, 2008) of the knowledge that is needed for effective technology integration, however, is catalyzing a shift in technology-related professional development. A new, qualitatively different approach to technology integration: 1. focuses upon students’ //standards-based learning needs//, rather than the specific features of particular technological tools and resources, 2. is easily adaptable to //multiple teaching styles// and //levels of technological proficiency,// 3. can be //learned and applied relatively quickly,// with few, if any, additional resources required, even in resource-scarce settings, 4. and—to ensure long-term use—is //predicated upon teacher ownership// of the planning and implementation process. How can we meet these requirements? By //selecting educational technologies last:// as the final step in instructional planning. How can we ensure effective technology integration if technological decisions are such (comparatively) low-priority tasks? By //constraining technological options according to the types of learning activities included in an instructional plan.// We think of this as a “grounded” approach to technology integration, since it is based in content, pedagogy, and how most teachers plan instruction. In this presentation, we’ll describe how technology integration decisions can be better incorporated into teachers’ activities-based, curriculum-oriented planning. We will also share new ideas about how understanding and developing the knowledge needed to plan in this fully integrated way -- that is, TPACK -- has been shifting over time. A. Introduction: What is TPACK? (~5") B. Knowledge for Technology Integration: An informal history, 1980 - 2010 (~20") 1. Focus upon tools (T) 2. Focus upon curriculum resources (TC) 3. Focus upon teaching with tools (TP) 4. Focus upon curriculum-keyed technology integration (TC, TP & TPACK) C. Current shift between #3 & #4: How can we help it to happen? (~20") 1. Social Studies example: TC & TP emphasis 2. Same example: TPACK emphasis 3. What are the differences? How can we assist the shift to TPACK? D. The next TPACK shift: Multiple contextual influences (~7") E. Questions, comments, etc. (~8") Harris, J.B. (2008). TPACK in inservice education: Assisting experienced teachers’ planned improvisations. In AACTE Committee on Innovation & Technology (Eds.). //Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators// (pp. 251-271). New York, NY: Routledge. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In C. D. Maddux (Ed.). //Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009// (pp. 99-108). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2010). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. //Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42//(2), pp. in press. Harris, J. B., Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed, //Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41//(4), 393-416. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation & Technology (Eds.). //Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators// (pp. 3-29). New York, NY: Routledge. Papert, S. (1987). //A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future// (Epistemology and Learning Memo No. 2). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Lab. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html
 * Outline**
 * Supporting Research**