TPACK Master course: my students about TPACK

During the past couple of weeks my students and I worked on "Pedagogies for Flexible Learning supported by Technology", which can roughly be translated as TPACK.. After the lectures about Flexibility, Pedagogy and Technology we combined everything together and discussed the TPACK model. After this lecture the students had to post a message on their weblog in which they explain TPACK in their own words and reflect on the added value of TPACK. My students came up with some interesting thoughts and I will try to summarize them here.

Positive aspects of the TPACK framework and model

• The TPACK model makes teachers realize that you cannot just put content, pedagogy and technology together, but that it is really necessary to consider how to combine these three and think about the consequences of the choices you make. It makes you conscious about the connections between the several components. Or, as one of the students wrote "I was often trapped to learn more about how to work with the technologies rather than examining whether it is best suited or not with my lesson." And an other student wrote "It helps you to think explicitly about integration when designing a lesson and it gives you something to hold on when designing a lesson". 
• The TPACK model is useful for teachers because it is viewed from a teacher’s perspective and it helps teachers to think in a structured way about their teaching. The model is based upon the model of Shulman (1986) on PCK. The refleciton of one of the students: "I think that a lot of teachers can relate to this model, because they understand how important it is that the pedagogy and the content is integrated with each other. Also, teachers learn in teacher training that they should build upon prior knowledge. So they also like to learn new aspects based on their own prior knowledge, this way it is less ‘invasive’ then a model that they can’t relate to.". 
• TPACK is also closely related with teachers’ creativity. It is not merely about thinking out of the box with astonishing or unique thought or idea, but also how useful the idea is. When teachers decide to use the TPACK model they are free to use their creativity. I think for more experienced technology users this is an advantage of the model. The model gives them a structure to hold on while designing a lesson, but does not prescribe everything in detail. 
• Many students believe that TPACK should be introduced in teacher training. They indicate that we know that technology will keep changing. The elderly teachers didn’t get the opportunity to learn about technology during their own training. By introducing this model to teacher training they get familiar with the model and will use it when they start teaching. The pre-service teachers will become aware of the advantages and disadvantages of certain technologies and pedagogies. Teachers who become convenient with using different technologies and pedagogies for certain content teaching might become more flexible in using different approaches in teaching. This might increase student-centered, technology rich classrooms and flexibility in learning. 
• The element of context is an important aspect of TPACK. It considers that the educational context has a big influence on the implementation of TPACK. For instance, one of the students observed that "TPACK is not only owned by teachers in well developed countries where the framework is developed, but also owned by teachers in other third-world countries".

Some pitfalls
Several reflections were made about how to use the model. One of the students indicates that "The model does not indicate the process in the technology integration." and another student: "The model does not prescribe how teachers should use technology in their own practice, since there is no one best way of working. Instead it provides teachers with tools how to design a lesson and the aspects they need to think about.". This particular student sees this as a positive aspect of the TPACK model. On the other hand an other student wrote "The model itself does not prescribe what is good and what is wrong. When teachers use the model, they have to find additional information about integrating technology in the right way. For example information about which pedagogy fits with which technology. That can be discouraging for less experienced teachers or teachers who never worked before with the model.". An other student makes a remark that is linked with this: "How does a teacher now that he has created a good lesson with TPACK? I think that this seems to be a bit of a paradox, because the TPACK model itself seems to be a very stable and directing model". I think that this is one of the reasons that some students indicate that before teachers can use this framework they should learn more about it. This can be done during pre-service training, but also in professional development programs. But, as written by one of the students, "TPACK it is not just a guideline which contains all the possible answers. It is also not a simple model with phases you can follow.".

One of the students (who is also a teacher and has some experience with ICT-integration) offers an other way of thinking about TPACK development: "Maybe TPACK is a framework of the knowledge teacher should have and not a tool for professional development of teachers. Niess et. al. (2009) describe a development model of the TPACK framework with 5 stages of integrating technology into PCK:

1. Recognizing: teachers are able to work with technology and recognize the alignment of the technology with the subject area. The teachers do not integrate the technology in the lessons.
2. Accepting: Teachers develop an attitude about using technology within the subject area.
3. Adapting: teacher enact in activities that lead to a choice to adapt or reject teaching with technologies.
4. Exploring: teachers explore the possibilities of integrating technology in the lessons. They actively experiment with using technology.
5. Advancing: Teachers evaluate the results of the decision to integrate technologies.

The model of Niess et. al. (2009) might give more opportunities to think about the integration of ICT more as a process."

TPACK and the Curricular Spiderweb
During the study on Educational Science and Technology at the University of Twente each student learns about the "Curricular Spiderweb" (Van den Akker, 2003). 

The spiderweb illustrates the inter-connectedness of curriculum components and the vulnerability of the structure that connects them. At the core of the model is the rationale, through which all other components are connected: aims and objectives; content; learning activities; teacher role; materials and resources; grouping; location; time; assessment. The metaphor of the spiderweb emphasizes that within one curriculum the component accents may vary over time, but that any shift in balance will pull the whole "spiderweb" out of alignment. 

Some students indicated that the TPACK model is similar to the metaphor of the curricular spiderweb: by changing technology, everything else changes or in other words if you want to change something you have to address not only what you want to change, but you also have to think about the effect this has on other elements of the curriculum.

My students about TPACK...
I think my students did a very nice job in reflecting on the model. They can explain the model, those students who are teachers can reflect on their own practice based on the model and all students have some ideas about what it means to integrate ICT in teaching and learning. And even though I explicitly asked for ideas on the added value of TPACK, most of them were critical enough to say something about the implications, difficulties and drawbacks of the model. If you want to read their complete reflections, please visit their blogs! You can find these blogs on the right side of this blog.

TPACK Master course: combining PK and TK

Today the second lecture of the course "Pedagogies for Flexible Learning supported by Technology" took place. Today's topic: Pedagogies.

We started with a problem: I told the students that my course originally had 13 students from very different backgrounds (7 different countries and languages, some with work experience, some completed a study that was not related to Educational Design, they all had different learning styles and interests), but there is only 1 course, my course. And in this course the final assignment was to write a report. The question I asked the students: "What would be the best pedagogical approach?". The students formed 6 groups of 3 and each group did some desktop research into a specific pedagogical approach: traditional learning, problem-based learning, workplace learning, collaborative learning, inquiry learning, and project-based learning. Based on the characteristics of these approaches the groups made a description of the assignment “write a report” and they presented their ideas to the others. It became clear that there are overlapping characteristics and ideas between the different pedagogical approaches and that it is very important to try to fit your pedagogical approach with the kind of students that you are dealing with (and maybe make some combinations of approaches).

The next question was of course how you can support the different pedagogical approaches with technology. We could have done that by looking into literature or websites or by brainstorming about possibilities (like I did last year with my students), but this time we had an other great opportunity...

Professor Gerald Knezek is currently visiting our department and he is one of the members of the research team of the simSchool project. Simschool is "a classroom simulation that supports the rapid accumulation of a teacher's experience in analyzing student differences, adapting instruction to individual learner needs, gathering data about the impacts of instruction, and seeing the results of their teaching". Our department is one of the partners in a worldwide network of institutions of higher education that have the opportunity to gain experience with simSchool. Gerald gave the students some background information about simSchool and after that they could explore the environment.

This week the students will blog about their experiences, so at this moment I will not go in to more detail about simSchool or about what my students did with it.. You will be able to read all about this on their own blogs within a week! And of course you are very welcome to take a look at the simSchool website!

UT Master Course on TPACK started again!

Last week the course "Pedagogies for Flexible Learning supported by Technology" started again. The course is part of the specialisation Curriculum Instruction and Media Applications (CIMA) of the master program Educational Science and Technology (EST) of the University of Twente in the Netherlands. I have been teaching this course since 2004. The course evolved from a more or less theoretical course about education supported by technology (technology? course management systems!) to a course in which the students and I actively discuss the opportunities of a very diverse spectrum of technologies that can support education in such a way that it supports different kinds of flexibility and different pedagogical approaches.

And yes, as of 2009 TPACK is part of this course. TPACK is part of the content that I teach, TPACK is part of the final assignment that the students have to do and I try to design my course in such a way that my own TPACK can be put into practice. And.. I do believe that my own TPACK developed because of this.

I don't start with TPACK right away.. The first lecture is about Flexibility. After a short discussion about possible flexibility options within a course, within a program such as CIMA, within a university and within the (educational) world, the emphasis is on flexibility as described by Betty Collis and Jef Moonen in their book "Flexible learning in a digital world". Collis and Moonen stress that flexible learning is not just distance learning, but that there are many aspects in education that can be flexible, such as time, content, entry requirements, instructional approach, delivery and logistics. Furthermore they state that flexible learning is a movement away from the situation in which key decisions about learning are made in advance by the instructor or institution,  toward a situation where the learner has a range of options from which he or she can choose.

Last year I posted two other messages on this topic (which can be found here and here, with a reaction of Jef Moonen on the second post). And just like last year I find myself still struggling with flexibility.. Flexibility is great and it offers lots of very nice opportunities for teachers and  for students, but it could also bring (too?) many demands on teachers and students. I am not going to repeat the arguments I made last year, but what I do stress in my course and in other presentations that I give: flexibility is wonderful, as long as your own flexibility is not stretched too far..

In the upcoming weeks I will be blogging about the course (next week's topic: Pedagogies), and just like previous years my students will be blogging too. I will put the links to the students' blogs on the right side of this page, so you can follow them too!


Reference
Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001, second printing 2002). Flexible learning in a digital world:  Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page.

MSU2011: Understanding by Design

Day 8 of the busy schedule of the MAET students at MSU.. Today's topic? Understanding by Design (Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe), a tool for educational planning focused on "teaching for understanding". The emphasis of UbD is on "backward design", the practice of looking at the outcomes in order to design curriculum units, performance assessments, and classroom instruction.

Traditionally we as teachers start curriculum planning with the textbook that we want to use instead of identifying classroom learning goals and planning towards that goal (and often we know that that should be the starting point). In backward design, the teacher starts with classroom outcomes and then plans the curriculum, choosing activities and materials that help determine student ability and foster student learning.

Understanding by Design is based on the key ideas that the primary goal of education should be the development and deepening of student understanding and this happens when they are given the opportunity to explain, interpret, apply, shift perspective, empathize, and self-assess in authentic complex activities. In order to reach this the goals of the activity/course have to be clear first (and the method of assessment), and only after this is done the classroom activities can be designed. This process "helps to avoid the twin problems of "textbook coverage" and "activity-oriented" teaching, in which no clear priorities and purposes are apparent." (copied from Grant Wiggins website).

[The nice thing is that they also state that "teachers, schools, and districts benefit by working smarter through the collaborative design, sharing, and peer review of units of study", which is at the core of the research program of my research group Curriculum Design and Educational Innovation (CD&EI) at the University of Twente. And.. this is of course also happening at the MAET program. The students are constantly working together, discussing certain issues and giving each other feedback.]

As is often the case with these very nice ideas, it seems obvious, simple and intuitive. You start with identifying the desired results. Questions that should be asked are "what overarching understandings are desired? What will students understand as a result of this unit?" and "What are the overarching “essential” questions? What “essential” and “unit” questions will focus this unit?". After asnwering these questions you determine acceptable evidence (performance tasks, projects, quizzes, tasks, etc., but also observations and dialogues and student self-assessment) and only than you start to plan learning experiences and instructions. While doing this final stage you answer questions like "given the targeted understandings, other unit goals, and the assessment evidence identified, what knowledge and skills are needed? And very important: what teachings and learning experiences will equip students to demonstrate the targeted understandings?

I have to admit that I know that this is a good way to work, but I also have to admit that I often begin at the other side of the design.. And for someone who works at a department on curriculum design... this is.. mmm.. something to change!

MSU2011: Motivation

Today's topic in the MAET master class is motivation. An interesting topic. We discuss what drives people, how complex the nature of motivation is, Maslov's hierarchy of needs, the expectancy-value model, intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation, the great RSA Animate movie "the surprising thruth about what motivates us", and how to keep a balance between the skills of our students and the challenges that we should offer them (copy of one of the slides of the course..):

Motivation is a good topic for today.. it links to my thoughts about this master course. I am just a guest here, but I like to come here every morning. Why? It gives me inspiration for my research on TPACK and for the articles that I am writing at the moment in the afternoons, but it especially gives me new ideas about my own courses. The thing that motivates me most in this course is the dynamic way the students are working. They get information, they process it by listening, discussing, doing short assignments, going outside to make videos, etc. and all this not on just one topic, but on several topics that are very smartly arranged throughout the course. It's wat we in the Netherlands would call a "pressure cooker" approach: put a lot of things in a small space, let it cook and steam for a while and "voila" you get a quick, good and tasty result. And... TPACK has not been discussed (except for a very short 1-minute introduction in the first meeting), but TPACK is there. In the way the content is presented, in the way different pedagogical approaches are used, in the way the students make their assignments (each with a technology component), etc.. Very nice!

MSU2011: Know your classics, but how to translate this to the classroom?

Day 4 of the master class in Michigan starts with some classics: Piaget, Kohlberg and Vygotsky. Kristen Kereluik, one of the teachers of the course, explains that the starting point for Piaget was that children are active thinkers, constantly trying to construct more advanced understandings of the world. They can develop their understanding by assimilation (the process of taking new information or a new experience and fitting it into an already existing schema) or accommodation (the process by which existing schemas are changed or new schemas are created in order to fit new information). He asked children to solve problems and questioned them about the reasoning behind their solutions and discovered that children think in radically different ways than adults. This lead him to believe that development occurs as a series of ‘stages’ differing in how the world is understood. To get a better idea of these stages, the students here in Michigan are asked to watch some videos (such as this one, this one and this one) of children in different stages and discuss their ideas about the videos. Some of the things that are shown in the video might be interesting to test with your own children :-) But Piaget's theory was challenged (as most theories are I guess). Newer studies indicate that infants do more than sense and react and that they might be able to reason at some level. So Piaget might have been underestimating children's abilities. There is also critique on the different stages and how children go from one stage to the other (without taking into account things like the social environment).

An other theory that is discussed in class is Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. Kohlberg assessed moral reasoning by posing hypothetical moral dilemmas and examining the reasoning behind people’s answers. He proposed several stages in which people develop in moral reasoning. I won't discuss this in much detail here, but two things are clear for me a) it is nice to have a lecture again on these theories, everyone will have had this information before, but a repetition is always good for remembrance, and b) the way people learn and learn how to reason is fascinating. It is our job as teachers to do something with this fascination when we are teaching.. Know your students, know where they are coming from (intellectually, but maybe also personally?) and use this knowledge when you are teaching. Probably many teachers will do this without even thinking about this, they have the "right" C, P and T integrated into their teaching habits, but I know from experience that there are also teachers who have difficulties with this...

The question for me is how much every teacher should know about theories like behaviourism, cognitivism, social learning, etc. And in what way should a teacher by supported to translate these ideas to thier own teaching practice? Do you have to learn this by listening to another teacher, or do you have to experience this by (guided) excercices? Probably it's a combination of the two.. The development of these things take partially place during teacher training, but someone's ability to teach and to account for PCK-related things is mainly influenced by real teaching experiences, because while experiencing one builds up knowledge, skills, confidence and a certain attitude toward education and teaching (Shulman, 1987). I am curious how the MAET students think about this..

Goed onderwijs met of zonder ict

Larry Cuban blogte vorige week over technologie in het onderwijs. De titel van zijn bericht is High Performing Teachers with Low-Tech Classrooms. Hij verwijst daarbij naar het artikel Brilliance in a box van Amanda Ripley in Slate Magazine. Daarin schrijft Amanda "Classrooms in countries with the highest-performing students contain very little tech wizardry, generally speaking. They look, in fact, a lot like American ones—circa 1989 or 1959. Children sit at rows of desks, staring up at a teacher who stands in front of a well-worn chalkboard."

Op basis van het beschreven onderzoek wordt door beide auteurs geconcludeerd dat zowel low-tech en high-tech toepassingen ingezet kunnen worden om het leerproces van de leerling/student te ondersteunen, maar dat de keuze voor een bepaalde technologie af moet hangen van de doelen van de les, de kennis over het onderwerp, de manier waarop je les wilt geven en last but not least de wil om de technologie te gebruiken. Larry Cuban eindigt zijn bericht met "So I end by repeating what has become a cliche but needs to be said again and again: Good teaching is not about access to and use of high-tech machines, it is about teacher knowing their subjects, establishing rapport with students, and prodding and supporting them to learn.".

En ja, dit moet elke keer opnieuw gezegd worden. En het lijkt misschien een cliche, maar dat is het niet. Wel denk ik dat "good teaching" een combinatie is van kennis over je vak, kennis over je doelgroep, kennis over hoe je je vak moet overbrengen aan je doelgroep en kennis over hoe je dat allemaal zo goed mogelijk kan ondersteunen met behulp van technologie (TPACK dus!). En de ene keer zal dat "gewoon" een boek of een powerpoint presentatie zijn en een andere keer een digibord, smartphone, simulatie, game of iets anders nog geavanceerder zijn!

Integrating technology: "just try it"!

An article which I have read a couple of weeks ago (and also showed to my students) keeps popping up in my mind.. it's the article of Mary Burns about "The 5J approach". As many articles that have been published recently the topic is difficulties that teachers face when integrating technology into classroom learning. The author of this article indicates that one cause of this difficulty seems to be the types of technology-related professional development teachers receive (still too focused on learning how to use the software instead of integrating it into someone's own teaching and learning process). And this is not a new message. We know that teachers are using technology, but this use is often related to administration, preparation of documents or displaying a presentation. Using technology as a learning tool for students is a different and more difficult thing. And we still have not figured out why this is the way it is.

In the mean time many researchers (including me and my colleagues) are trying to find out a) why teachers still have difficulties with integrating technology and b) if (if!) we find the answer to this: how can we really help them to integrate the technology in such a way that both teachers and students can benefit from it.

At the moment we are trying to find out if the TPACK framework can be of assistance in this and it looks promising. But it might be interesting to see if we can use the 5J's too. The 5J's stands for technology professional development which is:

• job-related, focused on the core competencies of the classroom, not technology
• just enough, emphasizing increased comfort, not proficiency, with computers and management of limited technology resources
• just in time, meaning teacher are provided with skills as and when needed
• just in case teachers need to plan for contingencies
• accompanied by a "just try it" attitude, wherein instructors apply both pressure and support to compel teachers to use what they've learned.

The first time I saw this list I was triggered by the fifth J: Just try it. And if you look at what the author is writing, she is saying that this J might be the most important of all J's. She states that "central to change is action, and this is where professional development often breaks down. [...] Without application in the classroom, professional development is a waste of time, money, and effort." It is argued in the article that "Only when these five 'J's come together in a systematic way might the story of technology-based trainings have a different ending."

Figure 1: Proposed visual of the 5J model

I tried to put this in a figure (I like visual representations..) that is similar to the TPACK circles. Following the arguements in the article of Mary Burns we should pay attention to all 5 J's in order to have a succesfull technology-based training.

But I propose an alternative.. My suggestion is to support teachers by paying attention to job-related, just enough, just in time and just in case in combination with a little bit more attention to linking this with pedagogy and content (and thereby emphasising the job-related component?) and placing the "just try it" in the middle of the figure like this:

Figure 2: Alternative visual of the 5J model

It is my hope that by paying sufficient (and what is sufficient?..) attention to the other 4 Js, the teacher should be encouraged enough to try things out in his or her classroom.

And yes.. I am also "just trying".. I realise that the overlapping circles are not really the right way to visualise it, because what would be the overlap between job-related and just enough and between all the other components?

But if you have any ideas about the 5 J's, please let me know!

ISSOTL2010: Technology-Supported Reflection in Kuwait

This morning I presented Abdullah Almodaires' work that he carried out during his PhD study. Abdullah's study was about Technology-Supported Reflection in Kuwait. He implemented a new way of supporting field training activities for prospective primary school teachers. A big challenge.. not only did he propose to use a new pedagogical approach, he also introduced new technology to support this. In order to reduce the gap between what students theoretically learn at the university and what they have to do in the schools when they are teaching he did an experiment in which he introduced the reflective practice approach and supported this with an online video-based learning environment. If you are interested in this you can read his dissertation and/or look at the presentation of this morning:

2010 10-21 ISSOTL Technology-supported reflection in Kuwait

View more presentations from Petra Fisser.

Pedagogy and technology

Last week my course was all about pedagogical approaches and this week it's all about technology. You can follow the ideas of my students on their own blogs (see the menu on the rigt side of this blog).

During the past week the students had to post something on different pedagogical approaches and about the way these approaches can be supported by a web-based learning environment. From traditional learning to problem-based and collaborative learning and inquiry and experiential learning, many approaches are mentioned and described. But... most of them from the viewing point of a student. But what about the teacher? Should he/she be able to choose a certain approach based on the topic, audience, assignment, etc., and do this for every teaching or learning activity? Maybe yes, but we know (and I as a teacher know) from practice that you usually choose something that you are familiar with.

Probably the same can be said about the technologies that teachers use. Most of us will use some kind of web-based learning environment such as Blackboard, Teletop or Moodle, just because it's there and the university requires us to use it. Generally speaking (with of course some wonderful exceptions!) within these learning environments nothing really exciting happens. We use announcements and course information and we provide students with a schedule and deadlines for assignments.

To show the students that it is possible to "think out of the box" I let them play with my GPS, Nintendo DS, a camera, and one group played an online game. They had to play a little bit with the technology and after that think about how this "toy" can be used in education and what this means for students and teachers. Most students agreed that students would be very happy to use the technology, but when thinking about the implications for the teachers most comments were related to logistics (the technology has to be there, you have to have time in your curriculum, you have to keep an eye on the students) and to the (low) knowledge, skills and attitude of the teacher. None of the comments were related to pedagogy and only a few were related to the content of a specific course.

This is not surprinsing by the way! First of all I did not ask them to think about the relation between technology, pedagogy and content. And second: for many of them the technology was regarded as a "new" technology for teaching. Getting used to a new technology takes time, getting used to using a new technology in education takes even more time. And... yes... that's where TPACK comes in. As of next week we will discuss the TPACK model in my course and we will discuss how teachers can develop Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and what we (as Educational Science and Technology people) can do to support the teachers in acquiring this knowlegde!

TPACK populair

De publicatie die ik samen met Joke Voogt en Jo Tondeur schreef met de titel "Maak kennis met TPACK" in de onderzoeksreeks van Kennisnet is populair! Uiteraard is het document te downloaden via de website van Kennisnet, maar de papieren versie is zo goed als "uitverkocht". Op dit moment wordt er gewerkt aan een tweede druk.

Leuk nieuws natuurlijk! De vraag is natuurlijk waarom dit onderwerp zo populair is. Ik denk zelf dat dat komt omdat het TPACK model er op zich overzichtelijk uitziet met de drie domeinen (rondjes) die in elkaar schuiven en dat het niet zo moeilijk is om te begrijpen wat er bedoeld wordt.

Daarnaast gaat het model uit van de expertise van de docent, namelijk het verzorgen van onderwijs op zo'n manier dat de leerling of student er het beste en het meeste van kan leren. Het model en de achterliggende ideeen proberen de leraar te ondersteunen bij het maken van bewuste keuzes. Niet alleen daar waar het gaat om de keuze voor een specifieke ict-toepassing, maar ook op het gebied van (vak)didactiek in relatie tot ict. Hoe kan je ict gebruiken om een onderwerp inzichtelijk te maken? Hoe kun je ict gebruiken om leerlingen met elkaar te laten samenwerken? Het model zelf geeft overigens geen antwoord op deze vragen, maar het helpt bij het kritisch nadenken over keuzes die je als leraar kan maken. Naast het model zijn er verschillende manieren en werkvormen om na te denken over de keuzes die je kan maken rondom je onderwijs en die hebben we ondertussen toegepast in diverse workshops over TPACK. Het lijkt er op dat het model helpt bij het geven van een nieuwe impuls aan het nadenken over de integratie van ict in het onderwijs. De belangstelling is in ieder geval groot!

Onderzoek TPACK bij video-integratie in het basisonderwijs

Deze week verscheen het afstudeerartikel "LIVE. De potentie van videoberichten in de bovenbouw van het basisonderwijs en de TPACK van docenten" van Maaike Heitink (Onderwijskunde, Universiteit Twente) dat ik samen met mijn collega Susan McKenney begeleid heb. In het artikel wordt een onderzoek beschreven dat in 3 groepen 7 van het basisonderwijs is uitgevoerd rondom de implementatie van videoactiviteiten in het onderwijs.

Tijdens LIVE (Language Instruction through Video-making Experiences) maakten de leerlingen zelf een videobericht over een bepaald onderwerp. Op basis van dat onderwerp moeten zij informatie verzamelen, een verhaal bedenken, deze vertalen naar een videoscript om vervolgens op basis daarvan de video op te nemen en uiteindelijk te monteren. Tijdens het maken van het videoscript en het monteren van de video moesten de leerlingen beelden selecteren en ordenen om tot een kernachtig, goed lopend verhaal te komen. De leerlingen werkten op die manier aan zowel taal-en communicatievaardigheden als aan vakinhoudelijke kennis (want zonder die kennis kun je natuurlijk geen goede video maken).

Tijdens het onderzoek is nagegaan wat de leerlingen hiervan vonden (leuk) en of ze iets geleerd hadden (ja), maar de grootste nadruk lig op de ervaringen van de docenten en de vraag of zij gebruik maakten van Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) en gerelateerde competenties om de videoactiviteiten op een effectieve manier in het onderwijs te implementeren.

Uit de resultaten van het onderzoek van Maaike blijkt dat de docenten enthousiast zijn over het niveau van de eindproducten en het enthousiasme van de leerlingen. Het toepassen van TPACK is echter niet voor alle docenten vanzelfsprekend. Verschillen tussen de docenten zitten vooral in het toepassen van Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), het op een didactische manier organiseren van het leerproces rondom video. Het ging hierbij met name om de moeilijkheid van het geven van gerichte feedback op bijvoorbeeld de videoscripts met betrekking tot cameragebruik (en op welke manier hiermee verschillende effecten bereikt kunnen worden) en om het aannemen van een coachende rol zodat het leerproces rondom het maken van video opgang komt en blijft.

Maaike geeft in haar artikel aan dat het opvallend is dat alle docenten aangeven dat ze de videoactiviteiten goed binnen het curriculum vinden passen. Tot nu toe concluderen de meeste studies over het implementeren van nieuw curriculummateriaal in het onderwijs namelijk dat docenten het tegenovergestelde vinden. Een mogelijke reden die Maaike hiervoor geeft is dat de docenten in dit onderzoek zelf mochten kiezen waaraan de videoactiviteiten gekoppeld werden, waardoor de docent zelf kon bepalen welke bestaande onderdelen van het lesprogramma vervangen konden worden door de videoactiviteiten.

Uit het onderzoek blijkt verder dat door het integreren van de videoactiviteiten in het onderwijs de TPACK van docenten gestegen is. Dit kan verklaard worden uit het feit dat de docenten actief bezig zijn geweest binnen dit project en omdat zij achteraf gevraagd werd om een eigen reflectie op het hele proces te geven.

Al met al een zeer interessant onderzoek waar we zeker mee verder gaan!

ORD2010: Ons TPACK symposium, website & Kennisnetboekje

Op 24 juni vond het TPACK symposium plaats dat wij (Joke Voogt en ikzelf) tijdens de ORD organiseerden in samenwerking met onze collega's uit Gent, Jo Tondeur en Johan van Braak. Tijdens het symposium presenteerde ik de resultaten van de TPACK literatuurstudie die wij de afgelopen maanden uitgevoerd hebben. Het literatuuronderzoek gaat in op de wetenschappelijke basis van TPACK, voorbeelden van TPACK in de onderwijspraktijk in het po en vo, manieren om (toekomstige) leraren te ondersteunen bij het verwerven van TPACK en manieren om te meten wat het TPACK-niveau is van deze leraren.

De conclusies uit het onderzoek zijn

• Het wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar TPACK staat nog in de kinderschoenen;
• TPACK is een veelbelovend model, aansprekend en uitgaand van de professionaliteit en de praktijkkennis van de leraar;
• In het TPACK model is nog niet voldoende aandacht voor opvattingen van leraren over leren en lesgeven, terwijl we weten dat dit ook bij de intentie om ict te gaan gebruiken van groot belang is;
• De uitwerking van voorbeelden van ict-integratie binnen specifieke vakgebieden is nog erg kleinschalig en fragmentarisch. TPACK lijkt vooral geschikt voor het voortgezet onderwijs en vakleerkrachten en iets minder voor leraren uit het basisonderwijs, hoewel zij natuurlijk ook altijd met specifieke vakinhouden bezig zijn (maar wel over alle vakgebieden iets moeten weten);
• Het ontwikkelen van TPACK door leraren kan het beste gebeuren op een actieve manier, in een langer traject (niet via 1 vak of cursus) en op basis van praktijkproblemen. Een van de meest effectieve manieren om TPACK te ontwikkelen is door te werken in docentontwerpteams, waarin je samenwerkt aan een praktijkprobleem en op die manier tegelijkertijd werkt aan onderwijsvernieuwing en professionalisering;
• Er zijn verschillende instrumenten ontwikkeld om TPACK te meten, maar dit moet nog verder ontwikkeld worden. De belangrijkste instrumenten zullen ook in het Nederlands vertaald worden.

Dit zijn natuurlijk maar wat highlights uit het hele onderzoek.. Maar: het literatuuronderzoek is natuurlijk beschikbaar voor idereen die daarin geinteresseerd is. En een populaire versie van het onderzoek is uitgekomen in de onderzoeksreeks van Kennisnet! Een heel mooie manier om TPACK verder onder het voetlicht te brengen.

Na onze presentatie was de beurt aan Jo Tondeur die de laatste resultaten van de case study over TPACK in de Vlaamse lerarenopleiding presenteerde. Een interessante vergelijking tussen drie verschillende lerarenopleidingen die op verschillende manieren omgaan met ict-integratie in de opleiding. Ik hoop binnenkort wat meer te kunnen schrijven over de details van het onderzoek en de resultaten daarvan. Voor nu is de informatie ook te vinden op http://www.tpacknl.nl/. Na afloop van beide presentaties was het de beurt aan Jan van Driel om als discussiant en expert op het gebied van PCK iets te zeggen over de toegevoegde waarde van de "T" aan PCK. De discussie in de zaal spitste zich vooral toe op de vraag of het inderdaad nodig is om toch weer expliciet aandacht te vragen voor de "T", of dat die "T" niet zo snel mogelijk "weg-geintegreerd" moet worden.

Ik weet zelf niet zeker of we de T wel willen weg-integreren. In de eerste plaats is de T nog steeds zo'n nieuw en vreemd ding voor veel leraren, dat ik bang ben dat met het weglaten van de T de hele ict-implementatie weer stagneert. En ict ontwikkelt zich nog steeds zo snel, dat er aandacht moet blijven voor nieuwe toepassingen en de manier waarop je die toepassingen kan gebruiken in je onderwijs. Ten tweede denk ik zelf dat de boodschap van het TPACK model echt de integratie is van inhoud, didactiek en ict en dat als je gaat nadenken over je onderwijs, je ook direct moet nadenken over de T-kant. En ja, dat moet een geintegreerd onderdeel zijn (worden) van het standaard repertoire van een leraar, maar dat betekent dus ook dat je altijd rekening moet houden met de T-kant. En dat je elke keer kritisch moet kijken wat voor soort ict je gaat gebruiken in je onderwijs (of wanneer je dat niet doet!).

Onze presentatie over de literatuurstudie:

TPACK, een literatuurstudie

SITE2010: de conferentie is begonnen!

Ik ben deze week op de SITE conferentie in San Diego. Speciaal voor "newcomers" zoals ik werd vanmorgen om 8 uur al een bijeenkomst georganiseerd om ons wegwijs te maken in SITE, de verschillende sessies, manieren om betrokken te raken bij SITE en vooral om duidelijk te maken dat SITE "a friendly society" is, waarin je gezamenlijk kan werken aan onderzoek, ict en onderwijs. En... ik krijg mijn eerste "ribbon" :-).

Deze week staat voor mij in het teken van TPACK. Op de UT zijn we druk bezig met TPACK en onderzoek of het TPACK-model gebruikt kan worden in ons werk rondom ict-integratie en docentontwikkeling. Op dit moment zijn we onder andere bezig met een literature review, interviews op scholen, een project samen met Gent en we hebben intensief contact met Punya Mishra, een van de "uitvinders" van TPACK. Samen met hem, zijn collega Matthew Koehler (de andere uitvinder) en een aantal anderen organiseren we een symposium over TPACK. Wij zijn morgen aan de beurt.

Via dit blog een update van mijn TPACK-belevingen deze week! Op dit moment is de opening druk aan de gang en worden verschillende awards uitgedeeld, onder andere aan Chris Dede die later ook een keynote presentatie zal geven, voor zijn grote bijdrage aan het veld van ict in het onderwijs.