Planning lessons with technology can provide teachers with an exciting opportunity to efficiently cover the course syllabus (content) while using the latest student centred (pedagogical) approaches. Recent scholarship has focused on constructing frameworks for a more standardised approach to the use of innovative technologies as a response to education policy developments that advocate the increased use of classroom technologies (Gonski, et al. 2011). The TPACK (Mishra and Koehler, 2006), TIP (Roblyer and Doering 2013), and SAMR (Puentedura, 2013) models of technological integration in the classroom offer viable frameworks for implementing and innovating classroom practice for educators as a response to policy developments. Jimoyiannis (2010) highlights the importance of effective lesson preparation for teachers implementing these policy changes and integrating technology into classrooms to support active learning and avoid the disassociation that can occur when the pedagogical approach is not coherent with course content because of a lack of technological knowledge. Scholarly research on the affordances of classroom technologies such as interactive whiteboards (Jang, 2010; Jang and Tsai, 2012) have highlighted the important role that TPACK (Mishra and Koehler, 2006) can provide in analysing the use of technology in relation to course content and pedagogy. Analysing the specific uses of technology by comparing content and pedagogical uses of technology using the TPACK framework helps teachers to develop their appropriation of the latest digital knowledge so that a disassociation between the technology and the content/ pedagogy can be avoided. Ideally then teachers can use TPACK to clearly and directly identify the technology knowledge needed to make the use of that technology transparent and seamless across content and pedagogy. In this way Doering, Veletsianos, Scharber and Miller (2009) suggest that TPACK is a useful metacognitive tool for teachers to develop lessons that incorporate new technologies to efficiently address the learning outcomes of students using the affordances of technologies to move toward more student centred learning environments. Roblyer and Doering (2013) propose a combined directed and constructivist approach toward technology integration strategies such as the TPACK framework because it affords the use of technologies for increasing knowledge and fostering collaborative skills needed in student centred learning environments.
There is an increasing focus on research into the TPACK framework with the aim of developing clearer and more direct assessment criteria for teachers to implement technology in meaningful and measurable ways (Archambault and Crippen, 2009; Archambault and Barnett, 2010; Kabakci- Yurdakul, et al., 2011; Kabakci- Yurdakul, et al., 2012; Cox and Graham, 2009; Graham, 2009; Graham, 2011). Graham (2011) highlights the difficult nature of implementing TPACK for an analysis of the use of technology within the realms of content and pedagogical knowledge because the are significant areas that overlap and increase the complexity of the framework to an unsustainable level. Graham (2011) does however argue that the popularity of TPACK as an integrative [metacognitive] framework is because it has a high degree of parsimony. The TPACK model then offers a potential standardisation for a flexible approach toward the integration of technology not only within but also across curriculum areas because it simplifies direct relationships between syllabus content and the use of technology. The conceptual nature of TPACK also provides a framework that is less restricted by boundaries between content and pedagogy that can inhibit the necessary changes needed in the definition of WHAT technologies are being used in the classroom as new methods become popular. Roblyer and Doering (2013) suggest that teachers utilise TPACK to measure their ‘tech’ knowledge in Phase One of the Technology Integration Planning Model (TIP) (See Image Two).
Measuring levels of ‘tech’ knowledge can assist in identifying areas where improvement is needed when employing the affordances of digital technologies in student centred learning environments. Roblyer and Doering’s (2013) Phase Two and Three of the TIP model involve a balance of both directed and constructivist pedagogical approaches to the presentation and assessment of curriculum content using frameworks such as Bloom’s Taxonomy and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences. Puentedura (2013) argues that teachers who employ ‘tech’ frameworks [such as TPACK and TIP] can develop more student centred approaches using the SAMR model (See Image Three) that are more in line with the development of Bloom’s higher order thinking skills because they utilise new technologies as valid components of formative assessment. Roberts (2013) suggests that further innovations can be made by applying SAMR more directly to the innovation of pedagogical approaches toward student centred learning tasks (See Image Four and this video) that Pink (2009) argues offer a more intrinsic set of motivators for achievement because they are more autonomous and self directed.
Kathy Schrock (2014) has identified a significant amount of overlapping in Puentedura’s (2013) SAMR model (See Image Five) and Robert’s TECH model (See Image Six) when comparing the features to Bloom’s taxonomy and this is comparable to the complexity identified by Graham (2011) with TPACK for teachers when analysing the distinct definitions of ‘tech’ content and pedagogy. The TPACK, TIP and SAMR frameworks provide teachers with more standardised approaches to iterative implementation and innovation with the use of technology for classroom learning environments but as Lightle (2011) argues – it is not all about the technology. Teachers can utilise the TPACK, TIP and SAMR frameworks to develop the latest technologies such as IPad, Android, Windows and other Web 2.0 applications as they relate to higher order thinking taxonomies. Penney (2013) has developed an interactive web page that links a range of Web 2.0 apps for education according to their placement on Churches’ (2009) revised Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy pyramid (See Image Seven). Schrock (2013) has further assembled a range of Ipad, Android and Google apps for levels of digital taxonomies (See Images Eight, Nine and Ten respectively). Carrington (2012, 2013) has further developed Schrock’s SAMR model taxonomy to directly relate the new digital affordances of mobile IPad technologies for educational pedagogies (See Image Eleven).
Teachers can utilise new pedagogical frameworks such as TPACK, TIP and SAMR to help encourage the appropriate use of technology so that curriculum content is innovative and engaging for student centred learning environments.
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88. Retrieved from: http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article2.cfm
Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656– 1662. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131510002010
Carrington, A. (2012). The Padagogy Wheel … it’s a Bloomin’ Better Way to Teach. Retrieved from: http://www.unity.net.au/allansportfolio/edublog/?p=324
Carrington, A. (2013). The Padagogy Wheel v. 3. Retrieved from: http://www.unity.net.au/padwheel/padwheelposterV3.pdf”
Churches, A. (2009). Bloom’s digital taxonomy. Retrieved from: http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/file/view/bloom%27s+Digital+taxonomy+v3.01.pdf
Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. Tech Trends, 53(5), 60–69.
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.
Dunn, J. (2013), Integrate iPads Into Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy With This ‘Padagogy Wheel’. Edudemic: Connecting Education and Technology. Retrieved from: http://www.edudemic.com/integrate-ipads-into-blooms-digital-taxonomy-with-this-padagogy-wheel/
Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK development in science teaching: measuring the TPCK confidence of inservice science teachers. Tech Trends, 53(5), 70–79.
Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953-1960.
Gonski, D., K. Boston, K. Greiner, C. Lawrence, B. Scales, and P. Tannock (2011). Review of Funding for Schooling – Final Report. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Retrieved from: http://www.appa.asn.au/content/gonski-report/Review-of-Funding-for-Schooling-Final-Report-Dec-2011.pdf
Jang, S. J. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1744–1751.
Jang, S. J., & Tsai, M. F. (2012). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 59(2), 327-338.
Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers’ professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259–1269
Kabakci Yurdakul, I., Odabasi, H. F., Kilicer, K., Coklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A. (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Computers & Education 58 (3), 964-977.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101-111). Springer New York.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (in press). Introducing Technological Pedagogical Knowledge. In AACTE (Eds.). The Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Educators. To be published by AACTE and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lightle, K. (2011). More than just the technology. Science Scope, 34(9), 6-9. Retrieved from: http://cmapspublic2.ihmc.us/rid=1KLP3DK45-28LFPZJ-19T4/More%20than%20Just%20the%20Technology.%20pdf.pdf
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108(6), 1017-1054.
Penney, S. (2014). Bloom’s Taxonomy Pyramid. Retrieved from: http://faculty.indstate.edu/spenney/bdt.htm
Pink, D. (2009). The puzzle of motivation. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y#t=835
Puentedura, R. (2013_a). SAMR and TPCK: A Hands-On Approach to Classroom Practice. Retrieved from: http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/12/11/SAMRandTPCK_HandsOnApproachClassroomPractice.pdf
Puentedura, R. (2013_a). Technology In Education: A Brief Introduction. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMazGEAiZ9c&feature=youtu.be
Roberts, J. (2013). Turning SAMR into TECH: What models are good for. Literacy, Technology, Policy, Etc….A Blog. Retrieved from: http://www.litandtech.com/2013/11/turning-samr-into-tech-what-models-are.html
Roblyer, M. D. and Doering, Aaron H. (2013). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching: Pearson New International Edition. Pearson Education Limited. Kindle Edition.
Schrock, K. (2014). Bloom’s and TECH: My thoughts, Bloomin’ Apps. Kathy Schrock’s Guide to Everything. Retrieved from: http://www.schrockguide.net/bloomin-apps.html