You are here:

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the Wicked Problems of Teaching with Technology
PROCEEDINGS

, , Michigan State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Antonio, Texas, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-61-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

We introduce Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) as being essential for effective technology integration in teaching (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). We emphasize teacher knowledge for two reasons. First, because we view the teacher as an autonomous agent with the power to significantly influence the appropriate (or inappropriate) integration of technology. Second, teaching with technology is a "wicked problem" (Rittel & Webber, 1973), i.e. a highly complicated form of problem-seeking and problem-solving that derives from flexible and integrated bases of knowledge. The TPCK framework highlights the complex interaction among three bodies of knowledge: Content, Pedagogy, and Technology. The complexity of developing and applying TPCK suggests that a greater emphasis should be placed on the idea of teachers as "curriculum designers." This presentation sets the stage for multiple paper presentations (a part of the TPCK strand) that explore the parameters of the TPCK framework with and between multiple curriculum areas, as well as varying teaching and learning contexts.

Citation

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2007). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the Wicked Problems of Teaching with Technology. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2007--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2214-2226). San Antonio, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 11, 2024 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Birch, H.G. (1945). The Relation of Previous Experience to Insightful Problem-Solving. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 38:367-383.
  2. Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind: How higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today's students. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  3. Bromley, H. (1998). Introduction: Data-driven democracy? Social assessment of educational computing. In H. Bromley& M. Apple (Eds.), Education, technology, power (pp. 1-28). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  4. Bruce, B.C. (1993). Innovation and social change. In B.C. Bruce, J.K. Peyton, & T. Batson (Eds.), Network-based classrooms (pp. 9-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Bruce, B.C. (1997). Literacy technologies: What stance should we take? Journal of Literacy Research, 29(2), 289309.
  6. Bruce, B.C., & Hogan, M.C. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, and R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 269-281). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  7. Casement, W. (1997). The great canon controversy: The battle of the books in higher education. Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
  8. Clandinin, D.J., & Connelly, F.M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363-401). New York: Macmillan.
  9. Clark, C.M., and Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
  10. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Perigree.
  11. Dewey, J., & Bentley, A.F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon. Digital Divide.org (2006). Digital Divide.org. Retrieved July 12, 2006 from http://www.digitaldivide.org.
  12. Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
  13. German, T.P., & Barrett, H.C. (2005). Functional fixedness in a technologically sparse culture. Psychological Science, 16(1), 1-5.
  14. Glaser. R. (1984). Education and Thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychology, 39(2), 93-104.
  15. Jackson, P.W. (1968). Life in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  16. Kelly, A.E. (2003). Special issue on the role of design in educational research [Special Issue]. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
  17. Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2004). With a little help from your students: A new model for Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (in press). Introducing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. In AACTE (Eds.), The handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teaching and Teacher Educators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  18. Kuhn, T. (1977), The essential tension. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  19. Lagemann, E.C. (2002). Usable knowledge in education: A memorandum for the Spencer Foundation board of directors [Memorandum]. Chicago: Spencer Foundation. Retrieved July 15, 2006 from http://www.spencer.org/publications/annual_reports/ar_2002.pdf
  20. Leinhardt, G, & Greeno, J.G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 7595.
  21. Levine, L.W. (1996). The opening of the American mind: Canons, culture, and history. Boston: Beacon Press.
  22. Mishra, P. (1998). Flexible learning in the periodic system with multiple representations: The design of a hypertext for learning complex concepts in chemistry. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign). Disertation Abstracts International, 59(11), 4057. (AAT 9912322).
  23. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2003). Not “what” but “how”: Becoming design-wise about educational technology. In Y. Zhao. (Ed.). What teachers should know about technology: Perspectives and practices (pp. 99-122).
  24. Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2002). With a little help from your students: A new model for faculty development and online course design. Proceedings from the at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education, March 2002, Nashville, TN. Virginia: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  25. Mishra, P., Spiro, R.J. & Feltovich, P. (1996) Technology, representation& Cognition. In von Oostendorp, H. (Ed.) Cognitive aspects of electronic text processing (pp. 287-306). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
  26. National Research Council (1999). Being fluent with information technology literacy. Computer science and telecommunications board commission on physical sciences, mathematics, and applications. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  27. National Research Council (2000) How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  28. National Research Council (2002). Scientific research in education. R.K. Shavelson& L. Towne (Eds.), Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  29. Papert, S. (1980): Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York, Basic Books.
  30. Pennock, R. (2001). Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological& Scientific perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  31. Perkins, D.N. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  32. Peruski, L., & Mishra, P. (2004). Webs of activity in online course design and teaching. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 12(1), 37-49.
  33. Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (2000). Bibliography: Student's alternative frameworks and science education (5th edn.). Kiel, Germany: University of Kiel.
  34. Pierson, M.E. (1999). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise (Doctoral dissertation,
  35. Pierson, M.E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413-429.
  36. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
  37. Putnam, R.T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
  38. Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
  39. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith.
  40. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  41. Schon, D. (1996). Reflective conversation with materials. In T. Winograd, J. Bennett, L. DeYoung, & B. Hartfield (Eds.), Bringing design to software (pp. 171– 184). New York: Addison-Wesley.
  42. Schwab, J.J. (1983). The Practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3), 239265.
  43. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  44. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1). 1-22.
  45. Simon, H. (1969). Sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  46. Snow, C.P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  47. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J.L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.
  48. Zimmerman, J. (2002). Whose America? Culture wars in the public schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Also Read

Related Collections

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts