Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)

Technological pedagogical content knowledge is an emergent form of knowledge that goes beyond all three components (content, pedagogy and technology). This knowledge would be different from knowledge of a disciplinary expert, or a technology expert and also from the general pedagogical knowledge shared by teachers across disciplines. TPCK is the basis of good teaching with technology, and requires an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that utilize technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and how technologies can be utilized to build on existing knowledge and to develop new or strengthen old epistemologies.

Marks (1990) describing PCK said that it “represents a class of knowledge that is central to teachers’ work and that would not typically be held by non-teaching subject matter experts or by teachers who know little of that subject” (1990, p. 9). In the case of TPCK we can paraphrase his quote to read, “TPCK represents a class of knowledge that is central to teachers’ work with technology. This knowledge would not typically be held by technologically proficient, subject matter experts, or by technologists who know little of the subject or of pedagogy, or by teachers who know little of that subject or about technology.”

Thus our model of technology integration in teaching and learning argues that developing good content requires a thoughtful interweaving all three key sources of knowledge — technology, pedagogy and content. The core of our argument is that there is no single technological solution that applies for every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching. Quality teaching requires developing a nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between technology, content and pedagogy, and utilizing this understanding to develop appropriate, context specific strategies and representations. Productive technology integration in teaching needs to consider all three issues not in isolation, but rather in the complex relationships in the system defined by the three key elements.

Clearly, separating the three components (content, pedagogy and technology) in our model is an analytic act and one that is difficult to tease out in practice. In actuality these components exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium, or as the philosopher Kuhn (1977) said in a different context, in a state of “essential tension.” The traditional view of the relationship between the three aspects argues that content drives most decisions: the pedagogical goals and technologies to be used follow from a choice of what to teach. However, things are rarely that clear cut, particularly when newer technologies are considered. The introduction of the Internet can be seen as an example of a technology whose arrival forced educators to think about core pedagogical issues (Peruski & Mishra, 2004; Wallace, 2004). So in this context it is the technology that drives the kinds of decisions we make about content and pedagogy.

We argue that viewing any of these components in isolation from the others represents a real disservice to good teaching. Teaching and learning with technology exist in a dynamic transactional relationship (Bruce, 1997; Dewey & Bentley, 1949; Rosenblatt, 1978) between the three components in our framework – a change in any one of the factors has to be “compensated” by changes in the other two. For example, teaching chemistry (the content) would drive the kinds of representations to be used (symbolic representations such as equations or visual representations such as molecular diagrams – i.e. the pedagogy) and the technologies used to display and manipulate them. In this example, suitable technologies include special plugins, such as CHIME, that allow students to dynamically view and manipulate molecular representations. If, on the other hand, the technology currently available would not support the writing of equations or representations it would force an online instructor to develop other ways to represent content and thus impact pedagogy. Similarly, if the course content is about learning simple facts about the properties of each of the periodic chemical elements, then some pedagogical representations (e.g., essays) are not as attractive. Likewise, a course about film might require certain technological tools (like digital video). These interactions go both ways, deciding on a particular technological tool will offer constraints upon the representations that can be developed, the course content that can be covered and delivered, which in turn effects the pedagogical process as well.

The incorporation of a new technology or new medium for teaching suddenly forces us to confront basic educational issues since this new technology or medium reconstructs the dynamic equilibrium between all three elements. For instance, consider faculty members developing online courses for the first time. The relative newness of the online technologies forces these faculty members to deal with all three factors (and the relationship between them)—often leading them to ask questions of their pedagogy, something they may not have done in a long time (Peruski & Mishra, 2004). The addition of a new technology is not the same as adding another module to a course. It often raises fundamental questions about content and pedagogy that can overwhelm even experienced instructors.

Thus, TPCK is a form of knowledge that expert teachers bring to play anytime they teach. Sometimes this may not obvious, particularly in cases where standard (“transparent”) technologies are being used. But newer technologies often disrupt the status quo, requiring teachers to reconfigure not just their understanding of technology but of all three components.

 Create your own educational wiki!HelpPublic, not yet premium Privacy Policy RSS