WR#4

11 July 2008

I sure hope the teacher accepts late assignments that are all copied and pasted. This is quite the embarrassing situation to find myself in, but the article I chose to summarize is 13 pages long, and the summary was supposed to be finished by last Monday. A thousand apologies for cutting and pasting directly from the article for my summary, but there was simply no way that I could paraphrase a 13 page article and post it today. For what it's worth, below is my summary of "Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK): confronting the Wicked Problems of Teaching with Technology," all taken directly from the original article except for a few words of my own in the last two paragraphs.

There are several reasons why introducing technology further complicates the processes of teaching. Newer digital technologies have some inherent properties that make it difficult for teachers to apply them in straightforward ways. Digital technologies—such as computers, and hand-held devices, and software applications—… are protean (usable in many different ways) (Papert, 1980), unstable (rapidly changing) and opaque (the inner-workings are hidden from users) (Turkle, 1995). Another series of barriers are more social, institutional or contextual in nature. Teachers often have inadequate (or inappropriate) experience with using digital technologies for teaching and learning. Technology integration is made even more complex by the kinds of social and institutional contexts in which teachers work. Technology and pedagogy are often considered domains that are ruled by different groups of people — teachers and instructors, who are in charge of pedagogy; and technologists, who are in charge of the technology. It is not easy for teachers to navigate between these two worlds, worlds in which the norms, values, and language can be different. [T]here is no such thing as a “perfect solution” to the problem of integrating technology into a curriculum. Instead, integration efforts should always be custom-designed for particular subject matter ideas in specific classroom contexts. Integrating technology in the classroom, however, is a complex and ill-structured problem involving the convoluted interaction of multiple factors, with few hard and fast rules that apply across contexts and cases. One fruitful way of thinking about the complex problem of teaching with technology is to view it as a “wicked problem” (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Rittel and Webber argue that wicked problems, in contrast to “tame” problems (such as those in mathematics, chess etc.), have incomplete, contradictory and changing requirements. [A]nd solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong, simply "better," "worse," "good enough," or "not good enough" (Rittel and Webber). Most importantly, every wicked problem is essentially unique and novel. Each issue raised by technology integration presents an ever evolving set of interlocking issues and constraints. Wicked problems always occur in social contexts—in the case of technology integration, that of classrooms. The diversity of teachers, students, and technology coordinators who operate in this social context bring different goals, objectives, and beliefs to the table, and thereby contribute to the wickedness of this problem. Indeed it is the social and psychological complexity of these problems—rarely their technical complexity—that overwhelms standard problem-solving approaches. [A]t the heart of good teaching with technology are three core components: Content, Pedagogy, & Technology and the relationships between them. It is these interactions, between and among these components, playing out differently across diverse contexts, that account for the wide variations seen in educational technology integration.

A brief description of the six areas of knowledge follows: Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Technology Knowledge (TK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). These areas integrate to form Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK).

The final three pages argue for teachers as curriculum designers because teaching “represents one of the highest forms of human achievement, which requires the creative dovetailing and melding of both technical and aesthetic skills. The TPCK framework offers insight … into how the myriad complexities and tensions of teaching and learning can be brought together to mutually develop teachers’ and students’ knowledge.”

Well Leslie, at least you didn't make it hard on yourself by choosing a difficult article or anything. TPCK and all the areas that serve to make it a collection remind me why I always have Tracy tell me what her written instructions say! Seriously though, this is a relevant topic, and I think you should present a workshop when you get to the bottom of it. Laurie

The part of the ownership issues of teachers vs technologists hit home with me. One of my main functions as tech site liason is to coordinate communication about tech planning and problem solving between our district site coordinator and site staff. All of us would get a laugh out of and agree we are part of the wicked problem. I need to reflect more on the wicked problem and my contribution. I have met other ed tech folks that have great technological knowledge but no pedagogical knowledge. This is hard to overcome. Content knowledge can be appreciated without direct working experience but the act of integrating technology into the craft of teaching requires a remarkable bank of knowledge and experience. I am fortunate to work with a tech coordinator that has been a classroom teacher. Marsha