TPCK: The Answer to the Thorns?

The articles of Dr Nelson(2006) and Dr Paige(2008) foreground the complexities of the process and the results as multimedia infiltrate into ELL/ESL classrooms. Dr Towndrow wittily labeled them as “thorns.” They include the following: (a) absence of consensus as to what specific media skills should be taught to specific groups and purposes; (b) absence of guarantee to promote multiliteracies even among experienced teachers; and, (c) dependence of technology on other social and economic factors.

I reckon that consensus has yet to be reached among stakeholders—curriculum planners, teachers and researchers of multiliteracies-- as to what specific skills should be taught in specific levels, subjects and groups of learners without neglecting the contexts. However, it seems that they are getting there.

Three weeks ago I encountered a book entitled, “Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators.”(2008). The book “accentuates knowledge and skills teachers need in order to meaningfully integrate technology into instruction in specific content areas.” (AACTE Committee, 2008) According to Kohler and Mishra, TPCK is a framework containing knowledge teachers should be equipped with as they integrate technology in education. (2008:3) The framework puts together the three types of knowledge (content, pedagogy and technology) which Kohler and Mishra describe as “existing in a state of dynamic equilibrium (2006:1029 as cited in AACTE Committee 2008:10) It underscores the simultaneous interaction of these knowledge in order to reach a state of a meaningful synergy between teaching with technology. The book also advances the idea that all technologies have pedagogical affordances and constraints (ibid: 19-20) that teachers should be aware of.

The second ‘thorn’ identified by Mills (2008) emphasises the difficulty of teachers, even experienced ones, to translate multiliteracies theory into classroom practice. This is a call to ‘reboot’ the teachers’ minds and to equip them with TPCK, which entails understanding the interrelationships among content knowledge (their subject matter and the curriculum), pedagogical skills (teaching methods), pedagogical content knowledge (teaching methods suitable for the subject matter), technological knowledge (understanding of the representation of technological concepts) in order to dexterously respond to the a multiliteracy- grounded learning environment.’ (Kohler and Mishra, 2008: 12-17) In other words, it is not enough that teachers excel in one domain as the influence of technology on pedagogy and content is multidirectional.

In summary, the book describes how a technological ground in teaching may be practiced.

However, as Warschauer (2007) noted, “…technology does not transform learning and literacy by itself, but only in conjunction with social and economic factors.” In my opinion, this thorn bites as it superimposes itself above all other thorns. It foregrounds the importance of the context; each situation is unique and case-specific. No matter how progressive or backward a country is, the role of technology would be dictated by the needs, current situation in the place and culture prevalent in specific situations such as a group of learners. Of course the curriculum is designed based on the types of learners and learners ’needs. But then, teachers in the situation have to train themselves according to the call of the time: a TPCK- grounded educator. It is a tough call, no doubt, but it is doable.