Is TPACK fundamentally flawed? A quick response

by | Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Richard Olsen over in his blog has an extended posting titled The TPACK Framework is fundamentally flawed. It is a long and thoughtful post and I recommend everyone to read it.

I have posted a short response to his posting (it is under moderation but should show up in a while). In the mean-time I am posting my response here – for the record.

Richard,

Thank you for your extended and thoughtful post on the TPACK framework. There is a lot here to respond to but I will be brief…

I think you would be surprised to learn just how much I agree with what you are saying. In fact in our original TCRecord piece we write something along the lines of “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.” As I see it you are arguing that it is impossible (or even wrong) to tease these out. I would disagree.

In my experience the TPACK framework allows different people to see different things. To content area teachers, it allows them to see the value of technologies in representing and engaging with content; to teacher trainers it allows them to think about the significance of content and technology; and to techie types, it shows that there is more to teaching than the tool – it has to do with pedagogy and content.

Every once in a while I meet someone like yourself – someone for whom the TPACK is intuitive – so that breaking things up into pieces just seems wrong.   And for the most part I agree – again as we said in our article: “Viewing any of these components in isolation from the others represents a real disservice to good teaching.”

But these ideas are not intuitive to most people – and this is where I think the TPACK framework comes in useful – as a scaffolding to help people develop in their thinking about curriculum, content, technology and pedagogy.

I agree that is IS wrong is to essentialize the components of the TPACK framework (which I see a lot of people doing – but that is their doing not inherent in how we wrote/conceptualized it). The goal really should be to think about this sweet spot at the center – where these pieces come together. Now whether you call that good pedagogy for content learning – or good pedagogy with technology for content learning is at some level immaterial (I think).

I don’t know if you have had a chance to read the handbook chapter that Matt and I had written. You can find it here
I think this has a better description of the technology issue that you raised – that I (being lazy) don’t have the time to get into.

And finally, there is a famous saying among academics that goes, I don’t care if you disagree with me, just make sure to cite me and spell my name correctly.
I bring that up because you got the first part (citing) but got my name wrong… it is Mishra not Misha 🙂

That’s all for now. Take care
~ punya

Topics related to this post: Blogging | Learning | Personal | Philosophy | Teaching | Technology | TPACK | Worth Reading

A few randomly selected blog posts…

Video Bingo in Alabama: Tech & change

How does technology change what we do? Often when a new technology appears we tend to see it in terms of existing practices and structures. So an e-book is the same as a book, except in digital format. E-books still have "pages" which we "turn" (with a flick or our...

Slipping into uncanny valley

MindHacks has a great post related to some of my previous postings about anthropomorphizing interactive artifacts (see here and here) - just that this time these artifacts under discussion are robots. As it turns out, sometime too much similarity between humans and...

Of clouds, lentils and deep geometries

Back in March of 2012 I was on a plane flying back from the SITE2012 conference in Austin, Texas and noticed an interesting cloud-formation through my airplane window. This intrigued me enough that I took a picture. Here it is (click on the image for a larger...

Ideas are cool

My colleague and friend David Wong has this cool idea, about making ideas cool. Actually, he has been espousing these ideas for a while now (check out his scholarly publications, in particular The Rebirth of Cool [Word doc]). But now this academic has stepped out of...

Reading online & off

Nice article in the NYTimes (Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading?) about today's generation and how much of their reading happens online (as opposed to reading books). I have seen a change in my reading over time as well. Most of my reading today happens...

TE150 wins MSU-AT&T Award

Matt Koehler and I just arrived in New York, 3 hours late, checked into our hotel, paid 14.95 for internet - and guess what it was all worth it. One of the first emails I had received informed us that we had won the 2008 MSU-AT&T Instructional Technology Awards...

e. e. cummings on the battle for identity

Patrick Dickson just quoted e. e. cummings (one of my favorite poets) and I just had to look it up. To be nobody-but-yourself — in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else — means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can...

Brilliant advertisement

I don't want to give anything away... watch it once and then once more... [Youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQbl1c63Ofo]

TPACK commercial, UPS/Whiteboard version

Our ISTE Radio/Video show needed a few commercials to break the monotony - so we created a couple. Here is the first one, a take on the UPS / Whiteboard commercials. Watch and enjoy (director's commentary provided below)....

3 Comments

  1. satlas

    Curious as to how the idea of community as curriculum relates to TPACK. IF knowledge is not an “in the head” matter

    Reply
  2. Mary Ann Reilly

    Curious as to how the idea of community as curriculum relates to TPACK. IF knowledge is not an “in the head” matter, but rather that which is constructed among and across many heads, the how does that influence the model?

    Reply
  3. Petra

    Hi Punya,
    The debate about TPACK seems to go in the direction that Richard is describing. And yes, from survey-research we see that the different components of TPACK cannot be separated that easily. And probably we should not attempt to try. But I strongly believe that the TPACK framework is someting – as you mention – that could help teachers (and educational designers!) when they have to start (re-) thinking about their education. And my believe is based upon actual experiences with teachers and educational designers 😉 Transforming this believe into a scientific paper is something that we are working on..!
    Petra

    Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. TPACK Newsletter, Issue #12, October 2012 | Punya Mishra's Web - [...] Mishra, P. (2012, January 24). Is TPACK fundamentally flawed? A quick response. [Web log post] . Retrieved from  http://punyamishra.com/2012/01/24/is-tpack-fundamentally-flawed-a-quick-response/…
  2. TPACK and the fallacy of integration, wicked problems and protean technology < Richard Olsen's Blog - [...] Punya Mishra commented on my concerns about the TPACK Framework, and even more surprised with his comment that he mostly…

Leave a Reply to Petra Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *