Now that teachers have a working knowledge about a handful of technology tools because of the Focus Tools and they are able to identify the pedagogical strategies in which the tools can be integrated, they can now look at the curriculum content to find ways to integrate the technology.
In order to do this, we will use a model developed by Judi Harris and Mark Hofer at the College of William and Mary. To help teachers use TPACK, they created a series of content-based activity types to help create awareness or the range of learning activities that are matched with digital and non-digital technology. Their primary focus is on teacher planning. They believe that, just as I have illustrated with the tool analogy, that many teachers fall into the trap of what they call “technocentric” planning. This type of tool-first planning, often ignores or short changes the pedagogy and the content. Through their research, they have come up with countless types of learning activities. However, the learning activity types fall into three distinct categories.
The first category is “Knowledge Building Activities”. These are activities, as the name implies that focus on the process not only acquiring knowledge, but deepening understanding as well. Example activity types for Knowledge Building for social studies are: reading text, group discussions, field trips, and simulations. It is important to note that Harris and Hofer have developed learning activities that are specific to the different content areas. In addition to identifying the activity types, they also provide examples of possible technologies. So for reading text, students could use web sites or electronic books.
This is where the previous trainings and concepts that I have discussed can be applied. The activity-types and possible technologies are merely examples of how teachers can integrate technology into the lessons. What makes these especially powerful, is when coupled with ability to evaluate tools with affordances and constraints, teachers are able to determine whether or not the recommended tool fits their learning activity.
For example, if they activity type was to read text for a social studies lesson, the teacher could choose to use a website/websearch, eBook, or their textbook. Each of these tools comes with their own affordances and constraints. A textbook will often contain a limited amount of text with a typically narrow focus depending on the subject. However, the textbook is written at an age appropriate level and contains content that in most cases linked to content-area standards. Websites offer a variety of information from a wide array of view points. Students can use these sites to study a topic at great depth. They also allow for inquiry based learning and self-discovery for the student. Yet, many of these sites are not written at an age appropriate level. Depending on the source, the information may not always be accurate. Lastly, because of the amount of information, it may be overwhelming to the student. While this example may seem tedious, it is important to illustrate that using technology is not always appropriate and depends on the goal for the activity. This type of thinking reinforces the importance of teacher planning when creating lessons that blend technology, pedagogy, and content.
The second and third categories for learning activity types are “Convergent and Divergent Knowledge Expression”. These are learning activities that provide students the opportunities to demonstrate and express their understandings. Convergent knowledge and divergent knowledge, a distinction first made by Hudson (1967) , focus on the type of knowledge that can be assessed. Convergent knowledge is more facts and numbers, is more concrete, and typically is knowledge that a teacher wants all students to have learned. Whereas divergent knowledge is more broad, but more can be more creative and open-ended. Once again, when planning, it is important for teachers to determine what type(s) of knowledge expression they expect from the students, and Harris and Hofer provide examples of compatible technologies. The same process applies to these activity types as well. Teachers should be able to evaluate the affordances and constraints of the technologies when planning for these types of activities.
Examples of convergent knowledge expression activities might be: answer questions, create at time line, or take a test. Examples of divergent knowledge expression activities are: write an essay, draw a cartoon, generate questions, or to design an exhibit. In each of these activities, technology is suggested, but only necessary based on the teacher’s objectives for the students.
These activity types are the final step in this process of professional development for TPACK and Systemic Integration. In collaborative planning, teachers should be able to articulate the activity types and learning objectives for their students in a given lesson or unit. In co-planning with technology specialists, librarians, administrators, or fellow teachers, suggestions for technology can be made and evaluated.
For more information, and a list of the activity types, visit http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/.
Previous TPACK and Systemic Integration Posts:
References:
Tags: Learning Activities Professiona Development Technology Integration TPACK