So, the “hot” theory around ed. tech. academia is TPACK (the artist formerly known as TPCK).  It only came up about 17 times at AERA, and John Hendron happened to capture a quote from a paper about the theory on his blog. You can read and learn just about all you need to know about this theory here (nice use of a wiki, BTW).  The basic idea is that before now, teachers needed content knowledge (CK; i.e. what to teach), pedagogical knowledge (PK; i.e. how to teach) and PCK (how to specifically teach what you teach).  Now, in the digital age, to successfully integrate technology, teachers also need technological knowledge (TK).  Furthermore, by adding TK to the mix, the result is a three-ringed circus…err…Venn diagram with TPACK sitting at the intersection of all three domains of knowledge.

I find the theory interesting and it’s consistently being refined based on empirical evidence.  I wonder, though, about the CK part in the information age.  Certainly there’s some utility/value to teachers having some CK.  But, how do we reconcile CK with the known benefits of inquiry-based learning and other offshoots of constructivism?    And, what of CK in a standards-based climate where “what to teach” is predetermined?  Maybe, in the graphical representation of TPACK, the CK circle needs to be made considerably smaller?

 I’ll have to go read the papers and articles about TPACK more closely; perhaps there are some answers in there.  I’ll likely say more down the line…

Tags: constructivism, integration, technology, TPACK

Much of my current research agenda has me studying and thinking about how we can best facilitate technology integration.  It’s a leadership question that is understudied (IMHO).  There’s plenty of research about what’s being done in pre-service teacher ed. programs, but not enough contemplation, formal or informal, of how to best facilitate adult learning to support technology-infused teaching and learning.  I’ve studied a statewide effort in West Virginia, and I’m in the process of getting that work formally published.  I will certainly share some of those findings here in a much less academic way.  For now, though, I was reminded of this YouTube video that a friend sent a while back.  I’m sure many of you have seen it already (heck, it’s got over 228,000 views), but I thought I’d embed it into my blog to begin my blogging on this particular topic.  Enjoy!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX0-nqRmtos&rel=1]

Tags: education, facilitation, integration, leadership, technology

One of my advisees recently defended her dissertation which involved conducting a systematic review of the literature in order to develop a model or operational understanding of the term “technology integration.”  Most of that work centered around the meaning of “integration.”  That is, since she was studying what it meant to DO something, the focus was necessarily on the verb “to integrate.”  At the outset, my advisee committed to a purposefully broad and reasonably thorough definition of “technology” and then went on to study what it means to integrate that noun.

I think that was the right decision for her purposes, but today I found myself thinking about how we define “technology” in the field of educational technology.  So, I looked up the definitions of “technology” on dictionary.com.  I don’t know how generally helpful this exercise was, but I learned quite a bit (and I’m all about learning!).  Here’s what I learned:

• First, the word originates from the Greek word “technologia” which seems to mean the systematic treatment of an art or a craft.
• Second, despite how I’m guessing most people think of the word, only one of the dozen or so definitions make mention of anything electronic and/or digital (”Electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group”). 
• Third, synthesizing most of the definitions, “technology” seems to be an applied body of knowledge of how technical means interrelate with us and the world around us.

Thus, I can now confidently (and empirically?) dismiss the notion of technology as a tool (or even a set of tools).  The electronic or digital products and systems are important, but they are really just the technical means under study; what’s more important is studying/understanding/learning how those means interrelate to us and the world around us.  Further, I really like the idea of technology as a body of knowledge.  That being the case, a technologist would be one who studies that body of knowledge.  Finally, then, an educational technologist would be one who studies the body of knowledge of how technical means interrelate specifically with the institution of education (NOT just schooling; an important distinction).  So, when my 2.5 year old son asks me what I do, I can tell him that I’m an educational technologist.  I like that

Tags: education, etiology, integration, technologist, technology