Growing in TPACK is a constant and ongoing process. Every day in the classroom is a new opportunity for me to refine my content knowledge, streamline my pedagogical approach, and optimize technology use. For my project, I’ve had to work hard on all three.
What makes teaching with technology so challenging, or “wicked,” is that it’s an area that is full of interrelated and constantly changing variables. These variables include all of the aspects of the SITE model, including different and changing learners, levels, content, pedagogy, and environment/sociological conditions. What makes this most challenging for me is the climb up the SAMR model. While I’m comfortable using technology, I still struggle to find uses that aren’t simply online replacements for what I already do in the classroom. And in first grade (and all grades), I don’t want to use technology for technology’s sake. It needs to be meaningful. So, here’s where I am in TPACK with my current project. First a little background….my project began as an attempt at using an in-class flipped model for first grade math, in which students would watch leveled screencasts for instruction, then use the bulk of in-class time for math groups, independent work, and partner practice. The amount of work required to create screencasts for each lesson became prohibitive, so I tried to find a different use for this technology. As a result, my project has since evolved into creating a reference library of screencasts that are available for students at an in-class center. Rather than learning initially from the screencasts, the screencasts exist as support for students who need to reinforce a concept or are ready for a head start on a new concept. Because they can be used both to reinforce or to learn, they support differentiation. However, they’re not designed to replace initial in-class instruction. So, how do I apply TPACK to this wicked problem? The pedagogical content knowledge (PC) part is probably the easiest (although “easy” is relative). This is the sweet spot in which I know what I’m teaching and how best to teach it. For example, in a math lesson about the “counting on” strategy in math, I need to know the strategy (i.e., identify the bigger number, then “count on” the smaller number). I also need to know the best way to teach it for each of my learners. The technological content knowledge (TC) is harder. This is where technology enhances or supports the acquisition of content knowledge. In my project, the technology is really acting as a teacher replacement. My students can use the screencasts to refresh their knowledge of concepts or skills, rather than asking me. So, technology is support the acquisition of learning, but at the most basic level of SAMR. By far, the most challenging aspect of the “wicked problem” is technological pedagogical knowledge (TP): This is the intersection of pedagogy and knowing the optimal way to employ technology so that students can learn. This is the most challenging area for me, as I’m really using the screencasts as a video lesson. They’re not maximizing the use of technology to facilitate instruction in a new and innovative way. With my limited classroom time and huge amount of content to cover, I’d love to find ways that that my first graders could benefit from all that technology has to offer in knowledge acquisition and skill development. The tricky part is finding these ways….and in finding the time to find these ways!
7 Comments
I’m trying to refine my driving question based on my experience this year. My original question was “How can I use an in-class flipped model to differentiate learning in first grade?” Now I’m I’m wondering if there is enough value in using an in-class flip so that I should keep using it. It’s so much work to make the screencasts, and I have so many levels of learners in my classes, that it’s almost easier for me to use more of a guided math approach than it is to use the screencasts for an in-class flip. I also have to be very nimble about what I’m teaching so I can adjust to what my kids need. Sometimes I have to add in a lesson, sometimes I need to take one out. This makes relying on pre-recorded screencasts even harder. I wonder if a different approach makes sense. Rather than using screencasts for an in-class flip, I could potentially use screencasts to create a “reference library” for basic math concepts and strategies. Kids could then refer to the screencasts for help, rather than having to wait or come to me. If they need a refresher on a concept, they could view the screencasts, too. This idea is making a lot more sense to me. A guided math rotation, along with a reference library of screencasts. Now, to apply our readings to my screencasts, I like the Baggio approach to visuals. Simple, clear, aligned with objectives, and aligned with my learners. CRAP also applies: sans serif font, contrast between large and small elements, alignment that’s easy on the eye, placement and proximity that lets the brain make sense of different objects, repetition of terminology so that it sticks. Here’s a sample screen that incorporates these elements:
My learners are first graders, so I’d also add “brief” to the approach. It’s all about understanding the 7-year-old brain and creating content that will stick. So, here’s a go at a new driving question: “How can I use screencasts to differentiate learning in first grade?” |
Masters in Innovative Learning:
|