About the course- at the end

I myself feel so grateful that I was lucky enough to take advantage of these great course especially to work with TPACK.  Using the “Weblog” a very interesting and new approach for me and of course which I will apply even in my future. The instructor has definitely had an impact on myself both personally as well as a professional, and I value everything that I have learned in this past course time.  Thank You so much! Since you have given me the tools to be all I can be next. At the end, I think and I advice every student in CIMA who need to be a real professional in educational science and technology should get involved in a course .

Reflection on the process of Designing TPACK lesson plan

For one of the two final assignments asked by our instructor, initially we have formed a group of four, two students from Ethiopia and two students from Indonesia.  That was really a good combination for our collaboration work and I can say that we had a nice time to share our idea. To start our work, the first question what we had was to decide which topic that we can do. Finally we found that “Designing TPACK lesson plan”  be convenient  for us to explain more about both the Teacher’s professional development and lesson plan based on our context.  The next day meeting was very much successful  to  more discuss and systematically organize our work after selecting the content and context. By the time, each group member had his own part to work on and to combine after awhile. To make our procedures more clear, I will try to briefly explain as follows:

The TPACK framework

During our design process, first we have clearly explained the TPACK framework based on Koehler & Mishra. The idea of explaining was to use TPACK as a model  and then try to make it ready for our lesson plan design  for the teacher, based on his competency and based on the context what we have already selected. In the TPACK framework, all the components, i.e. TK, PK, CK, TCK and TPK are briefly explained based on our topic. The teacher content knowledge to effectively present about “Earthquake”, his technological knowledge how to integrate computer and the Encarta 2008 software for the chosen content and the pedagogy which is collaborative and face to face learning has been analyzed in each component. In this case, an assumption was taken that the teacher has already prior knowledge on how to integrate the selected technologies for his lesson. However, we also proposed that there should be practical assessment need to take place before going through designing the lesson.

After analyzing the TPACK frame work, we have established our main goal which is  “enable teachers to teach the topic earthquake in  seventh grade learners by using Encarta premium 2008  particularly of using  the Encarta Geography.” To meet our goal, we have tried to show different options as a technology, i.e. Web quest, YouTube, Wikipedia and  Encarta 2008 and finally we have decided  to design with an appropriate technology for our context which is Encarta 2008. Then, the Dick and Carey Design Model was what we have chosen as a generic and basic model for the design of our lesson.

The Context

To design TPACK lesson, we first select our context to be Ethiopia a place where  limited technological resources are available. Our aim to choose such a context was to show the difference in technology availability, the school system and the overall conditions especially in developing countries. And then we found the country Ethiopia as a good example. Moreover, “The school of tomorrow” a private school  found in Ethiopia, makes sense for our design since we have some practical information about it. Ethiopia is a country found in the eastern part of Africa near to equator, about 78 million people living, and a very limited technology infrastructure available.

Lesson design process

During our lesson design process, first we have decided the three conditions which are Before, during & After which can make sense to systematically describe main issues. In the first condition “During”, we have analyzed the objective of the lesson,  the TK of teacher & students, the CK and PK of teacher. Not only is that, the pedagogy which is collaborative and face to face and the chosen technology also measured. Based on the assessment in “Before” , we have systematically described four series of lessons. Finally, we have selected one lesson as a pilot for complete design process based on the TPACK model with an assumption that, if the teacher gets support on designing one lesson, he can do the others.    

The very relevant model that we as a group convinced to adapt for our implementation was Fisser (2006) model where the process can start from Pilot to broader context. We also have tried to analyze its complexity while coming in to practice.  Then, in the “After” section, we have tried to analyze the evaluation process based  on  the idea of Harris and Hofer. On this regard, we have developed the rubric that will help as to evaluate the final impact of  our lesson design.

Conclusion and Working with TPACK

This time we all in a group are very happy because we have finished our assignment on time and we are familiarize with the process of designing the lesson based on TPACK model. On this regard, I personally really very interested especially when I thought and feel a courage that I can apply it next in my country. We all four people in a group, working in a single topic but very wide concept was a very nice chance to share an idea each other. The time was not only to do the assignment but also the chance to exchange variety of ideas, to know each other more and to understand what the benefits of collaborative learning means.

The clear goal what we have stated initially was also a good direction for us where to go and how to organize each topics. Once we have sated our goal and clear schedule, it was very easy to share our work and to follow up each other.

The assignment in general  was a nice ignition for me to go further with TPACK and to see more what the real situations in every educational context looks like. In addition, how technology can be selected and integrated, the context, the teacher competency, selection of pedagogy and the overall designing process. On this regard,  it  was a very good chance for me to visit several articles, literatures and different resources. And I myself feel so grateful that I was lucky enough to take advantage of this great course to work with TPACK.  I think and I advice every student in CIMA who need to be the real professional in education should get involved in a course . The instructor has definitely had an impact on myself both personally as well as a professional, and I value everything that I have learned in this past course time.  Thank You! Since you have given me the tools to be all I can be next.

Factors to stimulate teachers to integrate technology in education

Based on the TPACK frame work, technology integration in education can be explained that, the transactional relationship between all the three components i.e. Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical knowledge (PK) and technological knowledge (TK). A teacher capable of negotiating these three components can be defined as an expert or professionally competent on his subject. I will not explain what each component means In this blog but  the factors how the teacher can be stimulated to integrate technology in his education system.

First of all I can say that, the situation can be different based on the context where the teacher is available. For example, the factors for the teacher here in Netherlands may not be the same with the teacher in Ethiopia. Nevertheless, in both cases there can be a common factors which influence the effective integration of technology.  I prefer to explain the common factors first and then at the end to see the exceptional cases based on different context (in developing countries) as an example,  which I thought, may make sense to visualize some real situations.  

Common Factors

•      Professional Competence (Access, Confidence and Skills)

 First of all the teacher should have competency on technological knowledge how to effectively manipulate variety of technologies. Not only manipulating but also how to select an appropriate and relevant technology for his intended subject. Unless otherwise the teacher is capable, he develops anxiety and become negative to accept and to apply technology based on his way of teaching. In this case, the professional development program need to be in place to fill the skill gap, which will make sense for the teacher to be more confident and familiar with.

Filling the gap of technological knowledge of the teacher relevant with  TPACK concept become one of the stimulating  factor for a teacher to integrate technology in his education. In some cases,  there may be an age factor where some teachers completely not ready to accept the new technology approach.

• ·        Digital Divides

Individual differences between educators influence access to ICT, use, confidence and skills (Jones, 2004). The level of the teacher like age and gender are the main cases in this case. Teachers who didn’t know about computer for example get complex and lose confidence on his daily teaching process because he is looking the others using the technology. The gender  problem (gender divide) actually mainly happened in developing countries where female teachers had no chance to actively participate in technology, and also no chance to go further to build their capacity (due to various cases!!). Apart from gender and age, the teachers’ subject domain may influence to integrate technology.

The language also another problem in this case to be confident since it may be the second language for the teacher. In all cases to stimulate the teacher, the gender,  age and the language barrier need to be considered.  

• ·        Availability of infrastructures

The other main factor which can influence to stimulate teacher is the availability of ICT infrastructure within and outside the school. Unless infrastructure and access to technology in school is  available,  it is worthless to be competent for a teacher  to integrating technology. On the other hand,  if there is  technology in school, the technology itself will stimulate and pull the teacher to integrate it. In this case, the infrastructure may be the responsibility in macro or meso level. 

• ·        Integrating with Curriculum

The integration of technology in curriculum at national or school level will make easier and confident for a teacher to apply it. Integrating in a curriculum means widely accepted by leadership and properly designed by professionals. In this case, the support will be easily available for a teacher in case of any gap during the process, from the National as well as school level . The teacher also feel confident since the overall structure will support his activity.

Participating the teacher as a design team while developing the curriculum also the main factor to stimulate the teacher. Because, the teacher will feel a sense of ownership and develop responsibility for his education system.

• ·        Technical support ( ICT coordinator, design team)

Technology is always dynamic and there is always an update which need to be in place. The ICT coordinator and the design teams are aware of that and always support the teacher to make him familiarized with the new technology. Which also give more confidence for a teacher to update himself.

• ·        Students prior knowledge

It will be very easier for a teacher to design his lesson and to integrate based on the available technology, if his students have prior knowledge about technology. To solve such problems, some countries include ICT as a main subject in their curriculum.

To sum up, basically the teacher become more confident and can be stimulated to integrate technology if he knows his content (subject matter) very well, if he knows various pedagogical approaches supported by technology, and knowledge and skill on how to access  technology based on his subject matter. However, the availability of infrastructure in the school, the digital divides, curriculum support, technical support from experts, and students prior knowledge to technology can be the other main factors to stimulate the teacher to integrate technology. 

Additional factors (especially in developing countries) may be gender, the monthly income for a teacher, support from leadership, complete absence of students technological knowledge and failure to have basic infrastructures like electricity and accessibility to Internet.  At the school level, important contextual factors are socio-cultural setting of a school and structural characteristics like government ICT policy, ICT infrastructure and school type.