The above diagram accessed from http://www.tpck.org/ represents the interconnected importance of technology, pedagogy and content. Learning in our contemporary educational environment the requires systems, school leaders and teachers to take advantage of technology to enhance content and pedagogy (Jamieson-Proctor and Finger 2008).
With a focus on pedagogy and with reference to the TPACK framework, Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) is deep knowledge about the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning and how it encompasses, among other things, overall educational purposes, values and aims. It includes knowledge about techniques or methods to be used in the classroom; the nature of the target audience; and strategies for evaluating student understanding. As such, PK requires an understanding of cognitive, social and developmental theories of learning and how they apply to students in their classroom (Mishra and Koehler 2008).
Appropriate pedagogy for the use of technology requires learner-centred approaches (Sutherland 2004; Chang and Wang 2009). Learner-centred pedagogy involves students being actively involved in knowledge construction. Dwyer et al, (1991) in Fullan and Smith (2000) outline the differences between knowledge instruction and knowledge construction. Essentially, knowledge instruction is viewed as the transfer of thoughts from one who is knowledgeable to one who is not and teacher work is perceived as direct instruction. Knowledge construction views learning as a personal, reflective, and transformative process where teacher work comprises facilitating students’ abilities to integrate ideas, experiences, and points of view into something new (Fullan and Smith 2000). According to them there are more possibilities with a classroom that enables knowledge construction.
In a knowledge construction setting, technology becomes a tool to help students access information, communicate information and collaborate with others. In today’s classrooms there is certainly the need for some knowledge instruction but a great deal of student activity might involve knowledge construction given the explosion of information (Fullan and Smith 2000).
These technology-based, learner-centred and knowledge constructivist pedagogical approaches are more readily appearing around the world due to increased access to technology. For example, Australian schools and teachers are integrating technology to support experiential, constructivist learning in schools and across learning sites; engage students in personalized, collaborative, connected and interactive learning; and broaden and use new pedagogies (MCEETYA 2006).
Student centred pedagogy has resulted in personalised learning environments for students. Personalised learning refers to the “school’s capacity to use ICT to extend and differentiate student learning opportunities, and to support students to manage and d
irect their learning” (MCEETYA 2008). Emerging technologies offer unique opportunities to personalise the learning environment for individual learners. A 2009 Horizon Report sponsored by the New Media Consortium identifies the ‘personal web’ as,
a collection of technologies that confer the ability to reorganise, configure, and manage online content rather than just view it; but part of the personal web is the underlying idea that web content can be sorted, displayed, and even built upon according to an individual’s personal needs and interests (Johnson, Levine et al. 2009).
The personal web enables students to experience school in a different way; a more ‘personalised’ way due to the advent of technology (Drexler 2010). The personalised learning environment, “promotes inquiry-based learning and digital literacy, empowers the learner, and offers flexibility as new technologies emerge” (Drexler 2010). The requirements of personalised learning place high demands on teachers and schools, and it is not surprising that personalised learning is entering schools only slowly (ICT Cluster European Commission 2010). However, the development of personalised learning as part of a school environment greatly assists teachers to adopt technology in their classrooms.
There is an implication that pedagogical change and greater personalisation of learning are both necessary for student centred, self-directed and independent learning (Sebba, Brown et al. 2007; McLoughlin and Lee 2009). Addressing the need to rethink and reposition pedagogy for the new learning landscape of the 21st century calls for the active involvement of students in defining their learning goals, and choosing both digital technology and strategies for learning. It also requires recognition that learner generated content has a central place in a curriculum that fosters self-regulated learning.
Emerging practices with digital technology signals the need for pedagogies that are more personal, social and participatory (MCEETYA 2008; McLoughlin and Lee 2009; Drexler 2010) . Educators and institutions are increasingly beginning to recognise that the philosophy and ethos prevalent in the Web 2.0 world in which we live are incongruent with the control culture of education, where teacher-designed content and syllabi dominate (Sutherland 2004; Whitby 2006; McLoughlin and Lee 2009) . To adopt new pedagogies which allow for increased use of technology, the design of programs and units of work withi
n the guidelines of syllabus documentation requires inquiry-based learning and project-based activities (Rotherham and Willingham 2010). All of this signals a need to reconsider our notions of pedagogy so that learners are envisaged as active participants and co-constructors of learning resources rather than passive consumers of content (Whitby 2006; OECD 2008; Drexler 2010; Partnerships for 21st Century Skills 2010) .
P.S. There is a great 3 minute video which explains the TPACK framework. It can be found at
Chang, C. and H. Wang (2009). “Issues of inquiry learning in digital learning environments.” British Journal of Educational Technology 40(1): 169-173.
Drexler, W. (2010). “The networked student model for construction of personal learning environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 26(3): 369-385.
Fullan, M. and G. Smith (2000). “Technology and the problem of change.” Curriculum Matters: 2-5.
ICT Cluster European Commission (2010). Learning, Innovation and ICT: Lessons learned by the ICT cluster Education & Training 2010 programme. Lisbon Set of Objectives, 2010., European Commission.
Johnson, L., A. Levine, et al. (2009). Horizon Report The K-12 edition. Four to five years: The personal web. Horizon Project.
MCEETYA (2006). Leadership strategy: Learning in an online world. . Carlton South, Australia, Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, Australia.
MCEETYA (2008). Learning in an online world: Making change happen. Learning in an Online World Series. C. Corporation: 1-22.
McLoughlin, C. and M. Lee, . (2009). “Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software.” Educational Technology 26(1): 28-43.
Mishra, P. and M. Koehler (2008). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge.
OECD (2008). Innovating to Learn, Learning to Innovate.: 12.
Partnerships for 21st Century Skills (2010). “Framework for 21st Century Learning.” from www.P21.org.
Rotherham, A. and D. Willingham (2010). “21st-Century” Skills. Not New, but a Worthy Challenge.” American Educator 34(1): 17-20.
Sebba, J., N. Brown, et al. (2007). An Investigation of Personalised Learning Approaches used by Schools. D. f. E. a. Skills., University of Sussex.
Sutherland, R. (2004). “Transforming teachning and learning: embedding ICT into everyday classroom practices.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20: pp413-425.
Whitby, G. (2006). A Time to be Bold: New challenges in learning and teaching.