Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK): A Theory for Preservice Teachers to Consider and An Opportunity For Teacher and Technological Advancement

In the article “What Happens When Teachers Design Educational Technology? The Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge”, Koehler and Mishra argue that teachers should be participating in technological design in order to apply technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) in a complex and multiple set of relationships that range from subject matter, instructional goals to be achieved and the overall possibility of the technology. For Koehler and Mishra, TPCK is more than a set of independent relationships between content, technology and pedagogy suggested by Shulman (1987). While teachers using technology should be considering content, technology and pedagogy, the authors stress that their understanding of it should be much more situated than scholars previously argued. Instead, technology is a “knowledge system” that has “its own biases, and affordances” (p. 132). As such, not all technologies are thus appropriate or applicable to certain situations. Understanding what technologies should be used in order to meet learning goals is the responsibility of the teacher.

While Koehler and Mishra state that more and more teachers have been attempting to use technology in the classroom, the teacher’s efforts and use of technology have been shortsighted. Many teachers simply assume that merely introducing technology into the classroom will make the classroom learning innovative and generative. As such, Koehler and Mishra argue “it has become increasingly clear that merely introducing technology to the educational process is not enough to ensure technology integration since technology alone does not lead to change. Rather, it is the way in which teachers use technology that has the potential to change education” (p. 132). It is through the author’s study in which they worked with master’s students to develop online courses, that the authors then conclude from their data that teachers must begin to participate in actual technological design in order to better technological tools and the application and teacher understanding of those tools in more situated, complex relationships. Doing so is the only way to begin being innovative in the classroom by integrating technology with curriculum.

This call for teachers to begin participating in technological design got me thinking. I understand the position that the authors are taking. Of course, the use of technology should be situated. Technological relationships are very complex due to multiple users, multiple end-goals, multiple tools offered, etc. And this seems especially true in education when working with students in different courses, different levels, different goals, and different abilities. But I couldn’t help but think of resistance teachers already in the field may take to this idea. Many teachers are already short on time and energy to add another project to their list of “things to do”. And yes, the authors did study master’s students which somewhat curbs my claim. However, I question, why just master’s students? I actually think creating a course for preservice teachers to participate, partner, and collaborate with an educational technology company may be something that universities should begin exploring. Doing so would not only expose preservice teachers to new technological tools, but begin to lay the TPCK framework that Koehler and Misher stress. While teacher in-services may attempt to unveil elements of TPCK, Koehler and Misher question if those workshops truly explore outcomes of technological tools beyond “cause and effect” (p. 134). Therefore, I think it would be advantageous of universities to offer a course that forces preservice teachers into more complex professional development experiences at a younger age. No longer are teachers expected to just show up to the classroom from 7:30am-3:00pm. Today teacher demands have increased and professional development is one of those areas. Thus, the experiences offered to preservice teachers should begin to match those real-life demands of teachers.

Further, partnering with preservice teachers would benefit technological companies as well. As a forum, tech companies could begin to “test” its products on real-life students and future teachers – the best of both worlds. Further, as a course, the tech company would have to spend little, only offering its product for testing and design construction. As such, sites for resistance to this idea should be few.

Now, I have yet to research if any of these programs/courses exist in the real world. And since this article was written in 2005, positions and ideas against and in support of it may have changed as well. But I think taking what the article says about the situatedness of technology is an important point for teachers (users of this technology) and tech companies (producers of this technology) to strategically consider.