Is TPACK fundamentally flawed? A quick response

by | Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Richard Olsen over in his blog has an extended posting titled The TPACK Framework is fundamentally flawed. It is a long and thoughtful post and I recommend everyone to read it.

I have posted a short response to his posting (it is under moderation but should show up in a while). In the mean-time I am posting my response here – for the record.

Richard,

Thank you for your extended and thoughtful post on the TPACK framework. There is a lot here to respond to but I will be brief…

I think you would be surprised to learn just how much I agree with what you are saying. In fact in our original TCRecord piece we write something along the lines of “Clearly, separating the three components (content, pedagogy, and technology) in our model is an analytic act and one that is difficult to tease out in practice.” As I see it you are arguing that it is impossible (or even wrong) to tease these out. I would disagree.

In my experience the TPACK framework allows different people to see different things. To content area teachers, it allows them to see the value of technologies in representing and engaging with content; to teacher trainers it allows them to think about the significance of content and technology; and to techie types, it shows that there is more to teaching than the tool – it has to do with pedagogy and content.

Every once in a while I meet someone like yourself – someone for whom the TPACK is intuitive – so that breaking things up into pieces just seems wrong.   And for the most part I agree – again as we said in our article: “Viewing any of these components in isolation from the others represents a real disservice to good teaching.”

But these ideas are not intuitive to most people – and this is where I think the TPACK framework comes in useful – as a scaffolding to help people develop in their thinking about curriculum, content, technology and pedagogy.

I agree that is IS wrong is to essentialize the components of the TPACK framework (which I see a lot of people doing – but that is their doing not inherent in how we wrote/conceptualized it). The goal really should be to think about this sweet spot at the center – where these pieces come together. Now whether you call that good pedagogy for content learning – or good pedagogy with technology for content learning is at some level immaterial (I think).

I don’t know if you have had a chance to read the handbook chapter that Matt and I had written. You can find it here
I think this has a better description of the technology issue that you raised – that I (being lazy) don’t have the time to get into.

And finally, there is a famous saying among academics that goes, I don’t care if you disagree with me, just make sure to cite me and spell my name correctly.
I bring that up because you got the first part (citing) but got my name wrong… it is Mishra not Misha 🙂

That’s all for now. Take care
~ punya

Topics related to this post: Blogging | Learning | Personal | Philosophy | Teaching | Technology | TPACK | Worth Reading

A few randomly selected blog posts…

Defense against the dark arts in the Sydney Morning Herald

Defense against the dark arts in the Sydney Morning Herald

I was in Sydney recently to present a keynote at the MITE conference. I spoke there about some issues that have been concerning me for a while—what I like to call the "dark arts" of digital technologies. After the conference I had a wide-ranging interview with Jordan...

TPACK Handbook, new review

Just found out about a review of the Handbook of TPACK by Dorian Stoilescu and Douglas McDougall for the Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology (2009). You can read the full review here. Overall a positive review, with some pertinent criticism, particularly...

Jere Brophy, note from the Dean

Carole Ames, Dean of the College just sent out this note regarding the sad news of Jere Brophy's passing. She has asked for it to be shared with our broader networks, so I do so. Note: The memorial service for Jere Brophy has been scheduled for Monday, October 19th...

TPACK videos: A few new ones

I have come across some new TPACK related videos/podcasts (either on youtube or elsewhere) that I feel may be worth sharing. The first of them came as an email from Matt Townsley. He pointed me to these two videos by Janet Bowers of San Diego State University. In...

The existence of futility

I have written about the value of seeing humor in the futility of existence (see this and this) but humor can also be found in the existence of futility. Below is a motivational video that demonstrates this fact. Enjoy......

Better late than never, 21st century learning

Better late than never, 21st century learning

Quest Alliance is an NGO based in Bangalore that seeks to equip young people with 21st century skills by enabling self-learning. I have known of Quest and its director, Aakash Sethi, for over a decade now. In fact I had blogged about Quest back in 2008 here, and...

Representing networks

Facebook has a couple of apps that allow you to map your friends' network. I knew about them but hadn't really played with them till Matt Koehler asked for some ideas to use in his 956 (Mind, Media & Learning class) and I suggested trying some of these tools out. To...

A surprise gift

I just received a gift in the mail. It was a box and in the box was One of those cool push pin toys... How cool is that! In the box was a short note that went: Hi Dr. Punya! It was a pleasure to meet you during the Quest Alliance Seminar in Bangalore. I really enjoyed...

3 Comments

  1. satlas

    Curious as to how the idea of community as curriculum relates to TPACK. IF knowledge is not an “in the head” matter

    Reply
  2. Mary Ann Reilly

    Curious as to how the idea of community as curriculum relates to TPACK. IF knowledge is not an “in the head” matter, but rather that which is constructed among and across many heads, the how does that influence the model?

    Reply
  3. Petra

    Hi Punya,
    The debate about TPACK seems to go in the direction that Richard is describing. And yes, from survey-research we see that the different components of TPACK cannot be separated that easily. And probably we should not attempt to try. But I strongly believe that the TPACK framework is someting – as you mention – that could help teachers (and educational designers!) when they have to start (re-) thinking about their education. And my believe is based upon actual experiences with teachers and educational designers 😉 Transforming this believe into a scientific paper is something that we are working on..!
    Petra

    Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. TPACK Newsletter, Issue #12, October 2012 | Punya Mishra's Web - [...] Mishra, P. (2012, January 24). Is TPACK fundamentally flawed? A quick response. [Web log post] . Retrieved from  http://punyamishra.com/2012/01/24/is-tpack-fundamentally-flawed-a-quick-response/…
  2. TPACK and the fallacy of integration, wicked problems and protean technology < Richard Olsen's Blog - [...] Punya Mishra commented on my concerns about the TPACK Framework, and even more surprised with his comment that he mostly…

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *