TQ#1 - Meaningful Learning vs.TPCK

The readings represent polar opposites in their perspectives. The TPCK (Technological, Pedagogical Content Knowledge) article by Koehler and Mishra is focused on teaching and the challenges that teachers face incorporating technology into their classrooms (and their pedagogy!). This article does a great job of outlining the barriers to technology adoption that exist within most educational institutions. It goes on to suggest ways to overcome these barriers and enhance teacher training, but there is little mention of the students per se (Koehler and Mishra, 2008).

In sharp contast to this, the chapter from the book by Jonessen, Howland, Marra and Crisman is focused on the learners. This book advocates a radically different way of using technology to enhance what the authors define as "meaningful learning" (Jonessen, et. al, p. 3)." The authors call for what amounts to a paradigm shift from the traditional instructional methods, more commonly used today and seemingly reinforced by the current emphasis on success in standardized tests. The authors want to allow students to use all types of technologies, including computers, as tools to construct their own solutions to authentic problems. They envision students working on their own with a partner (or perhaps a team) on whatever they consider to be a solution to a problem with little help from the teacher. Learning would be truly student-centered and student-led with the teacher serving as a facilitator while also enforcing deadlines for reporting on progress and/or for task completion.

Many teachers are skeptical about the lack of structure being advocated in this idyllic type of "constructivist learning environment" (Jonessen, et. al, 2008). They are very hesitant to let the learners guide because they fear that the students will get totally out of control and do nothing related to learning. This attitude is reflected in a passage of the article by Koehler and Mishra stating "non-technologists tend to view technoloists as being shallowly enthusiastic, ignorant of education....and unaware of the realities of classrooms and schools." (Koehler and Mishra, p. 9).

So the contrast of these two articles starts to echo the major, underlying debate in instructional technology of whether any advances in learning are due to the technology or to a corresponding change in teaching method. In his book, Jonessen states that "Technologies have traditionally been used to support teachers' goals, not those of learners (p. 4, Jonessen, et. al)" and seems to imply that this is the underlying reason for any failures of technology (a term he uses synonymously with computers) to create meaningful learning.

So the debate continues; is it the technology or is it something else? Perhaps it is engagement with the material that enhances learning, no matter how the engagement is actually achieved. This may be what Jonessen and his colleagues mean when they state that "Technologies are lousy teachers, but they can be powerful tools to think with (Jonessen, et. al, p. 10)." Certainly more research is needed in order to determine the best ways to create meaningful learning and fully transferable knowledge.


References:

Koehler, M. & Mishra, P., 2008. Introduing TPCK, Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators, Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Jonassen, D.H., Howland, J., Marra, R.M., & Crisman, D.P., 2008, Meaningful Learning with Technology, Boston, MA, Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.