“Effective teaching depends on flexible access to rich, will-organized and integrated knowledge from different domains” – Matthew J. Koehler and Punya Mishra
The Substitution Augmentation Modification and Redefinition Model (SAMR) as well as the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model (TPAC) are both useful methods in explaining how technology can be incorporated effectively and efficiently into the classroom setting. The SAMR model, however, does so by highlighting how the product of the student changes, and does not effectively address the process in which the pedagogy needs to evolve. According to Erica R. Hamilton, Joshua M. Rosenberg, & Mete Akcaogin “it emphasizes the types of technology teachers should use to move themselves up the hierarchical continuum of SAMR, giving primay to technology rather than good teaching.” For these reasons, I find the TPAC approach to education more holistic as this model attempts to address the complex relationship between technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge.
The TPACK model is an effectual guide on how to maintain the principals of a sound teaching practice, while incorporating both curricular content and technology, to meet your learning goals. While the SAMR model may be effective in telling us how to transform an essay, using technology, into something that incorporates technology (such as a typed document, blog, shared resource, or multi-model presentation). The TPACK model reminds us that technology is not the goal, but is only one of three main components to achieving a well-planned lesson. For example, in my own shop courses, it is not enough for a student to use a more advanced machine for achieving a particular aspect of their project (even though many pieces of technology may do the same job). The student needs to have the knowledge of why the specific piece of technology they are using is the correct one for their application (content knowledge), as well as the understanding of the limitations and rationale for using that particular piece of technology (pedagogy). Without incorporating these other aspects into the realm of technology, the learning students are experiencing may not be as fulfilling.
It should also be noted that the TPACK method also remains viable as technology continues to evolve. According to Matthew Koehler and Punva Mishra “Technology knowledge is always in a state of flux — more so than the other two core knowledge domains.” Indeed, in my own shop setting, technology is ever evolving, especially with the advent of computer numerically controller shop equipment, three dimensional printing, computerized laser engraving and cutting, three dimensional printing, and more. With this continual state of variability, frameworks that seek to qualify or quantify technology, at a given point in time, tend to date themselves rather quickly. By looking at technology as an ever evolving entity, (either past, present, or future) and how that relates, holistically, to pedagogy and content knowledge; I am able to use the TPACK method regardless of the technology I incorporate into my shop space.
Overall, both the SAMR and TPACK models help to guide teachers to employ technology into the classroom in a reasonable and meaningful fashion. In my own practice, although I can see some benefit to the SAMR method, the TPACK method helps guide my effective incorporation of technology into the shop. Ultimately, as stated by Koehler and Mishra, the TPACK method “allows teachers, researchers, and teacher educators to move beyond oversimplified approaches that treat technology as an ‘add-on’ instead to focus again… upon the connections among technology, content, and pedagogy.”
Recent Comments