TQ1: Aren't Pencils A Protean Technogical Tool Too?

My immediate reaction after reading chapter 1 of the Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Koehler and Mishra) is to object to the fact that "technology" precedes pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge, which hints at the authors' bias that somehow the integration of digital technology will transform student learning. To be fair to readers of this blog, my "technology" bias is decidedly neutral. In fact, in my view the teacher knowledge framework should be prioritized as content expertise first, pedagogical knowledge second, and technology - however you describe it - last. A great teacher can not teach what they do not know and a subject matter expert may not know how to share their expertise. No technology in the world can save a inept practitioner who is not fluent in the subject matter that they are tasked to teach. That being said, technology can only be leveraged to accelerate learning in the hands of a subject matter expert who understands how to share their knowledge in the most effective ways to a broad audience with diverse learning styles. But how do we define technology?

I was encourage to read that Koehler and Mishra included both analog tools (pencils, chalkboard and microscope) and digital tools (MP3 players and the Internet) as "technology" that can be used by effective teachers, but object to the implied notion that digital tools are somehow superior given their "protean" nature. A lowly pencil can be protean too - a technological tool, which is transformative to many different people in many different ways.

Graphite, which was first used in England in 1565 to mark sheep evolved into the first pencil as we know it in 1660. In the hands of an effective teacher, or intrinsically motivated learner, pencils can be used to develop verbal linguistic expression, logical mathematical reasoning, intrapersonal and interpersonal skills, visual spatial expertise, and kinesthetic dexterity. I used 2H, HB, and 6B pencils to draw the black and white picture that precedes this posting (artistic expression). I also used pencils as a tool for inquiry as I read and reflected upon Luke 4: 14-30, which is the basis for the illustration that supports the narrative in chapter 8 of a novel that I wrote with a pencil titled, The Adversary. In addition, the pencil was used by me and my editor in a very painful intrapersonal and interpersonal revision process that continuously developed my verbal/linguistic skills.

Could I have used digital technological tools to yield the same outcome? Of course. The other color image that precedes this posting is a cover for a self-study print-based learning module, which was created with the Adobe Creative Suite of software products (Illustrator, InDesign, and Photoshop). So to me, the technological tool used in all circumstances needs to be driven by the desired learning or knowledge product outcomes. I continue to learn and teach daily by using a vast variety of analog and digital technology tools.

I believe that Koehler and Mishra would probably agree with my view, in principle, given the overarching theme of chapter one - that effective teachers are life-long learners, who are willing to continuously push past their comfort zone to learn how to use new tools to positively impact learning outcomes in their classrooms. That being said, this stated objective is only achievable in a competitive environment - not the non-competitive academic environment of the public school system in the United States. There's a reason why I had to learn to use more than a pencil to produce an image - speed. I need to continually expand the technological tools that I used to survive in a competitive business environment. If I am not intrinsically (or extrinsically) motivated as a life-long learner to become more efficient and effective then someone else who is will eventually replace me. This is not the case in public education. The level of effort that is required to adopt a true TPCK (or CPTK) framework is simply too high in an environment in which mediocrity is protected for an entire career.

It will be interesting to see how Jonassen's technology-mediated framework differs from that of Koehler and Mishra. My Meaningful Learning with Technology text is on order and has not yet been delivered.