Until I read the TPCK article by Koehler and Mishra, I had been a pretty firm believer in white chalk, erasers, and blackboards. I absolutely despised the new technological advances taking place in classrooms; I will give you an example of a new technological advancement: the Smartboards that were slowly replacing the blackboards. In my opinion, aside from the occasional hair-raising chalk screeches, blackboards were efficient in passing out information, hanging up charts, and seeing pretty handwriting. I believed that smartboards just did not do justice to that. As a result, I just refused to see Smartboards as a better version of blackboards and, thus, resolved - in my mind - to never use it at all (which is kind of hard, because smartboards are now found in many classrooms.) I was, as Koehler and Mishra so kindly reminded me, victim of "functional fixedness." Functional fixedness, as they defined it, was "
the manner in which the ideas we hold about an object's function can inhibit our ability to use the object for a different function."
Then, in the article, Koehler and Mishra shook me to the core. Technology integration (the act of including technology) is, actually, not a new phenomenon. In fact, contrary to my belief, technology did not just "happen" when Smartboards took over classrooms. Technology was in existence when the pencil was invented. It was in existence when the calculator was invented. Technology was in existence when the chalkboard was invented! Technology was in existence within my finger's distance and I did not even know. Armed with this new information (which also changed my mind about Smartboards!), I set out to read the remaining 18 pages of this article, and here's some interesting thoughts (and some comments) to the article:
- Technology is always evolving, which makes the integration of technology "difficult" to incorporate into classrooms. But the degree of difficulty can change because as long as I know what I can do with the technological knowledge, then I can be an effective teacher.
- Effective teaching with technology is only "achieved" when the three components in the TPCK model are integrated. I can not just have one part of the model; it's all or nothing.
- A teacher is not merely the creator of the curriculum, but is a part of it: teachers are curriculum designers. This idea reinforces the thought that I have a huge responsibility lying on my shoulders. I am in charge of teaching in ways that are shaped by my student's histories, ideas, beliefs, personalities, etc., and one of these ways is by using the ever-evolving technology.
- Technology is my friend. It is the bridge to developing my students' knowledge.
So, thanks Koehler and Mishra! It was a great article to read, and I am warming up to the idea of the TPCK model, which, I think, is a reflection of how I, as a future teacher (who wants to be effective,) is connecting our students to our rapidly changing world. I am not saying, like Koehler and Mishra also say, that I am always going to be able to keep up. They know that it is difficult because it is always evolving, but considering that technology is bridging
my students' knowledge to my knowledge to the world, I think that it is an obstacle I am willing to tackle.
So, Smartboards (and company), HERE I COME!
