TPACKing: A constructivist framing of TPACK to analyze teachers' construction of knowledge (A summary)

This time, I am going to summarize a paper related to TPACK which was written by Mark W. Olofson, Meredith J. C. Swallow, and Maureen D. Neumann. Their paper entitled TPACKing: a constructivist framing of TPACK to analyze teachers' construction of knowledge. The paper was published in computers and education journal 95 (2016) 188-201. 

As we know that TPACK framework is a conceptual tool in studies by integrating technology into the classroom, such as in the current issues is the influences on teachers' in the 20th century. Technology also makes people access information and do global communication (Dede, 2010). People started to adopt technology in education but it required a contemporary approach to understand the teachers' practice (Enyedy, 2014). The writers interpreted TPACKing as an ongoing process of teacher development and practice while implementing technology, pedagogy, and content to guide the interpretation of TPACKing process.

There was some previous research related to TPACK, such as Koehler and Mishra (2005), Shulman (1986), Angeli & Valanides (2009), and Doering et al (2009). On the other hand, there were some critics as well on TPACK, such as definition and delineation of different knowledge categories (Cox & Graham, 2009) and distinguish features (Archambault & Barnett, 2010). The objective framing of TPACK categories restricted the use of the TPACK framework by focusing on content rather than process and it made the writers to consider the radical constructivist framing of knowledge, first developed as a construct before the inclusion of digital technology into the classroom.

In this paper, the writers of the paper used wider conceptualization of interactions present in the radical interpretation, and include relationships with the technology environment and internal equilibrations to conceptualize intersubjective interactions. Related to constructivism and PCKg, the writers used an understanding of interactions and equilibration outlined by radical constructivism and looked for how teachers constructed their knowledge.

The method that they used was from interpretative perspective because they wanted to understand and interpret the context-bound phenomena to make and refine theoretical connections. They used multiple case study design to illustrate different perspective on the issue and adopted a holistic perspective. The research was conducted in the US whereas the writers affiliated with Northeastern University at the time of writing. They used semi-structured interviews as their primary data source.  They did purposeful sampling with two criteria and those were the presence of TPACK and TPACK implementation in the classroom. To analyze the data, the writers implemented following the qualitative analytic procedure: reading, rereading, coding, discussing, and writing. 

The research involved four schools that share a limited geographical context in Northeastern, US. The majority teachers and students in those schools were white. The teachers also exposed to the same values and frameworks because they received offered from the university. The researchers applied cross-case analysis and rich-thick description of the participants and findings to the relevance setting. 

The researchers analyzed the participants' practice in using TPACK into three categories and those were technology interaction, missed opportunities in TPACKing process, and teachers' choice of technology tools.  Jana, one of the participants, used the technology mostly for personal reasons. Leslie also used technology but she independently works on the tools and then implemented it in her classroom. Don, the other participants, was less controllable when constructing his TPACK. He was struggling with different beliefs about teaching and learning, although they looked to be conflicting, shaped his process by engaging his critical lens. 

Participants faced some missed opportunities, such as Don. He missed the opportunity to bring together the ideas that can bring changes in his flipped classroom into the better one. While Jana missed the opportunity to be influenced by all of her knowledge in constructing her TPACK, Leslie and Karen reacted by moving away from technological piece rather than seeking and incorporating more knowledge in using technology. 

To sum up, the researchers used radical constructivist orientation to view the active TPACKing process as another way to employ the TPACK framework when considering the work f in-service teachers. The framings helped in revealing missed opportunities and analysis on knowledge construction. Active TPACKing framework was useful in the analysis o in-service teachers because it lets the researchers to draw the features in their practice. It is also need for further investigations in TPACKing framework and teachers' TPAKing process.