Pedagogical technological integrated FOR classroom Teaching

The framework: pedagogical technological integrated medium

The present framework is derived from the TPACK framework. Akin to TPACK, our proposed framework also draws on Shulman’s (1986Shulman, Lee. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) conception of content, pedagogical content knowledge and curricular knowledge. Downplaying the affective domain in teaching and learning makes any subject matter alien to the social milieu, which is fundamentally in line with the strong view that Ryan & Patrick (2001Ryan, Allison and Patrick, Helen.(2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437–460.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) hold about learning as a social endeavour. In our view, the affective domain should be considered in juxtaposition with the other domains of learning, as the social dimension is influential enough to provide directions for technology integration. Figure 1 depicts the relationships among the social dimension, the affective domain, content, technology and pedagogy.

Figure 1. Pedagogical Technological Integrated Medium (PTIM) framework.

All the three core elements – content, technology and pedagogy – are interconnected through technological content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and technological/pedagogical knowledge, and are directly focused on learning. We strongly emphasise learning and place it at the centre of the various interconnecting elements, in contrast with the model proposed by Mishra and Koehler (2006Mishra, Punya and Koehler, Matthew.(2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). We consider these connections to be dynamic and flexible enough to accommodate changes in superimposing layers. Content knowledge, in juxtaposition with topic-specific knowledge, is considered as a single integrated component which has a direct focus on learning (Bell, Maeng, & Binns, 2013Bell, Randy; Maeng, Jennifer and Binns, Ian. (2013). Learning in context: Technology integration in a teacher preparation programme informed by situated learning theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 348–379.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Content and topic-specific knowledge form a singular component, as learning is best sustained when content and topic-specific knowledge, derived from the lived experiences, form an integral configuration (Barab, Hay, Barnett, & Squire, 2001Barab, Sasha; Hay, Kenneth; Barnett, Michael and Squire, Kurt. (2001). Constructing virtual worlds: Tracing the historical development of learner practices. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 47–94.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Barab & Kirshner, 2001Barab, Sasha and Kirshner, David.(2001). Guest Editors’ Introduction: Rethinking methodology in the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 5–15.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Mishra & Koehler, 2006Mishra, Punya and Koehler, Matthew.(2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).

source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20004508.2017.1343606