{"id":7424,"date":"2017-07-12T21:04:42","date_gmt":"2017-07-12T21:04:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2017-11-03T16:11:59","modified_gmt":"2017-11-03T16:11:59","slug":"access-is-not-enough-a-collaborative-autoethnographic-study-of-affordances-and-challenges-of-teacher-educators-ipad-integration-in-elementary-education-methods-courses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-17\/issue-3-17\/current-practice\/access-is-not-enough-a-collaborative-autoethnographic-study-of-affordances-and-challenges-of-teacher-educators-ipad-integration-in-elementary-education-methods-courses","title":{"rendered":"Access Is Not Enough: A Collaborative Autoethnographic Study of Affordances and Challenges of Teacher Educators\u2019 iPad Integration in Elementary Education Methods Courses"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the past, technologies remained relatively stable throughout a teacher\u2019s career. The basic tools for teaching were standardized for most U.S. classrooms: books, paper, pencils, math manipulatives, and overhead projectors (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Initially, even when computers were introduced as a new tool, they were clustered in computer labs bound by scheduled time and static place (Foulger et al., 2013).<\/p>\n

The current climate of rapid change and the pervasiveness of mobile technology, however, offer a new array of unexplored tools and new opportunities for classrooms to capitalize on the mobile learning that happens outside the classroom. This influx of mobile devices characterizes what Harvard professor of business administration Clayton Christensen (1997) coined as \u201cdisruptive technology.\u201d<\/p>\n

In contrast to \u201csustainable technology,\u201d which is established and changes incrementally, disruptive technologies may not have easily and immediately recognized applications and may lack refinement. Smartphones, tablets, and laptops fall into this category. They are pervasive, but educators are just learning their potential for school-based teaching and learning. \u00a0Because university teacher preparation programs often partner with K-12 schools, faculties want and need to prepare preservice teachers to understand the opportunities and challenges of purposeful and transformative technology integration. To move past a siloed approach to technology integration, which is often relegated to a specific and separate educational technology (EdTech) course, methods courses in each discipline seemed to be a wise and logical choice in which to demonstrate and experience technology integrations that support discipline-based teaching and learning.<\/p>\n

Traditionally, the main responsibility of methods courses is to build pedagogical knowledge for teaching specific disciplines, such as science, mathematics, social studies, and reading\/language arts. Teacher educators often find that they are still building stronger disciplinary content knowledge while addressing pedagogy. Shulman (1986) identified this specific type of teacher knowledge as pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). This task is demanding for teacher educators, who must not only strengthen content knowledge (CK) but also model pedagogical knowledge (PK) in the delivery of CK to demonstrate PCK.<\/p>\n

With the disruption and pervasiveness of mobile devices, more and more K-12 schools are exploring and implementing mobile devices to increase learning opportunities for students. Mobile technology provides new challenges for teacher educators, who currently prepare teachers for teaching and learning environments that neither they experienced as K-12 teachers or teacher candidates experienced as learners. Teachers are now expected also to have technological knowledge (TK) that intersects with CK, PK, and PCK. This integration forms a new teacher knowledge referred to as technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge, or TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).<\/p>\n

Although young people are often referred to as digital natives (Prensky, 2001), others suggest that simply being born into a world of digital technology does not make one a digital native (Eduardsen, 2011; Thompson, 2013). Recently, Vasinda, Kander, and Sanogo (2015) found that preservice teachers did not naturally transfer and integrate their TK to educational practices. In their study of iPad integration in the context of practicums in the university reading and mathematics center, preservice teacher tutors integrated only what their university instructors modeled in class when working with their tutees, indicating that their development of TPACK was dependent upon experiences with digital technologies modeled for students in their methods courses. Preservice teachers tended to prioritize the PCK that they learned ahead of the TK, which resulted in limited TPACK (Vasinda et al., 2015). This finding was consistent with studies that have challenged and disputed the idea of the digital native (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Dresang, 2005; Johnson, 2006; Koutropoulos, 2011; Thompson, 2013).<\/p>\n

In a survey conducted by Project Tomorrow\u2019s Speak Up (Blackboard, 2013) preservice teachers reported that their experiences modeled by their university instructors represented one of the two most influential factors of their growing TK. The other factor was the technology integration experienced in their student teaching. Similarly, Schuck, Aubusson, Kearney and Burden (2013) identified the need for teacher educators to implement and model teaching and learning with mobile devices to prepare future educators.<\/p>\n

Teacher educators are faced with a new and urgent challenge. Although university faculty members are considered content area specialists with strong pedagogical knowledge committed to modeling and teaching, they may not have well developed TK or TPACK. The understanding of these findings and challenges, led four elementary education teacher educators to study their own mobile technology integration to support curriculum objectives in science, social studies, and literacy courses.<\/p>\n

The research question guiding this study was as follows: In content-specific teacher preparation courses, what are the affordances and challenges for teacher educators of integrating mobile technology in contexts of 1:1 access to iPads? Although Gaver (1991) described affordances as both the \u201cstrengths and weaknesses of technologies with respect to the possibilities they offer the people who might use them\u201d (p. 79), in this study we defined affordance as the benefits or possibilities that technology provides or makes available (Merriam-Webster, n.d.), sometimes referred to as positive affordances.<\/p>\n

We used Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber\u2019s (2006) Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation (RAT) framework to help us understand and evaluate the realized and potential benefits of thoughtful technology integrations that support and offer transformative learning opportunities.<\/p>\n

Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n

Two conceptual frameworks informed this study: Mishra & Koehler\u2019s (2006) TPACK framework and Hughes et al.\u2019s (2006) RAT framework. TPACK builds from Shulman\u2019s (1986, 1987) theory of PCK, in which the intersection of PK and CK form a new type of knowledge. This knowledge describes effective teachers\u2019 deep understanding of how to teach their content with special knowledge about intricacies of the process.<\/p>\n

Mishra and Koehler (2006) identified TK as a new kind of teacher knowledge that intersects with PCK. By extending Schulman\u2019s PCK model to include TK as a third knowledge domain, additional knowledge interactions are created: technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and the integration of all three knowledge domains resulting in TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Table 1 describes each of these knowledge domains and their unique intersections.<\/p>\n

Table 1
\n<\/strong>Brief Descriptions of the Knowledge Domain Represented in the TPACK Framework (Abbitt, 2011; Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007; Mishra & Koehler, 2006)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Knowledge Domain<\/strong><\/td>\nDescription<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pedagogical<\/td>\nKnowledge of nature of teaching and learning, including teaching methods, classroom management, instructional planning, assessment of student learning, etc.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Content<\/td>\nKnowledge of the subject matter to be taught (e.g., earth science, mathematics, language arts, etc.).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Technology<\/td>\nContinually changing and evolving knowledge base that\u00a0includes knowledge of technology for information processing, communications, and problem solving and focuses on the productive applications of\u00a0technology in both work and daily life.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pedagogical Content<\/td>\nKnowledge of the pedagogies, teaching practices, and\u00a0planning processes that are applicable and appropriate to teaching a given\u00a0subject matter.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Technological Content<\/td>\nKnowledge of the relationship between subject matter and\u00a0technology including knowledge of technology that has influenced and is used\u00a0in exploring a given content discipline.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Technological\u00a0Pedagogical<\/td>\nKnowledge of the influence of technology on teaching and\u00a0learning as well as the affordances and constraints of technology with regard\u00a0to pedagogical designs and strategies.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Technological, Pedagogical, and Content<\/td>\nKnowledge of the complex interaction among the principle\u00a0knowledge domains (content, pedagogy, technology).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

TPACK offers a framework for understanding the complexities of teaching and learning with technology and can help educators choose technological tools that enhance student understanding and are aligned with effective pedagogy. This framework also provides a common language with which teacher educators and preservice teachers can more clearly converse about the multifaceted interactions of pedagogy, content, and technological affordances to support learning. Therefore, the TPACK model (Figure 1) was used as a conceptual framework for university faculty as they planned lessons for their respective students.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Figure 1.<\/strong> Technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (Reproduced by permission of the publisher, \u00a9 2012 by tpack.org).<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

To evaluate our technology integrations in terms of enhancing learning in our courses, we used the RAT framework. According to the RAT framework, technology is used in one of three ways: Technology as a Replacement, Technology as Amplification, or Technology as Transformation. When used as a replacement, the technology offers no functional difference from the traditional task. For example, when interactive whiteboards are used to project a presentation or instructional video, they replace a pull-down screen and offer no difference in the experience for learners.<\/p>\n

Many technologies offer at least some amplification, such as using a word processor rather than a typewriter to afford easy revisions and easy access to tools such as spelling and grammar check, word counts, and thesaurus. The task is not necessarily different, but digital tools make the work easier and more efficient.<\/p>\n

When technology provides opportunities to do work, create products, communicate, and collaborate in ways that were previously not possible, transformation can occur. The ability to add voice comments, voice type, and work collaboratively and simultaneously within a Google document with colleagues around the globe was previously impossible; thus, the work is transformed by the technology.<\/p>\n

Teacher educators have a responsibility to model and demonstrate what is possible using new digital tools and to move from replacement to amplification and, ultimately, transformation. Transformed learning experiences offer more opportunities for the type of engaged learning and innovation skills for both teachers and students recommended by the International Society for Technology in Education (2000).<\/p>\n

Models of teaching and learning, such as these, help educators conceptualize the theoretical foundations of their practice and develop an understanding of the best ways to foster student understanding. As university faculty members who taught in K-12 schools for years prior to obtaining doctorate degrees, we consider ourselves to have strong PCK. Our goals for preservice teachers include the development of TCK, TPK, and ultimately, TPACK to utilize the new and rapidly changing technologies that have the potential to enhance learning of both CK and PK to develop PCK and then to model TPACK in our methods courses.<\/p>\n

Literature Review<\/h2>\n

Currently, few studies have investigated the affordances and challenges of mobile learning in teacher education in which teacher educators are the subjects of the study. Baran (2014) conducted a review of research on mobile learning and found that of 42 empirical studies only four examined teacher educators, or faculty, in teacher preparation with mobile devices. Additionally she found that although there is a trend toward integrating mobile devices in teacher education, challenges were scarcely reported.<\/p>\n

Foulger et al. (2013) attempted to provide a snapshot of the current intentional inclusion of mobile technologies in teacher preparation programs. Faculty members identified their efforts in one of the following ways:<\/p>\n