TPCK and IPAC a critique in the age of the Flipped Learning classroom.

Introduction

There are a series of digital learning theories that enable people to interact with technology and learning as suggested by Shelly Terrell (2018), see?Appendix 1. However there are many others out there including University of Hull’s Professor Kevin Burden and his colleagues who in (2015) came up with the iPAC (2012) conceptual framework that outlines a series of areas that allow for the interaction and delivery of learning via mobile devices (MTTEP, online, 2015) see?Appendix 3.??It is the iPAC and TPACK frameworks that I would like to critique in this essay in relation to flipped learning networks with a view to seeing if the parameters of the existing frameworks are actually relevant in 2018. The TPACK (2015) model as such, see?Appendix 2?, extends Shulman’s??(1982-1997) theories carried out at Stanford University where he came up with the concept of ‘pedagogical content knowledge’ this idea of his at the time launched a new period of research in regards to teaching and teacher education (Shulman, Online, 2018).

So what has this got to do with flipped learning?

Flipped learning is a general concept developed by two high school teachers from Colorado called Jonathan Bergman and Aaron Sam’s living in the USA who utilised a bolt on to ‘Microsoft PowerPoint’ (2004) that allowed the teachers to annotate and embedded notes and audio to the presentations. These then could be used to facilitate the learning process to those who demographically couldn’t attend classes due to distance, those who became ill during the learning program. They coined the phrase, ‘pre-broadcasting’ and thus ‘flipping the classroom’ was born (Eighty Six, Online, 2014). Needless to say we have move on since then with a lot of organisations taking the concept and running with it, basically pre-loading learners with the course curriculum and allowing the pedagogy to unfold more in an ‘andragogic’ way than through a childlike ‘didactic’ pedagogy that tells learners what to learn. The breakup of traditional behaviourist learning paradigms into experiential ones is nothing new, Piaget (1934) and Vygotsky (1924) both developed theories and models that reviewed the use of a more ‘constructivist’ approach to learning, along with frameworks that allowed us to see what a learner could do without help and what they couldn’t do generally (Vygotsky, Online, 2011). My critique is based upon the concept of ‘flipped learning’ and using that as a basis for my critique I would like to look at the TPACK and iPAC model with this in mind. One of the first questions I would like to consider for the TPACK model is, ‘why are the circles so uniformed’? The use of a VENN (1880) diagram is a logical approach but the information is actually biased towards TPACK as the conclusion. In my analysis of the TPACK model there is no TPACK based on the fact that my diagram in relation to the ‘flipped learning’ approach wouldn’t require it. My three circles would never intersect in the same way that they do in the TPACK model. Intersections would occur in relation to CK (Content Knowledge) and TK (Technological Knowledge) at TCK (Technological Content Knowledge) and PK (Pedagogical Knowledge) and TK (Technological Knowledge) at TPK (Technological Pedagogical Knowledge) but CK (Content Knowledge) and PK (Pedagogical Knowledge) and TK (Technological Knowledge) would never dissect each other thus not enabling TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) at all. This new model reflects the ‘flipped learning’ paradigm as not requiring this knowledge, but still requiring TCK (Technological Content Knowledge) and TPK (Technological Pedagogical Knowledge).

Why??TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) is not relevant in the ‘flipped learning’ paradigm is because the nature of the pedagogy doesn’t require it. If we pre-load learners with information for the course they are assimilating the information and putting into practice what is an ‘andragogic’??learning paradigm that by its very nature relies upon the learner to create their own way and irrespective of TPACK. Essentially we don’t know exactly what each learner is going to do so we cannot determine the technological pedagogical approach in relation to the content that is being used or if it is used at all. We can assume some of TPK as we can predict that the learner has some technological knowledge and they can apply some form of pedagogy, if it is under their own volition, assuming an ‘andragogic’ process then it is a knowledge related to this pedagogy that has been formed to develop their learning concepts and results. We can also assume TCK is in play as they will need to possess technological knowledge and in relation to the content supplied and also content that they also derive from the process of learning autonomously (See,?Appendix 4).?

This leaves the TPACK Model pretty much redundant with the ‘flipped learner’ as it is a learning paradigm that is not reliant on technological driven content that forms the pedagogical nature of the curriculum. In fact in a flipped classroom or approach we cannot accurately define the pedagogy or the curriculum due its intrinsic nature. For example in traditional teaching planning we would devise lesson plans and a scheme of work that is very prescribed but we cannot lesson plan a flipped classroom session it is impossible. A flipped classroom type approach relies upon the learner creating their own internal lesson plan and also using any external ways of approaching their learning as they desire. In some flipped classroom approaches there is no teacher, there is no classroom and possibly no technology being used in the same way that a traditional classroom would use technology. How the learner presents the variables to their learning and the results also differs greatly from that of a traditional classroom and it could be that their peers assess the outputs not the teachers anyway. It could also be the case that their work is self assessed and that is the summative approach to their learning rather than any traditional norm or criterion based referencing response from a traditional learning environment, If this is the case what need is there for TPACK?

iPAC (2012) is a little more up-to-date in its assumptions, it suggesting by its very nature of mobile engagement to be more forward thinking and less dependant on TPACK. This makes sense as TPACK was born from Shulman (1982-1997) and TPACK was a concept that had to have all the key parameters, Technological,??Pedagogical, Content and Knowledge combined to make the learning relevant in this era. However iPAC was created through working with schools and classrooms in 2012 onwards and therefore reflects the paradigm shift from TPACK to a new way of looking at learning curricula and pedagogy.??Let’s look at the key concepts of iPAC, Authenticity, Collaboration and Personalisation all arranged in a Maslow (1943) type pyramid that can be dissected into three components rather than the Maslow trade mark layers. I think this design is indicative of the authors need to show the interactive elements between the disciplines and subsequent areas of engagement. How does iPAC relate to Bergman and Sams (2004) exposition with their PowerPoint add on? On analysis it does get closer to the flipped learning paradigm but what of the pedagogy related to flipped learning approaches. iPAC heralds the ‘authentic mobile learning pedagogy’ methodology very much centred exclusively on learning with any mobile device, iPhone, iPad etc. In turn there is a reporting tool that allows all concerned to review the use of learners technology and also their experiences using mobile tech (iPac, Online, 2018). iPAC authors refer to?Authenticity, Collaboration and Personalisation as, ‘Signature Pedagogies’, it then breaks down into seven sub-constructs. So it’s a mobile pedagogy, and if you analyse the sub constructs it fits into the ‘Andragogic’ (1980) learning paradigm, an autonomous world of interaction with tech. Where it falls down I think is in the presumption that the aims and objectives of any program associated with its new paradigm of mobile learning assumes that the learner or the learner’s peers establish the learning process. Furthermore, ‘the learning experience can be customised for the individual learner’?(iPac, Ibid). The latter iPAC statement fits into the?Bergman and Sams (2004) concept as that is exactly what they designed through PowerPoint and over distance a customised learning experience, but the child learner or a group of young learners creating their own pedagogy and aims and objectives and associated outcomes to me is not possible. To start with younger learners have a need to be told what to do in some respects and especially with technology, if that process of peer working, peer and self assessment is not managed carefully by the teacher then it can and does fall down. This is mainly because the ‘Andragogic’ principle and pedagogy cannot be established by a child, if it could then there would be no need for the child to go anywhere to learn they could sit there and work everything out themselves, or is this what iPAC pedagogy is proposing? Possibly in part if you give a child a mobile device but in practice the potential for and adult to interact with the process is high, and especially give that for socio-economic reasons the child hasn’t been introduced to any tech at an early age. So let’s take the first iPAC ‘Signature Pedagogy’, ‘Personalisation’ in relation to a flipped learning environment. I can find around seven methods that could tie in with a flipped learning paradigm;

1.???????Own place

2.???????Own pace

3.???????Convenience

4.???????Own way

5.???????Choice

6.???????Control

7.???????Self-assess

Within reason all these methods could be attributed to pre-loading young learners with information to direct their own exposition and develop their narrative response. The remaining methods cannot be attributed to the flipped learning paradigm due to their intrinsic nature that would put them outside that particular learning pedagogy. For the iPAC, Collaboration ‘Signature Pedagogy’, again I have attributed seven methods mainly due to the fact that the others tend to be repeated related concepts. Whilst all are potentially relevant to autonomous self directed learning over distance the key methods that would be related to a flipped learning environment are listed below;

1.???????Social interactivity

2.???????Learning from experts

3.???????Interactions (various)

4.???????F-2-F discussions (see 1)

5.???????Creativity

6.???????Exchange data (see 1)

7.???????Multi-modal literacy skills (see 1)

These above methods form the interactive aspects of the flipped learning pedagogy and could be attributed well to social media tools and interactions that would allow the learner to work peer-to-peer and assimilate their learning in this fashion. For example at ‘2’ this could presume video and knowledge transfer from various sources that could inform the learner. In fact most of the flipped learning environment for the learner would consist of method ‘1’ as a way o being creative and exchanging thoughts and ideas, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be in a mobile learning environment this could equally be experienced at a fixed point internet location with a non mobile machine.??Again with the ‘Authenticity’, ‘Signature Pedagogy’, I have chosen seven methods again that would be applicable to a flipped learning environment, see below;

1.???????Location

2.???????Practice

3.???????Personal

4.???????Participatory

5.???????Real world

6.???????Community

7.???????Context

These methods are clearly aligned to a flipped method of delivery and the most interesting is ‘6’ either a community of practice or a ‘community of enquiry’ situation that would allow the exploration of the learning concept via collaboration and in a real world context. However these methods do not necessarily have to be mobile methods to fit into the flipped learning paradigm as again a fixed point of learning could affect the same thing, especially via the internet on a fixed machine. Whilst the iPAC mobile pedagogy could be in some respects relevant to a flipped learning paradigm, I have highlighted the key areas that I think are applicable, see?Appendix 5. However I tend to think it all falls down based upon the use of self assessed and peer assessed learning environments that are not particularly relevant to Bergman and Sams (2004) original idea of augmenting technology to deliver the learning to those who had missed the session or else had boundaries to overcome with interacting at a fixed point location. But what the iPAC framework does do is allow us to see potentiality of ‘mobile signatures’ and how we could apply them into a flipped learning environment that could be directed and managed by the teacher so s to achieve the same result as Bergman and Sams did in 2004. What we cannot except from a flipped learning classroom of today is to expect the learning to occur by young learners unaided solely reliant on technology as a tool.

Prensky (2010) suggests that there is another curricula dimension to any framework and that is the ‘Partnering Pedagogy’ based on what learners want and using 21st?Century technology to do it (Prensky, 2010, p3). If we revisit TPACK (2015) as a framework possibly this ‘partnering pedagogy’ can be aligned with the framework, especially if we do not need TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) at all in 2018 in a flipped learning environment, so how would that look? At?Appendix 6,?I have made an addition to the TPACK framework adding the, PP (Partnering Pedagogy) to the framework thus creating PPACK (Partnering Pedagogical Content Knowledge). This makes more sense to the framework for a flipped learning environment to work within this model.??In the same respect in regards to iPAC (2012) the ‘collaboration’ section of the triangle would accommodate the ‘PP’ as this would further enhance this model to include those working with learners in various ways using social media and cloud based learning systems. I don’t think the Prensky (2010) ‘PP’ has been overlooked totally in the iPAC model but the framework does tend to be biased towards self and peer interactions that do not consider the ‘PP’ as a criterion. In fact as a framework iPAC doesn’t necessarily consider curriculum and pedagogy at all, yet it considers Knowles (1984) ‘Andragogic’ concepts that are rather adult in type. Maybe we need to redefine pedagogy as being told, and andragogy as doing the telling? Yet the original Greek meaning of the word pedagogy was ‘child-leading’ (Pappas, Online, 2013). So we have andragogy, man leading (Pappas, Ibid) and pedagogy, child leading, what then is the difference between the two if applied to the iPAC framework, in fact nothing if we look at the framework, both could be carried out by either. Yet we can apply Prenskys ‘PP’ easier to the TPACK framework and evolve it to PPACK easier than if we added it to the iPAC framework, why is this? iPAC seems to be a very liaise fair framework, rather like a pick and mix environment that allows you to define your pedagogy or indeed andragogy using a variety of tools and methods. But TPACK moving it away from the technological into the partnering paradigm allows technology and pedagogy to work in a way that a flipped learning environment did in Bergman and Sams original flipped learning scenario offering a technological input to the pedagogy that assisted there learners over distance using an updated tool in PowerPoint (2004). What Bergman and Sams created for their learners was a in fact a ‘PPACK’ framework that allowed the student learning to occur and succeed based upon their content knowledge and technological knowledge that assisted them. The iPAC framework as such cannot be that successful as a curriculum model as it doesn’t offer that partnering pedagogy or the content knowledge specific to the learner needs. Whilst it can be utilised to create, examine, explore and interact the basic principles of new media tools it cannot offer the pedagogical framework for the learners to succeed and for the learning process to be quantified without the additional content knowledge related to then pedagogy that would provide the learner outcomes to be met. In the case of Bergman and Sams they did just that using a PPACK framework they allowed their learners to still succeed irrespective of their boundaries and to meet the same aims and objectives that their peers did who had access to the normal route into learning.

What we can conclude further to this analysis is that TPACK (2015) as a framework is more or less redundant as a framework in 2018 as it is primarily focused on technology as the main driver of the pedagogy when in fact what does occur in 2018 is a more ‘partnering pedagogy’ akin to Prenskys (2010) concepts that are more valid, reliable and current for today’s technological savvy learners. The iPAC framework is an excellent exploratory framework that offers those involved in peer and self assessment the means and whereabouts to engage with technology in a way that is ultimately collaborative and forward thinking but is impeded by the lack of any ‘partnering pedagogy’ as such that doesn’t allow for the learners to be directed through the learning process to succeed without the ‘PP’ element being introduced. iPAC stands for , ‘Personalisation’, ‘Authenticity’ and ‘Collaboration’, if we introduced ‘PP’ and replace ‘Collaboration’ from the framework we end up with a new framework called ‘iPAP’ this transformed framework would allow for the ‘PP’ to move forward the collaborative aspects into a model that could be then more relate to the needs of a flipped learning environment that would allow for some management and direction of the learners using technology and the interactive collaborative process. After all whilst the flipped learning paradigm does really a lot on the original ‘iPAC’ framework it also requires a degree of management by those involved with the learners and this is reflected in the model ‘iPAP’ that is interactive, designed to use social media and cloud based applications but also to consider the partnering of learners with teachers, facilitators and other educators involved in the learning process.

2982

Reference List

Archives Jean Piaget, (2018).?https://archivespiaget.ch/fr/activites-scientifiques/conferences-jean-piaget/index.html ?Date accessed: 07.03.18

Eighty Six, (2014). The origins of Flipped Learning. [Internet]???https://www.brighthubeducation.com/education-industry/128706-origins-of-flipped-learning/ ??Date accessed: 07.03.18

iPAC, (2018).?https://www.mobilelearningtoolkit.com/ ?Date accessed: 08.03.18

MTTEP, (2015)??https://www.mttep.eu/ ?Date accessed: 06.03.18

Pappas, C. (2013). The adult learning theory andragogy of Malcolm Knowles.?https://elearningindustry.com/the-adult-learning-theory-andragogy-of-malcolm-knowles ?Date accessed: 08.03.18

Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching Digital Natives, Partnering for Real Learning, pg 3,19,22,20,33,44. Sage:USA

Shulman, L. (2018)?https://www.leeshulman.net/biography/ ?Date accessed: 07.03.18

Terrell, S. (2018)??7 Digital Learning Theories. [Internet]??https://teacherrebootcamp.com/2018/03/01/digitallearningtheoriesmodels/ ??Date accessed: 06.03.18

TPACK, (2018)??https://tpack.org/ ?Date accessed: 06.03.18

Vygotsky, L. (2011) Zone of Proximal Development. [Internet]?https://www.innovativelearning.com/educational_psychology/development/zone-of-proximal-development.html ?Date accessed: 07.03.18

Venn, J. (1880). VENN Diagrams.?https://www.cut-the-knot.org/LewisCarroll/dunham.shtml ??Date accessed: 07.03.18