Technology's Role in Field Experiences for Preservice Teacher Training and TPACK Reflection

Technology's Role in Field Experiences for Preservice Teacher Training Reflection

It is stated that the purpose of this paper "is to provide a comprehensive review of how technology has been used to enhance and sometimes replace field experiences in preservice teacher education programs, and discuss the benefits and limitations of both traditional and technology-enhanced/virtual field experience approaches." I am going to first say that I believe there is a place in the classroom for technology, but I don't agree that technology should entirely replace every aspect of the classroom. Nor do I agree that Type II and Type III, which I will delve into later, should be the only Types for student teachers to experience.

This paper has made excellent points when it stated, "A concern is that students are not taking an active role in developing, processing, and reflecting on their field experiences" whether technology simulators are in place or not. To help you understand, there are three Types of technology-enhanced field experiences, Type I being "concrete, direct experience in reality," Type II being "vicarious, indirect experience with reality," and Type III being "abstract, experience with model of reality." To further explain, Type I involves preservice teachers to observe strictly in traditional classrooms with real teachers and real students and getting to involve with them in a "live" manner. Type II experiences allow "preservice teachers to gain vicarious experiences by remotely observing teachers and students in real classrooms." Students undergoing this type of preservice experience have said that they are able to observe various teaching strategies, while students of Type I experiences are not able to. However, Type II students commented that they didn't feel as connected with their students and teacher as they have only ever made contact with them through a camera and that may make both parties behave differently. Type III field experiences involve simulated classrooms. While a major benefit of this type of classroom is that students and teachers can reflect and comment on shared experiences. 

"Providing preservice teachers with opportunities to observe and interact with classroom environments, real or simulated, is critically important to educating high quality, well-prepared teachers. While technology's role in relation to field experiences is still being explored, it is important to identify the potential benefits of technology's use that have already been documented." We are lucky to be in an area that has so much diversity because we do not have to rely on Types II and III to be able to experience diverse students. However, through the technologies of Types II and III, students that are not as fortunate as we are have the option to observe diverse environments. My article never mentioned that in Type I classrooms, preservice teachers could use cameras to record how they interact with the classroom's students, as well as how they teach in front of the class. Regardless of that, by using video-based observations and simulators, students and teachers are able "to view field-training sessions of their classmates and provide constructive feedback to each other." Furthermore, "preservice teachers who used a video case-based curriculum engaged in deeper reflection more specifically focused on student thinking. The video cases seem to promote an 'ability to recognize subtle differences in student thinking by providing an opportunity to compare student thinking across and within the cases. . . preservice teachers were able to shift their focus on reflection from superficial features of classroom management to pedagogical issues." Student teachers that are able to transform their way of thinking from superficial to pedagogical is only going to be beneficial to their students, and to their career. 

Types I, II, and III of technology-enhanced field experiences have the ability to better help preservice teachers prepare for their careers. I agree that each Type has its pros and its cons, but I believe that if there was a way to integrate each Type of technology-enhanced field experiences into a college student's experience while they're still in school will only be beneficial and crucial to how well they develop into an influential and an impactful teacher.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge

Technology is not going away and there is no arguing that it has a place in the classroom; therefore, our main concern as educators is how we can best implement technology into our classrooms and make it "give our everyday classroom efforts direction and meaning." In relation to my above article, it is not only important for technology to be in the classroom, but it should be used in a beneficial way, as should subject matter. When it comes to technology, and subject matter, both should be "transformed for teaching. This occurs when the teacher interprets the subject matter and finds different ways to represent it and make it accessible to learners" AKA differentiating instruction! We've been learning about differentiating our instruction since day one so that we are able to reach all of our students, not just our top students, or just our bottom students.

To quote Shulman, PCK should hold "the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations--in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others." In an effort to appease every student's needs, technology should be brought into the classroom to aid this effort. Shulman lived in an era where technology was not as apparent as it is today, but nonetheless, technology was never unimportant in his PCK viewpoint. If you are able to make your "most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations" more accessible to your students, then by golly, DO IT! 

The three types, PK, CK, and TK should not be treated as different entities, but should be integrated, correlated, and taught together. It is, however, crucial, to understand how each part of TPACK stands alone (Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Technology Knowledge, Technological Content Knowledge, Technological Pedagogical Knowledge, and Technological Pedagogical [and] Content Knowledge).

In order for teachers to be effective with TPACK, they need to be trained in technology. I feel like my generation has a step up over the teachers that have been teaching for at least ten years. This article states that we should be trained in how to use technology, which holds true for the older generation teachers or for the teachers that are prone to changing. I'm definitely not against learning about, and going to workshops, regarding educational apps, or even learning how to push the envelope with PowerPoint, Flash, iMovie, Websites for students and for teachers, and HTML links just to name a few!

I believe that this article did an amazing job at showing how versatile TPACK is and how it is constantly being researched so that educators are constantly adjusting to society and the ever evolving ways of technology! TPACK "brings together the pragmatic and the theoretical, the practical and the abstract" and Design suggests that. This framework can drive curriculum so that it is pedagogical, not just superficial, bringing my above article full circle.