TQ#1

Although, the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) framework contrasts the ideals discussed in Jonassen, et al's discussion of Meaningful Learning, they both attempt to achieve the same result of successful integration of technology into the classroom. Throughout both works, two significantly different approaches are discussed. The one common denominator that is continually emphasized is the fact that technology alone is not the answer to a successful and fruitful learning environment. As Jonassen stated, "Technologies are lousy teachers but they can be powerful tools to think with." (p. 10)

Koehler & Mishra have a very structured and methodical view into the complexity of integrating technology in the classroom. The understanding of three key concepts (content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge) are integral to the writers' theories about how technology works and fails in the classroom. They discuss these concepts in depth, and describe the necessity to understand and grasp the knowledge behind all of the concepts in order to merge them into a balanced plan, and achieve an effective learning experience. In the TPCK framework, detailed analysis and assessment of the content, the method of teaching, and the integration of technology are essential. After reading this text, I questioned what the role of the student was in this framework.

Jonassen, et al has an approach that promotes clever and original ways to aid learning in the classroom. They also discuss some key concepts important to their theories, which include active, constructive, cooperative, authentic and intentional activities. (p. 2) With this strategy, teachers are encouraged to think outside the box and find inventive ways to use technology as a tool or resource to engage students in the learning process. Students are given the opportunity to think for themselves and "foster meaningful learning" (p. 8) through the uses of technology. The focus on meaningful learning also stresses the importance of sharing knowledge in a group or social setting. This allows the students the opportunity to express different perspectives on the topics being discussed, and learn not only from their teachers, but also from their peers.

The primary difference I observed in these readings is the focus of information. Koehler and Mishra emphasize best practices to share complex knowledge, while Jonassen, et al looks at the student and how they interpret the methods used to pass on the knowledge. Both seem to be important pieces to consider when deciding which methods and tools are best in different environments. In a scenario where it is important for everyone to grasp certain knowledge and information, the TPCK framework would work well with its structured and specific methods of teaching. However, this theory may not be successful in an environment where creativity and opinions facilitate learning rather than a single solution. The concepts from Jonassen, et al would be better suited for something of that nature. Ultimately, technology can be applied and assist in many scenarios, but in much different ways.

Without having much experience in the educational realm, a lot of what is described in these works is quite foreign to me. However, I think everyone can identify in one way or another with what these authors are discussing. With my primary experience being in the technical field, the use of technology to teach as well as learn is a common theme in my day. Theories such as these can assist with teaching and learning by way of technology if approached correctly. It is important to not only consider the content when deciding how to teach, but you must also consider the audience, and the different ways in which people learn.