A TPCMK Model as a Framework for Hybrid Teaching (Spring, 2008)
Li-chin (Crystal) Huang
University of Minnesota – Twin Cities
Abstract
This paper discusses the emerging trend of a course delivery format- the hybrid or blended/mixed model of teaching and learning. Based on the positive effects of this model which combine the best part of the pure online delivery and the traditional face-to-face practices, the paper takes a further step to explore a possible TPCMK framework (integration of pedagogical, content, technological and moral/ethical knowledge in the educational context) as a more comprehensive curricular and instructional guideline to enhance the designing and delivering of hybrid courses.
A TPCMK Model as a Framework for Hybrid Teaching
In his MegaTrends, Naisbitt (1982) points out a phenomenon regarding an inherent tension between “high touch” and “high tech.” As an instructor/online facilitator having a passion in engaging several types of delivery formats, Naisbitt’s remark provided a venue for me to reflect on my daily juggling between human contact and technological mediation in the educational setting.
Since its inception, information technology (IT) has been perceived as a double-edged sword. It provides a cost-effective and individualizing education that may save education from the unaffordable, ineffective and inefficient delivery and uncertain outcomes. On the other hand, IT is also perceived as a digital monster, dehumanizing and impersonalizing the educational and learning experience (Green, 2004). The conflicting views of high tech vs. high touch as well as searching for the solutions challenge many scholars, practitioners, policy makers and people at stake.
According to Alfred P. Sloan Foundation’s recent survey (2005) based on responses from over 1,000 colleges and universities found that over 1.9 million students were studying online in the fall of 2003, which grew to 2.6 million by the fall of 2004. Clearly the demand for the e-learning is on the rise. There are several socio-economic factors pushing a tide of adults coming back to college campuses for courses, certificates and degrees. These include the new demand of knowledge and skills to meet the changing society’s needs, the public policy making in regards to the cost-effectiveness of allocating budgets and resources, the demands on flexible, and efficient ways of learning in the fast paced post-modern life style, which make the life long learning is a necessity to thrive in the IT world. Such high demand of distance education is also witnessed by the exploding number of for-profit cultural enterprises targeting on potential consumers in the educational markets.
The benefits of e-learning to students are many, and the essential one is that it allows the flexibility to schedule around students’ already busy lives. This is particularly true in the non-traditional student population. Learners with fully loaded daily schedule – jobs/careers, children, family and social activities, or due to geographical barriers, online learning can be an ideal alternative to solve the problems. However, most online facilitators and administrators are aware that online (pure) courses are NOT for everybody or for all academic disciplines. Online facilitators reiterate that online courses work best for learners who are self-motivated and disciplined. They need to be focused and have good computer skills.
Thus, the desirable characteristics need to be weighed against a list of shortcomings including less authentically virtual information delivered in visual and verbal formats, missing of the dynamic atmosphere of classroom ecology, lack of the face-to-face socio-psychological proximity, and loosening up of self-discipline in effective leaning management that have been expressed via many online surveys from less satisfied or less successful online learners. The results as Hinterberger et al. (2004) point out, are that no matter how ingenious, interactive or innovative the virtual electronic learning environments can be, online alone cannot acquire the effective knowledge transference. Pure online learning is facing many challenges in providing the quality assurance of teaching and learning.
Green (2004) interprets Naisbitt’s high tech vs. high touch in this way, “Whenever new technology is introduced into society, there must be a counterbalancing human response that is, high touch or the technology is rejected” (Section 1). However, instead of the “either-or” option, a recurrent phenomenon shows that the education community is continuously searching for an efficient and effective teaching and learning instructional design and pedagogy that can absorb the best part of the above two worlds. Graham Spanier (2003), President of Penn State University, claims that hybrid instruction is the single greatest unrecognized trend in higher education today.
In this paper, the author reviewed a part of the current research on the effects of the hybrid model, and found a majority of supportive yet disparate results regarding hybrid teaching. Hence, a further step was taken to explore an integral TPCMK model to support the fledging hybrid teaching and learning method. In this model, T represents technology; P for pedagogy, C for contents, M for moral or ethical concerns, and K is as knowledge base. The model integrates the four knowledge bases into a holistic conceptual framework to guide the hybrid teaching and learning, which currently the author is involved with at her workplace.
The following sections examine the emerging hybrid trend and the relating research results. The origin of PCK and TPCK is introduced. Then, the author explains the possibility to integrate morality/ethics into the TPCK as a TPCMK model which can be a framework to scaffold her current hybrid course developing. Finally, three stages of integration and conclusion are discussed.
Examination of the Hybrid Model – The Best Part of the Two Worlds
What exactly is a hybrid course? How is it operated and delivered? What is the theoretical framework to support such a delivery format? How does it work in terms of assessing the teaching quality and learning outcomes? In a recent review of research on teaching online courses by Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006), they found little consistency of terminology used in electronic learning environment. Furthermore, few universities have written policies, guidelines, or technical support for faculty or students under such circumstances. As Spanier points out that the hybrid is an important yet unrecognized educational trend, Tallent-Runnels et al.’s abovementioned remarks about the amorphous conditions in the e-learning does depict the current hybrid teaching’s situations.
Being an emerging delivery format, one may find no consensus in the definition of a hybrid or blended/mixed course. But, an understanding from hybrid practices generates a generally acceptable definition by referring a hybrid course as “in which a significant portion of the learning activities have been moved online,” a combination of traditional classroom and Internet instruction (Garnham & Ketela, 2002).
In the literature review, researchers (Hugenberg & Moyer, 1997; Bolding, 1999; Leh, 2002; Schrum and Hong, 2002; Young, 2002; Matthews, 2003; Twigg, 2004) compared various delivery formats and found that most research supported the effectiveness and efficiency in hybrid model. Another body of research reveals that hybrid courses replace classroom time with online learning and offer instructors both big advantages and big risks (Garanham et al., 2003). Rare conclusions drawn from comparative research found the negative effects of hybrid teaching and learning. In Reasons et al.’s (2005) research results demonstrate that the internet-based format could possibly lead to better student outcomes compared to face-to-face and hybrid formats. They also point out that the hybrid format seems likely to be used in most courses.
Currently, only two educational institutions, University of Central Florida and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, have conducted comprehensive investigations of hybrid course effectiveness (Gould et al., 2003). Both in-depth case studies confirmed the hybrid students performed better in writing, projects and engaging in meaningful discussion than those of the traditional classroom students (Garnham & Kaleta, 2002; Gould et al., 2003. p. 57). In addition, both studies recognized the powerful effects of the model’s flexibility and pedagogical effectiveness. The instructors stated that the hybrid experience would change their approach to all of their future teaching, whether in a traditional, hybrid or distance education class., as one of the instructors put it, "Hybrid gives me the best of both worlds" (Garnham & Ketela, 2002).
As an instructor/facilitator, the daily experiences with both positive and undesirable aspects of pure online and traditional face-to-face delivery demand a search for a more effective method in teaching. As a fledging delivery method, the hybrid model is of great research interest to many scholars, practitioners, educational institutions, and policy makers. Currently, four hybrid courses from my Department will be available for the coming fall semester. Having been part of the developer team, the author has great concerns in designing the hybrid model. The various issues will be discussed in the following section which leads to the searching for a more comprehensive framework as the developing guidance.
A large body of literatures focuses on the pragmatic concerns as part of the justification of the model’s existence, such as solving the complex budgetary and enrollment growth issues (Hinterberger et al., 2003, p. 58). However, if hybrid is to be viewed as an alternative mode to maximize resources and student learning, it needs a holistic framework that can harvest from the existing educational theories and practices. These established knowledge, such as (1) PCK (Schulman, 1987) model - an integrated knowledge base of pedagogy and contents, and (2) its extended model of TPCK (Keating et al., 2001) – an integrated knowledge base of technology, pedagogy, and contents, as well as an increased concern for moral or ethical issues both in the cyber and traditional learning environment that calls for many stakeholders’ attention. To equip hybrid as important instructional delivery and curricular design, the author investigates a possibility of integrating the aforementioned knowledge bases into the TPCMK - the integral knowledge of pedagogy, content, technology, morality/ethics as a framework for the hybrid teaching and learning.
Many researchers point out the flexibility, pedagogical effectiveness, student learning enhancement and so on positive effects of hybrid teaching. But the fragmented outcomes of specific protocols, or objectives within certain experimenting projects lack of a holistic guideline. There is no integral or common ground as a conceptual framework to support hybrid teaching and learning. Thus, the author constructs a larger scaffold-TPCKM model, which was originated from Schulman’s knowledge bases for educators– the PCK model. The other part of this frame was inspired by the moral or ethical vocabulary of Sockett and LePage’s research (2002). The last component is based on the author’s understanding of learning technology.
The TPCMK model As Hybrid Teaching and Learning Framework
The TPCMK model – integrated knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and content, can be an appropriate conceptual framework for many other delivery formats. But the author recognizes it as an ideal model matching many demands of a hybrid course: face-to-face plus computer-based teaching and learning.
Schulman points out seven categories of the knowledge base that underlie the teacher understanding needed to promote comprehension among students (1987, p. 8). Sockett and LePage reiterate the importance of moral education to encourage teachers to envision classrooms as moral rather than technical arenas (2002, p, 14). They urge teachers to use moral vocabulary in the daily teaching and learning activities.
The original TPCK model was proposed by range of scholars who have argued that that knowledge about technology cannot be treated as context-free, and that good teaching requires an understanding of how technology relates to the pedagogy and content. These include Hughes, Keating & Evans, Lundeberg, Bergland, Klyczek & Hoffman, Neiss, Margerum-Leys & Marx, and Zhao (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
The moral or ethical issues extend the abovementioned concerns due to the inundated information and technology in both face to face and online environments. At the individual level, cyber legalities in terms of freedom, in particular, relating to the 1st Amendment, cyber proper conducts and criminality (such as plagiarism, intellectual property rights/copy rights, Internet Security, fair and open usage; FERPA etc.) compose a vast amount of moral and ethical knowledge and practices that need to be addressed in both in face-to-face and online classes. At the societal level, information technology widens the social inequality. The omnipresence of the digital divide (Carvin, 2000) - the gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard to their opportunities to access information and communication technologies and to their use of the internet for a wide variety of activities is a contributor to inequality. This phenomenon makes the concepts of justice and equity a moral imperative in the midst of teaching and learning no matter in the face to face or online environments. Thus it is an important aspect to address and integrate the moral/ethical components into the TPCK as TPCMK.
The term “integration”, Hughes (2004) refers to the capacity of educators who understand, consider, and choose to use different knowledge bases only when they uniquely enhance the curriculum, instruction, and students’ learning. The integration can happen in the basic format, such as replacing an old technique, content, or pedagogy with a new one both in face-to- face and online environment. The next step is to magnify or enhance the functions of the original techniques, contents, or pedagogies. The last stage is transformation which generates a holistically integral of teaching and learning outcomes. The following section presents the three stages of integration.
Stage I – Specific knowledge base
At this stage, each base is a discrete unit of knowledge:
General institutionalized process knowledge- the materials (e.g., curricular, textbooks, finance) and the contextual settings of the school, community, and related organizations (Schulman, 1987, p. 9).
Pedagogical knowledge- the wisdom of carrying out the instructional objectives. It is the special province of teachers. It is the special form of professional understanding tied to broad principles and strategies in both online and on-ground teaching that transcends subject matters.
Content knowledge-the scholarship in content disciplines, such as content syntactic structure, and substantive structures (Grossman, 1990, p.5).
Technological knowledge-this knowledge is about standard technologies such as books and chalk and blackboard, as well as digitally or electronically based technologies relating to computer and Internet. This would involve with knowledge and skills associated with hardware and software required to operate particular technologies (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Moral/ethical knowledge- formally or informally attentive to the teaching and learning activities related to the issues of justice, equality, fairness, honesty, integrity, and Constitutionality in both online and face-to-face setting. Lickona (1991) identified the following facets of character education (for K-12) programs to assist teaching of character values within the school curricula:
1) a high expectation for responsible behavior
2) a process for implementing positive values when making decisions
3) visual reinforcement of character values to keep students focused on the words,
concepts and behaviors
4) a school culture that fosters positive peer recognition and empowers all members of the school community to exemplify behaviors consistent with respect and responsibility
5) parent, student and community involved in decision making of the character education programs.
Research suggests that teachers with high levels of moral professionalism have a deep sense of obligation to help students learn and to demonstrate their moral professionalism. However, some researches show that the value of compulsory ethics education as an intervention to improve the moral reasoning could be questionable (Netherlands, 2004).
Stage II-integrating more than two knowledge bases
At this level of integration, two or more knowledge bases are synergized to enhance the curriculum, instruction, and students’ learning. The term synergy refers to the phenomenon in which two or more discrete knowledge bases acting together create an effect greater than the predicted outcomes.
1. Pedagogical content integration (PCK)- conceptions of purposes for teaching subject
matter including knowledge of students’ understanding, curricular knowledge, and
knowledge of instructional strategies. Schulman (1987) points out that PCK represents
the amalgamation of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular
topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse
interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction (p. 8).
Pedagogical content technological integration (TPCK) – this is the capability of negotiating relationships among pedagogy, content, and technology that represents a form of expertise different from and greater than, the knowledge of a disciplinary expert, a technology expert, and a pedagogical expert. Effective technology integration for pedagogy around specific subject matter requires developing sensitivity to the dynamic, transactional relationship between all three components (Hughes, 2004).
Stage III – comprehensive knowledge based integration
At this stage, the pedagogical, content, technological, and moral/ethical knowledge
(TPCKM) would be integrated with the general educational or contextual knowledge. The genuine transformation of technology, pedagogy, content, and moral/ethical element happens at this stage. To provide integrated PCTKM to students could be perceived as the optimal goal of educators.
Conclusion and Discussion
In contemporary fast-paced societies, diverse learners throughout the world are demanding educational opportunities and quality assurance in an “anytime and anywhere” formats. Both public and private institutions are responding with ingenuity and devotion to meet such needs. Through last decades’ practice, both the traditional face-to-face and pure online learning have demonstrated their merits and weakness. In searching for the best features of these two main approaches, the hybrid model emerges as an alternative method. Via thoughtful curricular and instructional design the hybrid model addresses to a variety of learning styles in a wide range of formats. The ultimate goal of hybrid courses is to combine the best quality of face-to-face teaching with the best practices of online learning to promote active, ethical, and independent learning.
As an emerging trend, it is time to search for and construct a conceptual framework to support the future development. This PCTMK integration is such an attempt. Being at the starting point, the author recognizes the tremendous challenges and difficulties involved in each stage of implementation. At current stage, the framework at least can serve as a moral guideline in pursuing the optimal goals of teaching and learning. To materialize such framework requires great endeavors to reify each component’s condition, process, and procedure regarding when, how, who, what and where to make the integrations happening and functioning in the educational setting.
References
Bolding, K. (1999). A hybrid distance-learning/face-to-face class experiment. Paper presented in
the 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE. Retrieved December 5, 2006 from
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=841571
Carvin, Andy. (2000). Beyond Access: Understanding the Digital Divide, NYU Third Act
Conference, Communications: Policy & Practice. Retrived Jan 15, 2007 from
http://www.benton.org/Divide/thirdact/speech.html
Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002) Introduction to Hybrid Courses. Teaching with Technology
Today. 8(6), 13-15. Retrieved December 5, 2006 from
http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/garnham.htm
Green, K (2004), High touch, high tech, hybrid. Retrieved Dec 5. 2006, from
http://www.convergemag.com/Publications/CNVGMar00/DigTweed/DigitalTweed.shtm.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hinterberger, H., Fässler L., Bauer-Messmer, B. (2004, September 27-30) From hybrid courses
to blended learning: a case study. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on New
Educational Environments (ICNEE), University of Neuchatel, Switzerland.
Hughes, J. (2004). Technology learning principles for preservice and inservice teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. 4(3)
Hughes, J. E. & Scharber, C. (In preparation.) TPCK in English education. In Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) as an Integrative Framework for Teaching and
Teacher Education. Monograph by AACTE's Committee on Innovation and Technology.
“Hybrid Courses Advantages.” Hybrid Course Web Site. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Retrieved Dec.6, 2006 from http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/LTC/hybrid-courses-advantages.html
Keating, T., & Evans, E. (2001). Three computers in the back of the classroom: Pre-service
teachers’ conceptions of technology integration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Reasons, S, Valadares, K, Slavkin, M. (2003) “Questioning the hybrid model: student outcomes
indifferent course formats.” Journal of Asynchronous Networks.
Gould, T. (2003). Hybrid class: maximizing institutional resources and student learning. Paper
presented at the 2003 ASCUE Conference. Retrieved December 8, 2006 from
http:// www.ascue.org.
Lickona, T. (1991) A Character Education Primer. Retrieved December 5, 2006 from
http://www.wilderdom.com/Character.html#Lickona1991#Lickona1991
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2006). TPCK. Retrieved December 6, 2006 from
http://tpck.pbwiki.com/
Netherlands, S. (2000). Ethics education and the cognitive moral development of salespeople: a
quasi-experimental assessment. Journal of Business Ethics. 28(3), 188-277.
Schrum, L., Hong, S. (2002) Dimensions and strategies for online success: voices from
experienced educators. JALN, 6(1), pp,57-68
http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v6n1/v6n1_schrum.asp
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Sockett, H. & LePage, P. (2002). The missing language of the classroom. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 18(2), 159-171.
Tallent-Runnels, M., Thomas, J., Lan, W., and Cooper S. (2006) “ Teaching courses online: A
review of the research” Review of Educational Research,.76(1), 93-135.
University of Wisconsin Learning Technology Center’s Hybrid Course Project Website.
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/LTC/hybrid.html
Young, Jeffrey. (2002) “Hybrid teaching seeks to end divide between traditional and online
Instruction.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 28, 2002
fromhttp://chronicle.com/free/v48/I28/28a03301.htm
