TPACK Part 2: ODE implications

Elevator tale: this post tries to place TPACK in an ODE context. ODE works best when design is consistent, creative, collaborative, and comprehensive across the student tuition experience. These suggest a team-based approach to TPACK, involving specialist TEL and learning design roles working with subject experts. This teamwork often leads to tensions, which might be managed through a sound design methodology (such as Agile).

In the previous post I provided an overview of TPACK and noted that "The goal for all TEL practitioners and online educators is the nirvana of TPACK, where Technology, Pedagogy And Content Knowledge all synergise into an optimal learning experience for the student." In this post I want to suggest how that nirvana might be reached in online and distance education (ODE) contexts.

It's important to begin with a description of the main elements of the online and distance context of practice. Four foundational principles for effective online distance education are, in my view, consistency, creativity, collaborative design, and comprehensive fit.

• Consistency: A meta-view of student success and feedback indicates the importance of design standards related to such things as technology interfaces, feedback levels, workload, and learning activity design. Importantly I'm not trying to imply any sense of conformity in design here, just consistency as students advance from one course or module to the next. The Open University's ICEBERG model is the sort of thing I mean; a baseline standard of how things work and how they're designed, so students are not unnecessarily given a variety of ways of doing things as they go from course to course. 
• Creativity: As hinted at above, mindless conformity to a set of design standards is not the goal. Creative, or transformative (Modified and Redefined approaches in terms of SAMR) design is important if online education is to realise its true potential. In some very earlier work with a colleague, we suggested using a 'core and custom' framework combining the concepts of consistency and creativity.

• Collaborative design: Distance education has long linked education or learning designers with the expertise of academics, typically also including the expertise of media designers, editors, and various other professionals (including, at the Open University, TEL designers). It is exceptionally difficult for teachers to develop expertise across the three elements of TPACK, attested to by Rienties et al (2013) in their paper, "Online training of TPACK skills of higher education scholars, a cross-institutional impact study". While it's very desirable to have teaching staff further develop their ability to apply TPACK, overall such development is patchy.
• Comprehensive fit: Somewhat related to consistency is the requirement for learning materials to fit snugly within a student support and tuition (tutorial) function. So, the role of the online distance tutor should be validated by and add value to the learning materials - and the learning materials themselves properly anticipate the support and tutorial role. In other words, it's not solely about materials design; it's about how the overall educational experience is designed. This relates somewhat to the systems approach advocated by various authorities on distance education, such as Moore and Kearsley. 

No doubt there are others; these four will do to help for illustration. By way of further background, two things I have found extremely useful in my own thinking about online distance education (ODE) are:

1. Realising the differences between a lecture-based and resource-based approach to tuition. 
2. Differentiating between teaching and the teacher when it comes to online and distance learning.

The differences between lecture-based and resource-based tuition is introduced in chapter six of a UNESCO book, and explains why learning design is so important for online and distance education. The second is in a teaching and learning strategy I developed while with Open Polytechnic, which explained how teaching in ODE involves the effort of a range of roles that influence student outcomes, including educational designers, tutorial staff, some support staff activity, and academic staff. However, the teacher has a particular and central part to play in terms of developing materials that reflect the voice of the subject they are expert in, and providing the academic integrity required for formal education. This observation is reflected very well in the TPACK framework, provided you accept that there is nothing inherent in the framework that means only one individual's expertise is represented across it.

I mentioned last post that the Context element of the framework is a critical one. So, if I were to apply TPACK to an ODE context, I'd suggest that it reflect the tension that exists when TEL and learning designers (or perhaps the same role) combine their expertise with that of academics/teachers in designing an ODE learning experience. In an early paper with a colleague, we suggested that part of this tension arises from a clash in cultures - a clash best resolved by adopting a collaborative process that reflects the expertise and valuable contribution made by all participants.

From a TPACK perspective, I'd suggest that a TEL or learning designer contributes a broad knowledge of how Technology and Pedagogy might combine toward effective learning. Those particularly worth their salt will also be able to draw on evidence-based, subject-specific approaches that tend into the Content Knowledge space. It's also good practice to try to match a TEL or learning designer to projects that reflect their own Content Knowledge background. In a complimentary way, the Subject Matter Expert (SME) or Academic brings considerable Content Knowledge, and frequently a good grounding in Pedagogy (remembering that Pedagogy as a term represents a rather substantial area of Content Knowledge in its own right). Many also have a good Technology understanding - but, even should a single SME or Academic have the full TPACK, there are still the 4C elements mentioned above. In an ODE context, no single course is an island. So, a TEL or learning designer might also take responsibility for ensuring the integrity of design as it aligns with a consistent student experience - taking responsibility for the all-important Context element.

A collaborative TEL context for TPACK

There are many benefits to this approach. Firstly, multiple roles provide a rich foundation for sharing the load of expertise, and for generating custom, innovative ideas; this is shown in the diagram above as the "Collaboration zone". Second, if TEL or learning designers take responsibility for the 4C elements, the SME or Academic is freed up to provide their subject's voice rather than become mired in institutional system requirements and minimum standards. Third, it recognises that each element of TPACK is its own area of professional activity and expertise.

Of course, it all works provided the inherent tension of such a model is acknowledged and catered for. Part of this is getting the right perspective on what all experts bring to a TPACK activity; most, I'm convinced, relies on setting up ways for teams to work effectively together. Agile, anyone...?