I have to shamefully admit that I have never heard of the TPACK framework until now. I am sure that I am not alone in this course who had eureka moments and found themselves nodding in realization in identifying that the use of Youtube in their classes already has a name in theoretical education.
In my personal point of view, I can see a few implications of the usage of the internet (TPK) at my school where I teach. For those who wanted to know, I teach reading to toddlers here in Manila. Our school caters to very young but technologically exposed learners. In seeing them begin or grow into their big schools (transitioning from a preschool to formal education), I
have had a few observations how their iPads too big for their hands had influenced the knowledge they bring into our classrooms, and into their kindergarten schools.
I have encouraged the teachers to use videos in teaching reading and comprehension to our young ones, especially in attempting to teach difficult to explain concepts such as this book we have about Paris (some of them have never been to Paris, or even if they have, they don’t know what Paris is. “Teacher, is Paris food?”), or where you need a bug hut for
(someone asked me why would you need to make a home for insects when they are, apparently, “yucky”). So useful, yet, what are the positive and negative implications of the internet?
I have divided them into two as I have seen how it can be a double edged sword. In our context, there are:
1. Con- extremely shortened attention spans
2. Con- increased demands of high- end, top- shelf wants such as expensive toys and figures
3. Con- addiction to visuals that promote unrelated lessons, borderline obnoxious
4. Pro- high technological knowledge
5. Pro- students can travel outside our classrooms thru videos
6. Pro- interesting class format
7. Pro- social tool in making the students more well rounded and in contextualizing our
A negative effect of exposing students to Youtube is somehow an observed correlation of short attention span in children. They start craving dynamic visuals and loud audios instead of sitting down in a quiet corner to quaintly open a book in peace. Young children also see all sorts of new and expensive toys on website advertisement and I think it can encourage materialism. Addiction to attractive and slapstick humor that are available on the internet also makes a lot of students
trade informational videos to one that don’t really have intrinsic value except being “silly- funny”.
There are definitely good things that come out of using videos in class, such as a sense of informational technolgy at an early age. The pupils can also “travel” outside the class through videos that are rich in experiences and being able to create a vicarious learning atmosphere, which makes for a more interesting class. Lastly, we teachers strive to plan our video- added lessons accordingly to shape the computer as a social tool to let them contextualize the abstract concepts in their heads.
Although in no way we encourage nor foster a computer-culture in our lessons by giving them freedom to use the electronic resources in school (or outside, for that matter), there is an unavoidable effect that we are possibly making them think that Youtube-ing is without limitations. Anyway a teacher uses it, there is always danger that the learners might misinterpret this as a good tool as long as you know how to click and play. Number one hazard is since it is easy to use, Youtube can offer children easy access to anything.
An informed and responsible utilization of technology as a lesson tool is the whole point of the TPACK. Its theoretical framework posits that if teachers meet the required knowledge base of a rich TK, PK and CK and the merger of the three, then effective teaching should take place. As far as our school goes, we try to continually discover the correct synthesis of the TPACK in order to foster the more positive implications it creates and mitigate the bad.