Skip to main content

Frameworks

These modules were developed following Lee and Hannafin’s “Own It, Learn It, Share It” framework and Mishra and Koehler’s “Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge” framework. Whereas the Own It, Learn It, Share It framework is focused on designing learning experiences, TPACK visually conceptualizes how instructors are able to create high-quality learning experiences by blending content with appropriate technologies and pedagogical strategies within a specific context. From those models, Drs. Cherner, Dickerson, and Fegley merged those frameworks into a sequence that informed the creation of these design thinking modules. The following sections will first provide additional information about the frameworks and then offer a description for how these modules were designed.

The “Own It, Learn It, Share It” Framework

As explained by Lee and Hannain, the “Own It, Learn It, Share It” framework’s purpose is to emphasize that students must own the content, skill, or topic of the lesson by being able to connect to it. Next, they learn the content, skill, or topic by incorporating direct instruction that may include specific terminology, concepts, and models in addition to students monitoring their own thinking, or metacognition, about the content, skill, or topic. Finally, the share it provides students with an opportunity to express their learning to a larger audience, which will ideally result in the audience providing them feedback.

Technological, Content, and Pedagogical Framework

Image of TPACK

A seminal feedback originally develop by Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler, TPACK builds on Shulman’s (1986, 1987) originalwork about pedagogical content knowledge. In brief, Shulman explained that teachers must have deep knowledge of their content and instructional strategies to effectively lead a lesson. About 20 years later, Mishra and Koehler added technology to Shulman’s concept of pedagogical content knowledge to create TPACK, and they argued that teachers must have deep knowledge of technology if they are to integrate technology into their instruction. (One article that particularly resonates with these modules on design thinking are Mishra and Koehler’s (2007) proceedings titled “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the Wicked Problems of Teaching with Technology” that were prepared for their presentation at the Society of Information Technology and Teacher Education conference held in San Antonio, Texas.) Since then, TPACK has become very influential in both the educational research community along with practitioners, and tpack.org has emerged as a valuable resource. Whether blending technology into face-to-face classes or designing fully online courses, TPACK provides educators and designers with conceptualization of the interconnectedness between content, pedagogy, and technology that is needed for developing high-quality learning experiences for students.

Design Thinking Modules

These modules utilized the “Own It, Learn It, Share It” framework and TPACK to inform both their instructional design and how technology was blended with content and strategies to engage students in Design Thinking. In addition, when developing these modules, the designers took up researchers’ recommendations (Swan 2002, You, 2016) for ensuring consistency in the structure of the modules along with having clear performance and learning expectations. When looking across these modules, you will notice that they all follow a chronological pattern of:

  1. Providing an overview of and expectations for the module;
  2. Activating student schema about the module using FlipGrid;
  3. Offering a piece of content – text, image, video, podcast, etc. – about the topic;
  4. Assessing student engagement of the content via an activity; and,
  5. Individualizing instruction for students by having them develop an idea using Design Thinking across modules.

By developing this pattern, it supports students in knowing what to expect, so they could focus their cognition on engaging the content and completing the activities. In addition, it allowed the instructors to choose a variety of edtech for these modules based on their functionalities. For example, a piece of edtech used to deliver content has a substantially different functionality than edtech designed to create a learning artifact (Cherner, Dix, & Lee, 2014). In this way, the pattern allowed the instructors to be more effective in utilizing the edtech while also supporting student learning through consistency.

References

Cherner, T., Dix, J., & Lee, C. (2014). Cleaning up that mess: A framework for classifying educational apps. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 158-193.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 707-734.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007, March). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2214-2226). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.

Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49.

You, J. W. (2016). Identifying significant indicators using LMS data to predict course achievement in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 23-30.