MX-TPaCK: A Conceptual Framework for Leading and Learning Amidst the Complexities of a Multimodal Learning Landscape?
Concurrent Session 6
Brief Abstract
This presentation introduces the MX-TPaCK framework, adapting Mishra and Koehler (2006) TPaCK, adding metaliteracy knowledge, and MX-TPaCK as a reflexive tool for educational leaders to identify the networks of faculty and non-faculty educators required to achieve learning innovation. Analysis of students’ GPAs following faculty development provides a case for discussion.
Extended Abstract
Topic
Building on Mishra and Koehler (2006) technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPaCK) framework, this presentation proposes repositioning Mishra (2019) introduction of context knowledge (XK) and the addition of Mackey and Jacobson (2011) construct of metaliteracy as a fifth knowledge (MK) to reimagine TPaCK as the metaliteracy, context, technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (MX-TPaCK) framework to illustrate the complex and interconnected networks of knowledges and systems necessary for learner centered teaching and learning innovation in our multimodal higher education landscape.
This presentation will foster discussion of the potential for MX-TPaCK as a reflexive tool to support leaders in Higher Education in identifying the knowledges and expertise necessary to implement learning intervention and innovation in their given context and support the formation of inter-disciplinary guiding coalitions and teams of faculty and non-faculty educators (Kim & Maloney, 2020) to inform strategic decision making, allocating scarce resources, and restructuring divisions, units, and academic programs. Secondly, MX-TPaCK will be presented as a conceptual model for faculty development to prepare faculty to integrate a learning intervention or innovation into their teaching practice.
This presentation will explore the uniqueness of designing experiences for faculty learners who are unique adult learners in that they are experts and expert learners. While discipline experts, they may be less inclined to recognize how their expertise, now part of their tacit knowledge, may make it difficult for them to recognize how they make expert mental moves that are not evident to their novice or beginner students (Middendorf & Shopkow, 2017). Additionally, as content experts, they possess varying levels of metaliteracy (ML) and are the experts in content knowledge (CK) as well as the contextual knowledge (XK) specific to their course, students, and positioning within their academic program. However, they may not have the same level of expertise or metaliteracy (ML) in technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) or pedagogical knowledge (PK) specific to culturally relevant teaching and/or learning science.
To provide a concrete example, a case study will be presented from a faculty institute that occurred during Summer 2022 to prepare faculty teaching 100 and 200 level quantitative reasoning courses with historically high drop, withdrawal, failure, and incomplete rates (DWFI) to integrate the intervention of an Embedded Peer Educator (EPE) (i.e. peer tutor) into their instructional routine at a four-year, Bachelors and Masters degree granting, Hispanic serving (HSI), public university. While Fall 2022 is the first time student academic achievement, measured by end of term course grade (Course GPA) could be collected to compare students enrolled in courses with no EPE or prepared faculty, just an EPE and no prepared faculty, and having both an EPE and prepared faculty, preliminary qualitative data as well as linear regression analysis suggest this approach to faculty development was both motivitating to faculty participants and had a statistically significant (p=0.020) impact on increasing students’ GPAs (coefficient 0.182).
Admittedly, findings are limited by several factors including, analysis of a population sample and not an intentionally selected sample, this being the inaugural pilot of a faculty preparation program with no ability to compare initial findings to prior terms, and with faculty who participated guaranteed an EPE, there is not an opportunity to compare student performance in courses with prepared faculty and no EPE. Clearly better designed and intentional research is needed to better understand the affordances and limitations of the faculty development program and of MX-TPaCK as a conceptual framework for decision making and faculty development. But for the purpose of this presentation, provides a concrete example of MX-TPaCK as a learing design framework to further engage the participants with peers and the presenter in rich discussion of its potential as a framework for teaching and learning in a multimodal learning landscape
Supporting Literature
Kim and Maloney (2020) in their work Learning Innovation and The Future of Higher Education argue that institutions of higher education have shifted to student success outcomes (i.e. retention, persistence, and graduation rates) as the metrics that define organizational success, identifying this organizational transition as a turn towards learning. The authors further posit that the ubiquity of learning technologies, online learning, and the way in which they expand access to higher education introduce new challenges including more diverse and complex student populations and learning contexts. As such, a turn towards learning demands additional expertise from non-faculty educators (i.e. instructional designers, instructional technologists, etc.) who possess expertise in technology, pedagogical applications of technology, learning science, and culturally relevant practices as essential partners to support faculty, the content experts, in the design and delivery of their respective courses.
In other words, learning environments informed by all knowledge represented inTPaCK, and in this presentation MX-TPaCK, is the result of a team approach to designing for learner-centered courses and instructional programming. However, where these non-faculty experts are situated within the institution, how their roles and responsibilities are defined, and involvement in organizational decision making is ambiguous (Drysdale, 2021) and largely depend on senior leader’s understanding of the expertise that learning professionals possess (CITE).
MX-TPaCK as a conceptual framework for faculty development requires a model based on Haze and Kenyon (2000) learning theory of heutagogy, or self-determined learning. Haze and Kenyon (2000) define self-determined learning as the learner choosing the curriculum, interactions, and assessments that help them solve a self-identified learning need. They posit self-determined learning allows the learner to adapt their learning pathway to solve problems in ambiguous and complex situations. Meaning making is the result of discourse with peers and facilitators who operate as guides and content curators, not transactional knowledge holders. Professional learning experiences designed base on a heutagogical approach presents the opportunity to develop a multimodal learning environment that fosters the partnerships and collaboration between faculty and non-faculty educators necessary to connect the networks of knowledge illustrated in the proposed MX-TPaCK framework.
The faculty development case to be presented will provide examples of how this model supports a heutagogical approach by integrating Lave and Wenger (1991) situated learning theory to foster professional discourse between faculty participants and non-faculty educators (i.e. learning designers, learning center professionals, etc.) through multimodal interactions in a synchronous and asynchronous Community of Practice (CoP).
Plan for Interactivity:
This will be an interactive presentation with an integrated multimodal discussion.
-
Google Forms synced with live updating charts throughout presentation slides will be used to visually illustrate participant responses to questions posed throughout the presentation including roles, institutional challenges, and perceptions of knowledges involved in multimodal teaching and learning
-
Padlet or Similar will facilitate Think-Pair-Share in response to discussion questions posed throughout the presentation. To engage in this interaction participants will:
-
Think to themselves about their own response
-
Pair and talk to peers seated nearby or depending on room setup, at their table
-
Share by posting to the Jamboard and the opportunity to share out loud with the room
-
-
Padlet Matrix and MX-TPaCK application
-
Using padlet, participants will identify a challenge, student intervention, or “bottleneck” at the institutional or course level, with the knowledges represented by MX-TPaCK, and identify the knowledges (faculty and non-faculty) needed - then with peers discuss possible experts/perspectives that may have been missed
-
-
Jamboard or Padlet: provide critical feedback on the MX-TPaCK model as a reflexive decision making tool and faculty development framework
Attendee Takeaways:
- A visual framework for evaluating organizational complexity and the knowledges and interconnected networks that influence the teaching and learning landscape
-
Reflective conversation with cross-institutional peers to discuss the ways in which current and emerging technologies (i.e. Artificial Intelligence) have and continue to frame and complicate their specific context and the ways in which current organizational structures foster agility or pose barriers in adapting to these complexities.
-
A model for faculty development that situates learning in a community of practice that includes faculty and non-faculty educators while empowering faculty to identify and design self-determined solutions to context specific teaching complexities.