ArticlePDF Available

What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge?


Abstract and Figures

This paper describes a framework for teacher knowledge for technology integration called technological pedagogical content knowledge (originally TPCK, now known as TPACK, or technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge). This framework builds on Lee Shulman's construct of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to include technology knowledge. The development of TPACK by teachers is critical to effective teaching with technology. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the complex, ill- structured nature of teaching. The nature of technologies (both analog and digital) is considered, as well as how the inclusion of technology in pedagogy further complicates teaching. The TPACK framework for teacher knowledge is described in detail, as a complex interaction among three bodies of knowledge: Content, pedagogy, and technology. The interaction of these bodies of knowledge, both theoretically and in practice, produces the types of flexible knowledge needed to successfully integrate technology use into teaching.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Editors’ Note: For the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with the notion of
technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK), we offer the following condensed
and updated depiction by Mishra and Koehler (2007), which was presented originally at
the annual conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education
in 2007.
Judi Harris & Matt Koehler
Special Issue Guest Editors
What Is Technological Pedagogical Content
Matthew J. Koehler and Punya Mishra
Michigan State University
This paper describes a framework for teacher knowledge for technology
integration called technological pedagogical content knowledge (originally
TPCK, now known as TPACK, or technology, pedagogy, and content
knowledge). This framework builds on Lee Shulman’s construct of
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to include technology knowledge. The
development of TPACK by teachers is critical to effective teaching with
technology. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the complex, ill-
structured nature of teaching. The nature of technologies (both analog and
digital) is considered, as well as how the inclusion of technology in pedagogy
further complicates teaching. The TPACK framework for teacher knowledge
is described in detail, as a complex interaction among three bodies of
knowledge: Content, pedagogy, and technology. The interaction of these
bodies of knowledge, both theoretically and in practice, produces the types
of flexible knowledge needed to successfully integrate technology use into
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
As educators know, teaching is a complicated practice that requires an interweaving of
many kinds of specialized knowledge. In this way, teaching is an example of an ill-
structured discipline, requiring teachers to apply complex knowledge structures across
different cases and contexts (Mishra, Spiro, & Feltovich, 1996; Spiro & Jehng, 1990).
Teachers practice their craft in highly complex, dynamic classroom contexts (Leinhardt &
Greeno, 1986) that require them constantly to shift and evolve their understanding. Thus,
effective teaching depends on flexible access to rich, well-organized and integrated
knowledge from different domains (Glaser, 1984; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Shulman,
1986, 1987), including knowledge of student thinking and learning, knowledge of subject
matter, and increasingly, knowledge of technology.
The Challenges of Teaching With Technology
Teaching with technology is complicated further considering the challenges newer
technologies present to teachers. In our work, the word technology applies equally to
analog and digital, as well as new and old, technologies. As a matter of practical
significance, however, most of the technologies under consideration in current literature
are newer and digital and have some inherent properties that make applying them in
straightforward ways difficult.
Most traditional pedagogical technologies are characterized by specificity (a pencil is for
writing, while a microscope is for viewing small objects); stability (pencils, pendulums,
and chalkboards have not changed a great deal over time); and transparency of function
(the inner workings of the pencil or the pendulum are simple and directly related to their
function) (Simon, 1969). Over time, these technologies achieve a transparency of
perception (Bruce & Hogan, 1998); they become commonplace and, in most cases, are not
even considered to be technologies. Digital technologies—such as computers, handheld
devices, and software applications—by contrast, are protean (usable in many different
ways; Papert, 1980); unstable (rapidly changing); and opaque (the inner workings are
hidden from users; Turkle, 1995).On an academic level, it is easy to argue that a pencil
and a software simulation are both technologies. The latter, however, is qualitatively
different in that its functioning is more opaque to teachers and offers fundamentally less
stability than more traditional technologies. By their very nature, newer digital
technologies, which are protean, unstable, and opaque, present new challenges to
teachers who are struggling to use more technology in their teaching.
Also complicating teaching with technology is an understanding that technologies are
neither neutral nor unbiased. Rather, particular technologies have their own propensities,
potentials, affordances, and constraints that make them more suitable for certain tasks
than others (Bromley, 1998; Bruce, 1993; Koehler & Mishra, 2008). Using email to
communicate, for example, affords (makes possible and supports) asynchronous
communication and easy storage of exchanges. Email does not afford synchronous
communication in the way that a phone call, a face-to-face conversation, or instant
messaging does. Nor does email afford the conveyance of subtleties of tone, intent, or
mood possible with face-to-face communication. Understanding how these affordances
and constraints of specific technologies influence what teachers do in their classrooms is
not straightforward and may require rethinking teacher education and teacher
professional development.
Social and contextual factors also complicate the relationships between teaching and
technology. Social and institutional contexts are often unsupportive of teachers’ efforts to
integrate technology use into their work. Teachers often have inadequate (or
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
inappropriate) experience with using digital technologies for teaching and learning. Many
teachers earned degrees at a time when educational technology was at a very different
stage of development than it is today. It is, thus, not surprising that they do not consider
themselves sufficiently prepared to use technology in the classroom and often do not
appreciate its value or relevance to teaching and learning. Acquiring a new knowledge
base and skill set can be challenging, particularly if it is a time-intensive activity that must
fit into a busy schedule. Moreover, this knowledge is unlikely to be used unless teachers
can conceive of technology uses that are consistent with their existing pedagogical beliefs
(Ertmer, 2005). Furthermore, teachers have often been provided with inadequate
training for this task. Many approaches to teachers’ professional development offer a one-
size-fits-all approach to technology integration when, in fact, teachers operate in diverse
contexts of teaching and learning.
An Approach to Thinking About Technology Integration
Faced with these challenges, how can teachers integrate technology into their teaching?
An approach is needed that treats teaching as an interaction between what teachers know
and how they apply what they know in the unique circumstances or contexts within their
classrooms. There is no “one best way” to integrate technology into curriculum. Rather,
integration efforts should be creatively designed or structured for particular subject
matter ideas in specific classroom contexts. Honoring the idea that teaching with
technology is a complex, ill-structured task, we propose that understanding approaches to
successful technology integration requires educators to develop new ways of
comprehending and accommodating this complexity.
At the heart of good teaching with technology are three core components: content,
pedagogy, and technology, plus the relationships among and between them. The
interactions between and among the three components, playing out differently across
diverse contexts, account for the wide variations seen in the extent and quality of
educational technology integration. These three knowledge bases (content, pedagogy, and
technology) form the core of the technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK)
framework. An overview of the framework is provided in the following section, though
more detailed descriptions may be found elsewhere (e.g., Koehler & 2008; Mishra &
Koehler, 2006). This perspective is consistent with that of other researchers and
approaches that have attempted to extend Shulman’s idea of pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK) to include educational technology. (A comprehensive list of such
approaches can be found at
The TPACK Framework
The TPACK framework builds on Shulman’s (1987, 1986) descriptions of PCK to describe
how teachers’ understanding of educational technologies and PCK interact with one
another to produce effective teaching with technology. Other authors have discussed
similar ideas, though often using different labeling schemes. The conception of TPACK
described here has developed over time and through a series of publications, with the
most complete descriptions of the framework found in Mishra and Koehler (2006) and
Koehler and Mishra (2008).
In this model (see Figure 1), there are three main components of teachers’ knowledge:
content, pedagogy, and technology. Equally important to the model are the interactions
between and among these bodies of knowledge, represented as PCK, TCK (technological
content knowledge), TPK (technological pedagogicalknowledge), and TPACK.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
Figure 1. The TPACK framework and its knowledge
Content Knowledge
Content knowledge (CK) is teachers’ knowledge about the subject matter to be learned or
taught. The content to be covered in middle school science or history is different from the
content to be covered in an undergraduate course on art appreciation or a graduate
seminar on astrophysics. Knowledge of content is of critical importance for teachers. As
Shulman (1986) noted, this knowledge would include knowledge of concepts, theories,
ideas, organizational frameworks, knowledge of evidence and proof, as well as established
practices and approaches toward developing such knowledge. Knowledge and the nature
of inquiry differ greatly between fields, and teachers should understand the deeper
knowledge fundamentals of the disciplines in which they teach. In the case of science, for
example, this would include knowledge of scientific facts and theories, the scientific
method, and evidence-based reasoning. In the case of art appreciation, such knowledge
would include knowledge of art history, famous paintings, sculptures, artists and their
historical contexts, as well as knowledge of aesthetic and psychological theories for
evaluating art.
The cost of not having a comprehensive base of content knowledge can be prohibitive; for
example, students can receive incorrect information and develop misconceptions about
the content area (National Research Council, 2000; Pfundt, & Duit, 2000). Yet content
knowledge, in and of itself, is an ill-structured domain, and as the culture wars
(Zimmerman, 2002), the Great Books controversies (Bloom, 1987; Casement, 1997;
Levine, 1996), and court battles over the teaching of evolution (Pennock, 2001)
demonstrate, issues relating to curriculum content can be areas of significant contention
and disagreement.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
Pedagogical Knowledge
Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is teachers’ deep knowledge about the processes and
practices or methods of teaching and learning. They encompass, among other things,
overall educational purposes, values, and aims. This generic form of knowledge applies to
understanding how students learn, general classroom management skills, lesson
planning, and student assessment. It includes knowledge about techniques or methods
used in the classroom; the nature of the target audience; and strategies for evaluating
student understanding. A teacher with deep pedagogical knowledge understands how
students construct knowledge and acquire skills and how they develop habits of mind and
positive dispositions toward learning. As such, pedagogical knowledge requires an
understanding of cognitive, social, and developmental theories of learning and how they
apply to students in the classroom.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
PCK is consistent with and similar to Shulman’s idea of knowledge of pedagogy that is
applicable to the teaching of specific content. Central to Shulman’s conceptualization of
PCK is the notion of the transformation of the subject matter for teaching. Specifically,
according to Shulman (1986), this transformation occurs as the teacher interprets the
subject matter, finds multiple ways to represent it, and adapts and tailors the
instructional materials to alternative conceptions and students’ prior knowledge. PCK
covers the core business of teaching, learning, curriculum, assessment and reporting,
such as the conditions that promote learning and the links among curriculum,
assessment, and pedagogy. An awareness of common misconceptions and ways of looking
at them, the importance of forging connections among different content-based ideas,
students’ prior knowledge, alternative teaching strategies, and the flexibility that comes
from exploring alternative ways of looking at the same idea or problem are all essential
for effective teaching.
Technology Knowledge
Technology knowledge (TK) is always in a state of flux—more so than the other two core
knowledge domains in the TPACK framework (pedagogy and content). Thus, defining it is
notoriously difficult. Any definition of technology knowledge is in danger of becoming
outdated by the time this text has been published. That said, certain ways of thinking
about and working with technology can apply to all technology tools and resources.
The definition of TK used in the TPACK framework is close to that of Fluency of
Information Technology (FITness), as proposed by the Committee of Information
Technology Literacy of the National Research Council (NRC, 1999). They argue that
FITness goes beyond traditional notions of computer literacy to require that persons
understand information technology broadly enough to apply it productively at work and
in their everyday lives, to recognize when information technology can assist or impede the
achievement of a goal, and to continually adapt to changes in information technology.
FITness, therefore, requires a deeper, more essential understanding and mastery of
information technology for information processing, communication, and problem solving
than does the traditional definition of computer literacy. Acquiring TK in this manner
enables a person to accomplish a variety of different tasks using information technology
and to develop different ways of accomplishing a given task. This conceptualization of TK
does not posit an “end state,” but rather sees it developmentally, as evolving over a
lifetime of generative, open-ended interaction with technology.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
Technological Content Knowledge
Technology and content knowledge have a deep historical relationship. Progress in fields
as diverse as medicine, history, archeology, and physics have coincided with the
development of new technologies that afford the representation and manipulation of data
in new and fruitful ways. Consider Roentgen’s discovery of X-rays or the technique of
carbon-14 dating and the influence of these technologies in the fields of medicine and
archeology. Consider also how the advent of the digital computer changed the nature of
physics and mathematics and placed a greater emphasis on the role of simulation in
understanding phenomena. Technological changes have also offered new metaphors for
understanding the world. Viewing the heart as a pump, or the brain as an information-
processing machine are just some of the ways in which technologies have provided new
perspectives for understanding phenomena. These representational and metaphorical
connections are not superficial. They often have led to fundamental changes in the
natures of the disciplines.
Understanding the impact of technology on the practices and knowledge of a given
discipline is critical to developing appropriate technological tools for educational
purposes. The choice of technologies affords and constrains the types of content ideas
that can be taught. Likewise, certain content decisions can limit the types of technologies
that can be used. Technology can constrain the types of possible representations, but also
can afford the construction of newer and more varied representations. Furthermore,
technological tools can provide a greater degree of flexibility in navigating across these
TCK, then, is an understanding of the manner in which technology and content influence
and constrain one another. Teachers need to master more than the subject matter they
teach; they must also have a deep understanding of the manner in which the subject
matter (or the kinds of representations that can be constructed) can be changed by the
application of particular technologies. Teachers need to understand which specific
technologies are best suited for addressing subject-matter learning in their domains and
how the content dictates or perhaps even changes the technology—or vice versa.
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge
TPK is an understanding of how teaching and learning can change when particular
technologies are used in particular ways. This includes knowing the pedagogical
affordances and constraints of a range of technological tools as they relate to
disciplinarily and developmentally appropriate pedagogical designs and strategies. To
build TPK, a deeper understanding of the constraints and affordances of technologies and
the disciplinary contexts within which they function is needed.
For example, consider how whiteboards may be used in classrooms. Because a
whiteboard is typically immobile, visible to many, and easily editable, its uses in
classrooms are presupposed. Thus, the whiteboard is usually placed at the front of the
classroom and is controlled by the teacher. This location imposes a particular physical
order in the classroom by determining the placement of tables and chairs and framing the
nature of student-teacher interaction, since students often can use it only when called
upon by the teacher. However, it would be incorrect to say that there is only one way in
which whiteboards can be used. One has only to compare the use of a whiteboard in a
brainstorming meeting in an advertising agency setting to see a rather different use of
this technology. In such a setting, the whiteboard is not under the purview of a single
individual. It can be used by anybody in the group, and it becomes the focal point around
which discussion and the negotiation/construction of meaning occurs. An understanding
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
of the affordances of technology and how they can be leveraged differently according to
changes in context and purposes is an important part of understanding TPK.
TPK becomes particularly important because most popular software programs are not
designed for educational purposes. Software programs such as the Microsoft Office Suite
(Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Entourage, and MSN Messenger) are usually designed for
business environments. Web-based technologies such as blogs or podcasts are designed
for purposes of entertainment, communication, and social networking. Teachers need to
reject functional fixedness (Duncker, 1945) and develop skills to look beyond most
common uses for technologies, reconfiguring them for customized pedagogical purposes.
Thus, TPK requires a forward-looking, creative, and open-minded seeking of technology
use, not for its own sake but for the sake of advancing student learning and
Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge
TPACK is an emergent form of knowledge that goes beyond all three “core” components
(content, pedagogy, and technology). Technological pedagogical content knowledge is an
understanding that emerges from interactions among content, pedagogy, and technology
knowledge. Underlying truly meaningful and deeply skilled teaching with technology,
TPACK is different from knowledge of all three concepts individually. Instead, TPACK is
the basis of effective teaching with technology, requiring an understanding of the
representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use
technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts
difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that
students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and
knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge to develop
new epistemologies or strengthen old ones.
By simultaneously integrating knowledge of technology, pedagogy and content, expert
teachers bring TPACK into play any time they teach. Each situation presented to teachers
is a unique combination of these three factors, and accordingly, there is no single
technological solution that applies for every teacher, every course, or every view of
teaching. Rather, solutions lie in the ability of a teacher to flexibly navigate the spaces
defined by the three elements of content, pedagogy, and technology and the complex
interactions among these elements in specific contexts. Ignoring the complexity inherent
in each knowledge component or the complexities of the relationships among the
components can lead to oversimplified solutions or failure. Thus, teachers need to
develop fluency and cognitive flexibility not just in each of the key domains (T, P, and C),
but also in the manner in which these domains and contextual parameters interrelate, so
that they can construct effective solutions. This is the kind of deep, flexible, pragmatic,
and nuanced understanding of teaching with technology we involved in considering
TPACK as a professional knowledge construct.
The act of seeing technology, pedagogy, and content as three interrelated knowledge
bases is not straightforward. As said before,
… separating the three components (content, pedagogy, and technology) …
is an analytic act and one that is difficult to tease out in practice. In actuality,
these components exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium or, as the
philosopher Kuhn (1977) said in a different context, in a state of ‘‘essential
tension’’…. Viewing any of these components in isolation from the others
represents a real disservice to good teaching. Teaching and learning with
technology exist in a dynamic transactional relationship (Bruce, 1997;
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
Dewey & Bentley, 1949; Rosenblatt, 1978) between the three components in
our framework; a change in any one of the factors has to be ‘‘compensated’’
by changes in the other two. (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1029)
This compensation is most evident whenever using a new educational technology
suddenly forces teachers to confront basic educational issues and reconstruct the
dynamic equilibrium among all three elements. This view inverts the conventional
perspective that pedagogical goals and technologies are derived from content area
curricula. Things are rarely that simple, particularly when newer technologies are
employed. The introduction of the Internet, for example – particularly the rise of online
learning – is an example of the arrival of a technology that forced educators to think
about core pedagogical issues, such as how to represent content on the Web and how to
connect students with subject matter and with one another (Peruski & Mishra, 2004).
Teaching with technology is a difficult thing to do well. The TPACK framework suggests
that content, pedagogy, technology, and teaching/learning contexts have roles to play
individually and together. Teaching successfully with technology requires continually
creating, maintaining, and re-establishing a dynamic equilibrium among all components.
It is worth noting that a range of factors influences how this equilibrium is reached.
Implications of the TPACK Framework
We have argued that teaching is a complex, ill-structured domain. Underlying this
complexity, however, are three key components of teacher knowledge: understanding of
content, understanding of teaching, and understanding of technology. The complexity of
technology integration comes from an appreciation of the rich connections of knowledge
among these three components and the complex ways in which these are applied in
multifaceted and dynamic classroom contexts.
Since the late 1960’s a strand of educational research has aimed at understanding and
explaining “how and why the observable activities of teachers’ professional lives take on
the forms and functions they do” (Clark & Petersen, 1986, p. 255; Jackson, 1968). A
primary goal of this research is to understand the relationships between two key
domains: (a) teacher thought processes and knowledge and (b) teachers’ actions and their
observable effects. The current work on the TPACK framework seeks to extend this
tradition of research and scholarship by bringing technology integration into the kinds of
knowledge that teachers need to consider when teaching. The TPACK framework seeks to
assist the development of better techniques for discovering and describing how
technology-related professional knowledge is implemented and instantiated in practice.
By better describing the types of knowledge teachers need (in the form of content,
pedagogy, technology, contexts and their interactions), educators are in a better position
to understand the variance in levels of technology integration occurring.
In addition, the TPACK framework offers several possibilities for promoting research in
teacher education, teacher professional development, and teachers’ use of technology. It
offers options for looking at a complex phenomenon like technology integration in ways
that are now amenable to analysis and development. Moreover, it allows teachers,
researchers, and teacher educators to move beyond oversimplified approaches that treat
technology as an “add-on” instead to focus again, and in a more ecological way, upon the
connections among technology, content, and pedagogy as they play out in classroom
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind: How higher education has failed
democracy and impoverished the souls of today's students. New York: Simon and
Bromley, H. (1998). Introduction: Data-driven democracy? Social assessment of
educational computing. In H. Bromley & M. Apple (Eds.), Education, technology, power
(pp. 1-28). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Bruce, B. C. (1993). Innovation and social change. In B. C. Bruce, J. K. Peyton, & T.
Batson (Eds.), Network-based classrooms (pp. 9-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Bruce, B. C. (1997). Literacy technologies: What stance should we take? Journal of
Literacy Research, 29(2), 289-309.
Bruce, B. C., & Hogan, M. C. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an
ecological model of literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.),
Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world
(pp. 269-281). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Casement, W. (1997). The great canon controversy: The battle of the books in higher
education. Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.; pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J., & Bentley, A.F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), 1-110.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for
technology integration. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(4), 25-
Glaser. R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychology,
39(2), 93-104.
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. AACTE Committee on Innovation
and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J.G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75-95.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
Levine, L. W. (1996). The opening of the American mind. Canons, culture, and history.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Mishra, P., Spiro, R.J., & Feltovich, P.J. (1996). Technology, representation, and
cognition: The prefiguring of knowledge in cognitive flexibility hypertexts. In H. van
Oostendorp & A. de Mul (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of electronic text processing (pp. 287-
305). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK):
Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In C. Crawford et al.
(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education
International Conference 2007 (pp. 2214-2226). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record,
108(6), 1017-1054.
National Research Council. (1999). Being fluent with information technology literacy.
Computer science and telecommunications board commission on physical sciences,
mathematics, and applications. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000) How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Papert, S. (1980): Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York:
Basic Books.
Pennock, R. (2001). Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical,
theological & scientific perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Peruski, L., & Mishra, P. (2004). Webs of activity in online course design and teaching.
ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 12(1), 37-49.
Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (2000). Bibliography: Student's alternative frameworks and
science education (5th ed.). Kiel, Germany: University of Kiel.
Putnam, R.T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to
say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of
literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Simon, H. (1969). Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
Spiro, R.J., & Jehng, J.-Ch. (1990), Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and
technology for the nonlinear and mutlidimensional traversal of complex subject matter.
In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in
high technology (pp. 163-204). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Zimmerman, J. (2002). Whose America? Culture wars in the public schools. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Author Note:
The authors contributed equally to this work. We rotate order of authorship in our
Matthew J. Koehler
Michigan State University
Punya Mishra
Michigan State University
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education is an online journal. All text, tables, and figures in the print
version of this article are exact representations of the original. However, the original article may also include video and
audio files, which can be accessed on the World Wide Web at
... A teaching method that is well understood by the teacher, viable in terms of access to resources and incurs costs that are tolerable is recognised as practical and can be used [25,35]. The teaching strategies that are deemed appropriate are given a utility value based on the benefits and costs of using the strategy, which are viewed through the lens of achieving the teacher's goals [36] and their value within the specified context [37]. Teaching strategies with the highest utility value, that is, those strategies that are perceived to have the highest benefit in terms of reaching teaching goals, while minimising costs are the one(s) chosen for the lesson. ...
... Mishra and Koehler [27] claim that a teacher who possesses a thorough TPACK will be more able to develop high quality teaching methods that integrate technology. Technology-based teaching strategies will be used if they generate greater utility for the teacher than strategies that do not incorporate technology [36], which becomes more likely if teachers have the required knowledge base [25,37]. ...
... As has been demonstrated earlier, knowledge is an important personal factor. Teachers that possess a thorough understanding of the blend of knowledge described in the TPACK framework have a richer repertoire of pedagogical methods that integrate technology at their disposal, making them more likely to find benefits in choosing technology-based teaching methods [37,39]. ...
Full-text available
Over the past 30 years, teachers have been urged to increase their use of digital technology in the classroom. However, mathematics teachers have been slow to integrate ICT, even though mathematics is naturally aligned with technology. While researchers have documented a variety of time and other related factors that contribute to this resistance, there has been little in-depth analysis of teacher reasoning that inhibits technology integration in mathematics. This article presents four case studies of secondary mathematics teachers employed in Australian schools that investigates the adverse effects of time pressures in not only inhibiting a teacher’s desire to use technology but removing as an option altogether. Data was collected in the form of interviews, lesson planning documentation and notes from observation lessons. Thematic analysis was used to determine how time pressures inhibited participants ability to use technology in their pedagogy. Three time-related obstacles were identified. The first was a lack of time to prepare lessons, the second was content-laden syllabuses and finally, the need to prepare students for traditional assessments. Participants claimed that these obstacles often proved too great to overcome, causing them to abandon any use of technology. This article argues that when the obstacles to technology integration are perceived as too difficult to overcome, it is not enough to provide poorly targeted professional learning or encouragement to work harder to integrate technology. Rather, existing time pressures must be alleviated in terms of workload and syllabus demands if we want to remove the inhibitors to technology integration in mathematics.
... Actualmente existen modelos teóricos de formación docente que se utilizan para conceptualizar la efectividad de la integración de la tecnología, pedagogía y currículo. Algunos ejemplos de estos modelos son: TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) que integra los conceptos de tecnología, pedagogía y contenidos de aprendizaje en la formación para adultos; y la variante TAWOCK (Arifin et al., 2020) que involucra los conceptos de Tecnología, Andragogía, Trabajo y Contenido de Aprendizaje. ...
... De estos modelos el 60% son principalmente teóricos y se caracterizan por enfocarse en áreas y habilidades específicas tales como: desarrollo de habilidades tecnológicas, competencias pedagógicas, competencias disciplinares y competencias laborales, en el caso del modelo TAWOCK. Como mencionan (Koehler & Mishra, 2009), (Zempoalteca Durán et al., 2017) y (Arifin et al., 2020); estos han presentado ventajas, pero no se podrían considerar como propuestas de formación docente desde una perspectiva holística y teleológica. Por otro lado se identificaron 2 modelos de formación docente que vinculan el contenido disciplinar, con la realidad de los estudiantes. ...
Full-text available
Los docentes de educación superior de instituciones públicas en la Ciudad de México no cuentan con programas de formación desde un enfoque holístico con un punto de vista andragógico para apoyar su práctica en entornos multimodales; que posibilite la continuidad del proceso de enseñanza aprendizaje aún en situaciones de contingencia. El objetivo de este trabajo es determinar la pertinencia de diseñar e implementar de modelos de formación para entornos multimodales, considerando a los docentes como aprendientes adultos desde el enfoque holístico que nos portan las Ciencias de la Complejidad. Se llevó a cabo una revisión panorámica de la literatura en donde se identificaron 237 registros publicados entre 2016 y 2022 indexados en 12 distintas bases de datos, relevantes para este estudio de acuerdo con los criterios de inclusión. Los principales hallazgos fueron: 1) el 60% de los modelos de formación docente que involucran la práctica docente en entornos multimodales son teóricos. 2) consideran la integración tecnológica para la enseñanza, pero no una integración holística que responda a las necesidades de formación didáctico-tecnológicas de los docentes. 3) los modelos en los que se considera tanto una aproximación andragógica como un enfoque holístico propician que los docentes desarrollen habilidades tecno-pedagógicas para llevar a cabo su práctica en distintos entornos de enseñanza-aprendizaje. El diseñar modelos de formación docente desde el enfoque de las Ciencias de la complejidad con una visión andragógica resulta pertinente y abre futuras líneas de investigación que contribuirán a la apropiación disciplinar y didáctico-tecnológica de la multimodalidad.
... According to the pioneering didactic transposition theory by Chevallard (1985), synthetized by Bosch and Gascon (2006), there are four steps to make transposition possible: (1) scholarly scientific knowledge, as it is produced by scientists (2) knowledge to be taught officially, as prescribed by the curriculum; (3) knowledge as it is actually taught by teachers in the classroom; and (4) knowledge as it is actually learnt by students. For digital environments (for example, research and teaching through GIS), Mishra and Koehler (2006) proposed the TPACK model: they included technological knowledge for didactic transposition and highlighted the importance of pedagogical knowledge for the teaching action (step 3 in transposition theory). The result is managing "Technological, Pedagogical And Content Knowledge" (TPACK) to make didactic transference possible. ...
... Precisely this point stands out in the literature on the didactic experiences with web GIS: they are an extraordinary resource to stimulate students (Henry & Semple, 2012;. In short, the balanced combination of theoretical (geographical space), technological (digital representation) and pedagogical (didactic route design) learning ensured effective didactic transfer based on the TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and Four Balance models (Lomos et al., 2023) and the theory of didactic transposition (Bosch & Gascon, 2006). Finally, it should be noted that the workshop also contemplated cultural and ethical competency (DTA.6), as an attitudinal approach to describe the stops of the story maps. ...
Full-text available
In a context of online and blended-learning education, widely applied during the COVID-19 pandemic and retained after-wards, geography education found great support in Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Already long before the pandem-ic, GIS were one of the most used research tools by geographers. Since a few years, educative curricula have increasingly started to include GIS. However, people without a background in geography such as future teachers may struggle to manage these technologies, both technically and in terms of the required spatial reasoning. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the design characteristics of online workshops with teacher trainees that should allow to deal with these struggles. The workshops used web GIS story maps and focused on local and foreign urban heritage in Madrid and Krakow, cities that both host a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The teacher trainees had to create digital didactic routes to allow prima-ry school pu-pils to become familiar with urban heritage processes. Fulfilling this task required the development of digital and didactic competencies, geographical reasoning, and critical thinking on familiar and unfamiliar urban heritage. In the Anthropocene epoch, accurate teaching projects like these workshops are needed to raise the spatial awareness of people, above all basic education teachers, who contribute to the making of future digital and global citizens. In conclusion, this paper could be-come a good-practice workshop design aimed at teacher trainees who at present show a lack of geographical and digital knowledge but will have to teach about this knowledge in the future.
... Technology provides medical education with the possibility of remote teaching, simulations (including surgeries), and the use of applications and/or new technological equipment. (3,(11)(12)(13) The investments in several educational institutions for the promotion and development of digital education are increasing. Despite this exponential increase in spending and use of digital education, there is a lack of evidence supporting its use in the training of health professionals. ...
... Despite this exponential increase in spending and use of digital education, there is a lack of evidence supporting its use in the training of health professionals. (11,12) This methodology offers greater flexibility, usually at a lower cost to students, and has the advantage of providing material to a greater number of people. Even from a distance, the public can attend courses, classes, and congresses simply by accessing the Internet via cell phones or computers. ...
Full-text available
Objective: To evaluate the perceptions of students and teachers regarding remote teaching modality in comparison with the traditional face-to-face method. Methods: In this observational, retrospective, comparative, single-center study, questionnaires containing three major assessment domains were sent to two groups: university professors and undergraduate and graduate students. The first domain collected demographic and general data on the platforms used. The second and third domains contained questions that compared the perception of the quality of information offered by the two systems. Results: Between May and September 2020, 162 students and 71 teachers participated in the study. A greater proportion of students demonstrated previous contact with the online method, while professors had presented a greater number of courses. Most participants reported that their expectations regarding the remote teaching method were met (students, 80.3%; teachers, 94.4%). A significant number of students (83.3%) and teachers (88.7%) rated the classes as easier to attend and manage. Despite difficulties, such as concentration retention, most of the participants agree (at least partially) that the format should be maintained. Conclusion: The remote teaching methodology, although still incipient in Brazil, has become a reality in light of current health restrictions. Our study demonstrated a high level of overall satisfaction and a high sense of learning from both students and faculty. However, new challenges associated with this system have been identified, such as retention of attention and interference from the external environment. Longitudinal comparative studies that incorporate various aspects of medical education in all cycles are necessary to corroborate the findings of this study. Design: Retrospective comparative study, level III evidence.
... However, a more comprehensive view of the process is required, for a proper plan regarding the incorporation of ICT in the educational context, which involves the training or development of digital teaching competences. Koehler & Mishra (2009) propose that, for integrating technology in education, each teacher must be trained in technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. The same is proposed in the report "Education at a Glance" of the Organización para la Cooperación y Desarrollo Económico [OECD] (2019), where it is emphasized that digital teaching competence is crucial to develop in students, capabilities that allow them to enter the digital world and to develop the necessary skills in the 21st century. ...
Full-text available
This study examined teacher digital competence training for inclusion and social cohesion in Chile during the Covid-19 confinement. The objective was to analyze how teachers are trained in ICT and how they use these tools to develop distance education processes. The methodology used was a quantitative approach through a descriptive design of a multiple-choice questionnaire. The findings indicate that ICT training occurs mainly as a spontaneous process of self-learning by the teacher and that their motivations for training in ICT respond mainly to the desire to improve their professional skills. Teachers highly value training processes to develop distance education processes around the use of technologies. The teachers who adapted their planning for the new distance education are those who carried out self-learning processes and have training in technological tools. Most teachers opted for a mixed approach in content delivery and complemented classes through video calling platforms with tools for asynchronous work. Regarding evaluation processes, teachers certainly know that clear and precise instructions are relevant in distance education.
Full-text available
To effectively adopt technology during teaching, teachers require knowledge of how to operate technology. Especially first-time technology users need knowledge of how to handle digital devices and software programs as a foundation to use technology in the classroom successfully. This knowledge has so far been assessed mainly using self-reports. However, self-assessments are insufficient for assessing knowledge as their validity is limited. Moreover, the few tests that exist to measure technological knowledge (TK) show weaknesses (e.g., lack of ecological validity, outdated items). We present a test assessing teachers' TK that is independent of specific operating systems, covers technology that is relevant in everyday teaching, and is grounded in acknowledged psychometric modeling principles. We iteratively developed a test (named T-TK) comprising 26 items, utilizing cognitive testing, expert feedback, and two studies (Npilot study = 268 pre-service and in-service teachers, Nmain study = 233 in-service teachers) to filter items that did not match in content and were not Rasch conform. T-TK showed a satisfactory Andrich's reliability (RelAndrich = .73). Using the sample Nmain study, correlations between T-TK and technological knowledge (self-report, r = .52), pedagogical knowledge (test scores, r = .18), and technological pedagogical knowledge (self-report, r = .33; test scores, r = .46) indicated convergent and discriminant validity. Thus, the T-TK proves to be a reliable and valid instrument to capture teachers' TK. The T-TK can be used both by practitioners not requiring any statistical knowledge (e.g., for individual diagnostics) and in research (e.g., to analyze teachers' TK).
Full-text available
This article aims at cultivating the need analysis instrument which consists of questionnaire and interview as a requirement to construct English instructional material for economics faculty students based on Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Researcher wishes to develop an appropriate instructional material for economics students since they have been in ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) and 4.0 eras that enable the students with knowledge of technology, pedagogy and content of economics at once. To achieve this goal, it requires the need analysis instrument to elicit information concern on the need about English material, technology used and also the way to learn the subject matter. This instrument was developed by adapting and modifying ESP and TPACK theory of Basturkmen issued in 2010 & 2018 and theory of Koehler & Mishra in 2009. This elaboration generates eleven indicators to be established; target situation analysis, discourse analysis, present situation analysis, learner factor analysis, teaching context analysis, Technological Knowledge (TK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), Content Knowledge (CK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge, and the last but not least is Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). There are seventy statements for questionnaire and two questions for interview composed from the eleven indicators. The questionnaire statement and interview questions cover about the need of language skills, language components, and the subject matter of economics, the technology used and language pedagogy.
Full-text available
The background of this research is the teachers who have not fully implemented TPACK. During the implementation of TPACK in schools by teachers, many teachers are not familiar with the term TPACK, but on average they have implemented some of the indicators in TPACK. Therefore it is very necessary to examine how the teacher teaches, the use of technology when learning and others. The formulation of the problem in this study is How is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) PPKn Teachers of SMK Negeri Se-Pekanbaru. This study aims to determine the Learning Analysis of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for PPKn Teachers at State Vocational Schools in Pekanbaru. This research is included in the quantitative research with a descriptive survey method. The population in this study were all PPKn teachers in Pekanbaru State Vocational Schools, totaling 32 people with a sample of 17 people. Based on the research results, it was found that the results of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Learning Analysis of PPKn Teachers at Sepekanbaru State Vocational Schools were in the "Medium" category. This can be seen from the results of the average alternative percentage value of 28.27% + 36.29% = 38.52% with an existence in the range of 33.34% - 66.67%. With these results, it can be concluded that the TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) of PPKn Teachers in Pekanbaru State Vocational Schools is at the "Medium" level.
Several schools leverage federal, state, local, and private funding to improve technology. Most have implemented their technology plans which range from providing each student with a digital device to equipping each classroom with an interactive white board or desktop computers. To fully realize the benefits of these technologies requires teachers to redesign their instructional strategies including participating in technology focused professional development and administrative support. This chapter examines the impact of technology integration on student learning outcomes and reviews a framework for the integration technology in the curriculum.
Full-text available
Although the conditions for successful technology integration finally appear to be in place, including ready access to technology, increased training for teachers, and a favorable policy environment, high-level technology use is still surprisingly low. This suggests that additional barriers, specifically related to teachers' pedagogical beliefs, may be at work. Previous researchers have noted the influence of teachers' beliefs on classroom instruction specifically in math, reading, and science, yet little research has been done to establish a similar link to teachers' classroom uses of technology. In this article, I argue for the importance of such research and present a conceptual overview of teacher pedagogial beliefs as a vital first step. After defining and describing the nature of teacher beliefs, including how they are likely to impact teachers' classroom practice I describe important implications for teacher professional development and offer suggestions for future research.
Full-text available
In this study, we followed three faculty members' experiences with designing and teaching online courses for the first time. In order to complete the activity, the faculty members had to work collaboratively with others across the university. Activity theory provided a framework within which to study faculty members' collaborative activities with members of different activity systems that had different goals, tools, divisions of labor and accountabilities. In concordance with activity theory, such differences led to contradictions, disturbances, and transformations in thinking and work activities. The results of the study have implications for individuals and systems undertaking technology integration in teaching.