ArticlePDF Available


Content may be subject to copyright.
Introducing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Punya Mishra
Michigan State University
Matthew J. Koehler
Michigan State University
Please address all correspondence to:
Punya Mishra
Erickson Hall, College of Education
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
New York City, March 24–28, 2008
Introducing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Punya Mishra
Michigan State University
Matthew J. Koehler
Michigan State University
We introduce the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) as a way of thinking
about the knowledge teachers need to understand to integrate technology effectively in their
classrooms. We argue that TPACK comprises knowledge of content, pedagogy, and technology,
as well as understanding the complex interaction between these knowledge components. We
argue that teachers who have this type of understanding are characterized by the creative,
flexible, and adaptive ways in which they navigate the constraints, affordances, and interactions
within TPACK framework. Examples of the types of knowledge in the framework, and teachers’
using this knowledge are featured throughout the paper.
Integrating technology into teaching is not easy. Many researchers have accounts of it
either not happening, happening too slowly, or happening with no effect on teachers’ or students
learning (e.g., Cuban, 2001; Dynarski et al., 2007; Ross, Smith, Alberg, & Lowther, 2004). Why
is this so hard?
One way of thinking about teaching with technology is to view it as a “wicked problem”
(Rittel & Webber, 1973), in which the goal is to find the right combination of technologies,
teaching approach, and instructional goals. Rittel and Webber make a distinction between wicked
problems and “tame” problems, in that wicked problems are characterized by:
- Requirements that are incomplete, contradictory and changing
- Uniqueness, in that no two wicked problems are alike
- Occurring in complex and unique social contexts
- Solutions that are difficult to realize and recognize because of complex
interdependencies and contexts
- Solutions that are not right or wrong, simply “better,” “worse,” “good enough,”
or “not good enough”.
- Solutions that have no stopping rule, the best we can hope for is “satisficing,”
(Simon, 1969) – achieving a satisfactory solution, an outcome that, given the
circumstances, is good enough.
Working with wicked problems is a process of utilizing expert knowledge to design
solutions that honor the complexities of the situations and the contexts presented by learners and
classrooms. For this reason, there is no definitive solution to a technology integration problem.
Equal contribution of the authors. We rotate the order of authorship across our publications.
Each issue raised by technology integration presents an ever-evolving set of interlocking issues
and constraints.
When we view teaching with technology as a wicked problem, it is clear that we require
new ways of confronting this complexity. Recently, there has been considerable interest in using
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, or TPACK for short, as a framework for
thinking about the complex problems posed by technology integration (Koehler & Mishra, 2008;
Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Introducing the TPACK Framework
We argue that at the heart of good teaching with technology are three core components:
Content, Pedagogy & Technology. Equally important are the relationships between these three
components. It is the interactions, between and among these components, playing out differently
across diverse contexts, that account for the wide variations seen in educational technology
integration. These three knowledge bases (Content, Pedagogy and Technology) form the core of
the TPACK framework. We offer an overview of the framework below, though more detailed
descriptions may be found in other published work (Koehler & Mishra, 2008, Koehler & Mishra,
2005a, 2005b; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
In the TPACK framework, understanding arises from multiple interactions among
content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge. It encompasses understanding the
representations of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that apply technologies
in constructive ways to teach content in differentiated ways according to students’ learning
needs; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help
redress conceptual challenges; knowledge of students’ prior content-related understanding and
epistemological assumptions; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on
existing understanding to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones.
Figure 1. The TPCK framework and its knowledge components (Koehler & Mishra, 2008)
Technology Knowledge (T)
Technology knowledge (T or TK) is knowledge about standard technologies such as
books and chalk and blackboard, as well as more advanced technologies such as the Internet and
digital video. This would involve the skills required to operate particular technologies. In the
case of digital technologies this would include knowledge of operating systems and computer
hardware, as well as the ability to use standard software tools including web-browsers, email
programs, and word-processors. It includes basic knowledge about installing and upgrading
hardware and software, maintaining data archives, and staying up to date about ever-changing
Beyond traditional notions of technical literacy, teachers should also understand
information technology broadly enough to apply it productively at work and in their everyday
lives, recognize when information technology can assist or impede the achievement of a goal,
and to continually adapt to changes in information technology. This, obviously, 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. In this view, technology knowledge evolves over a lifetime, consisting of an open-ended
interaction with technology.
Content Knowledge (C)
Content Knowledge (C or CK for short) is knowledge about the actual subject matter that
is to be learned or taught. The content to be covered varies greatly by age level and subject-
matter. Clearly, teachers must know and understand the subjects they teach, including:
knowledge of central facts, concepts, theories and procedures within a given field; knowledge of
explanatory frameworks that organize and connect ideas; and knowledge of the rules of evidence
and proof (Shulman, 1986). Teachers must also understand the nature of knowledge and inquiry
in different fields. For example, how is a proof in mathematics different from a historical
explanation or a literary interpretation? Teachers who do not have these understandings can
misrepresent those subjects to their students (Ball, & McDiarmid, 1990).
Discipline is often used to describe a set or “system of rules and regulations.” This
definition plays out differently in different contexts. In one sense of the word, discipline is
“behavior in accord with rules of conduct; behavior and order maintained by training and
control” and in the other sense of the term, discipline is a “a branch of instruction or learning”
( Gardner has argued that disciplinary thinking is maybe the greatest invention
of mankind (Gardner, 2000, 2005). He views the teaching of disciplines as the single most
important and least-replaceable purpose of schooling. They are like “mental furniture” or what
“we think in.” Disciplines provide four things: knowledge (facts, concepts & relationships);
methods (knowledge creation & validation processes); purposes (reasons why the discipline
exists); and finally forms of representation (genres & symbol systems). Disciplines are
powerful, because through a process of developing knowledge, methods, purpose, and
representation they allow us to “see.”
Each discipline, including typography, has special forms of knowledge. Consider the
following example from typography (Figure 2). The discipline of typography is a field of
knowledge comprising facts, concepts and relationships that often requires the development of
specific, categorical sign and symbol systems. For example:
- Terms such as “stroke” and “baseline,” for example, have very specific meanings.
- Relationships are complex, such as the one between a “counter” and a “stroke” which
depends upon the purpose of the typeface (e.g., for use on a building sign vs. for use in a
telephone directory).
- Categories such as “Blackletter” or “Sans-Serif” or “Grotesk” have specific
- There are specific methods typographers have developed over time to create new fonts
and processes of validating use.
- There are complex arguments about the purposes of typography—from communicative to
aesthetic, from functional to expressive, and what its role is in society.
Figure 2: Example of Typography Discipline Knowledge
The specifics of this discipline are often difficult to describe because of the complex
process of individual and group innovation and social construction within the field. The
documentary Helvetica
describes how typefaces are created and validated in use through an
active process of social construction, complete with great examples from the history of
Within the discipline knowledge of typography, we can “see” subtleties not apparent at
first glance. For example, though many people know the difference between serif and sans serif
typefaces, not many people know that the serifed upper-case “N” has a little serif on the top left
corner, but not a corresponding one at the bottom-right corner. This means that though the sans-
serif “N” is symmetric to rotation, the serif version is not. Similarly not many people know that
the letter “S” and the number “8” have a larger curve at the bottom than at the top.
Pedagogical Knowledge (P)
To learn more about the film, visit
Pedagogical Knowledge (PK or P for short) is deep knowledge about the processes and
practices or methods of teaching and learning and how it encompasses (among other things)
overall educational purposes, values and aims. This is a generic form of knowledge that is
involved in all issues of student learning, classroom management, lesson plan development and
implementation, and student evaluation. It includes knowledge about techniques or methods to
be 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; develop habits of mind and positive dispositions towards learning.
As such, pedagogical knowledge requires an understanding of cognitive, social and
developmental theories of learning and how they apply to students in their classroom.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PC)
In the TPACK framework (Figure 1), there are the three components of knowledge
represented by the three circles: Technology, Pedagogy, and Content. Equally important in this
framework are the overlap between these components of knowledge. The first intersection in the
framework is between pedagogy and content knowledge, or Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(PCK or PC) (Shulman, 1986).
In considering the relationship between content and pedagogy, the key question is how
disciplines differ from each other and whether disciplines can or should be taught through the
same instructional strategies. If disciplines are the same, then mathematics can be taught using
the same instructional strategies that we use to teach architecture or music. On the other hand,
differences between the disciplines would argue for a need to teach them differently. Donald
(2002) in her survey of how different disciplinary perspectives lead to different ways of thinking
offers six fundamental, general thinking processes of expert and student thinking in different
disciplines. These six processes describe what changes as students learn and think in specific
disciplinary contexts:
- Description of context, conditions, facts, functions, assumptions, and goals
- Selection of relevant information and critical elements
- Representation: organizing, illustrating, and modifying elements and relations
- Inference: drawing conclusions, forming propositions
- Synthesis: composing wholes from parts, filling gaps, developing course of action
- Verification: confirming accuracy and results, judging validity, using feedback
Though these six processes apply to all disciplines, Donald (2002) shows that different
disciplines emphasize certain processes and under-emphasize others. For example, verification in
engineering would be pragmatic (does it work?), while in literature verification would be a
search for interpretive coherence. One can make similar arguments for how these six processes
play out differentially in other disciplines as well.
Donald argues that this has significant implications for instruction and offers a strong
critique of content-neutral, simplistic one-size-fits-all educational strategies that would apply
equally well to all disciplines. As Pintrich (2004) says in his review of Donald’s book:
Donald makes the case that instructional improvement must develop out of tasks,
knowledge, and ways of thinking that characterize each discipline or field. This makes
instructional improvement a much harder task, as it is not as simple as just picking up a
few new instructional techniques at a faculty development workshop and then using them
in class. Instructional improvement involves thinking clearly and deeply about the nature
of the discipline and the desired knowledge and thinking processes and then designing
instruction to facilitate and encourage the use of the knowledge and processes… There is
no one “royal” road or a single developmental pathway that all instructors or all students
must follow in the development of student thinking. (p. 480)
In this view, subject matter (disciplinary knowledge) is transformed for the purpose of
teaching. It is this understanding of PCK that we advocate, one in which teachers interpret
subject matter, find multiple ways to represent it, and adapt instructional materials to alternative
conceptions and students’ prior knowledge. What is salient in the content changes by the
methods to be used, and the current understanding of students. This approach is consistent with
Shulman’s (1986) approach to PCK as knowledge of pedagogy that is applicable to teaching
specific content, and using Gardner’s (2000) language of the teaching of disciplines.
Technological Content Knowledge (TC)
Understanding the impact of technology on the practices and knowledge of a given
discipline is critical if we are to develop 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 constrains the types of possible representations but conversely affords the
construction of newer and more varied representations. Furthermore, technological tools can
provide a greater degree of flexibility in navigating across these representations.
Accordingly, Technological Content Knowledge (TC or TCK), 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 technology. 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.
Consider how the advent of computing technologies has changed the nature of disciplines
such as mathematics, placing a greater role on simulation, representation, and graphical
manipulation. Visualization technologies can change how some mathematical concepts are
represented and understood. For example, let’s consider mobius transformations – a way to
transform or alter a 2d shape in some systematic way. Mobius transformations may be fairly easy
to represent, as they all can be represented by the same equation: f(z) = (az + b)/(cz + d).
However, many find it difficult to deeply understand how this symbolic function can produce the
range of mobius transformations, including: translation (e.g., move to the left, move up, etc.),
rotation (e.g., rotate 90 degrees), dilation or scale (e.g., making something bigger or smaller),
reflection (flipping something horizontally or vertically), elliptical, parabolic, and inversion.
(a) A surface to transform
(d) describing the transformation as projection
(b) one type of mobius transformation
(e) rotating the sphere produces changes
(c) describing the transformation symbolically
(f) continued rotation creates the transformation
Figure 3: Describing mobius transformations as 3d projections onto a 2d-surface
Some of these transformations are relatively easy to understand (e.g., translation,
rotation), but are difficult to connect to the symbolic formula. Others, like inversion, are both
difficult to understand and connect to the symbolic formula. Figure 3 helps depict a powerful
example of how technology changes the types of representations available to represent content
ideas (in this case, mobius transformations)
. Many find it difficult to understand how the
inversion transformation could turn a standard grid (figure 3a) into a complex shape (figure 3b)
using linear functions (figure 3c). A new representation, offered through a combination of 3d
visualization and motion animation, makes this transformation much more understandable.
Imagine a sphere is placed above the shape (figure 3d), so that the shape is projected from above
through the sphere and onto the plane. Now, the inversion transformation is produced by slowly
rotating the ball (figures 3e-3f). Accordingly, all of the mobius transformations may be
understood as movements of this sphere. Here, the available technologies change the
representation of the content. This example demonstrates just one of the many ways in which
technology and content are related.
Accordingly, Technological Content Knowledge (TC or TCK) 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 technology. 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
Technology and pedagogy mutually afford and constrain one another in any act of
teaching. For example, consider how technology can afford new forms of pedagogy in the case
of Moodle’s (courseware) method of structuring online conversations. One option, called a “Q
and A forum” requires students to post before they can see any other postings. Using this type of
discussion, different pedagogies are afforded than are traditionally available. Of course, this can
help instructors avoid the “me too” phenomena or the various forms of the “I agree” posting. The
authors have used it to have students share their ideas of how a computer does a “magic” trick –
in this activity it is important for students to think about (and post) their ideas, and not simply
given the answer by reading other students’ posts. But pedagogy could be advanced in any
instance in which teachers want to ensure that students share their own unique perspectives, free
from the influence of prior responses. For example, brainstorming sessions require ideas to flow
freely, instead of following the first few (or most vocal) ideas. Some activities require
conversation in which several different interpretations of an event or material are important.
Technological pedagogical knowledge (TP or TPK), then, is an understanding of how
teaching and learning changes when particular technologies are used. 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. This requires
getting a deeper understanding of the constraints and affordances of technologies and the
disciplinary contexts within which they function.
A more complete treatment of this example and work, complete with video may be found at the
website: (Arnold & Rogness, 2007).
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is the intersection of all three
bodies of knowledge. Understanding of this knowledge is above and beyond understanding
technology, content, or pedagogy in isolation, but rather as an emergent form that understands
how these forms of knowledge interact with each other. We argue that effective teaching with
technology both requires TPACK, and is characterized by the competencies we include in our
description of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. These include an understanding
of how to represent concepts with 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 students learn; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and
theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing
knowledge and to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones.
Teaching as a Creative and Flexible Navigation of the TPACK Landscape
In our view, expert teachers consciously and unconsciously simultaneously integrate
technology, pedagogy and content every time they teach. Every time they have to plan a lesson,
they are confronted with a “wicked problem,” in which there is a unique context that combines
elements of content, pedagogy, and technology, and accordingly there is no single solution that
will apply uniformly across teachers, courses, districts, or approaches. What these expert
teachers do is flexibly navigate the space defined by the three elements of content, pedagogy,
and technology and the complex interactions among these elements in specific contexts. That is,
given a complex, dynamic problem, these teachers design curricular solutions as needed to fit
their unique learners, goals and situation.
This type of teaching requires a deep, pragmatic, and nuanced understanding of teaching
with technology. We understand that in some ways, the separation of teaching into content,
pedagogy and technology is not necessarily straightforward, or even something that good
teachers do. Instead, we believe when technology integration is working well, the system is in a
state of “dynamic equilibrium” (Koehler & Mishra, 2008), such that “a change in any one of the
factors has to be ‘‘compensated’’ by changes in the other two (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p.
Teacher as Creative Designers of Curriculum
The TPACK framework suggests that the kinds of knowledge teachers need to develop
can almost be seen as a new form of literacy - as a development of skills, competencies and
knowledge in practice that goes beyond specific knowledge of particular disciplines,
technologies and pedagogical techniques. This new form of literacy, however, emphasizes
integration of these knowledge bases, going beyond standard definitions of literacy that often
focus on instrumental competencies. We build on a definition of literacy suggested by Myers
(1995) where he suggested that literacy is “the ability to consciously subvert signs." We argue
that such an approach implies that knowledge required for teaching is “more than just the ability
to use sign systems to communicate some conventional meaning, because… literacy should be
reserved for some state of agency in which one can control, even manipulate, how signs are
used.” (Myers, p. 582).
There are many reasons we support this new approach towards teacher knowledge. First,
this definition emphasizes that teachers manipulate signs and symbols (of various kinds,
language, equations, images, video, and so on). Second, this definition emphasizes the
importance of teacher agency –the conscious manipulation of signs for educative or
communicative purposes. Third, teachers are able to subvert these signs, implying that the sign-
systems are not sacrosanct, but rather are human constructions that teacher can design and re-
design for their particular context. Fourth, this definition emphasizes the value of teacher
expertise since subversion is not possible unless the teacher knows the rules of the game, and are
fluent enough to know which rules to bend, which to break, and which to leave alone. Fifth, this
definition emphasizes teacher creativity. As we know the wicked problems (Rittel & Webber,
1973) of teaching with technology demand creative solutions. Most technological tools we use
(Office software, Blogs, etc.) are not designed for teachers, and we have to re-purpose (subvert)
them for their needs.
Viewing teachers’ use of technology as a new literacy emphasizes the role of the teacher
as a producer (as designer), away from the traditional conceptualization of teachers as consumers
(users) of technology. When teachers are able to flexibly navigate the landscape of technology,
pedagogy, and content, they become responsible for the total curriculum, or the Total PACKage
Example of Creatively Navigating the TPACK Landscape
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once famously called pornography hard to define,
“but I know it when I see it.” This definition, and the acknowledgement of the difficulty of
constructing one, applies to attempts to define creativity. If we are to emphasize creativity,
however, we need to develop a better more rigorous articulation of it.
Too often creativity is regarded as being something new, irrespective of use. We argue
that mere novelty does make something creative. Novelty needs to be joined to purpose – a
creative solution, product, or artifact is both novel and useful. Creative solutions often go beyond
mere novelty and functionality to include a strong aesthetic quality. Creative products and
solutions are deeply bound to the context within which they occur; they are integrated, organic
and whole. Thus creative solutions are novel, effective and whole. Taking each of these worlds in
turn we get a range of meanings, a constellation of words that illuminate what a creative solution
- Novel
Fresh, unusual, unique, surprising, startling, astonishing, astounding,
germinal, trendsetting, radical, revolutionary, influential, pioneering
- Effective
Valuable, important, significant, essential, necessary, logical, sensible,
relevant, appropriate, adequate, functional, operable, useful, user-friendly
- Whole
Organic, ordered, arranged, organized, formed, complete, elegant, graceful,
charming, attractive, refined, complex, intricate, ornate, interesting,
understandable, meaningful, clear, self-explanatory, well crafted, skillful,
well made, meticulous
We can then apply this lens to one example of a creative solution developed by a teacher
to help her 3
grade students understand maps (Koehler & Dirkin, 2005). This example was
collected as part of a Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology Grant, in which we
collected examples of teachers describing their best practices of using technology
. The teacher
describes, first, her understanding of typical student knowledge about maps at that age, and the
difficulties they have in understanding 2d-representations of space, conventions of maps, and
taking perspectives such as “bird’s eye view” (See figure 4). She reasons that part of the problem
that these maps and representational norms are not personal to students, and seem disconnected
from their experience and conceptual understanding.
Figure 4: A 3
Grade Teacher Using Available Technology to Develop Understanding
She crafts a number of activities for students to help them develop understanding. For
example, in order to make maps more personal to students, she has them start with a map
generated by typing in their own address into mapquest or google maps. She has them copy the
map image, work within kidpix to annotate the map with symbols that indicate key landmarks in
their neighborhood (places each child is familiar with). This helps students map their
understanding of their experiences in their neighborhood to the conventional representations
offered by maps. She then works with students to generate directions, use the compass rose, and
connect their experiences to their representations. Another activity she does with the students is
to film her own tours that she takes when she travels. For example, when on a bus tour of
downtown Washington, DC., she used a video camera to film the tour. When she returned to
class, she had students work to annotate a map with her route and key landmarks, in order to
connect the video to map. That is, they made a “virtual tour”.
In crafting these activities, this teacher demonstrates her ability to creatively navigate the
TPACK landscape. Not only does she understand the content area deeply, she clearly has
knowledge of the other components of TPACK, including knowledge of student understanding
and trajectories, the affordances of technology for pedagogy, and how technology impacts
See more examples at:
content representations. It is this deep understanding that allows her to create a number of novel
solutions. Each of the connected activities she develops uses existing technology in novel ways.
For example, she creatively repurposes technologies, such as mapquest and kidpix, to fufill
pedagogical purposes. These uses were not prescribed in any existing curriculum; she developed
these uses based on her understanding of students’ and their development. Her solutions are
highly effective as well. Students enter her classroom not understanding maps very well. They
leave understanding maps better, and have linked these specialized forms of representation to
their own experiences of moving around in the world. And in conclusion, her solutions are
whole. Her activities flow into one another in way that makes their culmination ordered, elegant,
meaningful, and well-crafted.
In this paper we have argued that disciplines are lenses that allow us to look at the world
in systematic ways. We would like to end with an example of how the disciplines themselves are
evolving and changing, and thus push teachers towards experimenting with newer pedagogical
Figure 5: Exploring Cross Disciplinary Boundaries with Theo Jansen’s Sand Creatures
Theo Jansen
is a designer and artist who explores the idea of motion by creating “Sand
Creatures.” These creatures are built out of light-weight materials, and are often 6-10 feet tall.
They “live” on a sandy beach and move around, on padded feet, through just the force of the
wind. As Theo Jensen says, “the boundaries between art and engineering exist only in our
minds.” What is interesting is that another independent project ( came up with a
similar idea, but on the computer screen. Users (designers, artists, and possibly students) can
construct their own “creatures” that respond to gravity, oscillations (a virtual breeze), and move
Educators might wonder what “problem” these technological creatures are supposed to
solve. If we seek to look to the standard disciplines for the answers, we may come up short. We
need to go beyond techniques and strategies, that may have served us well in the past (though
that is debatable), to embrace new possibilities, new ways of looking and being in the world.
Teachers have a critical role to play in this new world, but will be able to do so only if they see
themselves as being responsible for the Total PACKage, a package that lies at the intersection of
Technology, Pedagogy & Content, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Learn more about the inspiring work of Theo Jansen at:
Arnold, D,, & Rogness, J. (2007). Mobius Transformations Revealed. Retrieved February 25, 2007.
Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, W. (1990). The Subject-Matter Preparation of Teachers. In W. R.
Houston (Ed.), Handbook for Research on Teacher Education. New York: Macmillan.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard, MA: Havard
University Press.
Donald, J.G. (2002). Learning To think: Disciplinary perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., et al. (2007).
Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student
cohort. (Publication No. 2007-4005). Retrieved September 4, 2007, from the Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education Web site:
Gardner, H. (2005). Five minds for the future. Harvard, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Gardner, H. (2000). The disciplined mind: beyond facts and standardized tests, the k-12
education that every child deserves. New York: Penguin Putnam.
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.
Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2005a). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of
Computing in Teacher Education. 21(3). 94-102.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005b). What happens when teachers design educational
technology? The development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of
Educational Computing Research. 32(2), 131-152.
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-
Myers, J. (1995). The value-laden assumptions of our interpretive practices. Reading Research
Quarterly. 30(3). 582-587.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). Understanding the Development of Student Thinking in the College
Classroom. [Review of the book Learning to think: Disciplinary Perspective]. The Journal of
Higher Education, 75(4), 476-480.
Rittel. H., & Webber, M., (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning, Policy Sciences,
4(2), 155-169.
Ross, S. M., Smith, L., Alberg, M., & Lowther, D. (2004) Using classroom observations as a
research and formative evaluation tool in educational reform: The school observation
measure. In S. Hilberg and H. Waxman (Eds.) New directions for observational research in
culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms (pp. 144-173). Santa Cruz, CA: Center for
Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Simon, H. (1969). Sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
... Information and Communications Technology Competency Framework for Teachers (ICTCFT) (UNESCO, 2011, p. 3) Table 2 The most typical tools and apps reported to have in use, or lack of in work-based settings Table 3 Recommendations to consider in future CPD for VET teachers, trainers and mentors Figure 1 Digital competence framework for educators: areas and scope (Redecker, 2017, p. 15) Figure 2 DigCompEdu framework overview (Redecker, 2017, p. 16) Figure 3 TPACK framework and its knowledge components (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) ...
... The approach of DigCompEdu may be considered multifaceted compared to the abundantly applied Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model originating from the educational development that occurred in the U.S. in the '80s (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Although the model is already ageing, it regularly emerges in discussions related to digital pedagogy. ...
... FIGURE 3. TPACK framework and its knowledge components (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). ...
Full-text available
Digital Tools for Learning and Validation in VET and WBL: Training Program for VET Teachers, Trainers and Mentors (Dig4VET) is an Erasmus+ KA2 Strategic Partnerships for VET-project aimed to improve skills and competences of vocational teachers, trainers and mentors in using digital tools in education process. Main goal is to raise awareness of a variety of digital tools and technologies that can be used in vocational education and training (VET) and workbased learning (WBL) settings for both classroom and distance learning. Dig4VET proposes empowering VET teachers, trainers and mentors/WBL tutors with the support of a training program for VET teachers, trainers and mentors which can be implemented by VET institutions (local level), by national continuous professional development (CPD) systems and internationally as Erasmus+ courses. In this publication we communicate a review of digital skills of VET teachers and trainers in partner organisations (VET schools) and partner countries, including a report on the use of SELFIE in Latvia, Lithuania and Portugal. We also suggest recommendations for future training programs in digital pedagogy for VET teachers, trainers and WBL tutors. The recommendations section is initialised with an overview of competence-based approaches in advanced CPD which may be specially designed for VET Teachers, Trainers and Potential Mentors to enhance the use of digital tools for teaching, learning, assessment and validation. The report is a multidimensional information resource regarding digital competences of VET teachers, trainers, mentors, and it will be useful for VET policy and decision makers, VET school management, researchers, and particularly – for VET teacher trainers. It can also be of interest and use for other sectors of education (general education, higher education, adult education).
...  Content Knowledge (CK): Koehler & Mishra, (2009) have identified CK as the teachers' knowledge about the subject matter to be learned or taught. As Shulman (1987) noted, this knowledge would comprise of knowledge of concepts, theories, ideas, frameworks, knowledge of evidence and proof, as well as established practices and approaches toward developing such knowledge. ...
... They incorporate overall educational purposes, values, and aims. According to Koehler & Mishra (2009), this generic form of knowledge applies to understanding how students learn, general classroom management skills, lesson planning, and student assessment. ...
...  Technology Knowledge (TK): Koehler & Mishra (2009) have outlined the TK as the knowledge about thinking about, and working with technological tools and resources. This includes understanding information technology broadly enough to apply it productively at work and in everyday life. ...
Full-text available
In Bangladesh, secondary school curricula have made ICT education compulsory considering the importance of ICT. Students’ performance varies high across schools compared to within schools. The study is conducted in an effort to know what successful teachers (successful schools) accomplish to the students to obtain very high marks in ICT courses in SSC examination. In view of this the study team conduct case study of five exceptional schools. An observation schedule for classroom practices, questionnaire from students and semi-structured interview guides for teachers were used as research instruments. The study explored that the topmost 5 secondary level schools of Dhaka city practice mostly lecture and demonstration method for teaching-learning activities in ICT class. Surprisingly it was found that, in most cases teacher uses only book reading technique to engage the students in teaching-learning process. Classes take places regularly by ICT teachers and students are assessed individually and feedback are subsequently provided. Most of the schools have sufficient infrastructure to conduct ICT lab and sometimes practical classes are taken in ICT lab. Teachers are punctual to prepare lesson plan and use text book as well as e-learning resources for preparation. However, further study is suggested to explore the overall scenario of ICT teaching learning practices in secondary level education of Bangladesh by comparing rural and urban/ city secondary schools in large scale
... OCL involves idea generation, organisation, and intellectual convergence that are essential to learning. On the other hand, the TPACK theory (Mishra & Koehler, 2008) focuses on teachers' knowledge and proficiency in using technological tools in classroom instructions. Thus, the model directly applies to technology integration, as a teacher acquires technological skills, pedagogical skills, and content knowledge to strengthen self-efficacy for integrating technological tools in the classroom context. ...
Full-text available
This study sought to examine the integration and application of an online collaborative instructional technological tool, known as Padlet, to reinforce and strengthen Ghanaian high school learners' understanding of Integrated Sciences (IS). The study utilised a sequential mixed-methods exploratory design to collect qualitative and quantitative data. The study used purposeful sampling to select four high schools to participate in the study. Twenty science teachers and 100 high school learners were sampled for the study. The sampled teachers were trained in a professional learning community on the utilisation and integration of Padlet in classroom instructions and integrated the tool in their classroom instructional practices for one month. Data collection was carried out through classroom observations, semi-structured interviews, and learner task performance assessments. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively to determine the relationships between the variables using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences' (SPSS) mean, frequencies, t-test, and ANOVA. The qualitative data were analysed using thematic content analysis. The findings show increased learner engagement and retention, which improved learner achievement in the subject. Therefore, it is recommended that effective pedagogical courses should be included in the training of science teachers on technology integration to facilitate learner understanding and retention in the subject.
... Many are not provided with proper training or agency to acquire the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge needed to successfully embed the technology in their teaching practices. 55 For teachers, time is also not on their side when implementing new learning tools. Teachers need to adapt their lesson plans to accommodate the new technology. ...
Full-text available
You’ve likely seen the word Metaverse in the media. The opportunities for this “next iteration of the internet” are exciting, especially for learning. In the Metaverse, we imagine students building skills and exploring in shared virtual spaces without the boundaries of the physical world. As we bring the promise of new technologies into education, however, history is our greatest teacher. We’ve seen patterns of poorly implemented, underused technology in learning environments, so how can the Metaverse be different and fulfill its potential? To address the range of needs among learners, educators, and other stakeholders, we must understand the limitations of emerging technologies – as much as their affordances – and engage diverse perspectives and areas of expertise. Bridging divides between designers of cutting- edge technologies and educators who will use them is imperative. We need everyone who is eager to advance learning in the Metaverse to draw on evidence-based strategies as we pave the way forward. You might be an educator, a caregiver, a museum designer, or an administrative decision maker wondering how the Metaverse might affect your work and your learners. Or, you might be a technology developer who wants to apply their skills and products to learning environments. We are a team of educators, scientists, and entrepreneurs who believe in the power of technology for intellectual, professional, social, and emotional growth. We created this document to provide a useful overview of the Metaverse, its components, its potential for education, and for those wanting to dive in – a starting point. Our work and this conversation is ongoing, so please reach out with feedback and ideas (we are particularly interested in hearing how you use immersive technology for learning). You can reach us at
Full-text available
Musizieren über räumliche Distanzen, individuell digital unterstützte Lernprozesse oder digitale Kommunikationsprozesse und Datenmanagement: Musikbezogenes Lehren und Lernen sowie der Blick auf digitale Technologien für Studierende und Lehrende – und die Verwaltung – sind im Wandel begriffen. Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich im Sinne einer Einführung mit grundlegenden hochschuldidaktischen Fragen des Lehrens und Lernens mit Technologien im Studium an Musikhochschulen. Ausgehend von wissenschaftlichen Betrachtungen von Dingen und Medien, werden didaktische Modelle, die Perspektiven der Interaktion und der didaktischen Planung von Lehr-Lern-Prozessen mit Dingen fokussieren, sowie praktische Herangehensweisen thematisiert. Der Beitrag konzentriert sich auf didaktische Themen in Musikhochschulen. Die Dynamik der Diskussionen zur Digitalisierung hat sich durch die COVID-19-Pandemie enorm beschleunigt. Insbesondere ist die Digitalisierung in Bezug auf Themen wie Homeschooling, Distance- Learning sowie zeitlich asynchrones Lernen über Lernplattformen in den Vordergrund getreten.
With the effect of the COVID-19 virus, which emerged at the end of 2019 and caused a pandemic in the world, education has experienced a significant interruption and the world has embarked on a quest for alternatives for educational practices. Distance education, where the learner and the teacher can perform education by being in different places, has reached the forefront with its applicability to pandemic conditions and has increased its importance. As a result of these developments, the concept of emergency distance education, which is a temporary transfer of face-to-face education to technological environments, has emerged and has been put into practice. Educational institutions, which had to start distance education practices in a very short time, experienced various problems due to student density and limited time. It is considered important in order to reveal the experiences of distance education staff who are directly faced with these problems, to offer solutions to the problems and to be prepared for extraordinary situations that may occur later. The purpose of this study is to identify the problems experienced by the staff of the distance education center (DEC) in the distance education applications carried out during the pandemic and to make suggestions for the solution of these problems. In line with this purpose, focus group interviews were conducted with a total of eight personnel, three of whom were administrative, four of whom were academic and one of whom was technical, working in different positions at the distance education center of a university. The sample was determined in accordance with the convenience sampling. The data obtained in the study using phenomenology, which is one of the qualitative research designs, were analysed by content analysis method. As a result of the study, it was determined that the problems experienced by DEC staff in this process were grouped under four categories as student-centred, instructor-centred, system-centred, and other problems, and solution suggestions were presented within the framework of these problems.
Emerging technologies of the 21st century are able to grab the attention of learners, develop motivation, and provide opportunities for collaboration. These technologies offer the opportunity to promote students' learning by providing a safe and controlled environment through simulation that allows them to make mistakes and improve learning. These technologies have the potential to overcome the barrier of time and distance and, therefore, are able to facilitate inclusion. Disabled children can also be benefited by integrating these technologies in teaching learning process. Teachers' attitudes and institutional perspectives will play a central role in successful integration of emerging technologies in teaching learning process. Sense of fear of replacement in teachers due to use of automation in education is seen as a limitation of these technologies. Cost effectiveness is another hindrance to it. Continuous update in the field of technology in education and teachers' training are supposed to go hand in hand to successfully utilize the technology in making the teaching learning process successful.
Technical and vocational education and training (TVET) colleges continue to struggle to fulfill their mandate of skills development among the youth. This is so because TVET colleges still lag behind in integrating information and communications technology (ICT) in their classrooms, which has made inroads in industries. Qualitative approach was used to investigate the TVET college lecturers' instructional practices in their classrooms. Four TVET colleges as well as eight lecturers were purposefully and conveniently selected for the study. The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework was used as an underpinning framework. Findings reveal that lecturers are not keen in integrating ICTs in their teaching and some are not encouraged to do so. It was also found that not all lecturers are adequately qualified to teach in the vocational field. The study recommends that teaching resources be sought in order for colleges to align their practices with industrial practices. Lecturers too should be capacitated in integrating technology in their lessons.
The study, here described, approaches the analysis of selected sources in a scoping review for mapping the key aspects related to digital competence, at national level, in the chosen research area and target audience, that is, pre-service teachers, including novice faculty members. The review process is supported by providing a brief overview of the Italian initiatives in the lens of European reference frameworks and a focus on training paths and profiles of prospective teachers in Italy. The specificities of the above-mentioned aspects can, in fact, facilitate the discussion of data and the collection of inputs for future research. The review highlights some of the existing gaps in the literature due to the difficulty in selecting a broad range of studies focussed specifically on assessment and shows that a common trend, in the selected studies, is the clear connection both theoretically and empirically to a cross analysis with European initiatives and tools, including for self-assessment inclination.
Full-text available
This paper describes a teacher knowledge framework 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 (1986, 1987) 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.
Full-text available
Congress posed questions about the effectiveness of educational technology and how effectiveness is related to conditions and practices. The study identified reading and mathematics software products based on prior evidence of effectiveness and other criteria and recruited districts, schools, and teachers to implement the products. On average, after one year, products did not increase or decrease test scores by amounts that were statistically different from zero. For first and fourth grade reading products, the study found several school and classroom characteristics that were correlated with effectiveness, including student-teacher ratios (for first grade) and the amount of time products were used (for fourth grade). The study did not find characteristics related to effectiveness for sixth grade math or algebra. The study also found that products caused teachers to be less likely to lecture and more likely to facilitate, while students using reading or mathematics software products were more likely to be working on their own. The results reported here are based on schools and teachers who were not using the products in the previous school year. Whether products are more effective when teachers have more experience using them is being examined with a second year of data. The study will involve teachers who were in the first data collection (those who are teaching in the same school and at the same grade level or subject area) and a new group of students. The second-year study will also report results separately for the various products.
Full-text available
We introduce Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) as a way of representing what teachers need to know about technology, and argue for the role of authentic design-based activities in the development of this knowledge. We report data from a faculty development design seminar in which faculty members worked together with masters students to develop online courses. We developed and administered a survey that assessed the evolution of student- and faculty-participants' learning and perceptions about the learning environment, theoretical and practical knowledge of technology, course content (the design of online courses), group dynamics, and the growth of TPCK. Analyses focused on observed changes between the beginning and end of the semester. Results indicate that participants perceived that working in design teams to solve authentic problems of practice to be useful, challenging and fun. More importantly, the participants, both as individuals and as a group, appeared to have developed significantly in their knowledge of technology application, as well as in their TPCK. In brief, learning by design appears to be an effective instructional technique to develop deeper understandings of the complex web of relationships between content, pedagogy and technology and the contexts in which they function.
Through the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) program (Public Law 105–78; see Doherty, 2000) and Title I School-Wide programs (Natriello & McDill, 1999), there is currently considerable impetus for reforming education using whole-school change models. Implementing comprehensive school reform (CSR) programs requires tremendous commitment and effort by school districts and their individual schools. As the literature on school reform indicates, it also takes time (Bodilly, 1996). What the public, media, and school boards sometimes fail to understand is that programs by themselves are not what improve student learning. Rather, the critical factor is the positive changes that the reforms engender in school climate, resources, and, most critically, the quality of classroom teaching and learning. But whether achievement effects are evidenced in a relatively short period, as occurred after 2 years in Memphis (Ross et al., 2001) or, more typically, after 5 or more years (Herman & Stringfield, 1995; Levin, 1993), key stakeholders (e.g., the public and school boards) want fairly immediate information about what is happening in the schools to justify the reform effort. At the same time, teachers and administrators within schools need formative evaluation data to know whether their efforts are producing the tangible changes desired. These considerations prompted our development of the School Observation Measure (SOM; Ross, Smith, & Alberg, 1999), the instrument to be described in this chapter.
Technical Report
Full text available online: