Content uploaded by Matthew J Koehler
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matthew J Koehler on Feb 18, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Introducing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Punya Mishra1
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
517.353.7211
punya@msu.edu
Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
New York City, March 24–28, 2008
2
Introducing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Punya Mishra1
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.
1 Equal contribution of the authors. We rotate the order of authorship across our publications.
3
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
4
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
technologies.
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”
(Dictionary.com). 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.
5
- 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
characteristics.
- 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 Helvetica2 describes how typefaces are created and validated in use through an
active process of social construction, complete with great examples from the history of
typography.
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)
2 To learn more about the film, visit http://www.helveticafilm.com/
6
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.
7
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).
8
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
9
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)3. 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.
3 A more complete treatment of this example and work, complete with video may be found at the
website: http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/moebius/ (Arnold & Rogness, 2007).
10
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.
1029).
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
11
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
(TPACK).
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
is:
- 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
12
We can then apply this lens to one example of a creative solution developed by a teacher
to help her 3rd 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 technology4. 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 3rd 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
4 See more examples at: http://ott.educ.msu.edu/pt3video/
13
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.
Conclusion
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
techniques.
Figure 5: Exploring Cross Disciplinary Boundaries with Theo Jansen’s Sand Creatures
14
Theo Jansen5 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 (SodaPlay.com) 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
around.
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.
5 Learn more about the inspiring work of Theo Jansen at: http://www.strandbeest.com/.
15
REFERENCES
Arnold, D,, & Rogness, J. (2007). Mobius Transformations Revealed.
http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/moebius/. 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:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20074005.pdf
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-
1054.
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.
16
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.
