Content uploaded by Joshua Rosenberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joshua Rosenberg on Nov 28, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
1
The Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge Framework for
Teachers and Teacher Educators
Matthew J. Koehler
Punya Mishra
Mete Akcaoglu
Joshua M. Rosenberg
Michigan State University
Department of Counseling,
Educational Psychology,
and Special Education
East Lansing, MI
2
Introduction
The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK) framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Mishra &
Koehler, 2006) describes the type of teacher knowledge
required to teach effectively with technology. Describing
what teachers need to know can be difficult because
teaching is an inherently complex, multifaceted activity
which occurs in varied settings. By its nature, teaching is
an ill-structured problem (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Spiro,
Coulson, Feltovich, & Anderson, 1988) requiring reasoning
about a wide range of interrelated variables such as the
background knowledge that students bring into the
classroom, teacher and student expectations about the
content to be covered, and school and classroom guidelines
and rules. The use of technology in the classroom introduces
a new set of variables into the teaching context, and adds
complexity due to its rapidly-changing nature (Koehler &
Mishra, 2008). The TPACK framework identifies a unifying
structure that not only respects this complexity, but also
provides guidance for appropriate technology integration
(Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
The TPACK framework describes the kinds of knowledge
that teachers need in order to teach with technology, and
the complex ways in which these bodies of knowledge
interact with one another. This builds on the approach
used by Shulman’s (1986) pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK), describing how and why teacher knowledge of
pedagogy and content cannot be considered solely in
isolation. Teachers, according to Shulman, need to master
the interaction between pedagogy and content in order to
implement strategies that help students to fully understand
content. The TPACK framework extends Shulman’s (1986)
notion of PCK by including knowledge of technology.
The TPACK framework describes the kinds
of knowledge that teachers need in order
to teach with technology, and the complex
ways in which these bodies of knowledge
interact with one another.
Teachers must understand how technology, pedagogy,
and content interrelate, and create a form of knowledge
that goes beyond the three separate knowledge bases.
Teaching with technology requires a flexible framework
that explains how rapidly-changing, protean technologies
may be effectively integrated with a range of pedagogical
approaches and content areas.
The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Framework for Teachers and Teacher Educators
Editor’s Note
Teacher educators need to visualize ICT integration in a
holistic manner, and the authors in this paper present the
highly popular framework – TPACK for the readers to consider.
It is important to note why adoption of a framework is
important to consider ICT integration in teacher education.
They argue that good teaching with technology requires shift
in exiting practices in both pedagogy and content domains.
Teacher educators are therefore urged to think about their
own context, and go beyond technology literacy to promote
educational practices that innovatively use interaction of
technology, pedagogy and content.
Summary
In this paper, we present Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) as a framework for the integration
of technology within teaching. Three main bodies of knowledge – technological knowledge, content knowledge, and
pedagogical knowledge – inform the design of this theoretical framework. Accordingly, we describe the characteristics
of these three bodies of knowledge, along with the bodies of knowledge that emerge from the interactions between
and among them. In this chapter, we argue that knowing how to integrate technology emerges from an understanding
both of the three main bodies of knowledge and their interactions. We believe the TPACK framework has significant
implications for teachers and teacher educators; specifically, we argue that teachers should be considered “designers” of
curricula, and with regards to teacher educators, we identify “learning technology by design” and activity types as two
key methods for the development of TPACK.
3
Please note that this paper is only a brief summary of
the TPACK framework and related ideas. Interested
readers may wish to reference more in-depth prior work
(e.g., Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) or by
visiting tpack.org.
Overview of TPACK Framework
In the TPACK framework, what teachers need to know
is characterized by three broad knowledge bases –
technology, pedagogy, and content – and the interactions
between and among these knowledge bases. In this
approach, technology in teaching is characterized as
something well beyond isolated knowledge of specific
hardware or software. Rather, technology that is introduced
into teaching contexts “causes the representation of
new concepts and requires developing a sensitivity
to the dynamic, transactional relationship between all
three components” (Koehler & Mishra, 2005a, p. 134).
Good teaching with technology, therefore, cannot be
achieved by simply adding a new piece of technology
upon existing structures. Good teaching, with technology,
requires a shift in existing pedagogical and content
domains.
Technological
Pedagogical Content
Knowledge
(TPACK)
Technological
Pedagogical
Knowledge
(TPK)
Technological
Content
Knowledge
(TCK)
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge
Pedagogical
Knowledge
(PK)
Content
Knowledge
(CK)
Technological
Knowledge
(TK)
Contexts
Figure 1. TPACK Framework (Image from http://tpack.org)
Good teaching, with technology, requires
a shift in existing pedagogical and
content domains.
The TPACK framework also emphasizes the role of the
context within teaching and learning occurs. Ignoring
context leads to “generic solutions to the problem of
Teaching is a context-bound activity, and
teachers with developed TPACK use
technology to design learning experiences
tailored for specific pedagogies, crafted for
specific content, as instantiated in specific
learning contexts.
teaching” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1032). Teaching is
a context-bound activity, and teachers with developed
TPACK use technology to design learning experiences
tailored for specific pedagogies, crafted for specific
content, as instantiated in specific learning contexts. In the
sections below we describe each of the components of the
TPACK framework and, most importantly, their interactions
with each other.
Technological Knowledge (TK)
TK includes an understanding of how to use computer
software and hardware, presentation tools such as
document presenters and projects, and other technologies
used in educational contexts. Most importantly, TK covers
the ability to adapt to and learn new technologies. It is
important to note that TK exists in a state of flux, due to
the rapid rate of change in technology (Mishra, Koehler &
Kereluik, 2009) and due to the protean nature of technology
(Koehler & Mishra, 2008). For instance, modern computer
hardware and software become quickly obsolete, and
computers can be used for a variety of pedagogical tasks,
such as research, communication, and media consumption
and creation.
Content Knowledge (CK)
CK refers to the knowledge or specific nature of a discipline
or subject matter. CK varies greatly between different
educational contexts (e.g. the differences between the
content of primary school math and graduate school
math), and teachers are expected to master the content
they teach. Content knowledge is also important because
it determines the discipline-specific modes of thinking
unique to each field.
Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)
PK describes the “general purpose” knowledge unique to
teaching. It is the set of skills that teachers must develop
in order to manage and organize teaching and learning
activities for intended learning outcomes. This knowledge
involves, but is not limited to, an understanding of
classroom management activities, the role of student
motivation, lesson planning, and assessment of learning.
4
PK may also describe knowledge of different teaching
methods, such as knowing how to organize activities in a way
conducive to students’ constructive building of knowledge.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)
PCK reflects Shulman’s (1986) assertion that effective
teaching requires more than separate understanding of
content and pedagogy. PCK also acknowledges the fact
that different content lends itself to different methods
of teaching. For example, the teaching of speaking skills
for a foreign language teacher requires student-centered
activities where students engage in meaningful and
authentic communicative tasks. Contrast this to a graduate-
level art appreciation seminar where a teacher-centered
lecture may be an appropriate way for the professor to
describe and model ways of engaging with art. In this sense,
PCK means going beyond being a content expert or just
knowing general pedagogic guidelines, to understanding
the unique interplay between content and pedagogy.
Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)
TCK describes knowledge of the reciprocal relationship
between technology and content. Technology impacts
what we know, and introduces new affordances as to
how we can represent certain content in new ways that
was not possible before. For example, today, students can
learn about the relationship between geometric shapes
and angles by touching and playing with these concepts
on the screens of handheld, portable devices. Similarly,
visual programming software now allows even primary
school students to pick up programming by designing and
creating digital games. In addition, technology enables the
discovery of new content and representations of content;
such as the relationship between the advent of Carbon-14
dating for archeology and the manner in which Google
Trends can be used to predict the spread of the flu virus
(Qualman, 2013).
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)
TPK identifies the reciprocal relationship between
technology and pedagogy. This knowledge makes it possible
to understand what technology can do for certain pedagogic
goals, and for teachers to select the most appropriate tool
based on its appropriateness for the specific pedagogical
approach. Technology can also afford new methods and
venues for teaching, and ease the way certain classroom
activities are implemented. For example, collaborative
writing can take place with Google Do cs or Google Hangouts
instead of face-to-face meetings, extending collaborative
activities over distances. Also, the advent of online learning
and more recently, massively open online courses (MOOCs)
require teachers to develop new pedagogical approaches
that are appropriate for the tools at hand.
Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK)
TPACK describes the synthesized knowledge of each
of the bodies of knowledge described above, with a
focus upon how technology can be uniquely crafted
to meet pedagogical needs to teach certain content in
specific contexts. Alone, each of the constituent bodies of
knowledge, that comprise TPACK, represents a necessary
and important aspect of teaching. But effective teaching
is much more than each of the pieces (TK, PK & CK). For the
teacher with TPACK, knowledge of technology, pedagogy,
and content is synthesized and put to use for the design of
learning experiences for students.
The TPACK framework also functions as a
theoretical and a conceptual lens for
researchers and educators to measure pre-
service and in-service teachers’ readiness to
teach effectively with technology.
The TPACK framework is a testament to the complexity of
teaching. The framework proposes that tackling all of the
variables at once creates effective teaching with technology.
The TPACK framework also functions as a theoretical and a
conceptual lens for researchers and educators to measure
pre-service and in-service teachers’ readiness to teach
effectively with technology. For this purpose, researchers
have developed a range of instruments, quantitative and
qualitative, to measure TPACK (Koehler, Shin & Mishra, 2011;
Schmidt, et al., 2009).
Implications for Teachers
Because every teaching context is unique and there are
varied interactions between technology, pedagogy, and
content, there is not a universal or “one-size fits all” solution to
the problem of teaching. Due to the intertwined relationships
among technology, pedagogy and content, teachers face
a great number of decisions. These decisions shift with
permutations of technology, pedagogy, subject-matter and
classroom context. The diversity of possible responses implies
that a teacher should be an active agent and to become
designers of their own curriculum (Koehler & Mishra, 2005a).
5
The complex and ill-structured nature of teaching with
technology leads to the idea of “teachers as designers”
who are constantly engaged in the active, iterative, and
feedback-driven process of problem-finding and creative
problem-solving (Koehler & Mishra, 2005b). As Kafai (1996)
suggests, in the design process,
… the designer begins by finding a problem, then discovers
parts of the solution, tries to make sense out of it, considers
how to reframe the situation, and continues with problem
solving. This process seems to stop when an artifact has been
created, but, actually, it never ends because existing design
solutions are used and reused in new design situations. (Kafai,
1996, p. 73).
According to Brown and Campione (1996), curricula are
comprised of pieces that act in cohesion, instead of a
collection of teaching practices in isolation. Often, the
failures in creating successful curricula, which incorporate
technology organically, stem from ignoring this idea
of cohesion, and “trying to pull together disparate sets
of items” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1034). Therefore,
the creator of such an intricate design piece can
only be teachers who know, understand and craft the
interrelated pieces into a meaningful whole. This is the
essence of TPACK.
The constant process of negotiating among existing
limitations causes designs go through iterative cycles
of change and refinement to create optimal learning
experiences. This process is akin to bricolage (Turkle &
Papert, 1992), which emphasizes creativity and flexibility.
Similarly, teachers often make creative decisions based
on the teaching context, technologies available, how
these tools can enhance the existing pedagogies – which
are determined based on the unique affordances and
limitations of the content at hand. During the process
of designing their own curricula, the decisions that go
into making up the curriculum become the primary
responsibility of teachers, who understand the
particularities of specific teaching contexts. For this reason,
the design process helps teachers to become a part of the
curriculum (Dewey, 1934).
The image of “teachers as designers” has also ver y important
implications in informing teacher educators. Design, or
learning by design, requires learners to actively experience
the process, and they provide rich contexts for learning
(Harel & Papert, 1990, 1991; Kafai, 1996; Perkins, 1986). In the
next section, we describe approaches to teacher education
in technology, and highlight the importance of learning
by design.
Implications for Teacher Educators
Dozens of methods have been proposed for the
development of TPACK, and they vary in their effectiveness.
Among various approaches, an emphasis upon how
teachers integrate technology in their practice is more
important than the emphasis upon what teachers integrate
in their practice (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Among various approaches, an emphasis
upon how teachers integrate technology in
their practice is more important than the
emphasis upon what teachers integrate in
their practice.
For example, approaches that develop technological
knowledge (TK) in isolation, where technology literacy is
the goal, fail to assist teachers in the development of the
educational uses of those tools. Similarly, approaches that
develop only pedagogy or content – or even pedagogical
content knowledge-do not capture the scope and unique
flavor of knowledge needed to effectively teach with
technology.
Other methods of developing TPACK have avoided
these problems by focusing on different approaches to
developing the connected, contextualized knowledge
described in the TPACK framework. In the following sections,
we describe two unique approaches: learning technology by
design and by activity types. For other proposed methods of
developing TPACK, interested readers can read Angeli and
Valanides (2009); Brush and Saye (2009); and Niess, van Zee,
and Gillow-Wiles (2010).
Naming their approach Activity types to reflect the kinds
of domain-driven learning activities that teachers and
students do everyday in their classrooms, Harris & Hoefer
(2011) build knowledge about technology onto teachers’
existing understanding. In this approach, teachers first
formulate goals for student learning (Mishra & Koehler,
2009). Then, they choose activity types appropriate for the
specified goals. Finally, they select specific technologies
based upon their choice of activity types. Research indicates
that activity types help teachers to make careful, strategic
decisions around the integration of technology in their
teaching (Harris & Hofer, 2011).
The learning technology by design approach emerged as
a method for the development of TPACK through faculty
and graduate students working together to develop
6
online classes in a design-based seminar (Mishra & Koehler,
2005a). Through the act of designing, students and faculty
constructed both online classes (which were later taught
by the faculty) as well as an awareness of technology’s role
in reaching instructional goals for specific content. In this
approach, students are not recipients of instruction, but
undertake a “cognitive apprenticeship” with instructors
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This design-based process is
an authentic context for learning about educational
technology that recognizes that design-based activities
take on meaning and occur iteratively over time.
Principles of the learning technology by design approach
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006) have been used to support design
teams that have created educational movies, re-design
existing websites, and developed curriculum used in K-12
schools. In the learning technology by design process,
students design an educational technology artifact (e.g., an
online course, movie, and redesigned website) that develops
in-step with the student’s progress through coursework or
professional development. To accomplish this, students are
organized into groups, and the initial discomfort students
feel due to working in groups to solve ill-structured
instructional problems is, over time, replaced with a sense
of accomplishment and deeper engagement with course
readings and discussions (Koehler & Mishra, 2005b).
Throughout, the instructor employs the role of facilitator,
available for immediate and ad hoc assistance to students
as they progress toward the completion of their artifact.
The development of TPACK should begin
with relatively familiar technologies - with
which teachers may have already
developed TPACK - and to gradually
progress to those that are more advanced.
All technology has affordances and strengths (Mishra
& Koehler, 2006), regardless of the method teacher
educators select to develop teachers’ TPACK. Therefore, the
development of TPACK should begin with relatively familiar
technologies – with which teachers may have already
developed TPACK – and to gradually progress to those that
are more advanced (Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Koehler et al.,
2011). In the case of pre-service teachers, whose knowledge
development is limited not only with regards to TPACK, but
also its constituent knowledge bases, such as PCK (Brush
& Saye, 2009), it is important for teacher educators to first
introduce relatively familiar technologies. Additionally and
in order to facilitate the development of TPACK among pre-
service teachers, teacher educators should also identify
and provide ample design opportunities to encounter
authentic problems of practice slowly and in a spiral-like
manner (Koehler & Mishra, 2008). The changing conditions
and multiple contexts present challenges to the task of
developing educators with TPACK; nevertheless, a deep
understanding of TPACK imparts the general, flexible
knowledge needed to teach effectively with technology.
Conclusion
New technologies are driving necessary and inevitable
change throughout the educational landscape. Effective
technology use, however, is difficult, because technology
introduces a new set of variables to the already complicated
task of lesson planning and teaching. The TPACK framework
describes how effective teaching with technology is
possible by pointing out the free and open interplay
between technology, pedagogy, and content. Applying
TPACK to the task of teaching with technology requires
a context-bound understanding of technology, where
technologies may be chosen and repurposed to fit the very
specific pedagogical and content-related needs of diverse
educational contexts (Kereluik, Mishra, & Koehler, 2010;
Mishra & Koehler, 2009).
Technology education... should become an
integral part of teacher education, moving
beyond teaching technology literacy in
isolation.
In confronting the ways in which technology, content, and
pedagogy interact in classrooms contexts, we see an active
role for teachers as designers of their own curriculum. Like
all design tasks, teachers are faced with an open-ended
and ill-structured problem in the process of crafting their
curricula. This requires teacher educators to adopt, identify
and select methods to develop technology integration
knowledge by starting from already-existing bodies of
teacher knowledge in a gradual manner (Koehler & Mishra,
2008); or in the case of pre-service teachers, to thoughtfully
and slowly reveal authentic problems of practice (Brush
& Saye, 2009). Technology education, therefore, should
become an integral part of teacher education, moving
beyond teaching technology literacy in isolation.
Complexity is an everyday part of teaching, and the
ubiquitous nature of digital technologies only adds to
the complexity that teachers face. The TPACK framework,
however, provides teachers with a tool to manage
complexity. By recognizing the unique interplay between
and among the core bodies of knowledge that comprise
TPACK within unique contexts, TPACK provides teachers
and teacher educators with a framework that guides
them to achieve meaningful and authentic integration of
technology into the classroom.
7
References
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and
methodological issues for the conceptualization, development,
and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers &
Education, 52(1), 154–168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
Brown, A.L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Guided discovery in a
community of learners. InK. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons:
Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–
270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. W. (2009). Strategies for preparing preservice
social studies teachers to integrate technology effectively:
Models and practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 9(1), 46–59.
Dewey J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: Perigee.
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning
environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–32.
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Harris, J. B. & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of
secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related
instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 43(3), 211–229.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2009). Teachers’ technological
pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types:
Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2803_7
Kafai, Y. B. (1996). Learning design by making games: Children’s
development of design strategies in the creation of a complex
computational artifact. In Y. B. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.),
Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in
a digital world (pp. 71–96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2010). On learning to subvert
signs: Literacy, technology and the TPACK framework. The
California Reader, 44(2), 12–18.
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.
doi:10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV
Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE
Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook
of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for
educators (pp. 3-29). New York, NY: Routledge.
Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., Bouck, E. C., DeSchryver, M., Kereluik, K.,
Shin, T.S., & Wolf, L.G. (2011). Deep-play: Developing TPACK
for 21st century teachers. International Journal of Learning
Sciences, 6(2), 146–163.
Koehler, M. J., Shin, T. S., & Mishra, P. (2011). How do we measure
TPACK? Let me count the ways. In R. N. Ronau, C. R. Rakes, &
M. L. Niess (Eds.), Educational technology, teacher knowledge,
and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and
approaches (pp. 16-31). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical
content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.
Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9620.2006.00684.x
Mishra, P. & Koehler. M.J. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using
the TPACK framework: You can have your hot tools and teach
with them, too. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14–18.
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the
same: Looking back to the future of educational technology.
TechTrends 53(5), 48-53. doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0325-3.
Niess, M., van Zee, E., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2011). Knowledge growth
in teaching mathematics/science with spreadsheets: Moving
PCK to TPACK through online professional development.
Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(2), 42–52.
Perkins, D. N. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Qualman, E. (2013). Socialnomics: How social media transforms the
way we live and do business. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons.
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson A. D., Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P. &
Shin, T. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment
instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth
in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Spiro, R.J., Coulson, R.I., Feltovich, P.J., & Anderson, D.K. (1988).
Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition
in ill-structured domains. In V. Patel (Ed.), Tenth Annual
Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 375-383).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1991).
Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random
access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in
ill-structured domains. In Duffy, T.M., & Jonassen, D.H. (Eds.),
Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation
(pp. 57–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Turkle S. & Papert, S. (1992). Epistemological pluralism and the
revaluation of the concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
11(1), 3–33.
Authors Bio
Matthew J. Koehler is professor of educational psychology and educational technology at the College of Education
at Michigan State University, where he co-directs the doctoral program in Educational Psychology and Educational
Technology. His scholarly interests include the pedagogical affordances (and constraints) of newer technologies for
learning, specifically in the context of the professional development of teachers. He may be found at http://mkoehler.
educ.msu.edu.
Punya Mishra is professor of educational psychology and educational technology at the College of Education at Michigan
State University, where he also co-directs the Master’s program in Educational Technology. His scholarly interests include
technology integration in teaching and learning, creativity and design. He can be found at http://punyamishra.com/.
Mete Akcaoglu is a doctoral student of educational psychology and educational technology at the College of Education
at Michigan State University. His scholarly interests include the design and evaluation of technology-rich and innovative
learning environments for K-12 children. He can be found at http://meteakcaoglu.com.
Joshua M. Rosenberg is a doctoral student of educational psychology and educational technology at the College of
Education at Michigan State University. His scholarly interests include the sociocultural effects of teaching and learning
with technology. He can be found at http://studydesigned.com.
Correspondence:
Prof. Punya Mishra
600 Farm Lane
509A Erickson Hall
East Lansing MI 48824
Email: punya@msu.edu
Phone: +1 517-353-7211
This publication is a part of ICT Integrated Teacher Education: A Resource Book
Copyright © CEMCA, 2013. This publication is made available under a Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 License (international): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Views expressed in this paper are that of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of CEMCA/COL. All products
and services mentioned are owned by their respective copyrights holders, and mere presentation in the publication does
not mean endorsement by CEMCA/COL.
CEMCA in an international organization established by the Commonwealth of Learning, Vancouver, Canada to promote
the meaningful, relevant and appropriate use of ICTs to serve the educational and training needs of Commonwealth
member states of Asia. CEMCA receives diplomatic privileges and immunities in India under section 3 of the United
Nations (privileges and immunities) Act, 1947.
Printed and published by Mr. R. Thyagarajan, Head (Administration and Finance), CEMCA, 13/14 Sarv Priya Vihar, New Delhi 110016, INDIA.
Website: http://www.cemca.org.in
CC
BY SA
