TPACK as Mediated Practice
Linda Polin and Rolin Moe
Abstract: Technological, Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a framework for
professional educators, developed to help those understand the interplay of three unique domains
of knowledge necessary for teaching: an understanding of content, pedagogy and technology.
TPACK is grounded in the work of Lee Shulman’s (1986) earlier work combining pedagogy and
content knowledge. Both Shulman and Mishra and Koehler (2006), the authors of TPACK,
allude to the importance of contemporary learning theories such as constructivism and social
learning theory as integral to the TPACK construct as a transformative opportunity to do things
as prerequisite for learning to do. This chapter presents TPACK from the historical and
theoretical perspectives in order to provide a full understanding of the construct as a model for
learning by doing.
During a political effort spanning more than 30 years to integrate technology into
classroom instruction, one critical barrier to implementation has barely been recognized and
never successfully addressed: the lack of a theory for integration. De facto teacher preservice and
inservice professional development has largely focused on “how to,” i.e., procedural
understanding of tech tools, or “why to,” i.e., largely legislatively mandated and politically
strident urging, but certainly not “when.” Knowing when to employ an instructional tool requires
understanding something about the relationship between the features of the tool and the context
in which it might be used. This is the proposition of Technological, Pedagogical Content
Beginning with Shulman’s (1986, 8) concept of pedagogical content knowledge, Mishra
and Koehler (2006, 1017) expanded the domain of teacher knowledge by incorporating
technology as a third area of expertise mediating and being mediated by the other two and
generating a sweet spot of “Technology, Pedagogy, And Content Knowledge.” Their TPACK
model does not privilege technology over curriculum or pedagogy, but emphasizes the mutually
mediating effects of all three. That is, technology can and should suggest new ways of thinking
about content and new pedagogical moves.
This chapter provides both a theoretical and practical framework for understanding and
accessing the confluence of technology, pedagogy and content expertise for successful teaching
practices. We provide a brief review of the history of domain ontologies as a solution, followed
by a more in-depth look at the relationship when the three elements merge.
Joining Pedagogy, Content, and Curriculum
In 1986, in a watershed address to the American Educational Research Association, Lee
Shulman offered an alternative conception of the knowledge domain for teaching as a practice
and profession. Shulman’s proposition intended to address two problems: the separation of
pedagogy from curriculum, and the emphasis on pedagogy as procedural moves.
Mere content knowledge is likely to be as useless pedagogically as content-free
[pedagogical] skill. But to blend properly the two aspects of a teacher’s capacities requires
that we pay as much attention to the content aspects of teaching as we have recently
devoted to the elements of teaching process (Shulman1986, 9).
The domain-independent conception of teaching that viewed subject matter as
interchangeable content carried by a variety of generic teaching strategies focused on transfer
and storage of knowledge (Schoenfeld 1988). However, Shulman is not merely rebalancing the
focus of teaching skill on content as well as pedagogy. Rather he asserts that knowing a subject
matter is not the same as being able to teach it to others skillfully, that good teaching is not the
sum of good pedagogy and solid content knowledge, but also the interaction between the two,
which results in a new knowledge domain: pedagogical content knowledge. This expands content
knowledge beyond concepts and information in a subject matter domain, to include the epistemic
structure of that domain: what are the critical topics within the domain? how are ideas
organized? how represented? what constitutes evidence?
In some ways Shulman’s work is very prescient, anticipating social learning theories. His
analysis of this teaching landscape begins to sound very much like that of an activity theorist,
identifying mediating effects of and tensions within the sociocultural political system in which
the teacher operates to accomplish teaching. Additionally, Shulman (1986) argues that “if a
teacher has to ‘know the territory’ of teaching then it is the landscape of such materials,
institutions, organization, and mechanisms with which he or she must be familiar” (9). Wenger’s
extension of communities of practice theory now invokes “landscapes” of practice, referring to
the increased sophistication of a practitioner who understands not just her own practice, but a
good bit about those practices that impact hers (Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner 2015, 4).
From PCK to TPACK
TPACK is a theoretical model of technology integration in instruction for K-12 and adult
learners. To understand the value of this model it is necessary to recognize the advantage that a
theory provides over a set of procedures. When teachers or pre-service teachers are trained to do
rather than to think about an instructional task, their options are limited. When things go wrong
in the procedure or script or plan, they are without recourse for improvising. Yet we know
teaching is a partly, if not wholly, improvised activity (Duckworth 1986, 481). In classrooms
teachers are called upon to make hundreds of moment-to-moment decisions. They can deduce
from years of experience a set of things that seem to work, and if they are reflective about it,
further deduce a working hypothesis about why. Theory scaffolds that kind of discovery and
offers strong up-front support for its development. While Shulman’s pedagogical content
knowledge allows for this, the influx of digital technology into the school landscape has, for
many teachers, disrupted rather than mediated the relationship between pedagogy and content.
Furthermore, unlike curriculum and pedagogy, computer-age digital technology is a rapidly and
constantly changing domain of knowledge. What was sufficient to define ‘computer literacy’ in
1988 would not stand up to today’s classroom technologies (Lankshear and Knobel 2005, 7). For
a teacher, technological knowledge means understanding the array of available tools and media
sufficiently well enough to determine their possible contribution in the classroom. This is how
technological knowledge mediates instruction in a content area. See Figure 1
[FIG. 1 HERE]
Technology (TK). Technical knowledge is defined in terms of one’s comfort with a
constantly moving domain of knowledge. The emphasis is not on knowing particular
applications or hardware platforms, which have a limited shelf-life. Rather, the focus is on self-
efficacy with regard to learning new technologies. That is, the teacher’s technical fluency is
defined by her level of engagement with technology in general, which supports remaining
current in the digital landscape. A technically knowledgeable teacher might read Wired
magazine, attend regional educational technology conferences, and comfortably troubleshoot or
find assistance to solve technical problems.
Technology + Content Knowledge (TCK). Technological content knowledge views
technology as an alternative delivery system and an alternative representational format for
content. For example, teachers might learn about “good math software” or how Google Earth
visualizations might support a human geography unit. Or, they might embrace a broader
spectrum of formats for student work and curricular content. However, relying on content
knowledge only gets the instructor so far. Pedagogical content knowledge introduces the
epistemic aspects of the subject matter. For instance, what are the best ways to engage with these
mathematical ideas or what are the central concepts in human geography? A teacher with
technological content knowledge might know a software package for visualization and
manipulation of a calculus graph or a three-dimensional view of geographical barriers to human
Technology + Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). Technological pedagogical knowledge
assumes a view of technology as a pedagogical technique, either new or better by virtue of the
features of the technology. Teachers might learn about the use of wikis for collaborative work or
podcasts/videocasts for ‘flipping’ the classroom (Ash 2012, s7). Often the motive behind TPK is
the hope that new technologies will push teachers into different and presumably better
pedagogical strategies, e.g., away from didactic sage-on-the-stage style of presentation toward
workshop-like, highly interactive engagement during the class; that is, away from transmission
of content and toward active construction of meaning. However, understanding the best
technologies for creating and sustaining those kinds of pedagogical moves while necessary, are
not sufficient. TPK without content can lead to goal-free instructional activities, such as
constructing replicas of ancient Egyptian ruins in Minecraft.
While both TCK and TPK capture important elements of the role of technology in
teaching, by themselves they do not offer handholds for teachers trying to make immediate,
contextualized decisions about what to do in their classroom with their students with regard to
their particular curricular objectives. Indeed they break up the central idea of pedagogical content
knowledge by isolating each.
Technology, Pedagogy, And Content Knowledge (TPACK). The Venn diagram in
Figure 1 illustrates an overlap of the three domains, but is better thought of as the interaction or
mediating effect of each upon the other. The content and structure of technology hardware,
software, or networked services influence pedagogy and content. However, the intention of
TPACK is for that influence to be intentional, designed, and relevant.
As digital technologies for education have become less about content delivery and more
about construction, manipulation, representation, and distribution, they actually have a greater
mediating influence on pedagogical content knowledge. They support and encourage teachers to
rethink not only how they teach, but what (Niess et al. 2009, 9). It doesn’t matter if Internet
access is via mobile phone, tablet, or laptop. It matters that you can, for instance, produce, share,
and communicate. In this way digital technologies challenge low-tech curricular ideas and
pedagogical moves by extending the range of possibility.
Thus the true value of the TPACK construct for pre-service and inservice educators lies in
its integrative rather than additive approach to instructional use of technology. New media
enables new pedagogy, and possibly new ways of thinking about the content of subject matter
domains. And so, a teacher who has developed sophistication with TPACK is rethinking content
and methods because of technical affordances of digital tools. A particular technical tool enables
certain instructional moves that are only possible or best accomplished with that technology.
TPACK is not a feature of instruction or instructional materials. It is a knowledge base
and a habit of mind that a teacher uses to guide the design of instruction. Writing about TPACK,
Mishra and Koehler (2006, 1017) describe teachers developing TPACK or achieving TPACK,
not applying or integrating it. TPACK is a framework for planning instruction, but also for
improvising during instruction. It is a model or framework for making sensible use of technology
in the context of one’s own teaching. As such, TPACK is learned in pre-service or inservice.
Since TPACK’s introduction and influence on the education community, a number of pre-
service and inservice programs have adopted Mishra and Koehler’s approach to developing
TPACK in teachers through applied design work (Doering, Beach and O’Brien 2007, 43). In
each case successful implementation of TPACK is achieved through scaffolding its use in
practice, i.e., through learning by designing. TPACK easily fits into a workshop style of
engagement with curricular content and constructivism, where teachers’ creating and doing is the
source of their learning.
The TPACK construct has a strong intuitive appeal, and in its fully realized Venn
graphical representation it appears to be a simple matter of the mental acquisition of a model.
However, in developing TPACK standards for mathematics, (Niess, Sadri & Lee 2007, 11) drew
upon field experiences with teachers working through the application of a TPACK framework
and found teachers moved through a series of stages differentiated by the degree of comfort,
commitment, and complexity. They proposed five stages of development describing a journey
from acquiring an understanding of the possibilities to acting upon a fully realized TPACK
construct. At the final stage, teachers’ engagement with technology is truly mediational. That is,
technology can result in changes to curriculum and pedagogy.
While their developmental model offers a basis for determining teachers’ depth of
engagement with a TPACK perspective, it does not fully describe the process by which teachers
advance. Their earlier work in which they relied on “learning by designing” suggested the
leading activity for the development of TPACK is engaging in knowledge production activities
that are supported by, and perhaps best or only constructed with, technology. Similarly, in a study
using TPACK as a lens to integrate open educational resources into a K-12 teacher pre-service
program, it was the immersive opportunity to transform instructional designs which affected
attitudes and learning (Kimmons 2015, 58).
It is important to recognize TPACK as an outlook, a perspective, a way of thinking about
instruction, rather than as a technique or procedure that is somehow applied to teaching a content
area. A teacher who deeply understands the mutual mediation of pedagogy, content, and
technology in the TPACK model sees curriculum and instruction differently. She doesn’t need to
think about integrating technology any more than she needs to think about integrating textbooks.
Working with TPACK
Another important aspect of TPACK is the generic nature of the model. Neither Mishra
and Koehler nor Shulman prescribe a specific pedagogical approach. Thus, even with TPACK as
a framework, a teacher who sees English literature as primarily about learning genres and forms
of literature may see a didactic instructional model as the best instructional approach and may
choose to use presentation software to support her lectures. It’s not a particularly enlightened
view of pedagogical content knowledge, but the teacher’s design choices demonstrate a TPACK
compatible recognition of the interaction of media, content, and method.
Both Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS) describe outcomes of K-12 content in ways that focus on concepts rather than
information, application of concepts rather than memorization of information, and work in
context rather than isolation. To accomplish these outcomes teachers will need to make
pedagogical changes that take them away from teacher-centric techniques such as lecture that
support a view of learning as the transfer of knowledge. Instead they will need to embrace
methods that reinforce a view of learning as the use of knowledge in context. Both NGSS and
CCSS standards frameworks describe student learning outcomes that will be best served by a
constructivist pedagogical approach that makes use of authentic contexts for learning and
engages students in complex, critical engagements with content (Marzano 2013).
The next section describes the interactive or mediating effect of a constructivist
pedagogy, new technologies, and elements of CCSS and NGSS. It does not explain how to “do
TPACK” but rather does offer some examples of TPACK designs from across the curriculum.
English Language Arts
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.8.3 Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or
events using effective technique, relevant descriptive details, and well-structured event
Educators from within the English/language arts community recognize the dramatic shift
in literacy behavior and skills as a result of wide-spread access to the world wide web and as a
consequence of the nature of Web 2.0, also known as the read/write web (Beach, Hull, and
O’Brien 2011, 41; Lankshear and Knobel 2011, 1016). Free and low cost applications, ubiquity
of camera phones with web access, and the rise of web communities all support rapid, frequent
production, collaboration, and sharing by youth, to peers. For youth, easily accessed digital
information sources are privileged over print publication. Reading online, whether a 140
character Tweet or a lengthy blog posting, usually involves links to sources outside the original
object, and it can often include embedded video or audio or still image clips. Multimodal and
linked reading writing is neither new nor rare. Youth are accustomed to critiquing and remixing
material they encounter online.
Understanding and valuing youth engagement with online resources, pushes on the
notion of what it means to be a literate consumer of content. The language arts curriculum
focuses on both reading/consumption and writing/production, and curricular adjustments must
address both consumption and production of digital material. The English/language arts
curriculum must also take into account youth production of material for sharing with authentic
audiences, including but not limited to peers. The everyday experience of youth in a networked
and digital world demands rethinking what it means to be literate. This is a case of technology
mediating curriculum, potentially changing what is taught and how.
A technologically proficient teacher, aware of these activities and even an active user of
them, might see the potential in bringing these tools into the classroom by asking students to use
them and by using them herself as part of her instructional methods. However, TPACK demands
more. The teacher needs to understand how the choice of digital materials she uses affects the
meaning she conveys. Likewise, students need to understand how to deliberately and effectively
wield those tools to make their own best meaning clear, to understand how the medium interacts
with the message. Previously this was not a focus for language arts in a predominantly offline,
print publication world.
The impact of digital literacy perspective on pedagogy may seem harder to realize than
for content. However, drawing upon her pedagogical content knowledge, the English language
arts teacher should be aware of the decades old prescription for teaching writing through
engaging students in authentic writing tasks with legitimate audiences, beyond the teacher and
the classroom (Smagorinsky 2006, 14). Web 2.0 makes these tasks and audiences very
accessible. The Wikipedia Education Program as an example purports to engage students as
authors of content, held to the standards of Wikipedian non-fiction writing, mediated by the
Wikipedian community, and legitimately published to a larger world, evidenced by tagline, “The
end of throwaway assignments and the beginning of real-world impact for student editors.”
Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique,
relevant descriptive details, and well-structured event sequences.
Since long before the Internet, fans of literature have taken joy in writing their own
narratives, based upon and constrained by the world of the original fiction. This fanfiction hobby
writing acquired new power when the web opened up the possibility of publishing writing and
receiving feedback from other fans in a community of fandom supporting online. The power of
engagement with writing through fanfiction (Jenkins 2006, 44) is partly the power of having a
real audience for one’s writing. What makes fanfiction so incredibly useful is that it not only
demands construction of the sort described in the CCSS, but it also requires student writers to
carefully read and comprehend the literary text to avoid contradicting or violating the original
fictional world and its cultural boundaries in student-crafted tales. A teacher with a fully
developed understanding of TPACK sees ways in which technology mediates pedagogical
content to amplify instructional effectiveness.
Non-Fiction Writing and Reading in History/Social Science
Analyze the relationship between a primary and secondary source on the same topic.
A striking feature of the Internet is the vast amount of information available on virtually
any topic, as text, image, graphic, and video. Despite the plethora of materials, the authority and
value of any given source can be difficult to assess. Furthermore, material found online is often
not constructed, tagged, or organized for instructional purposes. At the same time, relatively low
cost and easy access to production and dissemination of content in textual, video, and audio
formats, has given rise to a remix culture in which youth are able to mashup existing material in
new ways, create additional novel contributions to the mix, and post it back out to a wide
audience (Jenkins 2006, 49; Ito et al. 2009, 11). A TPACK teacher can see in this an authentic
opportunity for students to wrestle with problems of credibility and diversity of sources, and to
pursue meaning-making projects that explain historical events.
The teacher working from within a TPACK framework looks at technology for features
that mesh with and support pedagogical content goals. A TPACK teacher with a constructivist
pedagogical perspective will be interested in providing opportunities for students to be
historians, to participate in the construction of history from events and artifacts, in ways similar
to those employed by historians. Understanding a particular time in history becomes more useful,
as a case of something, e.g., a case of civil unrest/war, a case of treaty making and breaking,
relevant to current political action.
Web 2.0 production and sharing have also lowered the threshold for youth engagement in
civic issues and participatory culture (Barron, Gomez, Pinkard, and Martin 2014, 11). Efforts for
teachers to engage local and global political in the classroom have been activated and quickly
engaged through numerous digital tools, from government websites providing access to elected
officials to social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter allowing students to develop
and activate a public voice within these communities (Rheingold 2008, 101). What makes the
digital interactions of a TPACK mediated lesson differ from the paper copy interactions of a
generation ago is not only the immediacy of the exchange but the transparency of the interaction,
where multiple shareholders can participate as a collaboration that remains dynamic beyond a
petition of government (Bertot, Jaeger, Munson, and Glaisyer 2010, 55).
TPACK is not about the what or how to utilize employ a technology but rather the why
and when. For a topic such as content curation, which has been long considered a domain
specific to library reference and research, is now germane to a TPACK classroom. RSS feeds for
distributing changing web content such as news allow a reader to follow many separate
sources easily. A blogroll, on one blog lists relevant other blogs and links allowing a reader to
easily find additional information. File sharing domains and other aggregation instruments
provide learners numerous platforms from which to create meaning through the collection and
display of appropriate media. The creation of artifacts through these low-threshold mechanisms
is, as posited in learning theories such as connectivism, an externalization of the individual
learner’s knowledge journey that can provide resource to extended learners both within and
outside the localized environment (Siemens 2014, 3). The relationship between networks of
learners and networks of information at the heart of connectivism, provides an opportunity to
link the information and contents read by networks of computers and networks of learners, in
tandem with CCSS expectations of integrate qualitative and quantitative data sets within a
problem analysis (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.7: Integrate quantitative or technical
analysis [e.g., charts, research data] with qualitative analysis in print or digital text).
Mathematics with Meaning
Describe qualitatively the functional relationship between two quantities by analyzing a graph
(e.g., where the function is increasing or decreasing, linear or nonlinear). Sketch a graph that
exhibits the qualitative features of a function that has been described verbally.
Mathematics is a troubling subject for many students, in part because “our education
culture gives mathematics learners scarce resources for making sense of what they are learning”
(Papert 1980, 55). Papert explicitly calls out the distance between mathematical concepts and
procedures in “school math” and ideas and methods that might be invoked to accomplish
something personally meaningful. School math’s thin context, originally intended as a shortcut to
convey the essential concepts, turns out to be a liability, depriving it of language and application
that would make it easier to learn. It is considerably more difficult to have a conversation about
mathematical ideas than literary ones, partly because mathematical language -- not ideas, but
language -- is not part of everyday talk. As mathematics progresses through the grade levels, it
leaves real, particular, and concrete representations and practices and heads into more abstract,
symbolic, and thinly contextualized elements and tasks (Schleppegrell 2007, 148). It becomes
harder to talk about and harder to touch.
For constructivist teachers, providing students with external representations of abstract
ideas in action provides a way for engagement with those ideas. While for Papert (1980),
computer programming offered that opportunity, applications such as Geometer’s Sketchpad also
allow students to create and manipulate graphical representations of geometric relations. There
are many sites offering ideas and samples for lesson using Geometer’s Sketchpad to engage with
the CCSS recommendations.
Some subtopics in mathematics are more readily connected to everyday life, and can be
engaged with as an alternative way of describing reality. From a TPACK perspective, a teacher
well aware of the rising interest in games and learning, might find pedagogical value of
connecting mathematical ideas to gameplay experiences. The teacher might ask students to
demonstrate understanding of two dimensional graphs by writing a video game narrative based
on a graph illustrating the ebb and flow of gold between two teams as a function of time or of
“enemies” and “objectives” downed in a 40 minute League of Legends game.
[FIG. 2 HERE].
Or, she could introduce a calculus problem to optimize the balance between gear that amplifies
player health versus gear that bolsters defense:
Insert call out and Figure reference here. Include figure separately.
[FIG. 3 HERE]
Science and Engineering Design
MS-ETS1-4. Develop a model to generate data for iterative testing and modification of a
proposed object, tool, or process such that an optimal design can be achieved. (NGSS)
TPACK teachers are aware of new ideas in their subject matter domain because they
attend subject matter conferences and/or read journals published in their field. In addition to the
potential of games for learning, two rising technological trends have great potential to impact the
design of math and science instruction, especially under the Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS), with its emphasis on engineering design. Those are Maker/DIY culture and
The cost, ease of use, and accessibility to technical production tools has given rise to
widespread informal communities of makers, do-ers, and builders. With simple programming
languages, such as Scratch, low cost three-D printers, and affordable, powerful electronic
components such as Arduino, youth are able to build and share fairly sophisticated engineered
objects. At the same time, and perhaps because of the rise of electronics and programming
activities with low thresholds of entry, computational thinking has appeared as a new topic in
education, originally under the banner of STEM.
Papert (1980) first coined the phrase “computational thinking” 35 years ago, and at that
time he connected it to the kind of thinking and analysis typically associated with computer
programming and mathematics. The concept disappeared in the intervening decade, but was
resurrected by Jeanette Wing (2006, 33) who asserted that computational thinking was the
overlooked critical skill set for the 21st century. Although loosely defined in her paper, Wing’s
call for computational thinking transcended computer science and mathematics and was seen by
many as an important access point for increasing participation in STEM majors and careers. A
loose coalition of organizations including the National Science Foundation, the National
Research Council, the College Board, Computer Science Teachers Association and International
Society for Technology in Education, among others, are developing a strong definition of the
domain of computational thinking that cuts across the curriculum, beyond programming and
mathematics. From the perspective of a constructivist, the teacher with a TPACK sensibility sees
opportunities for students to learn science concepts by building objects that make use of those
concepts for some purpose: NGSS asks us to think about engineering and model building as an
opportunity for applying science concepts; a Maker/DIY project asks students to construct lie
detectors, measuring galvanic skin response, based on their understanding of relevant
biochemical and Arduino technology concepts.
TPACK is not a response to the appearance of ‘digital natives,’ a generation born into the
Internet, nor to the presumed burgeoning student body with inherent skill in the use and
application of technology in everyday life. The idea that modern students have unique abilities
with technology due to their growth and environment in a rapidly evolving technological world
is questionable at best, and lacks a grounding in research. Rather, use of technology by the ‘net
generation’ is considered unspectacular and in need of scaffolding and augmentation (Selwyn
2009, 371). Faculty should not see the appropriation of technology in response to student
ubiquity and thus be in a constant game of catch-up with advances in hardware and software.
Instead, TPACK can be the framing mechanism for leading students through the content,
cognitive and social expectations of formal education where technology can bolster, supplement
and transform knowledge creation and collaboration and where students grow across multiple
domains (specific content knowledge, pedagogical understanding and technological acumen)
rather than exploiting one in an effort to shore up another.
TPACK, as a development construct built on the why and the when of facilitation over
the what or the how, is a negotiation of external forces on formal education focused heavily on
matters of content, methodology and management. A teacher employing the TPACK framework
in their classroom lessons and objectives can meet the requirements of CCSS and district
management policies by an expert integration of those elements in conjunction with applicable
technology for a pedagogical purpose.
The examples of TPACK listed in this chapter are evidence of the viability of an
approach to instruction that understands the importance of a confluence of unique but
overlapping knowledge domains that comprise the profession of teaching. As part of a greater
approach to considering when and why to utilize TPACK in your courses, we offer a set of
questions to help guide your instructional designs around considering curricular contents,
pedagogical methodologies and technological acumen. These questions are intended to offer
examples of the sort of questions internalized by TPACK teachers that guide their instructional
designs. They are not a definitive listing, but rather designed to help the reader think about the
ways in which one element of TPACK mediates the other two.
Thinking about Pedagogy and Content
1. What are the outcomes expected and what sort of learning experiences will best
2. What pedagogical strategies support those experiences?
3. What can students do to demonstrate understanding?
Thinking about Technology and Content
1. What features of technology fit with features of my content area?
2. What features of technology match the curricular approach/content?
3. How can technology move us beyond what’s possible with texts and materials in the
Thinking about Technology and Pedagogy
1. What features of technology match my pedagogical style?
2. How can technology give me new strategies for instruction that still align with the
pedagogical approach I have taken?
3. How can my pedagogical style generate new ways of using “old” technology?
Ash, Katie. 2012. "Educators evaluate" flipped classrooms." Education Week 32, no. 2: s6-s8.
Barron, Brigid, Kimberley Gomez, Nichole Pinkard, and Caitlin K. Martin. 2014. The Digital
Youth Network: Cultivating digital media citizenship in urban communities. MIT Press.
Beach, R., Hull, G., & O’Brien, D. A. V. I. D. 2011. Transforming English
language arts in a Web 2.0 world. Handbook of research on teaching the English
Bertot, John Carlo, Paul T. Jaeger, Sean Munson, and Tom Glaisyer. 2010. "Social media
technology and government transparency." Computer 11: 53-59.
Burbules, Nicholas C., and Thomas A. Callister. 1996. "KNOWLEDGE AT THE
CROSSROADS: SOME ALTERNATIVE FUTURES OF HYPERTEXT LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTS." Educational Theory 46, no. 1: 23-50.
Bouck, E. C. 2012. "Secondary Students with Moderate/Severe Intellectual
Disability: Considerations of Curriculum and Post‐School Outcomes from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study‐2." Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 56, no. 12:
Doering, Aaron, Richard Beach, and David O'Brien. 2007. "Infusing Multimodal Tools
and Digital Literacies into an English Education Program." English Education: 43.
Duckworth, Eleanor. 1986. "Teaching as Research." Harvard Educational Review 56,
no. 4: 481-496.
Flanagan, Sara, Emily C. Bouck, and Jennifer Richardson. 2013. "Middle School
Special Education Teachers’ Perceptions and Use of Assistive Technology in Literacy
Instruction." Assistive Technology 25, no. 1: 24-30.
Ito, M., Antin, J., Finn, M., Law, A., Manion, A., Mitnick, S., and Horst, H. A.
2009. Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with
New Media. MIT press.
Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide.
Kimmons, Royce. 2015. "Examining TPACK’s theoretical future." Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education 23, no. 1: 53-77.
Lankshear, Colin, and Michele Knobel. 2005. "Digital literacies: Policy, pedagogy and
research considerations for education." Plenary Address from ITU Conference: 1-24.
Marino, Matthew, Pauline Sameshima, and Constance Beecher. 2009. "Enhancing TPACK with
assistive technology: Promoting inclusive practices in pre-service teacher education."
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 9, no. 2: 186-207.
Marzano, R. J. 2013. The Art and Science of Teaching the Common Core. Last
access on 7/2/15 at The Art and Science of Teaching the Common Core
Mishra, Punja and Matthew Koehler. 2003. “Not ‘what’ but ‘how’: Becoming design-
wise about educational technology.” What teachers should know about technology:
Perspectives and practices. Information Age Publishing, 99-122.
Mishra, Punya, and Matthew Koehler. 2006. "Technological pedagogical content
knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge." The Teachers College
Record. 108, no. 6: 1017.
Niess, Margaret L., Robert N. Ronau, Kathryn G. Shafer, Shannon O. Driskell,
Suzanne R. Harper, Christopher Johnston, Christine Browning, S. Asli Özgün-Koca, and
Gladis Kersaint. 2009. "Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model."
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 9, no. 1: 4-24.
Papert, Seymour. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas.
Basic Books, Inc..
Rheingold, Howard. 2008. "Using participatory media and public voice to
encourage civic engagement." Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage
Schleppegrell, M. J. 2007. The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching
and learning: A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(2), 139-159.
Schoenfeld, Alan H. 1988. "Problem solving in context (s)." The teaching and assessing
of mathematical problem solving 3: 82-92.
Selwyn, Neil. 2009. "The digital native-myth and reality." In Aslib Proceedings, vol. 61, no. 4,
pp. 364-379. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Shulman, Lee S. "Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching." Educational
Researcher (1986), 8-22.
Shulman, Lee S. "Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform." Harvard
Educational Review 57, no. 1 (1987), 1-37.
Siemens, George. 2014. "Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age."Inc. reference.
Book or Journal article?
Smagorinsky, P. (Ed.). 2006. Research on composition: Multiple perspectives on two decades of
change. City???Teachers College Press.
VanOlphen, Marcela, Mark Hofer, and Judi Harris. 2009. "Grounded tech integration:
Languages." Learning & Leading with Technology 37, no. 4: 26-28.
Wenger-Trayner, Etienne, and Beverly Wenger-Trayner.2015. "Learning in Landscapes of
Practice: A framework." Learning in landscapes of practice.
Wing, Jeannette M. 2006. "Computational thinking." Communications of the ACM 49, no. 3: 33-
About the Authors