The Technological Pedagogical Content

Knowledge Framework 9
Matthew J. Koehler, Punya Mishra, Kristen Kereluik,
Tae Seob Shin, and Charles R. Graham

Abstract
In this chapter, we introduce a framework, called technological pedagogical content knowledge
(or TPACK for short), that describes the kinds of knowledge needed by a teacher for effec-
tive technology integration. The TPACK framework emphasizes how the connections
among teachers’ understanding of content, pedagogy, and technology interact with one
another to produce effective teaching. Even as a relatively new framework, the TPACK
framework has significantly influenced theory, research, and practice in teacher education
and teacher professional development. In this chapter, we describe the theoretical underpin-
nings of the framework, and explain the relationship between TPACK and related constructs
in the educational technology literature. We outline the various approaches teacher educa-
tors have used to develop TPACK in pre- and in-service teachers, and the theoretical and
practical issues that these professional development efforts have illuminated. We then
review the widely varying approaches to measuring TPACK, with an emphasis on the inter-
action between form and function of the assessment, and resulting reliability and validity
outcomes for the various approaches. We conclude with a summary of the key theoretical,
pedagogical, and methodological issues related to TPACK, and suggest future directions for
researchers, practitioners, and teacher educators.

Keywords
TPACK • Professional development • Teacher knowledge • Technology integration

Matthew J. Koehler and Punya Mishra have contributed equally to this

chapter. We rotate authorship in our writing.
Introduction
M.J. Koehler (*) • P. Mishra
The increasingly ubiquitous availability of digital and net-
Michigan State University,509 Erickson Hall,
East Lansing, MI 48824, USA worked tools has the potential to fundamentally transform the
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] teaching and learning process. Research on the instructional
K. Kereluik uses of technology, however, has revealed that teachers often
Michigan State University, 401 Erickson Hall, lack the knowledge to successfully integrate technology in
East Lansing, MI 48824, USA their teaching and their attempts tend to be limited in scope,
e-mail: [email protected]
variety, and depth. Thus, technology is used more as “efficiency
T.S. Shin aids and extension devices” (McCormick & Scrimshaw, 2001,
Hanyang University, Rm 509 College of Education, 222 Wangsimni-ro,
p. 31) rather than as tools that can “transform the nature of a
Seongdong-gu, Seoul 133-791, Republic of Korea
e-mail: [email protected] subject at the most fundamental level” (p. 47).
One way in which researchers have tried to better understand
C.R. Graham
Brigham Young University, 301 MCKB BYU, Provo, UT 84602, USA how teachers may better use technology in their classrooms
e-mail: [email protected] has focused on the kinds of knowledge that teachers require

J.M. Spector et al. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 101
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_9, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
102 M.J. Koehler et al.

in order to use technology more effectively. Shulman (1986) relationship (Bruce, 1997; Dewey & Bentley, 1949;
proposed that effective teaching requires a special type of Rosenblatt, 1978) between the three components (Koehler
knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge (or PCK), that & Mishra, 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). An important
represents “the blending of content and pedagogy into an part of the TPACK framework is that TPACK does not exist
understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are in a vacuum but rather is grounded and situated in specific
organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests contexts as represented by the outer dotted circle in the
and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction” (p. 8). TPACK diagram.
The central idea of PCK is that learning to teach a particular
subject matter requires not only understanding the content
itself but also developing appropriate instructional strategies Relationship Between TPACK and Similar
and skills that are appropriate for learners. Constructs
Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) formulation of the techno-
logical, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) frame- The TPACK framework is not the only framework developed
work extended Shulman’s (1986) characterization of teacher to understand and explain teachers’ use of technology. Though
knowledge to explicitly consider the role that knowledge these alternative approaches may employ slightly different
about technology can play in effective teaching. Specifically, labels they are in broad agreement that the advent of new tech-
three major knowledge components form the foundation of nologies requires teachers to possess knowledge that connects
the TPACK framework as follows: the affordances (and constraints) of these new technologies to
• Content knowledge (CK) refers to any subject-matter the transformation of content and pedagogy. Our focus on the
knowledge that a teacher is responsible for teaching. TPACK framework (as opposed to the others) in this review is
• Pedagogical knowledge (PK) refers to teacher knowledge that amongst the similar and related approaches, the TPACK
about a variety of instructional practices, strategies, and framework has received the most traction in research and in
methods to promote students’ learning. professional development approaches, as evidenced by over
• Technology knowledge (TK) refers to teacher knowledge 600 journal articles about TPACK.
about traditional and new technologies that can be inte- Similar frameworks have been developed both indepen-
grated into curriculum. dently and directly out of the TPACK framework, most based
Four components in the TPACK framework, address how upon Shulman’s (1986) model of Pedagogical Content
these three bodies of knowledge interact, constrain, and Knowledge Similar frameworks include (but are not limited
afford each other as follows: to): ICT-Related Pedagogical Content Knowledge (ICT-
• Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) refers to knowl- Related PCK); Knowledge of Educational Technology;
edge of the reciprocal relationship between technology Technological Content Knowledge; Electronic Pedagogical
and content. Disciplinary knowledge is often defined and Content Knowledge (ePCK); and Technological Pedagogical
constrained by technologies and their representational Content Knowledge-Web (TPCK-W) (Angeli & Valanides,
and functional capabilities. 2005; Franklin, 2004; Lee & Tsai, 2010; Margerum-Lays &
• Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) is to Shulman’s Marx, 2003; Rhonton & Shane, 2006; Slough & Connell,
(1986) notion of “an understanding of how particular top- 2006). Each of these alternative approaches are briefly
ics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and defined below, highlighting significant departures from the
adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, TPACK framework.
and presented for instruction” (p. 8).
• Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TCK) refers to an
understanding of technology can constrain and afford ICT-Related PCK
specific pedagogical practices.
• Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) ICT-Related PCK is an instructional systems design model
refers to knowledge about the complex relations among based on Shulman’s (1986), and Cochran, Deruiter, and
technology, pedagogy, and content that enable teachers to King’s (1993) conceptualization of PCK defined as an inte-
develop appropriate and context-specific teaching grated understanding of four components: pedagogy, subject
strategies. matter content, student characteristics, and the environmen-
The TPACK framework suggests that teachers need to tal context for learning. Specifically According to Angeli
have deep understandings of each of the above components and Valanides (2005), ICT-Related PCK comprises the body
of knowledge in order to orchestrate and coordinate tech- of knowledge educators must possess to teach with ICT, and
nology, pedagogy, and content into teaching. Most impor- consists of a combination of five components of teachers’
tantly, TPACK is an emergent form of knowledge that goes knowledge: pedagogical, subject area, students, environmental
beyond knowledge of content, pedagogy, and technology context, and ICT. ICT-Related PCK is defined as knowing
taken individually but rather exists in a dynamic transactional how to: (a) Identify topics to be taught with ICT; (b) Identify
9 TPACK Framework 103

three components: Content Knowledge of Educational

Technology, Pedagogical Knowledge of Educational
Technology, and Pedagogical Content Knowledge of
Educational Technology.

Technological Content Knowledge

Technological Content Knowledge is a theoretical framework

defined by an emphasis on the “total intersection” between
technology and content (Slough & Connell, 2006). Slough and
Connell use the analogy of lenses, one each for technology and
content through which teaching and learning can be viewed, as
such the two components, technology and content become one.
Additionally, according to Slough and Connell the lenses serve
to “magnify” teaching and learning providing a more focused
approach and collaborative professional development process.
Slough and Connell offer the example of computer-generated
visualizations, as the total overlap of technology and content,
offering a new way building scientific understanding. The
Fig. 9.1 The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework Technological Content Knowledge framework differs from the
TPACK framework in that the TPACK framework conceptual-
representations for transforming content; (c) Identify teach- izes technology as a realm of knowledge separate from content
ing strategies that were difficult with traditional technology; or pedagogy and focuses on the areas of overlap between the
(d) Select ICT tools to support content and teaching strate- three realms of necessary knowledge.
gies; and (e) Infuse ICT activities in classrooms.
ICT-Related PCK differs from TPACK in that it conceptu-
alizes the integration of technology into teaching as happen- Electronic Pedagogical Content Knowledge
ing within the realm of PCK, and requiring additional types
of knowledge within PCK. Whereas the TPACK framework Electronic Pedagogical Content Knowledge (ePCK) consists
considers technology knowledge as its own body of knowl- of knowledge that teachers must possess in order to success-
edge (Fig. 9.1), it should interact with other bodies of knowl- fully integrate technology into their classrooms (Franklin,
edge (CK, PK, and PCK) to form new types of knowledge 2004; Irving, 2006). ePCK is not a framework necessarily
(TCK, TPK, and TPCK). but a specific type of teacher knowledge that exists alongside
knowledge of content, pedagogy, and curriculum. This type
of knowledge is distinctly different from basic technical
Knowledge of Educational Technology knowledge and linked to teacher efficacy, a necessary com-
ponent of technology integration (Becker, 2000; Dawson,
Knowledge of Educational Technology (Margerum-Lays & 1998). Teachers who possess ePCK are able to develop and
Marx, 2003) views teachers’ understanding of educational implement a curriculum that includes methods and strategies
technology through the lens of Shulman’s (1986) conceptu- for integrating technology in content areas in an effort to
alization of teacher knowledge—content knowledge, peda- maximize student learning. Electronic Pedagogical Content
gogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. Knowledge differs from the TPACK framework as ePCK
Knowledge of Educational Technology is different from the emphasizes pedagogical practices specific to educational
TPACK framework, in that the TPACK framework empha- technology rather than conceptualizing technology as a dis-
sizes the interactions between content, pedagogy, and tinct realm of knowledge.
technology—treating technology knowledge as separate
but interacting with all other forms of teacher knowledge.
In contrast, Knowledge of Educational Technology treats Technological Pedagogical Content
the integrated understanding of teaching with technology as Knowledge-Web
understandable, for the most part, using the Shulman’s existing
framework of teacher knowledge. Specifically, teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge-Web
knowledge of educational technology can be understood as (TPCK-W) consists of knowledge of TPACK components
104 M.J. Koehler et al.

content and pedagogy, and in place of general technology, statements regarding technology and teaching. For instance,
the World Wide Web (Lee & Tsai, 2010). TPCK-W is the Survey of Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching
identified as an extension of both Shulman’s (1986) original and Technology consists of 47 self-report items that assess
framework and Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) TPACK frame- pre-service teachers’ knowledge of 7 subscales of TPACK
work. This framework was specifically developed in response (Schmidt et al., 2009).
to the generality of technology in the TPACK framework and
attempts to elaborate and clarify the more advanced knowl-
edge necessary to teaching specifically on the Web. The new Open-Ended Questionnaires
Web component includes knowledge regarding general uses
of the Web, specific Web tools, and advanced use of the Web. A total of 20 TPACK instruments utilized open-ended ques-
An example of TPCK-W is being able to select proper (to tionnaires, all with pre- or in-service teachers. Typical
desired content and pedagogy) existing Web-based courses TPACK open-ended questionnaires contain items that ask
to assist teaching. teachers to write about their overall experience in an educa-
To summarize, although these alternative approaches employ tional technology course or professional development pro-
different labels, they are in broad agreement that the advent of gram that are designed to promote pre- or in-service teachers’
new technologies requires teachers to develop new forms of TPACK. For instance, So and Kim (2009) used a prompt
knowledge that connect the affordances (and constraints) of such as “what do you see as the main strength and weakness
these new technologies to the transformation of content and of integrating ICT tools into your PBL lesson?” in their
pedagogy. Early research on TPACK focused on establishing research. The authors then coded pre-service teachers’
and developing the underlying conceptual framework (Koehler responses focusing on their representations of content knowl-
& Mishra, 2005a, 2005b; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). As the edge with relation to pedagogical and technological aspects
TPACK framework has been increasingly adopted, research has of the course.
turned to measuring TPACK as well as to test the effectiveness
of various TPACK-based interventions (Graham, Tripp, &
Wentworth, 2009; Guzey & Roehrig, 2009). Performance Assessments

Performance assessments are intended to directly evaluate

Research on Measuring TPACK participants’ TPACK by examining their performance on
tasks that are designed to represent authentic teaching tasks
A wide range of instruments have been developed to assess or scenarios. There are 31 known TPACK instruments that
pre- and in-service teachers’ use and understanding of utilize performance assessments, most of which are designed
TPACK (Koehler, Shin, & Mishra, 2012). Using a specific for use with pre- or in-service teachers. Performance assess-
set of inclusion criteria, Koehler, Shin, & Mishra (2012) ments take many forms; for instance, some ask participants
identified a total of 66 research publications that imple- to create artifacts such as lesson plans, portfolios, or reflective
mented TPACK measures after reviewing a total of 303 journals (Graham et al., 2009; Harris, Grandgenett, & Hofer,
TPACK-related articles that were published in journals, con- 2010; Kereluik, Casperson, & Akcaoglu, 2010; Suharwoto,
ference proceedings, dissertations, and conference presenta- 2006). Other types of performance assessments ask partici-
tions. They found that 141 instruments, which included 31 pants to respond to a teaching scenario that involves complex
self-report measures, 20 open-ended questionnaires, 31 per- problem solving (Curaoglu, Bu, Dickey, Kim, & Cakir, 2010;
formance assessments, 30 interviews, and 29 observations, Graham, Borup, & Smith, 2012).
were used across those studies to assess participants’ under-
standing of TPACK. The following section briefly reviews
each of the five types of instruments and provide some con- Interviews
crete examples (see Koehler et al., 2011 for a more detailed
analysis of these different instruments). As of June 2010 there were 30 known TPACK interview
assessments. Interviews typically include a pre-determined set
of questions and are typically recorded for later transcription,
Self-Report Measures analysis, and coding. A vast majority of interviews were con-
ducted with pre or in-service teachers. For examples, to exam-
A total of 31 self-report measures have been developed and ine changes in pre-service teachers’ TPACK, Ozgun-Koca
utilized, most commonly for pre- or in-service teachers (2009) interviewed those teachers and asked them about the
(29 of 31). Typical self-report measures take the form of advantages/disadvantages of calculator usage and the effects
asking participants to numerically rate their agreement with on the teaching and learning process and environment.
9 TPACK Framework 105

Observations Similarly, Archambault and Crippen (2009) developed a

survey of 24 statements to measure teachers’ knowledge with
Observations are intended to directly observe participants’ a national sample of 596K-12 online teachers. These teachers
TPACK at a given time point and to track the development of assessed their own knowledge (PK/CK/TK/TCK = 12 items,
their TPACK over time. Observations were typically con- PCK/TPK/TPACK = 12 items) using a 5-point Likert scale.
ducted either in classrooms or during a professional develop- They established the instrument’s internal consistency (using
ment session. There are 29 known studies that utilized Cronbach’s alpha) to be 0.70 to 0.91 for each of the seven
observation, and a vast majority of the observations were constructs. Sahin’s (2011) TPACK survey also finds internal
conducted on pre- or in-service teachers. Observations, like consistency ranging between 0.88 and 0.93 for the seven con-
interviews, were typically recorded for later analysis. For structs of TPACK.
example, in Suharwoto’s study (2006) researchers video-
taped all the courses taught by internship teachers to see how Test–retest reliability. To date, the only TPACK survey to study
they implemented technology in their own teaching. Once test–retest reliability is Sahin (2011), reporting test–retest reli-
the observations were completed, researchers analyzed the ability ranging from 0.79 to 0.86 on each of the seven con-
transcript of the observation by following the coding scheme structs of TPACK. The time between the two measurement
that was grounded in the TPACK framework. periods was not reported.

Discriminant and convergent validity. Discriminant validity

Issues of Reliability and Validity tests the extent to which a concept is not highly correlated with
in Measuring TPACK other measures of theoretically different concepts. In the
Schmidt et al. (2009), Archambault and Crippen (2009), and
Koehler et al. (2011) found that of the 141 TPACK instruments the Sahin (2011) studies, discriminant validity was addressed
used as assessment tools, most were done so without any evi- through exploratory factor analysis, finding support for each of
dence of reliability or validity. Approximately 69 % of the stud- the seven factors in each study. Additionally, the Sahin (2011)
ies included in their analysis did not present any evidence of study measured the correlation between the seven TPACK sub-
reliability. Over 90 % of them failed to establish the validity of scales and external variables including the grades achieved
the measures that were used in their research. As research in in various types of teacher education courses (content
TPACK becomes more empirical, it becomes more important courses, pedagogical courses, technology, courses, etc.).
that researchers scrutinize the measurement properties of The flip side of the coin to discriminant validity is conver-
TPACK instruments. The critical issue of “does my instrument gent validity—the extent to which two measures agree (cor-
accurately capture my participants’ levels of understanding in relate) when they are both theoretically related. Sahin found
TPACK?” needs to be addressed first as it is essential for good high degrees of convergent validity, finding that scores on
research (Kelly, 2010; Koehler et al., 2011). Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), for example, correlated
Researchers who develop TPACK survey instruments, significantly with grades achieved in pedagogical courses.
however, have devoted attention to the reliability and validity Sahin also concluded that there was evidence of discriminant
properties of TPACK measurement. Specifically, TPACK validity because PK did not correlate with grades in content
survey research has allowed researchers to further address courses or technology courses. Sahin (2011) found similar
the following issues about the measurement of TPACK: results for each tpack subscale and course grade pairing,
Internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and discriminant consistent with a high degree of discriminant validity (when
and convergent validity. the measure and the grade in a course shouldn’t correlate)
and convergent validity (when the measure and the grade in
Internal consistency of TPACK surveys. Across several dif- a course should correlate).
ferent TPACK survey instruments, researchers have found Survey studies have also shown, however, significant
high levels of internal consistency (a form of reliability), correlations between the seven constructs of TPACK. For
indicating that the items of the TPACK survey correctly example, Schmidt et al. (2009) wrote:
focus on the individual factors comprising TPACK. For With respect to correlations between subscales, coefficients var-
example, Schmidt et al. (2009) created a 47 Likert item sur- ied from 0.02 (social studies and math content knowledge) to
vey designed to measure each of the seven components of 0.71 (TPK and TPACK). TPACK was significantly correlated
with eight subscales at the 0.001 level and with social studies
TPACK. One hundred and twenty-four preservice teachers
content knowledge (SSCK) at the 0.05 level. The highest corre-
completed the survey and showed significant growth in all lations were between TPACK and TPK (r = 0.71), TPACK and
seven TPACK areas, with the largest growth in their TK, TCK (r = 0.49), and TPACK and PCK (r = 0.49). (p. 135)
TCK, and TPACK. Schmidt et al. (2009) report good to
Similarly, Archambault and Crippen (2009) noted
excellent internal consistency (using Cronbach’s alpha
“correlations between pedagogy and content knowledge
between 0.75 and 0.92) for each of the seven constructs.
 106 M.J. Koehler et al.

responses were high (0.690) as were those between pedagogical candidates, for example, typically begin with minimal levels
content and content (0.713) and pedagogical content and of all the TPACK constructs, meaning there is not a natural
pedagogy (0.782)” (p. 318). Similar high degrees of correla- knowledge base upon which to build. In-service professional
tion exists across studies, although which of the seven sub- development programs, on the other hand, can usually
scales of TPACK are most strongly correlated differs from depend on participants having a certain level of pedagogical
study to study. content knowledge, and increasingly, as technologies become
The high degree of correlation between the subscales of more ubiquitous and easy to use, technology knowledge, that
TPACK raise questions about the extent to which the compo- they can use as a starting place for developing TPACK.
nents of TPACK are, in fact, separate components. Several professional development approaches can be
Archambault and Crippen conclude, for example, that “We found in the literature for helping pre-service and in-service
are concerned, however, that this distinction between content teachers develop TPACK. It should be noted that there is
knowledge and pedagogic content knowledge introduces an some overlap in the different approaches. In the sections
unnecessary and untenable complication into the conceptual below, we broadly characterize these approaches into three
framework on which the research is based…” (p. 318). broad categories (Fig. 9.2). We also try to provide a key
Correlation between the subcales, per se, is not problem- example of what these efforts look like in practice.
atic in the TPACK framework. For example, theoretically
TPK and TPACK should relate (and therefore correlate) to
one another (see Fig. 9.1). TPACK, in part, derives from an From PCK to TPACK
understanding of TPK. To what extent the components of
TPACK should correlate, however, is a question for further In this approach, technology is introduced as a way to sup-
research. Answers to such questions have important implica- port and enhance the strategies already being used in the
tions for how TPACK should be measured, as well as what classroom. For in-service teacher training this is a natural
researchers are actually measuring when they administer approach because it builds on teachers’ years of teaching
TPACK instruments. experience. Researchers have found, however, that this
approach also has its limitations because in-service teachers
bring prior beliefs that actually limit their vision and willing-
Models for Developing TPACK ness to try new technology-supported strategies (Niess, van
Zee, & Gillow-Wiles, 2010). In this approach, a teacher who
The development of TPACK is clearly an important area of first develops PCK through methods courses and experiences
research due to its significant implications for teacher educa- that don’t involve the use of technology. Then later, the
tion and teacher professional development. Research to date, teacher learns how technology might be used to enhance and
however, has not identified an ideal developmental sequence build upon the strategies they are already familiar with.
for developing TPACK in teachers, though many have raised An example of the PCK to TPACK approach in practice is
the issue (Brush & Saye, 2009; Graham, 2011; Holmes, the use of activity types (Harris & Hofer, 2009; Harris,
2009; Niess, 2008). Mishra, & Koehler, 2009). In this approach, learning is driven
There are some unique challenges in developing TPACK content focused pedagogies called activity types, a shorthand
within the pre-service teacher population. Pre-service teacher for that which is “most essential about the structure of a

Fig. 9.2 Three paths to

developing TPACK
9 TPACK Framework 107

particular kind of learning action as it relates to what students TPACK. Thus, the first step in this path is to develop TK and
do when engaged in that particular learning-related activity.” TPK in these early course experiences. As candidates take
Examples of activity types include “group discussion,” “role methods courses specific to their content specialty, their
play,” and “field trip” (Harris & Hofer, 2009; p. 101). knowledge of TPK should expand into TPACK, and they
In this approach, activity types are seen as content-specific. should incorporate their knowledge into their disciplinary
The activity types for social studies teaching, for example, understandings.
might be different than those used for mathematics teaching. This approach is the “default approach” in most institutions
Using activity types, teachers first focus on learning goals, of higher learning. Technology is relegated to a few courses
and based upon pedagogical decisions, teachers then select and teachers are left to take those lessons and apply them to
appropriate activity types for a given learning experience, their own content areas.
formulate assessment plans, and select tools (including tech- A more sophisticated example of the TPK to TPACK
nology) that will best help students benefit from the learning pathway is an approach called Technology Mapping (Angeli
experience. and Valanides, 2009). As “an empirically-based approach for
A recent study looking at the use of an instructional inter- understanding and promoting a situative orientation toward
vention using an activity types approach for in-service the development of ICT–TPCK” (p. 160), the technology
teacher professional development found that teachers’ deci- mapping approach emphasizes mapping or connecting the
sions around educational technology use became more delib- properties of technological tools with the ability to transform
erate and judicious and their use of learning activities and content representations and/or support student-centered ped-
technologies became more “conscious, strategic, and varied” agogies. Examples of ways that tools can transform content
(Harris & Hofer, 2011, p. 211). include making representations visual, multimodal, or inter-
Other notable examples of the PCK to TPACK pathway active. So, a tool like Google Earth transforms a static visual
include the use of dynamic spreadsheets for teaching math- geographic representation into one that the learner can inter-
ematical reasoning and problem solving (Niess et al., 2010), act with. Similarly, the affordances of a tool may facilitate
the use of geospatial technologies to facilitate science inquiry or make difficult certain pedagogies. For example, Google
(Trautmann & MaKinster, 2010) or teaching geography Earth could facilitate a virtual field trip in a way that a white-
(Doering, Veletsianos, Scharber, & Miller, 2009), and the use board cannot. Angeli and Valanides (2009) conducted a study
of moviemaking to create digital documentaries to promote to investigate the effectiveness of the technology mapping
historical thinking among students (Hofer & Swan, 2006). approach for developing TPACK with over two hundred pre-
service teachers. They found statistically significant improve-
ments in students’ performance on design tasks towards the
From TPK to TPACK end of the semester as compared to the beginning of the
semester.
An approach prevalent in my teacher preparation programs
is going from TPK to TPACK. The typical example of this
approach involves a pre-service candidate who has had not Developing PCK and TPACK Simultaneously
yet taken content-specific methods courses when he/she is
required to take a prerequisite technology integration course. A third pathway to TPACK is to try and develop PCK and
These courses are typically taught by an instructional tech- TPACK simultaneously. In a pre-service context this means
nologist with either limited expertise in all subject areas, or replacing the educational technology course, as we know it,
an explicit goal to broadly cover technology that spans all with a systematic integration of technology-supported strate-
content areas. Because the candidate does not already know gies into the methods courses and field experiences. For exam-
pedagogical strategies specific to teaching science, mathe- ple, a program following this approach might not have a
matics, language arts, social studies, or other subject areas, technology integration course at all but rather require that
the technology integration courses tend to focus on how each of the content-specific methods courses teach candi-
technology can support teacher productivity and general dates how to use technology for teaching within the disci-
pedagogical strategies. For example, candidates may learn pline. Thus, candidates would be developing their PCK and
how to use Web 2.0 technologies to increase active learning their TPACK simultaneously.
or technologies for communicating with parents and stu- One challenge of this approach is the cognitive load that
dents, but that learning isn’t directly connected content- students experience when they are simultaneously trying to
specific methods such as guided inquiry in science or develop their pedagogical, content, and technological knowl-
balanced literacy in language arts. It is only later when the edge. Brush and Saye (2009) comment on this, “Many times,
candidate takes methods courses and has field experiences pre-service teachers are simultaneously learning content,
that she can start to integrate her TPK with PCK to develop technology, and pedagogy—as well as learning the craft of
108 M.J. Koehler et al.

teaching—which can prove overwhelming to individuals and the use of primary sources to develop historical thinking
just entering the teaching profession” (p. 47). (Swan & Locascio, 2008). In math and science, examples
An example of this approach in practice is the Learning include using technology like spreadsheets to analyze real
Technology by Design approach (Koehler & Mishra, 2005a, data in the science inquiry process (Niess et al., 2010) and the
2005b). In this approach, teachers develop TPACK by them use of technology to support different phases of scientific
working in teams to design solutions to ill-structured, real- problem-solving inquiry in biology classrooms (Toth, 2009).
world problems of teaching and learning over an extended
period of time. Instead of directly teaching technologies to
teachers, teachers’ learning is driven by the design-problem Knowledge of Learners
and a consideration of different technologies that may contrib-
ute to the final design solution. Because real problems of prac- Content-specific understandings of learners is a focus of the
tice require designers to integrate content, pedagogy, and PCK literature, but it has not been a strong focus in the TPACK
technology, learners necessarily engage with actively integrat- literature, even though several TPACK measurement instru-
ing these types of knowledge as they work on a solution. ments have questions related to content-specific learner under-
Others have also explicitly used design as a vehicle for standings (Cox & Graham, 2009; Graham, Borup, & Smith,
helping teachers to develop TPACK (Angeli & Valanides, 2012; Mouza & Wong, 2009; Schmidt et al., 2009). Knowledge
2005; Lambert & Sanchez, 2007; So & Kim, 2009; Valanides of learners’ content-specific understandings is an implicit part
& Angeli, 2008). The Learning Technology by Design of both the technology mapping (Angeli & Valanides, 2009)
approach, however, is the only approach of these that uses and activity structures (Harris & Hofer, 2009) approaches to
the simultaneous development TPACK and PCK pathway. teaching TPACK. However, more research could be done on
Research that looked at the effectiveness of the learning specifically how technology supports teachers in identifying
by design approach found that participants on design teams learner content-specific understandings and not just how it is
significantly developed knowledge in each of the seven com- used to address misconceptions or difficult concepts.
ponents of TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2005b), and that
design team conversations increasingly demonstrated higher
forms of integrated understanding, in the form of PCK, TPK, Content Representations
TCK, and TPACK (Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007).
Many researchers have noted that the properties of a particu-
lar technology support teaching specific content, and that
Developing TPACK in the Content Areas technological tools can transform representations in ways that
afford some conceptual understandings better than others
A central theme of TPACK development is that this kind of to students (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Bull et al., 2008;
knowledge is situated in a content-specific context rather Valanides & Angeli, 2008). McCrory’s research on represen-
than a more general context. This section outlines three tations in science teaching (McCrory, 2008; McCrory,
aspects of TPACK development that are woven throughout Putnam, & Jansen, 2008), for example, demonstrates how
the TPACK research. technological affordance can be useful to (1) speed up the
time of natural events, (2) organize large bodies of data, and
(3) record data that would normally be hard to gather.
Teaching Strategies/Methods The need to attend to context is by no means restricted to
TPACK research—These three themes have also been
One distinction between TPACK and traditional technology identified as central in the existing PCK literature base (Lee
integration efforts is a focus on content-specific pedagogies & Luft, 2008; van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos, 1998). The fur-
as opposed to general pedagogies. The TPACK literature is ther development of an understanding of the contexts in
full of examples, predominantly in social studies, math, and which TPACK is developed is an important dimension of
science. Many of the activity types identified by Judi Harris future TPACK related research.
(see http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/) are content-specific
activities that are found in one content domain but not others
(Harris & Hofer, 2009). Bull, Hammond, and Ferster (2008) Conclusions
focus on the strategy of historical investigations for social
studies teachers and show how Web 2.0 tools can support that Clearly the TPACK framework since its introduction in 2006
strategy. Other examples in social studies include using tech- has had significant impact on both theory and practice in
nology to support empathetic role-paying or historical think- educational technology. In conclusion we point to both what
alouds (Brush & Saye, 2009), using geospatial technologies the framework has achieved as well as point to some key
to develop a “sense of place” (Doering & Veletsianos, 2007), limitations and directions for future work.
9 TPACK Framework 109

The single biggest contribution of the TPACK framework Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge and thank Laura
has been in the area of teacher education and teacher profes- Terry for help in preparing this chapter.
sional development (Koehler, 2012; Mishra, & Wolf, et al.,
2012). Research has indicated that most pre-service and
in-service professional development of teachers often fail to References
“support and develop educators identities as fluent users of
*Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Pre-service elementary teachers as
advanced technology” (US Department of Education, 2010, information and communication technology designers: An instruc-
p. 45). The TPACK framework argues that programs that tional systems design model based on an expanded view of peda-
emphasize the development of knowledge and skills in these gogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
three areas in an isolated manner are doomed to fail. Thus, 21(4), 292–302.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and method-
effective teacher educational and professional development ological issues for the conceptualization, development, and
needs to craft systematic, long-term educational experiences assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogi-
where the participants can engage fruitfully in all three of cal content knowledge (TPCK). Computers and Education, 52,
these knowledge bases in an integrated manner. 154–168.
*Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among
One of the significant limitations of the TPACK frame- k-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary
work is that it is neutral with respect to the broader goals of Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88.
education. For instance, the TPACK framework does not Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning and comput-
speak to what kinds of content need to be covered and how it ing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 8(51), 2–32.
is to be taught. As many scholars have pointed out the new Bruce, B. C. (1997). Literary technologies: What stance should we
millennium requires a great level of focus on higher order take? Journal of Literacy Research, 29(2), 289–309.
thinking skills, collaboration and creativity (see Mishra & Brush, T., & Saye, J. W. (2009). Strategies for preparing pre-service
Kereluik, 2011 for a review). A beginning in this direction has social studies teachers to integrate technology effectively: Models
and practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
been made through an argument for the role of TPACK in Education, 9(1), 46–59.
developing twenty-first Century trans-disciplinary skills Bull, G., Hammond, T., & Ferster, B. (2008). Developing web 2.0 tools
(Mishra, Koehler, & Henriksen, 2011). for support of historical inquiry in social studies. Computers in the
Finally, though there has been a flowering of research on Schools, 25(3–4), 275–287.
Cochran, K. F., Deruiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical con-
TPACK and its measurement, the review indicates that there tent knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal
is still much to be done—particularly in the area of measur- of Teacher Education, 44(1), 263–272.
ing how TPACK works in different disciplinary contexts. Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice:
The quality of research has also been patchy, and there is a Using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and
depict teacher knowledge.
clear need for better-designed studies and instruments. Curaoglu, O., Bu, L., Dickey, L., Kim, H., & Cakir, R. (2010, March
Concerns, however, go beyond merely research designs 29–April 2). A case study of investigating pre-service mathematics
and instrumentation. A key aspect of the TPACK framework teachers’ initial use of the next-generation TI-Nspire graphing calcu-
has to do with teacher autonomy and seeing teachers as lators with regard to TPACK. Paper presented at Society for Information
Technology and Teacher Education. San Diego, CA.
designers, particularly with technologies that change at a Dawson, K. (1998). Factors influencing elementary teachers’ instruc-
very rapid pace (Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Mishra, Koehler, tional use of computers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
& Kereluik, 2009). This open-endedness and rapid rate of of Virginia, Charlottesville.
change have implications for the kinds of research we do Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston,
MA: Beacon.
since it is challenging to develop instruments when the final Doering, A., & Veletsianos, G. (2007). An investigation of the use of
goals are creative products that often cannot be specified in real-time, authentic geospatial data in the k-12 classroom. Journal
advance, or when the tools inherent to the pedagogy and of Geography, 106(6), 217–225.
content keep changing. This means that we need to newer Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using
the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework
methodologies and ways of capturing and analyzing phe- to design online learning environments and professional develop-
nomena that respect this open-endedness and creativity even ment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319–346.
while being sensitive to statistical variability and experi- doi:10.2190/EC.41.3.d.
mental biases. Norman (2010) recently made a similar argu- Franklin, C. (2004). Teacher preparation as a critical factor in elementary
teachers: Use of computers. In R. Carlsen, N. Davis, J. Price., R. Weber,
ment new research paradigms for the design sciences as & Dl Willis (Eds.), Society for Information Technology and Teacher
well. Thus, though we applaud the effort that has gone into Education Annual, 2004 (pp. 4994–4999). Norfolk, VA: Association for
extant instruments and measures for TPACK we also argue the Advancement of Computing in Education.
that we need to be looking beyond existing methodologies *Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers
to develop newer techniques and approaches that recognize and Education, 57(2011), 1953–1969.
the pragmatic, applied and creative goals of teaching with Graham, C. R., Borup, J., & Smith, N. B. (2012). Using TPACK as a
technology. framework to understand teacher candidates’ technology integration
110 M.J. Koehler et al.

decisions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 530–546. technology-rich teacher education programs: Key issues (pp. 1–12).
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00472.x Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Graham, C. R., Tripp, T., & Wentworth, N. (2009). Assessing and Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development
improving technology integration skills for pre-service teachers of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, peda-
using the teacher work sample. Journal of Educational Computing gogy and technology. Computers and Education, 49(3), 740–762.
Research, 41(1), 39–62. Koehler, M. J., Shin, T. S., & Mishra, P. (2012). How do we measure
Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technol- TPACK? Let me count the ways. In R. N. Ronau, C. R. Rakes, & M.
ogy: Case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, L. Niess (Eds.), Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and
pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and
Technology and Science Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved from approaches (pp. 16–31). Hersey, PA: IGI Global.
http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/science/article1.cfm. Lambert, J., & Sanchez, T. (2007). Integration of cultural diversity and
Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK- technology: Learning by design. Meridian Middle School Computer
based technology integration assessment rubric. In D. Gibson & B. Technologies Journal, 10(1).
Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology Lee, E., & Luft, J. (2008). Experienced secondary science teachersʼ
and Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3833– representation of pedagogical content knowledge. International
3840). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1343–1363.
Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self-
vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In C. D. efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with
Maddux (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher edu- respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional
cation 2009 (pp. 99–108). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Science, 38(1), 1–21.
*Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical con- *Margerum-Lays, J., & Marx, R. W. (2003). Teacher knowledge of
tent knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of second- educational technology: A case study of student/mentor teacher
ary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional pairs. In Y. Zhao (Ed.), What should teachers know about technol-
planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), ogy? Perspectives and practices (pp. 123–159). Greenwich, CO:
211–229. Information Age.
*Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2009). Teachers technological McCormick, R., & Scrimshaw, P. (2001). Information and communi-
pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: cations technology, knowledge and pedagogy. Education,
Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Communication and Information, 1(1), 39–57.
Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416. McCrory, R. (2008). Science, technology, and teaching: The topic-
Hofer, M., & Swan, K. O. (2006). Technological pedagogical content specific challenges of TPCK in science. In AACTE Committee on
knowledge in action: A case study of a middle school digital docu- Innovation and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological
mentary project. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for Educators (pp. 193–206).
41(2), 179–200. Routledge
Holmes, K. (2009). Planning to teach with digital tools: Introducing McCrory, R., Putnam, R., & Jansen, A. (2008). Interaction in online
the interactive whiteboard to pre-service secondary mathematics courses for teacher education: Subject matter and pedagogy. Journal
teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 155–180.
351–365. Mishra, P., & Kereluik, K. (2011). What 21st century learning? A review
*Irving, K. (2006). The impact of technology on the 21st century class- and a synthesis. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of
room. In J. Rhonton & P. Shane (Eds.), Teaching science in the 21st Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education
century (pp. 3–19). Arlington, VA: NSTA. International Conference 2011 (pp. 3301–3312). Chesapeake, VA:
Kelly, M. (2010). Technological pedagogical content knowledge AACE.
(TPACK): A content analysis of 2006–2009 print journal articles. In *Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical con-
D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information tent knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers
Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2010 College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
(pp. 3880–3888). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Henriksen, D. (2011). The seven trans-
Kereluik, K., Casperson, G., & Akcaoglu, M. (2010). Coding pre-ser- disciplinary habits of mind: Extending the TPACK framework towards
vice teacher lesson plans for TPACK. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge 21st century learning. Educational Technology, 11(2), 22–28.
(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the
Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3889–3891). same: Looking back to the future of educational technology.
Chesapeake, VA: AACE. TechTrends, 53(5), 48–53.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005a). Teachers learning technology by Mouza, C., & Wong, W. (2009). Studying classroom practice: Case
design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102. development for professional learning in technology integration.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005b). What happens when teachers Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(2), 175–202.
design educational technology? The development of technological Niess, M. L. (2008). Guiding pre-service teachers in developing TPCK.
pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Eds.),
Research, 32(2), 131–152. Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK)
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK. In AACTE for educators (pp. 223–250). Routledge
Committee on Innovation & Technology (Eds.), Handbook of tech- Niess, M. L., van Zee, E. H., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2010). Knowledge
nological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 3–29). growth in teaching mathematics/science with spreadsheets: Moving
New York, NY: Routledge. PCK to TPACK through online professional development. Journal
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Bouch, E., DeSchryver, M., Kereluik, K., of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(2), 42–53.
Shin, T. S., et al. (2011). Deep-play: Developing TPACK for 21st Norman, D. (2010). Why design education must change. http://www.
century teachers. International Journal of Learning Technology, core77.com/blog/columns/whydesigneducationmustchange17993.asp.
6(2), 146–163. Ozgun-Koca, S. A. (2009). The views of preservice teachers about the
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Wolf, L. G., Zellner, A., & Kereluik, K. strengths and limitations of the use of graphing calculators in
(2012). Thematic considerations in integrating TPACK in a gradu- mathematics instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher
ate program. In D. Polly, C. Mims & K. Persichitte (Eds.), Creating Education, 17, 203–227.
9 TPACK Framework 111

Rhonton, J., & Shane, P. (Eds.). (2006). Teaching science in the 21st with technology. In C. Crawford, D. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson,
century. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. K. McFerrin, J. Price, & R. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transac- Information Technology and Teacher Education International
tional theory of literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Conference 2006 (pp. 3824–3828). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
University Press. Swan, K., & Locascio, D. (2008). Evaluating alignment of technology
*Sahin, I. (2011). Development of survey of technological pedagogical and primary source use within a history classroom. In G. L. Bull &
content knowledge (TPACK). The Turkish Online Journal of L. Bell (Eds.), Contemporary issues in technology and teacher edu-
Educational Technology, 10(1), 97–105. cation, 8(2), 175–186
*Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., Toth, E. E. (2009). “Virtual inquiry” in the science classroom: What is
& Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge the role of technological pedagogical content knowledge?
(TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment International Journal of Information and Communication
instrument for pre-service teachers. Journal of Research on Technology Education, 5(4), 78–87.
Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149. Trautmann, N. M., & MaKinster, J. G. (2010). Flexibly adaptive pro-
*Shulman, L. E. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in fessional development in support of teaching science with geospa-
teaching. Educational Research, 15(2), 4–14. tial technology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(3),
Slough, S., & Connell, M. (2006). Defining technology and its natural 351–370.
corollary, technological content knowledge (TCK). In C. Crawford U.S. Department of Education (2010). Transforming American education:
et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Learning powered by technology; National educational technology
Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (pp. 1053–1059). plan 2010. Washington DC: Office of Educational Technology, U.S.
Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Department of Education.
So, H.-J., & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2008). Professional development for com-
Student teachers integrating technology, pedagogy and content puter-enhanced learning: A case study with science teachers.
knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), Research in Science and Technological Education, 26(1), 3–12.
101–116. van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science
Suharwoto, G. (2006). Developing and implementing a technology teachers pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in
pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for teaching mathematics Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.