CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 137Mathematics Education and Teaching TechniquesTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesEducation and Technology Integration

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 106 of the 108 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Running in circles: A systematic review of reviews on technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)

Open access
Schmid, Mirjam, Brianza, Eliana, Mok, Sog Yee, Petko, Dominik·2024·Computers & Education
DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105024
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Extensive research exists on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model and has led to a substantial number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. These publications vary greatly in their focus and provide overviews of specific aspects of TPACK research. This paper aims to consolidate these insights and investigate the following research questions: What do systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses reveal about the current state of the art of TPACK research? What is the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of TPACK? This study identified 21 systematic reviews and 2 meta-analyses eligible for analysis. Overall, the review of the reviews revealed that many of the recurring theoretical or methodological issues of the TPACK framework remain unresolved. To address these issues, research on TPACK needs to simultaneously account for the complex, situated, and dynamic nature of TPACK and clarify the concept of professional knowledge. The review engenders several directions for future research, including a better operationalization of knowledge, more experimental and longitudinal studies, and a more comprehensive measurement and integration of student learning as a dependent variable in research on TPACK.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105024

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 108 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus. (n.d.). Paragraph. Cambridge University Press. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/paragraph.
  2. Chai, 2016, A review of the quantitative measures of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), 87

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 137

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Schmid, M., Brianza, E., Mok, S. Y., & Petko, D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Pädagogische Hochschule Graubünden (CH)
Corresponding author
Brianza, Eliana
ORCID
Venue
Computers & Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-06
Volume
214
Pages
105024
ISSN
0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105024
OpenAlex
W4396716911
Cited by
87
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 13
FWCI
11.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Computers & Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
Keywords
technological pedagogical content knowledge, TPACK, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, methodological quality, professional knowledge, teacher knowledge, learning outcomes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review