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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Recent metaanalytical evidence further suggests that TPACK-based interventions yield variable outcomes depending on contextual and institutional factors (Schmid et al., 2024).”
From From Digital Consumers to Knowledge Creators: Reconceptualizing Web 2.0 Integration through a Pedagogical Maturity Continuum in Primary Education (2026) · cites this paper as Schmid et al., 2024
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching
SHULMAN, L. S. (1986) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x015002004 · Cited by 18,546
Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform
Shulman, L. (1987) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 · Cited by 16,787
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006) · Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x · Cited by 12,604
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012) · APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. · doi:10.1037/13620-004 · Cited by 10,299
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., mulrow, C., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J., Akl, E., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2020) · doi:10.31222/osf.io/v7gm2_v1 · Cited by 8,090
The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers
Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., et al. (2018) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-180221 · Cited by 4,737 · cited 1×
“Regarding the assessment of the methodological quality of reported primary studies with qualitative designs within the reviews and meta-analyses, different tools that might be eligible to assess the methodological quality of studies were screened (e.g., Hong et al., 2018; Popay et al., 1998).”
Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., Porter, A. C., Tugwell, P., Moher, D., & Bouter, L. M. (2007) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 · Cited by 4,374
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001 · Cited by 4,265
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus. (n.d.). Paragraph. Cambridge University Press. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/paragraph.
- Chai, 2016, A review of the quantitative measures of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), 87
Cited by
Sorted by citations
TPACK in context: An updated model
Petko, D., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2025) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100244 · Cited by 173
Self-citationCastro, A., Díaz, B., Aguilera, C., Prat, M., & Herting, D. C. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17062748 · Cited by 66
Zeng, M., Abdullah, Z., & Lee, K. C. S. (2025) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.24.8.10 · Cited by 36
Xu, G., Yu, A., Gao, A., & Trainin, G. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13630-5 · Cited by 36
3D Modelling and Printing in Teacher Education: A Systematic Literature Review
Tejera, M., Galiç, S., & Lavicza, Z. (2025) · Journal for STEM Education Research · doi:10.1007/s41979-025-00147-2 · Cited by 31
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
- Venue
- Computers & Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-06
- Volume
- 214
- Pages
- 105024
- ISSN
- 0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
