The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Knowledge Is of Most Worth: Teacher Knowledge for 21stCentury Learning
Abstract
This article offers a critical review of the literature on 21st century knowledge frameworks, with a particular focus on what this means for teachers and teacher educators. The authors accomplish this by identifying common themes and knowledge domains in 15 reports, books, and articles that describe the kinds of knowledge that researchers state are integral and important for success in the 21st century. The authors argue that seemingly disparate frameworks converge on three types of knowledge, as necessary for the 21st century: foundational, meta, and humanistic. Although 21st century frameworks are thought to advocate new types of knowledge, little has actually changed in the new century with respect to the overall goals of education. Despite this sense of continuity, significant changes related to how technologies change all three types of knowledge need to be conveyed. The article ends with specific conclusions and recommendations for teacher education.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
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
Self-citationRyan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003) · Field Methods · doi:10.1177/1525822x02239569 · Cited by 5,475
The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis
Glaser, B. G. (1965) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/798843 · Cited by 4,588
A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform
Denning, P. J. (1983) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/358150.358154 · Cited by 3,925
Barthes, R., & Heath, S. C. (1977) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,644
(2006) · BiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · Cited by 3,173
Confronting the challenges of participatory cultures (media education for the 21st century)
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robison, A. J. (2009) · Cited by 1,563
(2018) · The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation · doi:10.4135/9781506326139.n223 · Cited by 1,384
Qualitative Analysis on Stage: Making the Research Process More Public
Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x031007028 · Cited by 1,362
Out of Our Minds Learning to Be Creative
(2002) · Work Study · doi:10.1108/ws.2002.07951aae.005 · Cited by 1,247
Cited by
Determinants of 21st-century digital skills: A large-scale survey among working professionals
van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.017 · Cited by 379
Abdelwahab, H. R., Rauf, A., & Chen, D. (2023) · Industry and Higher Education · doi:10.1177/09504222221087614 · Cited by 82
Huang, H., Hwang, G.-J., & Jong, M. S.-Y. (2022) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104593 · Cited by 57
Maxwell, G. S. (2021) · The enabling power of assessment · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-63539-8_1 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 127-140
- ISSN
- 2153-2974 (ISSN-L)
- 2332-7383
- OpenAlex
- W2016198693
- Cited by
- 416
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 60.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What Knowledge Is of Most Worth: Teacher Knowledge for 21stCentury Learning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/21532974.2013.10784716
- The paper
- Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What Knowledge Is of Most Worth: Teacher Knowledge for 21stCentury Learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2013.10784716
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
