CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,790Mathematics Education and Teaching TechniquesEducation and Technology IntegrationTeacher Education and Leadership Studies

What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?

Open access
Koehler, Matthew J., Mishra, Punya, Cain, William·2013·Journal of Education
DOI 10.1177/002205741319300303
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper describes a teacher knowledge framework for technology integration called technological pedagogical content knowledge (originally TPCK, now known as TPACK, or technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge). This framework builds on Lee Shulman's (1986, 1987) construct of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to include technology knowledge. The development of TPACK by teachers is critical to effective teaching with technology. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the complex, ill-structured nature of teaching. The nature of technologies (both analog and digital) is considered, as well as how the inclusion of technology in pedagogy further complicates teaching. The TPACK framework for teacher knowledge is described in detail as a complex interaction among three bodies of knowledge: content, pedagogy, and technology. The interaction of these bodies of knowledge, both theoretically and in practice, produces the types of flexible knowledge needed to successfully integrate technology use into teaching.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/002205741319300303

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The TPACK model is widely used across studies to identify how teachers can incorporate technologies into their pedagogical methods and content knowledge, and conceptualizes their capacity and knowledge needed to integrate relevant technologies in AI literacy education.

    “The reason that we adopt the TPACK model is that it is widely used across studies to identify how teachers can incorporate technologies into their pedagogical methods and content knowledge, and conceptualizes their capacity and knowledge that is needed to integrate relevant technologies in AI literacy education (e.g., Graham, 2011;Koehler et al., 2013).”

    From Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review (2021) · cites this paper as Koehler et al., 2013

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. ARCHAMBAULT, L., y CRIPPEN, K. (2009). ExaminingTPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9( 1), pp. 71-88.
  2. BROMLEY, H. (1998). Introduction: Data-driven democracy? Social assessment of educational computing. In H. Bromley & M. Apple (Eds.), Education, technology, power (pp. 1-28).Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  3. BRUSH, T., y SAYE, J. (2009). Strategies for preparing preservice social studies teachers to effectively integrate technology: Models and practices. Contemporary Issues inTechnologyandTeacher Education, 9( 1), pp. 46-59.
  4. BRUCE, B. C. (1993). Innovation and social change. In B. C. Bruce, J. K. Peyton, &T. Batson (Eds.), Network- based classrooms (pp. 9-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  5. BRUCE, B. C. (1997). Literacy technologies:What stance should we take? Journal of Literacy Research, 29 (2), pp. 289-309.
  6. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 269-281). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  7. CAVANAGH, R. y KOEHLER, M. J. (in press).A turn toward specifying validity criteria in the measurement of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Research on Technology in Education.
  8. CLARK, C. M., y PETERSON, P. (1986).Teachers' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). NewYork, NY: Macmillan.
  9. DEWEY, J., y BENTLEY, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston, MA: Fundamentos e Investigación Matthew J. Koehler, Punya Mishra y William Cain BEACON. DOERING, A., SCHARBER, C., MILLER, C. y VELETSIANOS, G. (2009). GeoThentic: Designing and assessing with technological pedagogical content knowledge. Contemporary Issues inTechnology andTeacher Education, 9(3), pp. 316-336.
  10. HARRIS, J. y HOFER, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2009 (pp. 4087-4095).
  11. KOEHLER, M. J., y MISHRA, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology. The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. KOEHLER, M. J., SHIN, T. S., y MISHRA, P. (2011). How do we measure TPACK? Let me count the ways. In R. N. Ronau, C. R. Rakes, & M. L. Niess (Eds.), Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and approaches (pp.16-31). Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA.
  13. KUHN, T. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  14. LEVINE, L.W. (1996). The opening of the American mind: Canons,culture, and history. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
  15. MISHRA, P., & KOEHLER, M. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference 2007 (pp. 2214-2226). Chesapeake,VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  16. MISHRA, P., SPIRO, R. J., y FELTOVICH, P. J. (1996). Technology, representation, and cognition: The prefiguring of knowledge in cognitive flexibility hypertexts. In H. van Oostendorp & A. de Mul (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of electronic text processing (pp. 287-305). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
  17. Fundamentos e Investigación Matthew J. Koehler, Punya Mishra y William Cain NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY LITERACY. (1999). Being fluent with information technology literacy. Washington, DC: NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  18. PENNOCK, R. (2001). Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological & scientific perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  19. PFUNDT, H., y DUIT, R. (2000). Bibliography: Students'alternative frameworks and science education (5th ed.). Kiel, DE: University of Kiel.
  20. ROSENBLATT, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text,the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
  21. SIMON, H. (1969). Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  22. SPIRO, R. J., y JEHNG, J.-C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163-204).
  23. ZIMMERMAN, J. (2002). Whose America? Culture wars in the public schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Education
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2013-10
Volume
193
Issue
3
Pages
13-19
ISSN
  • 0022-0574 (ISSN-L)
  • 2515-5741
DOI
10.1177/002205741319300303
OpenAlex
W1552696371
Cited by
2,790
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 191 · 2025: 290 · 2024: 316 · 2023: 334 · 2022: 277 · 2021: 316 · 2020: 225 · 2019: 229 · 2018: 148 · 2017: 108 · 2016: 126 · 2015: 105 · 2014: 57 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 20
FWCI
505.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Education (publishedVersion)
  • Redalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México) (submittedVersion)
  • Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
Keywords
TPACK, technological pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, teacher knowledge, technology integration in teaching, teacher knowledge framework, digital technologies in education, analog technology

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