Teachers' AI-TPACK: exploring the relationship between knowledge elements
Open accessAbstract
The profound impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the modes of teaching and learning necessitates a reexamination of the interrelationships among technology, pedagogy, and subject matter. Given this context, we endeavor to construct a framework for integrating the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Artificial Intelligence Technology (Artificial Intelligence—Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, AI-TPACK) aimed at elucidating the complex interrelations and synergistic effects of AI technology, pedagogical methods, and subject-specific content in the field of education. The AI-TPACK framework comprises seven components: Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), Content Knowledge (CK), AI-Technological Knowledge (AI-TK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), AI-Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (AI-TCK), AI-Technological Content Knowledge (AI-TPK), and AI-TPACK itself. We developed an effective structural equation modeling (SEM) approach to explore the relationships among teachers’ AI-TPACK knowledge elements through the utilization of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The result showed that six knowledge elements all serve as predictive factors for AI-TPACK variables. However, different knowledge elements showed varying levels of explanatory power in relation to teachers’ AI-TPACK. The influence of core knowledge elements (PK, CK, and AI-TK) on AI-TPACK is indirect, mediated by composite knowledge elements (PCK, AI-TCK, and AI-TPK), each playing unique roles. Non-technical knowledge elements have significantly lower explanatory power for teachers of AI-TPACK compared to knowledge elements related to technology. Notably, content knowledge (C) diminishes the explanatory power of PCK and AI-TCK. This study investigates the relationships within the AI-TPACK framework and its constituent knowledge elements. The framework serves as a comprehensive guide for the large-scale assessment of teachers’ AI-TPACK, and a nuanced comprehension of the interplay among AI-TPACK elements contributes to a deeper understanding of the generative mechanisms underlying teachers’ AI-TPACK. Such insights bear significant implications for the sustainable development of teachers in the era of artificial intelligence.
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
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.
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 AI-supported contexts, integrative knowledge structures provide a foundation for developing systematic understanding and application of AI.
“This finding suggests that in AI-supported contexts, integrative knowledge structures provide a foundation for developing systematic understanding and application of AI (Ning et al., 2024).”
From AI teaching innovation behavior among college teachers: a structural equation modeling analysis based on the AI-TPACK framework, teaching self-efficacy, professional identity, and AI literacy (2026) · cites this paper as Ning et al., 2024
The Introduction describes AI-TPACK as knowledge integrating subject content, pedagogy, and AI technology for teaching, and the Discussion describes a hierarchical relationship between its knowledge elements. These passages support the importance of integrated knowledge for teachers’ use of AI in instruction, but not the broader claim that such structures underpin systematic understanding and application of AI across AI-supported contexts. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAI-TPACK, as an extension of TPACK, highlights this deeper integration in AI contexts.
“AI-TPACK, as an extension of TPACK, highlights this deeper integration in AI contexts (Ning et al., 2024).”
From AI teaching innovation behavior among college teachers: a structural equation modeling analysis based on the AI-TPACK framework, teaching self-efficacy, professional identity, and AI literacy (2026) · cites this paper as Ning et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 100 · Cited by 330
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Eady, M.; Lockyer, L. Tools for Learning: Technology and Teaching. In Learning to Teach in the Primary School; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; Volume 71.
- Niess, M.L. Re-Thinking Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers Preparation: Developing Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK). In Developing Technology-Rich Teacher Education Programs: Key Issues; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2012; pp. 316-336. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Angeli, C.; Valanides, N. TPCK in pre-service teacher education: Preparing primary education students to teach with technology. In Proceedings of the AERA Annual Conference, New York, NY, USA, 24-28 March 2008.
- Thompson, A.D.; Mishra, P. Editors' remarks: Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! J. Comput. Teach. Educ. 2007, 24, 38-64.
- Koehler, M.J.; Mishra, P. Introducing tpck. In Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Educators; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2008; Volume 1, pp. 3-29.
- Graham, R.; Burgoyne, N.; Cantrell, P.; Smith, L.; St Clair, L.; Harris, R. Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends 2009, 53, 70-79.
- Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Análisis Multivariante; Pearson Prentice Hall: Madrid, 2004.
- Gay, L.R.; Airasian, P. Educational Research: Consequences for Analysis and Applications; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2003.
- Suhr, D.D. Exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis? In Proceedings of the 31st Annual SAS? Users Group International Conference. San Francisco, CA, USA, 26-29 March 2006; SAS Institute Inc: Cary, NC, USA Paper Number: 200-231.
- Sahoo, M. Structural equation modeling: Threshold criteria for assessing model fit. In Methodological Issues in Management Research: Advances, Challenges, and the Way Ahead; Emerald Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2019; pp. 269-276. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Chen, X.; Zou, D.; Xie, H.; Cheng, G.; Liu, C. Two decades of artificial intelligence in education. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2022, 25, 28-47.
- Authors
- Ning, Y., Zhang, C., Xu, B., Zhou, Y., & Wijaya, T. T.
- Affiliations
- East China Normal University (CN)
- Guangxi Normal University (CN)
- Beijing Normal University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Xu, Binyan
- Zhou, Ying
- Venue
- Sustainability
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2024-01-23
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 978
- ISSN
- 2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4391131201
- Cited by
- 330
- References
- 100
- Citations by year
- 2026: 182 · 2025: 119 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 411.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Social Science Fund of China
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Keywords
- AI-TPACK, technological pedagogical content knowledge, artificial intelligence in education, teacher knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, knowledge framework, teacher professional development
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