The document discusses the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, which aims to capture the knowledge teachers need to effectively integrate technology in the classroom. TPACK emphasizes the complex interplay between technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. It builds on Shulman's idea of pedagogical content knowledge by adding the technology component. The TPACK framework is important for K-6 educators because it helps them understand that developing good instruction requires thoughtfully combining these three knowledge domains, rather than treating them separately. It also has implications for the author's own teaching practice by motivating integrated approaches to challenge and engage students.

1. C. Yeates NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Understanding the TPACK model for improved teaching and learning in K-6 education.
What is TPACK?
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a framework which attempts to capture the
essential qualities of knowledge required by teachers for technology integration in the classroom. Mishra &
Koelher, (2010) explain that in the centre of the TPACK framework (see figure 1) is the complex interplay
of three primary forms of knowledge, technology, pedagogy and content;
Technology (T) – encompasses modern technologies, such as computers, the internet and digital
video; and more commonplace technologies such as chalkboards, overhead projectors and books.
Pedagogy (P) – describes the collected practices, processes, strategies and procedures of teaching
and learning. It also includes knowledge about the aims of instruction assessment and student learning.
Content (C) – is the subject matter that is to be taught or learned. Stage 2 Mathematics, Stage 1
Poetry and Stage 3 Drama are all examples of content that are different from each other. (Mishra & Koelher,
2005).
The TPACK framework builds on Shulman’s (1987) construct of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK),
which claimed that the emphases on teachers subject knowledge and pedagogy were being treated as
mutually exclusive domains. The practical consequence of such exclusion was production of teacher
education programs in which a focus on either subject matter or pedagogy dominated. To address this
problem, he proposed to consider the necessary relationship between the two by introducing the notion of
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). That is, confronting issues of content and pedagogy simultaneously
(Mishra & Koelher, 2005).
The TPACK model of technology integration in teaching and learning emphasises that developing good
content requires teachers to thoughtfully knit together all three key sources of knowledge: technology,
pedagogy, and content. The TPACK model argues that there is no single technological solution that applies
for every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching. “Quality teaching requires developing a new
understanding of the complex relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy, and using this
understanding to develop appropriate, context-specific strategies and representations” (Mishra & Koelher,
2006, p. 1028). The TPACK framework outlines that effective teaching and learning takes place in the K-6
classroom when it is understood that technology, pedagogy and content knowledge cannot exist in isolation
from each other (Wallace, 2004), but rather they “exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium” (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006, p 1029).
-1-

2. C. Yeates NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Why is it important for K-6 educators to understand the TPACK framework?
Figure 2 represents the knowledge structures that underlie many teacher’s current view of implementing
educational technology, that the majority of educators teach technology separately to other learning
outcomes (Mishra & Koehler 2006). According to Mishra and Koehler (2005) good teaching is not merely
adding technology to the existing teaching and content field. Rather, the introduction of technology causes
the development of new ideas and requires increasing awareness to the “dynamic, transactional relationship
between all three components suggested by the TPCK framework” (Mishra & Koelher, 2005, p. 134).
Many teachers are not confident in integrating technology, pedagogy and content and need professional
development, according to Ertmer (2010), only 44% of new teachers (three or less years in the classroom)
feel well prepared to use technology in their teaching, furthermore only 20% of all teachers believe they are
confident in integrating technology into classroom practices (Pope, Hare & Howard, 2002). In research
undertaken by Archambault & Crippen (2009) a range of teachers were surveyed their confidence in
implementing the three knowledge areas outlined in TPACK. It was found that knowledge levels in the
domain of technology were significantly low when compared with knowledge levels in the domain of
content and pedagogy. In examining the results of their research within the TPACK framework,
Archambault & Crippen (2009) concluded that it is evident that these teachers feel strongly about their
abilities to perform as traditional teachers, however they are less sure of themselves when it comes to their
skills associated with technology and using technology to convey content to students. This research
emphasises a strong theme of struggling with and learning new technology.
The TPACK framework goes beyond seeing technology, pedagogy and content as being important in and of
themselves, however integrating these three elements is a “wicked” problem (Rittel & Webber, 1973), that is, a
problem with incomplete, contradictory and changing requirements. Solutions are difficult to find because the
ground is effectively shifting even as the problem is presenting itself. The TPACK framework does not claim to
offer every solution the problem of integrating technology, pedagogy and content, however it is significant for
K-6 teachers, this is because it understands that linear solutions will not work to solve the “wicked” problem
and equips teachers with a deep understanding of how to integrate technology into their teaching effectively.
What are the implications of TPACK for my own teaching?
The idea of TPCK has significant implications for my own teacher education and professional development.
This framework has motivated me to teach technology in contexts that honor the rich connections between
technology, the subject-matter (content) and the means of teaching it (the pedagogy). It has encouraged me
to step outside of the box, to develop my teaching approaches so that learning would be challenging,
engaging and integrated (Mishra & Koehler 2005).
-2-

3. C. Yeates NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
References
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 distance
educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education.
Retrieved Online 17th February, from:
http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article2.cfm
Ertmer, P. (2010). Transforming Teacher Education: Visions and Strategies.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 55 (1) 124-128.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational
technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge:
A Framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017 – 1054.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2010). TPCK – Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge. Retrieved Online 15th February 2011, from:
http://www.tpck.org/tpck/index.php?title=Main_Page
Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2002). Technology Integration: Closing the gap
between what teachers are taught to do and what they can do. Teacher Education (10) 135-
143.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences, 4(2), 155-169
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Wallace, R.M. (2004). A framework for understanding teaching and the internet. American
Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 447-488.
-3-

4. C. Yeates NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Appendicis
Appendix 1. Source: http://tpack.org.
-4-

5. C. Yeates NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Appendix 2. Mishra & Koehler (2006).
-5-