Theoretical bases of the TPACK framework

This section describes the foundational ideas and the theoretical bases of the TPACK framework.

4.2.1 Shulman’s pedagogical content knowledge

Mishra and Koehler (2006) have drawn extensively on Shulman’s (1986; 1987) widely cited Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) for the development of their framework. An understanding of Shulman’s PCK is necessary before attempting to grasp the concept of TPACK.

PCK was first introduced into the field of teacher education by Shulman in 1986 and has since them become ‘common currency’ in the area of teacher education, having strongly impacted the field (Segall 2004, p. 490).

In his seminal article, Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform, Shulman (1987) notes that historically in teacher education it is often assumed that knowledge of the content area is sufficient for teachers to successfully teach their students. However, he argues, knowing the content is not enough for effective instruction. Rather, he advocates the need for teachers to possess pedagogical knowledge as well, i.e. knowledge of how to teach (ibid). Shulman points out that content is the domain of scholars while pedagogy represents the domain of teachers (1986). Considering content knowledge and pedagogy as

113

mutually exclusive domains, writes Shulman, led to the development of teacher education programmes that focused either on the subject matter or pedagogy (Mishra & Koehler 2006, pp. 1020-1021). Shulman (1986) advances thinking about teacher knowledge by addressing this dichotomy through the introduction of the idea of PCK. Pedagogical Content Knowledge ‘goes beyond knowledge of subject matter per-se to the dimension of subject matter knowledge for teaching’ (p. 15). More specifically, PCK lies at the intersection of content and pedagogy. In Shulman’s view, teaching is the transformation of content into forms that are pedagogically powerful (ibid).

Teachers need to find the most helpful forms of representation of the subject matter, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations—in essence, ‘the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others’ (Shulman 1986, p. 9). Thus, the PCK construct is at the heart of the teaching process and represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organised, represented and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction (p. 8). In short, Shulman’s explication of PCK results in the idea that ‘teachers should have knowledge related to both content and pedagogy, and that teacher preparation programmes should provide learning opportunities to teachers for developing these’ (Polly & Brantley-Dias 2009, p. 46).

4.2.2 Early conceptualisations of TPACK

More recently, the rapid expansion of available technological tools has prompted other scholars to build on Shulman’s concept of PCK by including a third

114

component to teacher knowledge, namely technological knowledge so as to help describe the sort of knowledge teachers need for teaching with technology (Groth et al. 2009, p. 393). Even though Mishra and Koehler’s conceptualisation of TPACK has prevailed in the literature on teacher education, the two scholars were not the first ones to use the term TPACK.

Pierson (2001) was one of the first researchers to formally introduce the concept of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Her framework adds teachers’ technology knowledge to Shulman’s well-established PCK construct. In Pierson’s view, the technological knowledge component should include basic knowledge competency as well as an understanding of ‘the unique characteristics of particular types of technologies that would lend themselves to particular aspects of the teaching and learning processes’ (p. 427). A teacher who incorporates technology appropriately, adds Pierson, is able to draw on extensive subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, in combination with technological knowledge (ibid). According to Pierson, it is the intersection of these three types of knowledge, technological pedagogical content knowledge, that defines effective technology integration. Figure 4.1 represents the possible relationships among the three types of teacher knowledge. It is worth noting that Pierson illustrated the three variables as ovals, with the oval representing technology significantly smaller than the other two (Hammond & Manfra 2009, p. 162). Another contribution of Pierson’s work was that it was among the first in the field to demonstrate the need for an operational definition for technology integration as it applies to classroom teachers (Spires et al. 2010, p. 37).

115

Figure 4.1 Pierson’s Representation of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Pierson’s initial articulation of technological pedagogical content knowledge was followed by various other scholars suggesting similar constructs. Niess (2005) used the term TPCK to refer to technology-enhanced PCK. She used the construct to study how a technology integration programme impacted student-teachers’ use of technology in their classroom practice. Voogt et al. (2013) note that Niess (2005) did not consider TPCK as a new definition of teacher technology integration, as Pierson (2001) did. Rather, she defined it as ‘the integration of the development of knowledge of subject matter with the development of technology and of knowledge of teaching and learning’ (Niess 2005, p. 510). Niess (2005) argued that this integration of the different domains is what supports teachers in teaching their subject matter with technology (p. 510). Because the term ‘pedagogy’ did not clearly represent the multiplicity of inputs to teaching and learning, the phrase ‘teaching and learning’ was used to incorporate the knowledge of curriculum, learners, and schools together with pedagogy (Figure 4.2).

116

Figure 4.2 Niess’s Representation of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge