The TPACK framework

Mishra and Koehler of Michigan State University developed The TPACK framework in 2006. TPACK stands for Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge and it focuses on the interaction between these three concepts as they relate to teaching in a technology enhanced learning environment to “form an integrated whole, a ‘Total PACKage’” (Thompson and Mishra 2008, p. 38). In total there are seven components of the TPACK Framework. A graphical representation of how TPACK's components fit together is shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure  2.1:    TPACK  Framework    

Reproduced  by  permission  of  the  publisher,  ©  2012  by  tpack.org

Firstly, there are the three main components of knowledge that guide teachers in planning lessons, their knowledge of ‘what’ to teach, ‘how’ to teach and ‘which’ technology to use. Mishra and Koehler (2006) define these as:

1. Content Knowledge (CK) - Knowledge of their subject matter.

2. Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) - Knowledge of the process and methods of teaching – including lesson planning, classroom management and assessment. 3. Technology Knowledge (TK) - Knowledge about various technologies, ranging

from low-tech technologies to digital technologies.

Then the framework identifies three dyads where these components intersect:

4. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) - Knowledge that deals with the teaching process (Shulman, 1986). Pedagogical content knowledge is different for various content areas, as it blends both content and pedagogy with the goal to develop better teaching practices in the content areas.

5. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) - Knowledge of how technology can create new representations for subject specific content.

6. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) - Knowledge of how various technologies can be used in teaching such as tools for classroom management and assessment.

And ultimately the framework focuses on the triad where all components come together:

7. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) - Knowledge required by teachers for integrating technology into their teaching in any content area. Teachers, who have TPACK, act with an intuitive understanding of the complex interplay between all the components and interactions of content, pedagogy and technology knowledge.

Mishra and Koehler acknowledge that the concept of TPACK (2006) is an extension of Shulman’s (1986) idea of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), to which they added technological knowledge (TK). They described their framework, originally called TPCK and later renamed TPACK, by stating:

TPCK is the basis of good teaching with technology and requires an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students' prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge and to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones. (Mishra and Koehler 2006, p. 1029)

The TPACK framework is now considered to have entered a second generation with a focus on using it in both research and development projects (Thompson and Schmidt 2010). There has been extensive writing about the TPACK framework since it was first developed in 2006 (Mishra and Mehta, 2016; Hofer and Harris, 2015; Hofer & Grandgenett, 2012; Hofer and Harris 2011; Mishra, Koehler, and Henriksen, 2010; Thompson, and Schmidt, 2010). It has proven useful in helping teachers to make informed and creative choices in the use of technology in their

classrooms and has given researchers a framework for designing and developing programmes based on a more interconnected knowledge for teachers integrating technology into teaching (Olofson, Swallow and Neumann, 2016; Baran, Chuang and Thompson 2011; Schrum et al 2007). TPACK is not without its critics. The main criticism levelled at the framework is that it does not provide enough assistance to teachers to know what to do with it (Finger et al 2013; Dilworth et al 2012). It can be argued that the value of the TPACK Framework is that it makes pre-eminent the integration of a teacher’s knowledge (Finger et al 2013). However, Dilworth et al (2012) suggest that many teachers do not understand the dynamic relationship between the three components of the framework and the TPACK framework does not close the gap between theory and practice. In spite of this weakness the TPACK framework does offer “researchers and educators a common language to bridge the gap between research and curriculum design (Jamieson-Proctor, 2013, p. 27).

The National Digital Strategy (DES 2015) also draws on the TPACK framework. However, the illustration contained in the strategy document (DES 2015, p.30) accidentally omitted the dotted line around the Venn diagram as seen in figure 2.1. This is unfortunate as the dotted line is an important part of the diagram as it represents the context in which everything else takes place. It is there as a reminder of all the variables that shape the situations in which teaching and learning take place. No two schools are the same and no two classes are the same and this must be taken into consideration. When planning for ICT integration we must take the available technologies' affordances and constraints, and the realities of unique school and classroom contexts into account and plan accordingly.

Hofer and Harris 2015 suggest that teachers can best develop TPACK during the process of designing their own lessons, units, and projects. They developed comprehensive taxonomies of Learning Activity Types (LATs) for a variety of US curriculum subjects to help integrate TPACK. There purpose is to assist teachers to design technologically enriched lessons, projects, and units. The taxonomies are divided into LATs that encourage knowledge development and knowledge expression. The research carried out with teachers using the LATs taxonomies during the planning process found that it helped them build their curriculum-specific technology integration knowledge (Hofer & Grandgenett, 2012; Hofer & Harris,

2010). Hofer and Harris (2015) offer a simple and straightforward five-step planning guide to help teachers. They advise teachers to always begin with choosing the learning goals and selecting the technology tools last. The other three steps, consider the classroom/school context, select activity types and select assessment strategies, can be planned in any order. This approach ensures that “technology use will be grounded in students’ curriculum based learning needs, rather than in the particular features of educational tools or resources” (Hofer and Harris 2015, p. 7-8).

Research on how TPACK informs educators' instructional planning also found that the teachers' selection and use of learning activities and technologies became more conscious, strategic, and varied and quality standards for technology integration were raised (Harris and Hofer 2011). Harris and Hofer devised four guiding questions for applying the TPACK framework and evaluating how it can inform and shape instructional planning. These are very useful for designing an integrated curriculum:

Pedagogical content knowledge: "How did you decide how to teach the content that this unit addresses?" "How, if at all, did these decisions change the content e.g., scope, depth, or nature of the content)?"

Technological pedagogical knowledge: "How did you decide which materials, tools, and resources to use to teach the content of the unit?" "How, if at all, did these decisions change your teaching (e.g., classroom management, assessment of student learning, or ways in which you interacted with the students)?"

Technological content knowledge: "How did the materials, tools, and resources that you used 'fit the content of the unit?" "How, if at all, did these decisions change the content (e.g., adding or subtracting unit sub-topics based on available resources)?"

Technological pedagogical content knowledge: "How and why was this particular combination of content, pedagogy, and technology most appropriate for this unit?"

The literature and research about the TPACK framework clearly show that successful technology integration begins with curriculum content and subject- specific pedagogy, and then with the value added use of educational technologies (Koehler and Mishra, 2009; Mishra and Koehler 2007). The SAMR Framework is a useful tool to evaluate how a planned ICT integration is progressing.