1

, '
Handbook of Technological.
Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPCK) for
Educators .
Edited by AACTE Committee on
Innovation and Technology
The AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology
Joel A. Colbert, Ed.D., Chapman University (Chair)
Kim E.'Boyd, Ed.D., Oral Roberts University
Kevin A. Clark, Ph.D., George Mason University
Sharon Guan, Ph.D., DePaul University
Judith B. Harris, Ph.D., The College ofWilliarg and Mar
Mario A. Kelly, Ed.D., Hunter College
Ann D. Thompson, Ph.D., Iowa State University
Published by
Routledge
for the American Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education

&1
NEWYORK AND LONDON ..
Introducing TPCK
MATTHEW]. AND PUNYA MISHRA
In this chapter we describe technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPCK) as a framework for teacher knowledge for technology integration
(Mishra & Koehler, '2006). This framework builds on Shulman's construct of
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to include technology knowledge. We
argue that the development of TPCK by teachers is critical to effective teach
ing with technology. We emrhasize teacher knowledge because we view the
teacher as an autonomous agent with the power to significantly influence the
appropriate (or inappropriate) integration of technology in teaching. In
keeping with the goal of this volume (that. of situating the idea ofTPCK in the
realm of teacher education and teacher professional development, and inves
tigating, how it differs by content areas) we explore the parameters of the
TPCK framework within and between multiple curriculum areas, as well as in
varying teaching and learning contexts.
We begin with a brief introduction to the complex, ill-structured nature of
teaching. We consider the nature of technologies (both analog and digital),
and how the inclusion of technology in pedagogy further complicates teach
ing. We propose to view teaching with technology as a "wicked problem"
(Rittel & Webber, 1973), in which teaching is viewed as a highly complicated
form of problem-seeking and problem-solving that derives from flexible and
integrated bases of knowledge. We offer our TPCK framework for teacher
knowledge in detail, as a complex interaction among three bodies of know
ledge: content, pedagogy, and technology. We describe how these bodies of
knowledge interact, in abstract, and in practice, to produce the type of flexible
knowledge needed to successfully integrate technology in the classroom.
Finally, we argue that the complexity of developing and applying TPCK sug
gests that a greater emphasis should be placed on the idea of teachers as "cur
riculum designers."
Teaching as an ill-structured, complex domain
As Spiro and colleagues have argued, ill-structured domains are characterized
by a complexity of concepts and cases'With a Wide variability of features across
-different cases (Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, & Anderson, 1988; Spiro & Jehng,
4 M. J. Koehler and P. Mishra
1990). Like expertise in other complex domains including medical diagnosis
(Lesgo(d, Feltovich, G l a ~ e r , &- Wang, 1981; Pople, '1982), decision-making
(Klein, 1999), and writing (Hayes & Flower, 1980; Hillocks, 1986), expertise
in teaching is dependent on flexible access to and application of highly organ
ized systems of knowledge (Glaser, 1984; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Shulman,
1986, 1987) that must continually shift and evolve based on the contexts
within which they are applied. Teachers practice in a ,highly complex,
Ij,(!
dynamic environment (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich,
I
& Anderson, 1988; Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991) that asks
them to integrate knowledge of student thinking and learning, knowledge of
the subject matter, and increasingly, knowledge of technology.
In this regard, teaching is akin to other real-world problems that are ill
structured, that lack required information, and do not have a known correct
nor best solution (Frederiksen, 1986; Glass, Holyoak, & Santa, 1979; Nicker
son, 1994; Reitman, 1964; Roberts, 1994). Other examples of ill-structured
domains are biomedicine (Feltovich, Coulson, Spiro, & Dawson-Saunders,
1992), literary analysis (Jones & Spiro, 1992; Spiro & Jehng, 1990), and law
(Feltovich, Spiro, Coulson, & Myers-Kelson, 1995; Lawrence, 1988; Williams,
1992). Paradoxically, domains that appear to be well-structured can also be
ill-structured, either at advanced levels of study, or when applied to uncon
strained, naturally occurring situations (Mishra, Spiro, & Feltovich, 1996;
Mishra & Yadav, 2006; Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991),
For example, mathematics is typically treated as ,il very structured field that
is concerned with solving' problems which have unique, correct answers,
developed as the logical consequence of manipulations of a finite set of
axioms or postulates. Professional mathematicians, however, hold a very dif
ferent view of their field, and consider it laden with ambiguity and uncer
tainty (Davis & Hersh, 1981). Ill-structuredness also appears when abstract
mathematical ideas are applied to real-world situations (Resnick, 1988). Sim
ilarly, physics appears to be an orderly and regular discipline-except when
applied to the real world, as in the case of engineering. Building a bridge, for
example, applies principles of physics, but the unique features of each case
(including the cost, materials, and setting) prevent the indiscriminate general
ization from one case to another (Guzdial, Turns, Rappin, & Carlson, 1995;
Petroski, 1985, 1994).
Teaching, consistent with the examples above, is a classic example of an ill
structured discipline with a high level of variability across situations as well as a
dense context-dependent inter-connectedness between knowledge and prac
tice. As educators know, the application of knowledge in teaching involves
many different conceptual structures and perspectives that play out in novel
and unique ways even in instances that may seem superficially similar. The
push to integrate technology in teaching further complicates matters by bring
ing an additional domain of knowledge (technology knowledge) into the mix.
Introducing TPCK 5
(t { ~ important, therefore, that we develop a better under&tanding ot what we
mean by the term technology, particularly as it is applied in educational set
tings. The following sections explore this idea in greater detail.
Understanding technology
We broadly define technology as the tC!0ls created by human knowledge of
how to combine resources to produce desired products, to solve problems,
fulfill needs, or satisfy wants (Wikipedia, 2006). This definition implies two
uses of the word. The first use describes an individual tool or technique, and
the second use encompasses all tools, techniques, and knowledge, If we
choose to use the first sense of the term there can be an Internet technology
that specifically refers to the tool we call the Internet. Likewise there is a
"computer technology," a "word-processing technology," and "microscope
technology" (collectively called technologies), Using the second sense of the
term, there can be educational technology, which describes the sum of the
tools, techniques, and collective knowledge applicable to education, This defi
nition includes both analog technologies (e.g., chalkboard, pencil, and micro
scope) and digital technologies (e.g., the computer, blogging, and Internet).
Our view does not distinguish between older technologies (e.g., the chalk
board, the overhead projector, the hand-held calculator, and the pencil) and
newer technologies (e,g., the MP3 player and blogs),2
One of the most important things to understand about technologies is
that particular technologies have specific affordances and constraints. Technolo
gies are neither neutral nor unbiased; rather, particular technologies have
their own propensities, biases, and inherent attributes that make them more
suitable for certain tasks than others (Bromley, 1998; Bruce, 1993). The term
affordance was originally introduced by Gibson (1977, 1979) to refer to the
pe,rceived and actual psychological properties of any object, as a means of
explaining how individuals interact with objects in the world. A hammer, for
example, easily affords hitting objects (such as nails), due to its handle
(affording a grip) and its weighted end. The design of the hammer also con
strains what you can do with it-a hammer does not afford turning a screw
or designing a website. The use of affordance in the context of educational
technology is meant more broadly to include all of the properties of the
system that allow certain actions to be performed and encourage specific
types oflearner behavior (Norman, 1988). Using email to communicate, for
example, affords asynchronous communication and easy storage (an
archive) of exchanges. Email does not afford synchronous communication in
the way that a phone call, a face-to-face conversation, or instant-messaging
does. Nor does email afford the conveyance of subtleties of tone, intent, and
mood.
In this context, it is important to distinguish between affordances and con
straints of a technology that are inherent to the technology and those that are
r,y
6 M. J. Koehler and P. Mishra
I
\
imposed from outside by the user. We often approach technologies with our
own biases and predilections related tu appropriate and inappropriate ways of
using them. Cognitive scientists use the phrase "functional fixedness", to
describe the manner in which the ideas we hold about an object's function
c ~ [Link] our ability to use the object for a different function (Birch, 1945;
German & Barrett, 2005). Functional fiXedness often stands in the way of cre
ative uses of technologies. Overcoming this is essential for the intelligent and
creative application of technology for learning. For example, a whiteboard has
certain constraints and affordances: it is heavy and difficult to rriove, yet it is
easy to write on and erase, and it can function as a public "writing space" to
share ideas with others. These constraints and 'affordances, however, do not
necessarily determine how a whiteboard can be used. The manner in which a
whiteboard is used in a classroom as opposed to a science lab clearly indicates
that the function of a whiteboard is determined very much by the context in
which it is used. Similarly, although email is a tool for communication, it can
be used to aid creative writing, and PowerPoint, a presentation tool, can be
used as a medium for artistic creativity (Byrne, 2003). Thus, creative uses of
technology require us to go beyond this "functional fixedness" so that we can
innovatively repurpose existing tools toward pedagogical ends. Many excel
lent examples of such creative repurposing can be found in this book. In
particular, see Chapter 13 by Bull, Bell, and Hammond which describes a
range of different' uses for a spreadsheet program.
Technology and its complex role in teaching
Technology integration (the act of including technology in teaching) is not a
new phenomenon. For example, although by today's standards we rarely con
sider writing to be a technology, early cultures found writing to be "an exter
nal, alien technology, as many people today think of the computer" (Ong,
1982, p. 81). Plato, for example, deliberated over the many constraints and
affordances of this new technology, reasoning that this new technology may
prove to be a crutch that causes the populace to lose the capability to trust
their own memory.
There are several reasons why introdUcing technology complicates the
processes of teaching. There are social and institutional contexts that are
unsupportive of teachers' efforts to integrate technology. Teachers have often
been provided with inadequate training for this task. The diverse contexts of
teaching and learning suggest that there is not "one way" that will work for
everyone. Even when we restrict our discussion to particular technologies in
fixed contexts, the decision to use a technology in one's teaching introduces a
myriad of affordances for teaching content and engaging learners, as well as a
number of constraints on what functions technologies can serve in the class
room. Understanding the complexities of technology integration requires us
to offer a richer description of what we mean by the word "technology."
Introducing TPCK 7
Issues of txhnologr integration arrrr1r to both analog and digital, dud m:w
and old technologies. As a matter of practical significance, however, most of
the technologies under consideration in the current literature (e.g., comput
ers, software, and the Internet) are newer and digital. Newer digital technolo
gies have some inherent properties that make it difficult for teachers to apply
them in straightforward ways. Thus, it is important for us to develop a better
understanding of the affordances and constraints inherent in digital technolo
gies, since much of the discussion today is about these technologies.
Most traditional pedagogical technologies are characterized by specificity (a
pencil is for writing, while a microscope is for viewing small objects); stability
(pencils, pendulums, microscopes, and chalkboards have not changed a great
deal over time); and transparency offunction (the inner-workings of the pencil
or the pendulum are quite simple and directly related to their function)
(Simon, 1969). Over time, these technologies achieve a transparency ofpercep
tion (Bruce & Hogan, 1998), they have become commonplace and in most
cases are not even considered technologies. Digital technologies-such as
computers, and hand-held devices, and software applications-in contrast,
are protean (usable in many different ways) (Papert, 1980), unstable (rapidly
changing), and opaque (the inner-workings are hidden from users) (Turkle,
1995). We describe each of these factors complicating the inclusion of techno
logy in the sections below.
Digital technologies are protean in nature
The digital computer is unique in its ability to store, deliver, and help manip
ulate a variety of symbol systems: visual, acoustic, textual, and numerical. As a
tool, the computer (or the computer application or system) provides humans
with new ability or greater power, allowing people to do things they could not
do before, or to do familiar things more easily (Papert, 1980). Computers can
dynamically simulate the details of any other medium including those that
cannot exist physically, making it a meta-medium with degrees of freedom for
representation and expression never before encountered and as yet barely
investigated (Kay, 1984).
This protean nature also means that digital technologies are many different
things to different people. The digital computer can be a tool for communica
tion (through email or instant messaging), a tool for design and construction
(through software for scientific modeling or software for designing websites,
themselves very different activities), a tool for inquiry (such as through digital
libraries and digital probes), and a tool for artistic expression (through image,
movie, and audio design software programs). This protean nature gives digital
technologies their greatest strength and is the main reason why computers
have applications in nearly every field of human activity. These strengths,
however, come at a cost-that of significantly increasing the complexity of
having to use these different symbol systems, making them difficult to learn
8 M. J. KoeWer and P. Mishra
and use. It is no surprise that the introduction of digital technologies into the
dassroom further comphcatc3 the of IJwblems and issues teachers face.
Digital technologies are functionally opaque
That is, the inner workings of most contemporary technologies are hidden
from those who use them. The computer becomes a virtual domain in which
cause and effect relationships are divorced from everyday rules. This quality
makes our interactions with computers symbolic and often quite arbitrary/
(Turkle, 1995). This separation often makes learning to work with computers
difficult-akin to learning a new language or culture. The fact that most soft
ware tools available today are designed for the world of business and work,
not education, further contributes to this opacity (Zhao, 2003). Adapting
general-purpose tools created for the world of business (e.g., spreadsheet pro
grams) to the classroom context requires working through this opacity (and
our functional fixedness) to reconfigure and repurpose these existing tech
nologies for pedagogical purposes.
Digital technologies are unstable
The instability of digital technologies is manifest in two ways. First, the know
ledge required to learn to use digital technologies is never fixed. Technology
changes quickly, causing hardware and software applications to become out
dated every few years. One has to continually keep up with the changing
demands of new technologies, be they Hypercard, Logo, web pages, AJAX,
blogs, wikis, podcasts, or the types of social software loosely
aggregated under the evolving term Web 2.0. Moreover, these rapid changes
often happen in piecemeal fashion, which leads to users having to work with a
variety of versions of software and hardware, some of which may be incom
patible with one another. A second consequence of rapid technological
I' change is, that the technologies we use are often not fully tested and robust.
i
f
Most software programs are error-prone and riddled with bugs. Hardware
evolution also lends itself to imperfect work environments. For instance, the
f
rapid changes in wireless protocols can leave users frustrated with connec
tions that are too often unreliable. Though the specifics may change, these are
issues, in some form or the other, that all users of digital technologies have to
contend with. Thus, learning to use the technologies (and integrating into the
curriculum) is not a one-shot deal. The instability of digital technologies
requires that teachers become life-long learners who are willing to contend
with ambiguity, frustration, and change.
;:i These inherent characteristics of digital technology are not the only bar
!
riers to technology integration. Another series of barriers are more social,
institutional, or contextual in nature. We describe a few of them below.
1'l ;,
I'
Ii 1
i
Introducing TPCK 9
[Link] often hI/lie ;'rJllaetpJllte (0.1' ;,';[Link].r;nte) expe.r;ence
Teachers often lack experience with using digital technologies for teaching
and learning. Many teachers earned degrees at a time when educational
technology was at a very different stage of development than it is today. It is,
thus, not surprising that many teachers do not consider themselves suffi
ciently prepared to use technology. in the classroom, and oftentimes do not
appreciate its value or relevance to the classroom. Acquiring a new knowledge
base and skill set can be quite challenging, particularly if it is a time-intensive
activity that must fit into a busy schedule. However, these skills are unlikely to
be used unless teachers can conceive of technology uses that are consistent
with their existing pedagogical beliefs (Ertmer, 2005). J.{esearch suggests that
an innovation is less likely to be adopted if it deviates too greatly from pre
vailing values, pedagogical beliefs, and practices of the teachers (Zhao, Pugh,
Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). Learning to become flexible, creative educators whc
can transcend functional fixedness and other barriers is an ongoing and com
plicated process and must be confronted at both pre- and in-service levels.
These topics are addressed by every chapter in this volume, but are the spe
cific focus of Chapters 11 and 12 by Niess and Harris, respectively.
Technology is often considered to be somebody else's problem
Technology integration is made even more complex by the kinds of social ant
institutional contexts in which teachers work. Unfortunately, the problem a
technology integration has often become what we have named the
else's problem" (SEP) syndrome (Koehler, Mishra, Hershey, & Peruski, 2004)
Technology and pedagogy are often considered domains that are ruled by dif
ferent groups of people-teachers and instructors, who are in charge of peda
gogy; and technologists, who are in charge of the technology. Similar to C. P
Snow's (1959) idea of two cultures of scientists and artists, teachers anI
techies live in different worlds and often hold curiously distorted images 0
each other. On one hand, technologists view non-technologists as Luddites
conservative, resistant to change, and oblivious to the transformative powe
of technology. On the other hand, non-technologists tend to view technolo
gists as being shallowly enthusiastic, ignorant of education and learning theo
ries, and unaware of the realities of classrooms and schools. These two group
read different journals, visit different conferences, and can have fundament
ally different visions of the role of technology in the classroom. The chasn
between these two groups is not unbridgeable, because it is clear that teacher
use technology, either technologies that have become transparent to then
(e.g., the chalkboard and the overhead projector) or in personal context
outside of the classroom (e.g., the Internet, MP3 players, and DVD players:
Likewise, technologists in schools know something about teaching an,
learning. Often they are former teachers or current teachers working full- 0
10 M. J. Koehler and P. Mishra
part-time. Yet, the phenomenon of two worlds is sociologically and psycho
logically especially a3 it to newer technologies.
It is not easy for teachers to navigate between these two worlds, worlds in
which the norms, values, and language can be different. N; we argue later, a
complete understanding of teaching with technology involves breaking down
this false dichotomy between pedagogy and technology. This tension between
educators and technologists can complicate the teacher's role greatly, con
comitantly discouraging effective technology integration. Chapter 13 by Bull,
Bell, and Hammond offers insight into just how these institutional barriers
can (and need to) be reduced.
Classroom contexts are varied and diverse
Surrounding all the things that teachers should know about technologies and
how to use them in their classrooms are the circumstances, or contexts, in
which each teaches. As we argue more fully later, there is no such thing as a
"perfect solution" to the problem of integrating technology into a curriculum.
Instead, integration efforts should always be custom-designed for particular
subject matter ideas in specific classroom contexts.
In several ways, the contexts of teaching reflect several divides, each of
which further complicates the issue of technology integration in classrooms.
One divide, for example, is between the digital natives (the first generation of
students to live and grow up entirely surrounded by digital technology) and
the digital immigrants (the teachers who have "migrated" to this technology
later in life) (Prensky, 2001'). The natives represent a challenge to immigrant
teachers, because of differences in comfort levels and knowledge of techno
logy, and a concomitant clash of culture, language, and values. Another divide
is the well-known digital divide between those who have access to the latest
technology, and those who do not (see Digital [Link], 2006). This divide
takes many forms, and has complex implications for how teachers approach
these contexts, as is addressed in Chapter 10 by Kelly.
Teaching with technology as a wicked problem
Technology integration has often been considered a kind of problem-solving,
the goal of which is to find the appropriate technological solutions to peda
gogical problems. However, matters are not this clear-cut. Integrating techno
logy in the classroom is a complex and ill-structured problem_involving the
convoluted interaction of multiple factors, with few hi;lrd and fast rules that
apply across contexts and cases.
One fruitful way of thinking about the .complex problem of teaching with
technology is to view it as ai, "wicked problem" (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Rittel
and Webber argued that wicked problems] in contrast to "tame" problems
(such as those in mathematics, chess, etc.), cont,radictory,
and changing requirements. Solutions to wicked problems are often difficult
Introducing TPCK 11
to realize (and maybe even recognize) because of complex interdependencies
among a large number uf wntextuafry bound '1ariable3. Wicked plobkms,
they argue, cannot be solved in a traditional linear fashion, because _the
problem definition itself evolves as new solutions are considered and/or
implemented. Rittel and Webber stated that while attempting to solve a
wicked problem, the solution of one of its aspects may reveal or create
another, even more complex problem. Moreover, wicked problems have no
stopping rule-and solutions to wicked, problems are not right or wrong,
simply "better," "worse," "good enough," or "not good enough." Most
importantly, every wicked problem is essentially unique and novel. There are
so many factors and conditions-all dynamic-that no two wicked problems
are alike. Accordingly, solutions to wicked problems will always be custom
designed. For thIS nodefinitive solutio;;to a technology inte
gration problem. Each issue raised by technology integration presents an ever
evolving set of interlocking issues and constraints.
Rittel and Webber show that the biggest mistake that one can make when
tackling a wicked problem is to think of it as a "normal" or "tame problem"
that can be tackled in conventional ways. Wicked problems always occur in
social contexts--in the case of technology integration, that of classrooms. The
diversity of teachers, students, and technology coordinators who operate in
this social context bring different goals, objectives, and beliefs to the table, and
thereby contribute to the wickedness of this problem. Indeed it is the social,
psychological complexity of these problems-rarely their technical complex
ity-that overwhelms standard problem-solving appro,!ches. These solutions
become a source for learning, leading to newer knowledge, and unintended
consequences, that can lead to more wicked problems, which in turn can lead
to newer knowledge and so on in a continuous spiral or development. This
process of problem-seeking, problem-solving, and knowledge generation does
not typically end when all possible problems are solved but rather when exter
nal factors (such as running out of time, money, information, support, or
other resources) come into play. As Simon argues, in contexts such as these,
the best we can hope for is satisficing, i.e. achieving a satisfactory solution, an
outcome that, given the circumstances, is good enough.
Describing teaching as a wicked plOblem, full of complexity and ill
structuredness, does not suggest that this problem lacks structure. lll-struc
turedness demands that understanding a typical case in the domain in question
requires understanding a variety of complex concepts (and their contextually
defined interactions), and that these concepts interact in patterns that are not
consistent across cases. Complexity often emerges from a smaller set of
tractable and understandable phenomena that interact with one another.
The wicked problems of technology integration require us to develop new
ways of confronting this complexity. We argue that at the heart of good
teaching with technology are three core components: content, pedagogy, and
12 . M. 1. Koehler and P. Mishra
technology and the relationships between them. It is these interactions,
ot:tween and among thebe component:>, playing out differently across diverse
contexts, that account for the wide variations seen in educational technology
integration. These three knowledge bases (content, pedagogy, and techno
logy) form the core of the TPCK framework. We offer an overview of the
framework below, though more detailed descriptions may be found in other
published reports (Koehler, Mishra, Hershey, & Peruski, 2004; Koehler &
Mishra, 200Sa, 200Sb; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). It is important to note that
this perspective is consistent with other researchers and approaches that have
attempted to extend Shulman's idea of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
to the domain of educational technology.3
The TPCK model
The TPCK framework builds on Shulman's (1987, 1986) descriptions of ped
agogical content knowledge to describe how teachers' understanding of tech
nologies and pedagogical content knowledge interact with one another to
produce effective teaching with technology. (See note #3 for an overview of
the evolution of these ideas.) In this model (see Figure 1.1), there are three
main components of knowledge: content, pedagogy, and technology. Equally
important to the model are the interactions among these bodies of know
ledge, represented as pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological
content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK).
Figure 1.1 The TPeK framework and its knowledge components.
Introducing TPCK 13
The goal of descrihing ench of these bodies of knowledge is not to engage in
philosophical discussions about the nature of knowledge. Although many
philosophers have typically defined knowledge as "justified true belief' and
have spent decades, if not centuries, attempting to understand each of these
words, the definition of knowledge used here is more pragmatic and is influ
enced by scholars such as Dewey, Schon, and Perkins (Dewey, 1934; Dewey &
Bentley; 1949; Perkins, 1986; Schon,' 1983, 1987, 1996). Perkins in particular
poses a provocative metaphor: that of "knowledge as design" (Perkins, 1986).
In fact he goes on to argue that knowledge can be considered a tool that is
designed and adapted to a purpose. As he says:
To think of knowledge as design is to think of it as an implement one
constructs and wields rather than a given one discovers and beholds.
The kinesthetic imagery implicit in knowledge as design fosters
an active view of understanding worthy of emphasis in teaching and
learning.
(p. 132)
In this view of knowledge, the truth-value of the knowledge is less import
ant than what you can do with that knowledge-what has also been called
usable knowledge (Kelly, 2003; Lagemann, 2002; National Research Council
[NRC], 2002). We briefly describe each component of the TPCK model below.
Content knowledge (CK)
Content knowledge is knowledge about the actual subject matter that is to be
learned or taught. The content to be covered in middle school science or
history is different from the content to be covered in an undergraduate course
on art appreciation or a graduate seminar on astrophysics. Knowledge of
content is of critical importance for teachers. As Shulman (1986) noted, this
would include: knowledge of concepts, theories, ideas, organizational frame
works, knowledge of evidence and proof, as well as established practices and
approaches towards developing such knowledge. Knowledge and the nature
of inquiry differ greatly between fields and it is important that teachers under
stand the deeper knowledge fundamentals of the disciplines in which they
teach. In the case of science, for example, this would include knowledge of
scientific facts and theories, the scientific method, and evidence-based reason
ing. In the case of art appreciation, such knowledge would include knowledge
of art history, famous paintings, sculptures, artists and their historical con
texts, as well as knowledge of aesthetic and psychological theories for evaluat
ing art. The cost of not having a comprehensive base of content knowledge
can be quite prohibitive; students can receive incorrect information and
develop misconceptions about the content area (National Research Council,
2000; pfundt & Duit, 2000). Yet content knowledge, in and of itself, is an ill
structured domain, and as the culture wars (Zimmerman, 2002) and the
14 M. J. Koehler and P. Mishra
Great Books controversies (Bloom, 1987; Casement, 1997; Levine, 1996) as
well as COUIt b.:lttles ORT tae Ceddlin\?, of evolution (Pennock, 2(01) demon
strate, issues of content can be areas of significant contention and disagree
k
ti. ment. The bulk of the chapters in this book describe how differences among
I I
: content knowledge domains are reflected in differing strategies to integrate
educational technologies in teacher education and classroom practice.
Pedagogical knowledge (PK)
Pedagogical knowledge is deep knowledge about the processes and practices
or methods of teaching and learning and encompasses (among other things)
overall educational purposes, values, and aims. This is a generic form of
knowledge that applies to student learning, classroom management, lesson
plan development and implementation, and student evaluation. It includes
knowledge about techniques or methods used in the classroom, the nature of
the target audience, and strategies for evaluating student understanding. A
teacher with deep pedagogical knowledge understands how students con
struct knowledge and acquire skills, and how they develop habits of mind and
positive dispositions towards learning. As such, pedagogical knowledge
requires an understanding of cognitive, social, and developmental theories of
learning and how they apply to students in the classroom.
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
Pedagogical content knowledge is consistent with, and similar to Shulman's
idea of knowledge of pedagogy that is applicable to the teaching of specific
content. PCK covers the core business of teaching, learning, curriculum,
assessment, and reporting, such as the conditions that promote learning and
the links among curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy. An awareness of
common misconceptions and ways of looking at them, the importance of
forging links and connections between different content ideas, students' prior
knowledge, alternative teaching strategies, and the flexibility that comes from
exploring alternative ways of looking at the same idea or problem are all
essential for effective teaching.
Central to Shulman's conceptualization of PCK is the notion of the trans
formation of the subject matter for teaching. Specifically, according to
Shulman (1986), this transformation occurs as the teacher interprets the
subject matter, finds multiple ways to represent it, and adapts and tailors the
instructional materials to alternative conceptions and students' prior know
ledge. An excellent example of such a transformation can be seen in John
. ~ '. I
Lee's Chapter 6 on the application of TPCK to social studies. As Lee argues,
t::,:
social studies does not exist as a distinct discipline but rather is configured
from multiple sources including history, geography, political science, eco
illl','
,1,1
nomics, behavioral sciences, cultural studies, and more. According to Lee, the
domain of social studies emerges as a consequence of the pedagogical decision
'i1
h
Introducing TPCK 15
to educate students about civic preparation. In other words, without this ped
agogical decision, the domain of social studies would not exist.
Technology knowledge (TK)
Technology knowledge is always in a state of flux-more so than the other
two "core" knowledge domains in the TPCK framework (pedagogy and
content). This makes pinning it down notoriously difficult. Earlier in this
chapter, we described the manner in which technology continually changes
and how keeping up-to-date with it can become a full-time job, in and of
itself. This also means that any definition of technology knowledge is in
danger of becoming outdated by the time this text has been written, edited,
proofread, and published.
4
T h ~ t said, we believe that there are certain ways of
thinking about and working with technology that can apply to all technology
tools.
In that sense, our definition ofTK is close to that of fluency of information
technology (FITness) as proposed by the Committee ofInformation Techno
logy Literacy of the National Research Council (NRC, 1999). They argue that
FITness goes beyond traditional notions of computer literacy to require that
persons understand information technology broadly enough to apply it pro
ductivelyat work and in their everyday lives, to recognize when information
technology can assist or impede the achievement of a goal, and to continually
adapt to changes in information technology. FITness therefore requires a
deeper, more essential understanding and mastery of information technology
for information processing, communication, and problem-solving than does
the traditional definition of computer literacy. Acquiring TK in this manner
enables a person to accomplish a variety of different tasks using information
technology and to develop different ways of accomplishing a given task. This
conceptualization ofTK does not posit an "end state" but rather sees it devel
opmentally, as evolving over a lifetime of generative, open-ended interaction
with technology.
Technological content knowledge (TCK)
Technology and knowledge have a deep historical relationship. Progress in
fields as diverse as medicine and history, or archeology and physics have coin
cided with the development of new technologies that afford the representa
tion and manipulation of data in new and fruitful ways. Consider Roentgen's
discovery of X-rays or the technique of Carbon-14 dating and the influence of
these technologies in the fields of medicine and archeology. Consider also
how the advent of the digital computer changed the nature of physics and
mathematics, and placed a greater emphasis on the role of simulation in
understanding phenomena.
s
Technological changes have also offered new
metaphors for understanding the world. Viewing the heart as a pump, or the
brain as an information-processing machine, are just some of the ways in
16 M. J. Koehler and P. Mishra
which technologies have provided new perspectives for understanding phe
nomena in the world. These [Link]<Jn.u and metaphmi.c?>l conneLtions
an: not superficial. They often have led to fundamental changes in the nature
of the discipline itself.
Understanding the impact of technology on the practices and knowledge
of a given discipline is critical if we are to develop appropriate technological
tools for educational purposes. The choice of technologies affords and con
strains the types of content ideas that can be taught. Likewise, certain content
decisions can limit the types of technologies that can be used. Technology
constrains the types of possible representations but conversely affords the
construction of newer and more varied representations. Furthermore,
technological tools can provide a greater degree of flexibility in navigating
across these representations.
This book contains many examples of the manner in which representa
tions are changed with the introduction of technology. For instance, consider
Grandgenett's Chapter 7 examples of fractals, which require the computa
tional power of the computer to be created and to be taught. Fractals, as
we conceive of them now, would not be possible without the computational
and visual representational power of the digital computer. McCrory's
Chapter 9 on science and DePlatchett's Chapter 8 on art provide excellent
examples of how new technologies are changing the very nature of physics
and art, respectively.
Thus, we can define TCK as an understanding of the manner in which
technology and content influence and constrain eme another. Teachers need
to master more than the subject matter they teach, they must also have a deep
understanding of the manner in which the subject matter (or the kinds of
representations that can be constructed) can be changed by the application of
technology. Teachers need to understand which specific technologies are best
suited for addressing subject-matter learning in their domains and how the
content dictates or perhaps even changes the technology--or vice versa.
In some ways, TCK is the most neglected aspect of the various intersec
tions in the TPCK framework. As Thompson (2006) says, this framework
"suggests that teachers' experiences with technology need to be specific to dif
ferent content areas" (p. 46). This monograph attempts to redress this neglect
by asking scholars in different disciplinary contexts to describe how techno
logy and content are reciprocally related in their particular domains.
Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK)
Technological pedagogical knowledge is an understanding of how teaching
and learning changes when particular technologies are used. This includes
knowing the pedagogical affordances and constraints of a range of techno
logical tools as they relate to disciplinarily and developmentally appropriate
pedagogical designs and strategies. This requires getting a deeper understand-
Introducing TPCK 17
ing of the constrajnts 2..tld affordances of tccna<>l<Jgies dad tilt: discilliinary
contexts within which they function.
Consider the whiteboard example provided earlier. As we described, the
nature of this technology-which has been in use for a long time-in some
ways pre-supposes the kinds of functions it can serve. It is usually placed in
the front of the classroom and ufjder the control of the teacher. This, in turn,
imposes a particular physical order in the classroom. For example, the use of
a whiteboard can determine the placement of tables and chairs and frames the
nature of student-teacher interaction. For instance, the teacher has primary
ownership of the whiteboard, and students can use it only when called upon
by the teacher. However, it would be incorrect to say that there is only one
way in which whiteboards can be used. One has only to compare the use of a
whiteboard in a brainstorming meeting in a business setting to see a rather
different use of this technology. In such a setting, the whiteboard is not under
the purview of a single individual, but rather it can be used by anybody in the
group, and it becomes the focal point around which discussion and the nego
tiation/construction of meaning occurs. Thus an impgrtant part of TPK is
developing creative flexibility with available tools in order to repurpose them
for pedagogical purposes.
TPK becomes particularly important because most popular software pro
grams are not designed for educational purposes. Software programs such as
the Microsoft Office Suite (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Entourage, and MSN
Messenger) are usually designed for a businesses environment. Furthermore,
web-based technologies such as blogs or podcasts are designed for purposes of
entertainment/communication/social networking. TeacQeJS need to
functional fixedness, and develop skills to look beyond the immediate techno
logy and "reconfigure it" for their own pedagogical purposes. Thus TPK
requires a forward-looking, creative, and open-minded seeking of technology,
not for its own sake, but for the sake of advancing student learning and
understanillng. Harris in Chapter 12 on in-service teacher education, intro
duces the idea of activity types as one way of assisting novice teachers to
develop such an open-minded perspective on repurposing of technology.
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK)
TPCK is an emergent form of knowledge that goes beyond all three com
ponents (content, pedagogy, and technology). Technological pedagogical
content knowledge is an understanding that emerges from an interaction of
content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge. Underlying truly meaningful
and deeply skilled teaching with technology, TPCK is different from know
ledge of all three concepts individually. We argue that TPCK is the basis of
effective teaching with technology and requires an understanding of the
representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that
use technologies in ways toteach content; knowledge of what
!j
18 M. J. Koehler and P. Mishra
makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress
. somt: or rhe that [Link] face; knowledge uf students' prior know
ledge 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.
By simultaneously integrating knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and
content, TPCK is a form of knowledge that expert teachers bring into play any
time they teach. Each "wicked problem" or situation presented to teachers is a
unique combination or weaving together of these three factors, and accord
ingly, is-Bo technological solution that applies for every teacher,
every course, Qr every view of teaching. Rather, solutions lie in the ability of a
teacher to flexibly navigate the space defined by the three elements of conThnt,
pedagogy, and technology and the complex interactions among these .ele
ments in specific contexts. Ignoring the complexity inherent in each know
ledge component, or the complexity of the relationships among these
comp9nents, lead [Link].Q.. solutions or failll:':e.l Thus, teachers
need to develop fluency and cognitive flexibility not just in each of these key
domains (T, P, and C) but also in the manner in which these domains interre
late, so that they can effect solutions that are sensitive to specific contexts.
This is the kind of ciee.p, flexible, pragmatic, and nuanced understanding of
that we advocate in this monograph and is further
examined by the other chapters in this volume.
The act of seeing technology, pedagogy, and content as three knowledge
bases is not straightforward. As we have said before:
separating the three components (content, pedagogy, and technology)
... is an analytic act and one that is difficult to tease out in practice.
In actuality, these components exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium
or, as the philosopher Kuhn (1977) said in a different context, in a
state of "essential tension" '" Viewing any of these components in
isolation from the others represents a real disservice to good teaching.
Teaching and learning with technology exist in a dynamic transac
tional relationship (Bruce, 1997; Dewey & Bentley, 1949; Rosenblatt,
1978) between the three components in our framework; a change in
anyone of the factors has to be "compensated" by changes in the
other two.
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1029)
This compensation is most evident whenever a new educational techno
logy suddenly forces teachers to confront basic educational issues and recon
struct the dynamic equilibrium among all three view [Link]
perspective that. COntent to bec.o.llyeJtedt9_.flt a
new technology-that is, the pedagogical goals and technologie,-aredeFived
from the content area. Things are rarely that simple, particularly when newer
Introducing TPCK 19
technologies are employed. The introduction of the Internet-particularly the
rise of online learning-is an example of the arrival of a technology that
forced educators to think about core pedagogical issues such as how to repre
sent content on the web, and how to connect students with the subject matter
and with one another (Peruski & Mishra, 2004).
In this context, consider the example of cognitive flexibility hypertexts
(CFTs) as espoused by Spiro and his c'olleagues (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, &
Coulson, 1991; Spiro & Jehng, 1990). Over the years, many CFT hypertexts
have been developed by academics, often for use in research. By their nature,
these hypertext environments are constrained to specialty software projects
with focused subject matter, with limited availability to other users outside of
universities. Thus, most of the work in this area has been restricted to publica
tions, research papers, and journal articles. The advent of community
developed hypertexts and encyclopedias, user-generated metadata (also known
as social bookrnarking), and their use at popular web sites such as Wikipedia,
Furl, Delicious, YouTube, and Flickr has suddenly moved core CFT ideas from
the research lab into the real world. Educators are now realizing the construc
tivist power of folksonomies/ and other user-created tagging/categorization
schemes, to reconfigure how we understand texts and the relationships among
them. In this context, it is the advent of a new technology that "drives" the
kinds of decisions we make about content and pedagogy, by highlighting or
revealing previously hidden facets of the content, by enabling connections
between diverse domains of knowledge, or supporting newer forms of peda
gogy. The decision to use hypertext, for example, by necessity restricts the type
of pedagogical representations available, and the content that may be represen
ted, thus forcing teachers to select curriculum content that is most appropriate
given the affordances of this particular technology.
This influence of technology on pedagogy and content (as the previous
examples showed) is not unidirectional. A good example of how the pedagog
ical constraints of schools can restrict how technology is designed and used
relates to the use of educational computer games. A study comparing com
mercial games with educational games found that commercial games often
were more demanding than educational games in terms of cognitive effort as
well as in time required for mastery (Heeter et aI., 2003). Educational games
were easier to install, easier to learn, less complex, shorter, less challenging to
play, and required less social interaction than commercial games. Heeter and
colleagues asserted that these qualities resulted mainly from the need to fit
game-playing into standard school schedule 45-50 minute timeslots. What
was clear from the study was that the constraints of working within a school
setting led to design solutions that limited playability, particularly related to
the length and complexity of game play, and thus limited what students could
learn from the game. The authors argue that constraining games to a format
that is playable in classroom settings may pose a bigger challenge to designers
20 M. J. Koehler and P. Mishra
interested in creating fun, educational games than the need to integrate cur
riculum-based suhject matter. This emphasis on pedagogy through play leads
Heeter and colleagues to argue that educational games are schizophrenic, in
that they continually try to serve two masters, content learning and fun.
The above examples are intended to illustrate the complex ways in which
content, pedagogy, and technology interact with varying levels of success.
"
,
Teaching with technology is a difficult thing to do well. The TPCK framework
suggests that content, pedagogy, and technology have roles to play individu
ally and together. Teaching successfully with technology requires continually
creating, maintaining, and re-establishing a dynamic equilibrium between
each component. It is worth noting that a range of factors influence how this
equilibrium is reached, including subject-matter specific ones (hence the
content component of the model), and therefore we recommend the other
chapters in this volume for guidance on how subject-matter areas impact
teachers' TPCK. However, we do suggest that there are some general implica
tions for teachers who try to achieve this equilibrium, and we explore what
this view implies for teaching practice. That is the focus of the next section.
Teacher knowledge inpractice, or teachers as curriculum designers
Our description of the unique and case-specific nature of wicked problem
solving, and the kinds of knowledge required to function in such contexts,
strongly supports the idea that there is no general solution to a teaching
problem for every context, every subject matter, technology, or every
classroom. In making his for knowledge as design, Perkins suggests
that practitioners have to "learn to see through design-colored glasses" and,
"be inventive" (p. 36) in how we approach the problems in our fields. Joseph
Schwab (1983) offered an apt description of the complexity of the teacher's
role and the kinds of flexibility teachers need to possess in order to succeed in
classroom environments. This description is also an important reminder that
the teacher is the primary, if not exclusive, conduit for any changes that can
occur in the classroom. As Schwab says:
Teachers will not and cannot be merely told what to do ... Teachers are
not assembly line operators, and will not so behave ... There are thou
sands of ingenious ways in which commands on what and how to teach
can, will, and must be modified or circumvented in the actual moments
of teaching. Teachers practice an art. Moments of choice of what to do,
how to do it, with whom and at what pace, arise hundreds of times a
school day, and arise differently every day and with every group of stu
dents. No command or instruction can be so formulated as to control
that kind of artistic judgment and behavior, with its demand for fre
quent, instant choices of ways to meet an ever-varying situation.
(p.245)
Introducing TPCK 21
What this quote makes clear is th.3t cl.'uicub do not exist independently ()
teachers. are "an integral part of the curri.c..!1lum constructed and
enacted in classrooms" (Clandinin & Connelly, 1992 p. 363). The teacher,
Qewey argued, is not merely the creator of the curriculum, but is a part of it:
teachers are curriculum designers.? The idea of teachers as curriculum deSIgn
ers is based on an awareness of the fact that implementation decisions lie pri
marily in the hands of particular teachers in particular classrooms. Teachers
are active participants in any implementation or instructional reform we seek
to achieve, and thus require a certain degree of autonomy and power in
making pedagogical decisions. Teachers construct curricula .[Link] _an
organic process of and negotiating among exist
ing contingent [Link] learning. This process, of
enacting teaching (with or without technology) in ways that are uniquely
shaped by their personalities, histories, ideas, beliefs, and knowledge, has been
called bricolage.
8
Curriculum design as bricolage emphasiZes situational cre
ativity and flexibility, and50I!!iI!Kellt!Y: selecting and unse
lecting elements from what is available. Teachers constantly negotiate a
balance between technology, pedagogy, and content in ways that are appro
priate to the specific parameters of an ever-changing educational context.
This view of teaching has significant implications for teacher education
and teacher professional development. We list some of them below.
Approaches that merely teach skills (technology or otherwise) do not go far
enough
Learning about technology (how to use email, word processing, or the latest
version of a computer operating system) is different than learning what to do
with it. Clearly, a solid understanding of knowledge in each individual
domain would be the basis for developing TPCK. Developing these know
ledge bases is necessary but clearly not sufficient. For instance, teaching
technology skills alone (the T in our model) does little to help teachers
develop knowledge about how to use digital tools to teach more effectively
(TP), navigate the relationships between technology and content representa
tions (CT), or how to use technology to help students learn a particular topic
(TPe). Likewise, isolating learning about curriculum content (C), or general
pedagogical skills (P), will not necessarily help teachers develop an under
standing of how to put this knowledge to good use.
The spiral-like development ofTPCK
In this chapter we have argued that digital technologies, in particular, require
a greater level of thought and work on the part of the teacher seeking to inte
grate them in their teaching. The TPCK framework, however, should not be
seen as being specific to just the application of newer digital technologies.
Teacher educators need to be sensitive to the fact that all technologies come
22 M. J. Koehler and P. Mishra
with pedagogical affordances and constraints, and in that sense the TPCK
framework Lall he alllllied to any technology, a'O the 'range of examples used in
this chapter, from whiteboard to wikis, testifies. Thus, teacher-training pro
grams may seek to develop TPCK in a gradual and spiral-like manner, begin
ning possibly with more standard and familiar technologies (areas in which
teachers may already have developed TPCK), and moving on to more
advanced or non-familiar technological solutions.
The need for a greater emphasis on the demands ofsubject matter
This is the main theme of this book, and one that is highlighted in every
chapter of this volume. Instead of applying technological tools to every
content area uniformly, teachers should various

For example, a teacher interested in inte
grating technology into history education may consider the use of primary
sources available on the Internet, while another may choose to have students
develop hypertexts that focus on the inter-linked cause-effect relationships
between historical events. A mathematics teacher may focus on the represen
tational capabilities of technology (graphs, symbols, etc.), or on different
methods of proof.
Practice (in cutriculum design and teaching) is an important route to learning
It is not always the case that conceptual learning precedes the ability to apply
that knowledge to practice. Learning in compleic-<LuLill-structured domains
best thrQ!!gh ouases (Shulman,
986; Williams, 1992)-t1).at is" working_with.J;he_wicked posed by
When designers tackle these
in that each solution leads to newer
knowledge, and unintended consequences, which are likely to lead to further
The learning of new concepts and their inter-relationships
comes from practice; not the rote application of general principles. Teacher
educators must find ways to provide preservice teachers multiple opportun
ities to work through these problems of practice before they enter their first
classrooms, whether by internships, case-studies (traditional or video), or
problem-based learning scenarios. This is much easier said than done, and the
issues/concerns in this domain are discussed in Chapter 11 by Niess.
Context is important to learning and situating teacher knowledge
Because teaching is a complex and ill-structured problem, there are few
perhaps no---general principles that apply in every situation. In short, context
matters. Solutions to "wicked problems" require nuanced understanding that
goes beyond the general principles of content, technology, and pedagogy. A
deep understanding of the interactions among these bodies of knowledge, and
Introducing TPCK 23
how they are bound in particular contexts (including knowledge of particular
students, school social networks, parental concerns, etc.), imparts the kind of
flexibility teachers need in order to succeed. In viewing teachers as curriculum
designers, we acknowledge that they actively adapt to multiple contexts and
changing conditions, rather than trying to apply general approaches. Chapters
11 and 12 by Niess and Harris, respectively, investigate the implications of
viewing the TPCK framework through the lens of teachers as curriculum
designers.
Conclusion
In his book Life in the Classroom (1968), Philip Jackson reported the results of
one of the first studies that attempted to describe and understand the mental
constructs and processes that underlie teacher behavior. In representing the
full complexity of the teacher's task, Jackson made conceptual distinctions
that fit the teacher's frame of reference-for instance, the preactive and the
interactive stages of teaching-and drew attention to the importance of
describing the thought processes and planning strategies of teachers (the so
called "hidden side of teaching") in an attempt to develop a more complete
understanding of classroom processes. Jackson's pioneering work led to a
flurry of research studies that focused attention on teachers' thinking and
decision-making processes (Clark & Peterson, 1986), a line of research that
hopes to "understand and explain how and why the observable activities of
teachers' professional lives take on the forms and functions they do" (1'. 255).
A major goal of this research was to understand the relationships between two
key domains: teacher thought processes; and teachers' actions' and their
observable effects. In this manner we see the current work-this chapter as
well as the others in this book-as extending this tradition of research and
scholarship. We need to develop better techniques for discovering and
describing how knowledge is implemented and instantiated in practice, and,
just as importantly, how the act of doing influences the nature of knowledge
itself. The "knowledge as design" notion has at its heart this interactive, bi
directional relationship between thought and action, embedded within ill
structured, complex contexts.
Reitman (1965) described ill-defined or ill-structured problems as those
"whose definition included one or more parameters, the values of which are
left unspecified" (1" 112). The classic example he gave was the problem of
composing a fugue, which in its simplest form has just one requirement: that
of having the quality of "fugueness." Of course, this requirement also contains
within itself a range of cultural, technical, historical, and psychological values
and constraints-its "context," as it were. We particularly like this example as
an analogy to instruction, because teaching is similar to creating original
music of multiple genres, not only fugues, and represents one of the highest
forms of human achievement, which requires the creative dovetailing and
24 M. J. KoeWer and P. Mishra
melding of both technical and aesthetic skills. The TPCK framework offers
insight, we hope, into IIOW tne myriad comp[[Link] and ten"ions of teaching
and learning can be brought together to mutually develop teachers' and stu
dents' knowledge.
Notes
I. Contributions of the two authors to this article were equal. We rotate the order of author
ship in our writing. We would like to thank the members of the AACTE Innovation and
Technology Committee for initiating this project and for providing feedback on a previous
version of this chapter. Thanks are also due to Jim Ratcliffe, Leigh Graves Wolf, and Sue
Barratt.
2. There are two reasons to include both older and newer technologies in our definition.
First, the distinction between older and newer technologies is fuzzy. Given the rapid rate
of technology change, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly at what point a particular techno
logy goes from being "new" to "old." Second, a wide variety of technologies exist side-by
side in today's world, the MP3 Player and the radio, whiteboards and web-based learning
management systems (LMS). Any framework that considers technology integration in
teaching needs to accept and consider how these different technologies work together in
today's classroom. This of course is not to say that all technologies are the same (clearly
there are significant differences between analog and digital technologies, as described else
where in this chapter) but rather that our framework can (and does) accommodate a
range of technologies.
The idea of TPCK (though not the term) has been around for a while. A precursor to the
TPCK idea was a brief mention of the triad of content, theory (as opposed to pedagogy),
and technology in Mishra (l998), though within the context of educational software
design. A inore specific focus was Pierson (l999, 2001) whose work almost exactly pre
empted the current diagrammatic conceptualization of TPCK. Keating and Evans (200 I)
and Zhao (2003) describe TPCK as well, while other authors have discussed similar
ideas, though often under different labeling s c h e n i ~ s . These include integration literacy
(Gunter & Baumbach, 2004); information and communication (ICT)-related PCK (e.g.,
Angeli & Valanides, 2005); technological content knowledge (Slough & Connell, 2006);
and electronic PCK or e-PCK (e.g., Franklin, 2004; Irving, 2006). Others who have
demonstrated a sensitivity to the relationships between content, pedagogy, and techno
logy include Hughes (2004), McCrory (2004), Margerum-Leys and Marx (2002), Niess
(2005), and Slough and Connell (2006). Our conception of TPCK has developed over
time through a series of publications and presentations (e.g., Koehler, Mishra, Hershey,
& Peruski, 2004; Koehler & Mishra, 2005a, 2005b; Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007;
Mishra & Koehler, 20 2006; Mishra, Koehler, Hershey, & Peruski, 2002), the most
definitive 0 which is M,s and Koehler (2006). An updated reference list is main
tained at ttp://[Link].
At the n of sounding outdated in a few years (months?) we argue that, at this time,
knowledge of technology would include a basic understanding of the full range of digital
technologies (video, Internet, computers, peripheral devices, etc.) and commonplace edu
cational technologies such as print media and overhead projectors. It also includes the
ability to use important and relevant software tools (including word processing, email, and
spreadsheets). Increasingly, knowledge of technology has come to include newer technolo
gies made popular through the advancement of the Internet and gaming technologies. For
instance knowledge ofblogs and wilds, podcasting and tagging/social bookmarking, video
games and simulations are increasingly becoming a part of the technologies that teachers
need to be familiar with.
Though physics and mathematics approach simulation from somewhat opposite direc
tions, physics from the side of grounded experimentation and mathematics from a more
abstract axiomatic method, it is interesting to note that they both "meet" in the realm of
the virtual.
Introducing TPCK 25
6. Community-developed hypertexts, such as Wikipedia, have quickly developed a huge,
n'!P..,\[Link] cory'" ot ;,ntoTmalivn b-y s;'[Link].\y ci,culllve'fung the bottlenecks 01
the traditional approach (the restricted subject-matter focus and a limited set of experts
who could author the text). Folksonomies also expand the development of hypertexts
through collaborative, open-ended categorization schemes for web pages, online photo
graphs, and web links. Folksonomies can be best understood by comparing them with tax
onomies (such as the Dewey Decimal System or Linneaean system for categorizing living
creatures). Taxonomies are often developed by a select few "experts," and have "controlled
vocabularies" that other users have to conform to. A folksonomy, on the other hand, is an
unsystematic, emergent, bottom-up categorization scheme in which the main users are the
authors of the labeling system. As must be obvious, folkonomies are often chaotic and
idiosyncratic. Folksonomies are inherently open-ended and can therefore respond quickly
to changes and innovations in the way users categorize Internet content (Wikipedia)
7. The word "curriculum" has a complex and tangled definitional history. Traditionally,
teachers have come to be seen as separate from curriculum, and various programs (such as
programmed instruction, teaching machines, computer-assisted learning, etc.) have, over
the years, attempted to limit the teacher's role in curriculum development. However, it has
become clear that teacher-proof curricula do not do justice to the teacher agency or the
realities of classrooms. Our definition of curriculum is consistent with Clandinin and
Connelly's (l992) view that the teacher is an integral part of the curriculum constructed
and enacted in classrooms.
8. The word bricolage comes from the French bricoleur, which is normally translated as
"handyman" or "tinkerer." The pedagogic sense of the word was introduced by Papert
(l980) and then again in Turkle and Papert (l992), based on an earlier use by Levi-Strauss
(1962). The idea here is that there are two fundamentally different ways of approaching a
problem. The "engineering" way involves making careful plans and writing everything
down in full detail ahead of time, while the way of the bricoleur is that of doing the best
with what is at hand, under existing constraints and within extant contexts. This idea is
also close to that of Simon's (l957) idea of satisficing as being the goal of design.
References
Angeli, c., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and communi
cation technology designers: an instructional systems design model based on an expanded
view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4),
292-302.
Birch, H. G. (l945). The relation of previous experience to insightful problem-solving. Journal of
Comparative Psychology, 38, 367-383.
Bloom, A. (l987). The closing of the American mind: How higher education has failed democracy
and impoverished the souls of today's students. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Bromley, H. (I998). 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.
Bruce, B. C. (1993). Innovation and social change. In B. C. Bruce,]. K. Peyton, & T. Batson (eds),
Network-based classrooms (pp. 9-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bruce, B. C. (1997). Uteracy technologies: What stance should we take? Journal of Literacy
Research, 29(2), 289-309.
Bruce, B. c., & Hogan, M. C. (I998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological
model of literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (eds), Handbook of
literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 269-281). Hills
dale, N]: Erlbaum.
Byrne, D. (2003). Envisioning emotional epistemological information. Distributed Art Pub Inc.
Casement, W. (1997). The great canon controversy: The battle of the books in higher education.
Somerset, N]: Transaction Publishers.
Clandinin, D. ]., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. Jackson (ed.),
Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363-401). New York: Macmillan.
!

26 . M. J. Koehler and P. Mishra
I,;
Introducing TPeK 27
I
\
Clark, eM., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (ed.), Hand-
r
book qfresearch on tearhing ([Link] {Ff. 255--25'6l. New 1'urK: lY!acrniffan.
D.,b, P.]., & Hersh, K (1981). The mathematical experience. Boston: Mariner. r
Dewey, I. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Perigree. I
Dewey, I., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon.
f
,
Digital [Link] (2006). Digital [Link]. Retrieved Iuly 12, 2006 from [Link]
[Link].
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(4),25-39.
Feltovich, P. I., Coulson, R L., Spiro, R. I., & Dawson-Saunders, B. K. (1992). Knowledge appli
cation and transfer for complex tasks in ill-structured domains: Implications for instruc
tion and testing in biomedicine. In D. Evans & V. Patel (eds), Advanced models of
cognition for medical training and practice (pp. 213-244). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Feltovich, P., Spiro, R., Coulson, R., & Myers-Kelson, A. (1995). The reductive bias and the crisis
of text in the law. Journal ofContemporary Legal Issues, 6(1), 187-212.
Franklin, C (2004). Teacher preparation as a critical factor in elementary teachers: Use of com
puters. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference,
2004(1),4994--4999.
Frederiksen, N. (1986). Toward a broader conception of human intelligence. In R. I. Sternberg &
R. K. Wagner (eds), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday
world (pp. 84-116). New York: Cambridge University Press.
German, T. P., & Barrett, H. C. (2005). Functional fixedness in a technologically sparse culture.
Psychological Science, 16(1), 1-5.
Gibson, I. I. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R E. Shaw & I. Bransford (eds), Perceiving,
acting, and knowing (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NI: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gibson, ). I. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Glaser, R (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychology, 39(2),
93-104.
Glass, A. L., Holyoak, K. I., & Santa, I. L. (1979). Cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gunter, G., & Baumbach, D. (2004). Curriculum integration. In Kovalchick, A., & Dawson, K.
(eds), Education and technology: An encyclopedia. Santa Barba(a, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.
Guzdial, M., Turns, )., Rappin, N., & Carlson, D. (1995). Collaborative support for learning in
complex domains. In I. L. Schnase & E. L. Cunnius (eds), Computer support for collabora
tive learning (CSCL '95) (pp. 157-160). Bloomington, IN: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hayes, I. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg
& E. R. Steinberg (eds), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, N.I.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Heeter, C, Chu, C, Maniar, A., Winn, B., Mishra, P., Egidio, R, & Portwood-Stacer, L. (2003).
Comparing 14 plus 2 forms of fun (and learning and gender issues) in commercial versus
educational space exploration digital games. Proceedings of the International Digital Games
Research Conference. University of Utrecht: Netherlands.
Hillocks, G. (1986). The writer's knowledge: Theory, research, and implications for practice. In
A. Petrosky & D. Bartholomae (eds), The teaching of writing. Eighty-fifth yearbook of the
national society for the study of education, part II (pp. 71-94). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Hughes, I. (2004). Technology learning principles for preservice and in-service teacher education.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(3), 345-362.
Irving, K. E. (2006). The impact of technology on the 21st century classroom. In I. Rhoton & P.
Shane (eds), Teaching science in the 21st century (pp. 3-20). Arlington, VA: National
Science Teachers Association Press.
Iackson, P. W. (1968). Life in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
lones, R A., & Spiro, R. (1992). Imagined conversations: The relevance of hypertext, pragmatism,
and cognitive flexibility theory to the interpretation of "classic texts" in intellectual
history. In D. Lucarella, I. Nanard, M. Nanard, & P. Paolini (eds), Proceedings of the ACM
Conference on Hypertext (pp. 141-147). New York: Association for Computing
Machinery.
Kay, A. (1984). Computer software. Scientific American, 251(3), 53-59.
I(p..atln'jl;, T., &; E. (2001). Three computeT> in the bAck (If the clumuum: Pre-service reacners'
conceptions of technology integration. Paper presented at the 2001 annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Kelly, A. E. (2003). Special issue on the role of design in educational research. Educational
Researcher, 32( I), 5-8.
Klein, G. (1999). Sources ofpower: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Koehler, M. I., & Mishra, P. (2005a). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Comput
ingin Teacher Education, 21(3),94-102. .
Koehler, M. I., & Mishra, P. (2005b). What happens when teachers design educational techno
logy? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educa
tional Computing Research, 32(2),131-152.
Koehler, M. I., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in
a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, & technology. Computers and Education,
49(3),740-762.
Koehler, M. I., Mishra, P., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2004). With a little help from your stu
dents: A new model for faculty development and online course design. Journal ofTechno
logy and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25-55.
Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago, lL: University of Chicago Press.
Lagemann, E. C (2002). Usable knowledge in education: A memorandum for the Spencer Founda
tion board of directors [Memorandum]. Chicago: Spencer Foundation, Retrieved Iuly 15,
2006 from [Link]
Lawrence, I. A. (1988). Expertise on the bench: Modeling magistrates/judicial decision-making.
In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. I. Farr (eds), The nature of expertise (pp. 229-259). Hills
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, I. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psy
chology, 78(2), 75-95,
Lesgold, A. M., Feltovich, P. I., Glaser, R, & Wang, Y. (1981). The acquisition of perceptual diag
nostic skill in radiology. Technical report no. PDS-l. University of Pittsburgh, Learning
Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
Levine, L. W. (1996). The opening of the American mind: Canons, culture, and history, Boston:
Beacon Press.
Levi-Strauss, C (1962). The savage mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
MargerumLeys, I., & Marx, R. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A study of
student teacherlmentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4),
427-462.
McCrory, R. (2004). A framework for understanding teaching with the Internet. American Educa
tional Research Journal, 41(2), 447-488.
Mishra, P. (1998). Flexible learning in the periodiC system with multiple representations: The
design of a hypertext for learning complex concepts in chemistry (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(1l),
4057. (AAT 9912322.)
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. I. (2003). Not "what" but "how": Becoming design-wise about educa
tional technology. In Y. Zhao (ed.), What teachers should know about technology: Perspec
tives and practices (pp. 99-122). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
,/
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. I. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6),
1017-1054.
Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2006). Using hypermedia for learning complex concepts in chemistry: A
qualitative study on the relationship between prior knowledge, beliefs and motivation.
Education and Information Technologies, 1I(1), 33--69.
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2002). With a little help from your stu
dents: A new model for faculty development and online course design. Proceedings from
the Annual Meeting of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, March
2002, Nashville, TN, Virginia: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education.



28 M. J, Koehler and P. Mishra
Mishra, P., Spiro, R. J., & Feltovich, P. (l996). Technology, representation and cognition. In H.
von Oostendorp (ed.J.. CngnitivR [Link]'t_c 0/ t,ax{ yt'xcssirrt; (pp. 26i'-30'6).
Norwood, N]: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
National Research Council (1999). Being fluent with information technology literacy. Computer
science and telecommunications board commission on physical sciences, mathematics, and
applications. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and schooL Wash
ington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2002). Scientific research in education. R. K. Shavelson & 1. Towne
(eds), Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Nickerson, R. (1994). The teaching of thinking and problem solving. In R. Sternberg (ed.),
Thinking and problem solving (2nd edn, pp. 215--234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Niess, M. 1. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Devel
oping a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21(5),509-523.
Norman, D. A. (l9B8). The psychology ofeveryday things. New York; Basic Books.
Ong, W. J. (1982). The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Pennock, R. (2001). Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological and
scientific perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Perkins, D. N. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Peruski, 1., & Mishra, P. (2004). Webs of activity in online course design and teaching. ALT-J:
Research in Learning Technology, 12(1), 37-49.
Petroski, H. (l985). To engineer is human: the role of failure in successful design (lst edn). New
York: St. Martin's Press.
Petroski, H. (l994). Design paradigms: case histories of error and judgment in engineering. New
York: Cambridge. University Press.
Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (20oo). Bibliography: Student's alternative frameworks and science education
(5th edn). Kiel, Germany: University of Kie!.
Pierson, M. E. (J999). Technology)ntegration practice as a fum:tion of pedagogical expertise
(Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University). Dissertation Abstracts International,
60(03), 71 J. (AAT 9924200.)
Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413-429.
Pople, H. E. (l982). Heuristic methods for imposing structure on ill-structured problems: The
structuring of medical diagnostics. In P. Szolovits (ed.), Artificial intelligence in medicine
(pp. 119-IB9). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Prensky, M. (200 1). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say
about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Reitman, W. R. {I 964). Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of ill
defined problems. In M. W. Shelly & G. 1. Bryan (eds), Human judgments and optimality
(pp. 282-315). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Reitman, W. R. (1965). Cognition and thought. New York: Wiley.
Resnick, 1. B. (l988). Treating mathematics as an ill-structured discipline. In R. I. Charles & E. A.
Silver (eds), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 32-60). Hills
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rittel. H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2),
155-169.
Roberts, P. (1994). The place of design in technology education. In D. Layton (ed.), Innovations
in science and technology education, vol. V (pp. 171-179). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Rosenblatt, 1. M. (l978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of literary work.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Schon, D. (l983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith.
Schon, D. (l987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Introducing TPeK 29
Schon, D. (J996). Reflective conversation with materials. In T. Winograd, J. Bennett, 1. DeYoung,
&: B. [Link]&ld. I,Mt), de;'gn to ;ofr",ore \PP. 171-1\\4). Hew 'lurk: Addison
Wesley.
Schwab, J. J. (19B3). The Practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum
Inquiry, 13(3), 239-265.
Shulman, 1. (J 986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, 1. S. (J 987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educa
tionalReview, 57(1),1-22.
Simon, H. (1969). Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man-social and rational. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Slough, S., & Connell. M. (2006). Defining technology and its natural corollary, technological
content knowledge (TCK). In C. Crawford, D. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin,
J. Price, & R. Weber, (eds), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher
education international conference 2006 (pp. 1053-1059). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Snow, C. P. (J959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: Cambridge Univer
sity Press.
Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. 1., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (198B). Cognitive flexibility theory:
Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In V. Patel (ed.), Tenth
Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 375--383). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. 1. (J991). Cognitive flexibility, con
structivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisi
tion in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, May, 24-33.
Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, I.-Ch. (J990). 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). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates.
Thompson, A. (2006). Technology pedagogical content knowledge: Framing teacher knowledge
about technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(6), 46-48.
Turkle, S. (J995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schus
ter.
Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (J 992). Epistemological pluralism: Styles and choices ....ithin the computer
culture. Signs, 16(J), 128-157.
WOOpedia (2006). Technology (WOOpedia entry). Retrieved on July 12, 2006 from
[Link]
Williams, S. M. (J992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and
medical education. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 2(4), 367-427.
Zhao, Y. (2003). What teachers should know about technology: Perspectives and practices. Green
wich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. 1. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology inno
vations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.
Zimmerman, j. (2002). Whose America? Culture wars in the public schools. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.