Approximating TPACK In Teacher Preparation A Three-Pronged Approach To Effective Technology Integration

Approximating TPACK in Teacher Preparation: A
Three-Pronged Approach to Effective Technology
Integration
Royce Kimmons
The University of Texas
Abstract
TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) as a framework
for describing technology-related teacher knowledge has gained some
traction in recent years as a lens for understanding the complex
interactions that exist within education betwixt the three domains of
Technological Knowledge (TK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and
Content Knowledge (CK). In this paper, I will attempt to support the
notion that TPACK has much to offer teacher preparation programs as a
useful tool for conceptualizing what sorts of technological proficiencies
should be desired amongst developing teachers. Yet, despite
documented, targeted attempts at incorporating the framework, I will
discuss how TPACK-related goals remain elusive and largely unrealized
in teacher preparation due to 1) the fuzziness of TPACK and its
component parts as knowledge domains and 2) the lack of a proper
model for understanding how TPACK-related knowledge and skills are
developed and should be assessed. I then offer an approach to
integration and assessment which focuses on the three fuzzy domains of
TPK, TCK, and PCK in order to give a clearer picture of what effective
technology integration looks like in practice and to offer some potential
guidelines for implementing TPACK-approximating initiatives.
“A thing is what it is and not another thing.” – Joseph Butler
Summary
The TPACK (technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge) framework of
teacher knowledge for technology integration has quickly come to the attention of
Kimmons (2010) – Approximating TPACK in Teacher Preparation - 1

many within teacher preparation research as a useful tool for conceptualizing what
sorts of technological proficiency is desired amongst developing teachers, as it
recognizes and seeks to describe the “complex interaction” that exists “among
[these] three bodies of knowledge” (M. Koehler & Punya Mishra, 2009). As noted in
the initial formulation of TPACK, much of what has been lacking in teacher-technology
integration has been the result of poor understandings of how different domains of
technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge interact with one another (Punya
Mishra & Matthew J. Koehler, 2006).
Though this assumption seems true, and teacher education programs would most
definitely be benefitted from an increased understanding of how these three
knowledge domains interact with one another, problems arise with the TPACK model
once implementation agents attempt to move from a conceptual understanding of
how these domains interact on to more practical or evaluative uses of the framework.
I hypothesize that these problems consist of three types:
1. Translation to practice issues (i.e.TPACK implementations not accurately
reflecting TPACK concepts);
2. Completeness issues (i.e.TPACK approaches not reflecting a full
understanding of complexities surrounding technology integration);
3. And quality issues (i.e. focusing on the mere existence of relationships, not
evaluating how these relationships are impacting teaching).
Though all of these problems deserve attention, the scope of the current paper is to
address the first: whether or not implementations of TPACK in professional
development and evaluation reflect the core concepts of the model and why that

might be the case. In so doing, I hope to reemphasize the merits of TPACK while
conversely identifying the elusiveness of its goals for teacher preparation. I will do
this by analyzing approaches others have documented for attempting to achieve
TPACK-related goals in the teacher preparation process, discussing how these
approaches match up to the conceptual framework of TPACK, and, ultimately, offering
an implementation model that avoids some of the pitfalls arising out of these early
approaches in an attempt to inform TPACK implementation methods that are more
internally consistent with the model. By going through this process, we can begin to
understand the true complexity of teacher technology integration and what it looks
like in action and, thus, hope to facilitate communication and collaboration across the
borders of TPACK’s three fundamental domains of knowledge: technology, pedagogy,
and content.
The Merits of TPACK
When Mishra and Koehler first published the TPACK framework (then formulated as
TPCK), they considered it to be a necessarily incomplete model of teacher
knowledge that, nonetheless,“allows us to tease apart some of the key issues that are
necessary for scholarly dialogue about educational technology” (Punya Mishra &
Matthew J. Koehler, 2006). In the authors’ view at the time,TPACK represented a
“critical goal” of teacher education, as it allowed researchers to “view the entire
process of technology integration as amenable to analysis and development work,”
which had heretofore proven to be difficult. In so doing, they believed that the TPACK
framework could be used in an all-encompassing way and would be instrumental in
determining “what is important and what is not [important] in any discussions of
teacher knowledge surrounding using technology for teaching subject matter”
(Punya Mishra & Matthew J. Koehler, 2006).

The skeleton of the framework as presented by Mishra and Koehler was fairly
straightforward. First, it assumed that there are three distinct domains of knowledge
that relate to teacher understanding and implementation of technology: content
knowledge (i.e. subject-matter knowledge), pedagogical knowledge (i.e. knowledge
of how to teach and how to facilitate learning), and technological knowledge (i.e.
knowledge of how to use technology tools). Second, spinning off of Shulman’s work,
which proposed that good teachers develop an additional knowledge domain
constituted of the complex interactions that exist between content knowledge and
pedagogical knowledge called pedagogical content knowledge (or PCK), Mishra and
Koehler proposed that similar, separate domains could be said to exist that illustrate
the complex interactions occurring in the classroom between technological
knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, coined as technological pedagogical
knowledge (or TPK), and between technological knowledge and content knowledge,
coined as technological content knowledge (TCK) (Punya Mishra & Matthew J.
Koehler, 2006; Shulman, 1986). This acceptance of PCK as a knowledge domain and
the creation of TPK and TCK as additional domains thereby brought the number of
knowledge domains which inform teacher competency in technology-related
education for the TPACK model to six (TK, PK, CK,TPK,TCK, and PCK).
The acronym TPACK (or TPCK), then, came about as Mishra and Koehler ultimately
proposed that yet a seventh important domain of knowledge exists for teachers called
technological pedagogical content knowledge. This TPACK, which Mishra and
Koehler later identify as being equally important to their model of teacher knowledge
as the earlier, fundamental domains, is thought to include all of the complex
interactions existing between the base domains (TK, PK, and CK) and, as such, is
meant to provide a way of thinking about technology integration and teacher

knowledge that “goes beyond all three ‘core’ components” to elicit “truly meaningful,”
“deeply skilled,” and contextualized teaching (M. Koehler & Punya Mishra, 2009).
Within this framework, teaching with technology is seen to be “a difficult thing to do
well,” which requires teachers to successfully and continually create, maintain, and re-
establish “a dynamic equilibrium among all components” within their teaching
contexts (M. Koehler & Punya Mishra, 2009). Finally, to help their readers
conceptualize this “dynamic equilibrium,” the authors provide a Venn diagram as a
visual for recognizing the postulated overlaps that exist between TK, PK, and CK.
The Fuzziness of TPACK
Since TPACK is conceptualized as a complex domain of knowledge (or even an
“emergent form”) which includes the complex and dynamic interrelations that exist
between its base domains (and, in fact,“goes beyond all three”), articulating exactly

what TPACK looks like in practice can be very difficult (P. Mishra & M. J Koehler, 2007).
Mishra and Koehler explain that TPACK is inherently “different from knowledge of all
three concepts individually” and that it is important for us to understand, because it
forms the “basis of effective teaching with technology” (P. Mishra & M. J Koehler,
2007). They continue that the complexities of TPACK are further compounded by the
contextual nature of teaching instances or “wicked problems” in that each one is “a
unique combination or weaving together” of the base domains and that “there is no
single technological solution that applies for every teacher, every course, or every
view of teaching.” This is why a dotted circle was eventually added to surround the
TPACK Venn diagram, thereby depicting the contextual nature of all TPACK
integration. In the words of its creators:
“[T]eachers 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
interrelate, so that they can effect solutions that are
sensitive to specific contexts. This is the kind of deep,
flexible, pragmatic and nuanced understanding of teaching
with technology that we advocate” (P. Mishra & M. J
Koehler, 2007).
Given such a complex description of the domain (and such a clear need for achieving
it), it behooves us to consider how we should approach TPACK so that we can evaluate
teaching in a way that allows us to pin-point its presence or absence in practice.
Even putting contextual considerations aside, however, problems will arise in
formulating any TPACK-centric assessment or evaluation due to the “fuzzy” nature of
the construct and its constituent parts. Shulman’s PCK, for instance, upon which
TPACK is conceptually built, remains itself a “fuzzy” construct. As has been pointed
out,“identifying instances of PCK is not an easy task […] [M]ost authors agree that the

PCK construct has fuzzy boundaries, demanding unusual and ephemeral clarity on
the part of the researcher to assign knowledge to PCK or one of its related
constructs”(Gess-Newsome & Ledderman, 1999). Thus, though the concept of PCK as
a separate domain which includes PK, CK, and the complex interactions which exist
between them seems fairly straight-forward, actually assessing and identifying PCK
in practice remains a difficult, if not “ephemeral” task (Gess-Newsome & Ledderman,
1999).
This is problematic for assessing TPACK for two important reasons. First,TPACK
recognizes PCK as a knowledge domain that is a necessary part of the larger
construct, implying that if PCK is difficult to assess, then TPACK will be at least as
difficult to assess. And second, the foundational concept of TPACK as presented by
Mishra and Koehler is built in the same manner as was PCK. In creating PCK, Shulman
first recognized the existence of PK and CK and then postulated that a new domain
exists which includes “content knowledge that embodies the aspects of content most
germane to its teachability” and “an understanding of what makes the learning of
specific topics easy or difficult” (Shulman, 1986). In other words, Shulman proposed a
separate domain that is composed entirely by the complex interactions of its base
components. This conceptual approach to creating categories for understanding
teacher knowledge was then mimicked by Mishra and Koehler as they went about
creating their three new domains (TCK,TPK, and TPACK). So, if the actual process that
Shulman went through for creating the single domain of PCK yields “fuzzy” results,
then we can only suppose that duplicating the process for creating three new
domains would produce similar or even “fuzzier” results, and this would seem
especially true in this case, since the TPACK domain is not built strictly out of pre-
established,“non-fuzzy” domains but, rather, relies upon other “fuzzy” domains. If you

attempt to build new conceptual domains grounded upon other “fuzzy” domains, can
the “fuzziness” of your constructs do anything but increase?
This “fuzziness” poses a problem for implementation and assessment endeavors,
since it drastically increases the complexity of measurement tools and for the TPACK
model itself, because if the conceptualized domains of TCK,TPK, and TPACK cannot
be clearly identified in practice, then their formulation represents an unnecessary
and untenable complication to the evaluation of teacher practice. To illustrate this
second point, Archambault and Crippen’s research into TPACK development amongst
K-12 online distance educators has found high correlations between TCK and TPK
(.743),TPK and TPACK (.787), and TCK and TPACK (.733), while maintaining a high
level of internal consistency for each (.85 or greater), which casts doubt upon the
idea that TCK,TPK, and TPACK are in fact distinct domains (Archambault & Crippen,
2009). Whether or not this reflects inadequacies in the researchers’ assessment tools
or deeper conceptual problems within the TPACK framework itself remains to be
seen, but the point remains that if it is difficult or impossible to recognize the
differences between these “fuzzy” constructs in practice, then there is no reason to
recognize them as separate domains in teacher development and technology
integration. In other words, if the TPACK theoretical framework is not useful for
explaining what we actually see in practice, then there is no reason to use it as a
framework.
Attempts at Implementation
Current attempts at implementing TPACK for teacher assessment reflects this
“fuzziness.” Rather than constructing assessment tools which would allow researchers
to tease out educators' understanding and use of TPACK in an observable way,

research has tended to rely upon surveys and self-assessment to determine the
presence of TPACK-related understandings (Archambault & Crippen, 2009; Denise
Schmidt, E. Baran, et al., 2009; Denise Schmidt, Evrim Baran, et al., 2009;T. Shin et al.,
2009). Further, the types of questions asked in the survey tools tend themselves to be
“fuzzy,” of which the following is meant to represent examples of effective TPACK
integration:
“I can teach lessons that appropriately combine literacy,
technologies, and teaching approaches[;]”
“I can teach lessons that appropriately combine science,
technologies, and teaching approaches[;] [...]”
“I can provide leadership in helping others to coordinate
the use of content, technologies, and teaching approaches
at my school and/or district” (Denise Schmidt, E. Baran, et
al., 2009).
As you can see in the first two examples, terminology like “appropriately” is
introduced to the tool to deliberately make the assessment more contextualized and,
therefore, subject to responder bias and interpretation. If, for instance, the
respondent is not aware of any technologies that might appropriately be used to
teach a particular literacy content item, then he or she might effectively answer “yes”
to the first question (i.e. if there is no appropriate technology known, then appropriate
use would constitute not using any technology) and thereby be evaluated as
incorporating TPACK when, in fact, he or she merely didn't know of any technological
tool to use. Further, what is deemed as appropriate by one instructor may not be
deemed as appropriate by another, so all this assessment reveals is that the instructor
has an opinion on his or her own use of technology in pedagogical practice that
cannot be mapped to any external standard. Interestingly,TPK and TPACK
evaluations in this study had a mid to high (.71) correlation coefficient, suggesting

that either the tool had difficulty in differentiating between them or that they are one
and the same domain.
It is also interesting to note how other knowledge domains (beyond TK, PK, CK,TPK,
TCK, and PCK) are convoluted into the process of assessment, as with the third
example in which “providing leadership” is the focus of the tool, something
completely outside the scope of the TPACK formulation (or are we talking about
TPACLK now?). This is not to say that technology leadership isn't an important
component of teacher competency for us to consider and assess, but, rather, this
exemplifies how a “fuzzy” construct can easily become a dumping ground for
researchers to evaluate whatever they want in the name of the construct.
Beyond the “fuzziness” factor, there is even perhaps a more problematic issue arising
in the literature as researchers attempt to evaluate TPACK in terms of the presence of
only some of its constituent parts. To consider the survey questions again, one
explanation of TPACK was formulated as a teacher being able to “use strategies that
combine content, technologies, and teaching approaches that I learned about in my
coursework in my classroom” (Denise Schmidt, E. Baran, et al., 2009). To think about
this as a mathematical expression, the survey item evaluates TPACK as using
strategies that combine TK+PK+CK without any explanation as to how these domains
should be combined beyond the simple contextual suffix “in my classroom.” Thus, as
long as a teacher is using all three in his or her classroom, he or she can answer “yes”
for TPACK integration. Another example of TPACK integration is illustrated as follows:
“I can choose technologies that enhance the content for a lesson” (Denise Schmidt, E.
Baran, et al., 2009).Though perhaps a bit more sophisticated, this statement
presupposes that the teacher has a lesson (PCK or CK) and then chooses an

“enhancing” technology (PCK+TK or CK+TK). At first glance, this may seem fine, but
in both mathematical formulations presented, key components of TPACK are missing.
Namely, PCK+TK ignores TCK and TPK, and if TPACK in fact includes all of the
interactions between TK, PK, and CK, then it should also include TCK and TPK.
This same problem is duplicated in professional development endeavors as
described in the literature. To illustrate, it's been proposed that successful TPACK
professional development should involve mapping technology tools to effective
pedagogical activity types or PCK+TK (Harris, P. Mishra, & M. Koehler, 2009). Others
have looked at a phased approach for utilizing PCK+TK (and even graphically label it
as such) in teacher mathematics education (Niess, Suharwoto, Lee, & Sadri, 2006;
Niess et al., 2009). In all of these cases,TPACK is seen as grouping of “blends of all
three categories” in which the intersection of one “fuzzy” domain (TPK,TCK, or PCK)
with one base domain (TK, PK, or CK) can be evaluated as full TPACK (Richardson,
2009). The problem with this formulation is that in combining PCK and TK, for
instance, there is no assurance that TCK or TPK are being included, because one can,
after all, map a technological tool to a lesson without understanding how technology
influences the content being studied (TCK) or how technology influences pedagogy
(TPK) outside the realm of the lesson (PCK).
To illustrate, as a result of the May 2005 National Council of Teachers of English
(NCTE) Conference on English Education (CEE) Leadership and Policy Summit, 75
leaders in English education across the nation reported that “Newer technologies
have altered the space in which the study of meaning-making and meaning-makers
occur and these changes have important implications for teachers, learners, and
communities” (Swenson, Rozema,Young, McGrail, & Whitin, 2005). They continue that

“[i]n our society, issues of gender, class, race, ethnicity, and other demographics are
intricately intertwined with equitable access to technology and, therefore, discussions
of social, economic, and political power” (Swenson et al., 2005). This means that
teacher competency with technology in the classroom extends far beyond just seeing
how a particular tool (TK) can be merged into a given lesson (PCK), but, rather,
suggests that the content that we study (like “meaning-making,”“social equity,” and
so forth) or CK has very complex interactions with technology (TK) that may very well
be outside of the scope of a given lesson (PCK). Thus, if TCK is missing from a
formulation of TPACK, then that formulation of TPACK certainly is not 'the entire
package,' because it is lacking a key component.
Likewise, there is a connection between technology (TK) and pedagogy (PK) that
extends beyond particular lessons (PCK), which should be an essential measured
component of TPACK as well. Consider, for instance, how technology influences
classroom management, student-to-student interactions, student-to-teacher
interactions, and so forth. Should a teacher develop competency in helping students
gain media literacy and technological self-organizing and communication
techniques? Certainly. But, can an approach to professional development in
technology that views all technology through the lens of a particular lesson or
pedagogical instance account for this? Probably not.
The core of this discussion returns to the fundamental reason for looking to TPACK as
a useful model to begin with. What TPACK gives us is a framework for thinking about
the complex interactions that exist between these various domains of knowledge,
and, yet, when we go about evaluating and implementing TPACK, the literature

suggests that we tend to do so in a way that ignores some of those very important
complex interactions.
TheVenn Diagram and Necessary vs. Sufficient Causes
Whenever discussions of TPACK begin (and this discussion is no exception), there is
typically a reference to the Venn diagram that the TPACK creators have gradually
developed through time to help readers conceptualize the notion of complex
interactions existing between diverse knowledge domains. Contrary to this purpose,
however, the TPACK Venn diagram may actually be a central point of confusion which
has contributed to many of these recent “fuzzy” and incomplete attempts at
implementation.
At its heart, a Venn diagram is a logical tool and, as such, is meant to be used to
determine the validity of a statement with regard to relationships. For instance, if we
accept that there are “cats” in the world and “black things” in the world, we might
construct a diagram to show this as follows:
This tool would then be valuable for us in order to categorize things we might see in
the world. Thus, any objects that I see which are “cats” I could conceptually place in
the left circle, any objects that I see which are “black things” I could conceptually
place in the right circle, and the only objects which would be in the overlapped area
would be those which were both “cats” and “black things.” Thus, if I were to see a
black figure in a dark ally, I might begin by categorizing it as a “black thing,” but then

as I begin to make it out, I might also see that it is a “cat,” and so, I could conceptually
make the movement to the middle area of identifying it as a “black cat.” Or, if I see a
cat and only later realize its color, I could make the movement from the other
direction as illustrated:
The reason that this logical process works is that the region “black cats” includes all
things that are both “cats” and “black things.” So, if you attempt to categorize an
object in your experience in accordance with this diagram, you could only place it in
one of four places, as a “cat,” as a “black thing,” as a “black cat,” or as a “non-black,
non-cat thing,” and as you clarify your understanding of an object, you can move it
from one area to another.
However, this intended use of the Venn diagram does not work with the TPACK
conceptual diagram, because in TPACK's formulation of the “fuzzy” domains, they are
seen as more than the mere presence of their constituent parts, because they include
all of the complex interactions that exist between the base components and exclude
instances of the base components which are non-interactive. To illustrate, it may make
conceptual sense to think about PCK in the following manner:

However, if we formulate PCK in this manner, the Venn Diagram cannot be used as a
valid categorization tool for evaluating PCK. For instance, say that a teacher exhibits
content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge at the same time but makes no
connection between the two. Where would you place that teacher's performance on
the diagram? You cannot, because you would actually be evaluating for something
else also: an understanding of the interaction between CK and PK. If you wanted to
use this diagram as an evaluative tool, it would need to be reconstructed as follows:
Only in this way would you be able to differentiate between practice that exhibits
PCK (which is characterized by understanding the complex interactions between CK
and PK) and practice that merely exhibits the presence of CK and PK. An important
offshoot of this formulation is that it helps us to see that PCK is, in fact, a subset of
CK&PK, thus revealing that PCK cannot exist without its component parts (revealing
them to be necessary causes) but that the mere existence of its component parts do
not logically imply the existence of PCK (revealing them not to be sufficient causes).
If we were to take this logical model of PCK and attempt to turn it into a logical
diagram for more robust TPACK evaluation, it would become extremely complex very
quickly, because it would require that we include subsets of each overlapping area
from the base knowledge domains to represent the “fuzzy” domains:

Once formulated in this manner, the problems with a PCK+TK or TK+PK+CK approach
begin to come clear: both approaches are missing important components of the
conceptual TPACK framework. The first ignores two important “fuzzy” domains and
the second ignores all three (because it is possible to exhibit TK, PK, and CK without
exhibiting any understanding of the complex interactions between the three).
You will further notice that within this logical formulation of the diagram, there is no
place for TPACK itself, which remains the ultimate goal of the model. So, what is it we
are really talking about when we talk about TPACK? Is it TK, PK, and CK? Is it x, y, or
z? Is it all of them together simultaneously taking into consideration the complex
interactions of all six between one another? Certainly no diagram could account for

all of that. So, where do we stand in terms of teacher preparation and technology
integration?
Conclusion
It has been the purpose of this paper to illustrate the “fuzziness” of TPACK and its
constituent parts in order to tease out some of the difficulties associated with the
implementation of professional development and assessment strategies intent on
improving teacher technology integration. Far from attempting to undermine the
conceptual framework of TPACK itself, the purpose of this paper has been to establish
a bit more clearly what can and cannot be assessed in a clear way with regard to
technology integration and implementation. As such, the point remains that any
attempt at implementing TPACK which ignores any key component of the framework
(namely,TPK,TCK, or PCK) does not give a full understanding of the issue and,
therefore, remains an incomplete assessment.
It is, therefore, my suggestion that the closest way to approximate the goals of TPACK
(namely, technology integration that accounts for TK, PK, CK, and all of the complex
interactions that exist between them) is to focus on the mid-level “fuzzy” domains
(TPK,TCK, and PCK) in order to make sure that they are first achieved. Teacher
education and improvement programs that are built on the belief that they can
achieve full TPACK integration without understanding the complexity of what it is they
are seeking will be sorely disappointed when they finally discover that the 'full
package' they are looking for consists of more than two or three domains being
thrown together in a hodgepodge manner.

References
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK Among K-12 Online
Distance Educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88.
Gess-Newsome, J., & Ledderman, N. (1999). Examining pedagogical content
knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009).Teachers’Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge and Learning Activity Types: Curriculum-based
Technology Integration Reframed.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009).What Is Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge?
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007).Technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with
technology.Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 18(4), 2214.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006).Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge.Teachers College
Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Niess, M., Suharwoto, G., Lee, K., & Sadri, P. (2006). Guiding Inservice
Mathematics Teachers In Developing Technology Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPCK). In Society for Information Technology and Teacher
Education Annual Conference.
Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston, C.,
Browning, C., et al. (2009). Mathematics Teacher TPACK Standards and

Development Model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(1), 4–24.
Richardson, S. (2009). Mathematics Teachers’ Development, Exploration, and
Advancement of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in the
Teaching and Learning of Algebra. Contemporary Issues in Technology
and Teacher Education, 9, 2.
Schmidt, D., Baran, E.,Thompson, A., Koehler, M., Punya, M., & Shin,T. (2009).
Examining Preservice Teachers' Development of Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge in an Introductory Instructional
Technology Course.
Schmidt, D., Baran, E.,Thompson, A., Mishra, P., Koehler, M., & Shin,T. (2009).
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK):The
Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument for Preservice
Teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-49.
Shin,T., Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Schmidt, D., Baran, E., & Thompson, A. (2009).
Changing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
through Course Experiences.
Shulman, L. S. (1986).Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Swenson, J., Rozema, R.,Young, C. A., McGrail, E., & Whitin, P. (2005). Beliefs
about technology and the preparation of English teachers: Beginning
the conversation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 5(3/4), 210–236.

Approximating TPACK In Teacher Preparation A Three-Pronged Approach To Effective Technology Integration

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Approximating TPACK In Teacher Preparation A Three-Pronged Approach To Effective Technology Integration

Similar to Approximating TPACK In Teacher Preparation A Three-Pronged Approach To Effective Technology Integration (20)

More from Sandra Long

More from Sandra Long (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Approximating TPACK In Teacher Preparation A Three-Pronged Approach To Effective Technology Integration