You are here:

What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)?

, , Michigan State University, United States

CITE Journal Volume 9, Number 1, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA


This paper describes a framework for teacher knowledge for technology integration called technological pedagogical content knowledge (originally TPCK, now known as TPACK, or technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge). This framework builds on Lee Shulman’s construct of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to include technology knowledge. The development of TPACK by teachers is critical to effective teaching with technology. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the complex, ill-structured nature of teaching. The nature of technologies (both analog and digital) is considered, as well as how the inclusion of technology in pedagogy further complicates teaching. The TPACK framework for teacher knowledge is described in detail, as a complex interaction among three bodies of knowledge: Content, pedagogy, and technology. The interaction of these bodies of knowledge, both theoretically and in practice, produces the types of flexible knowledge needed to successfully integrate technology use into teaching.


Koehler, M. & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind: How higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today's students. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  2. Bromley, H. (1998). 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.
  3. Bruce, B.C. (1993). Innovation and social change. In B.C. Bruce, J.K. Peyton, & T. Batson (Eds.), Network-based classrooms (pp. 9-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
  4. Bruce, B.C., & Hogan, M.C. (1998). 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). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  5. Casement, W. (1997). The great canon controversy: The battle of the books in higher education. Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
  6. Clark, C.M., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.; pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
  7. Dewey, J., & Bentley, A.F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon.
  8. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), 1-110.
  9. Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(4), 2539.
  10. Glaser. R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychology, 39(2), 93-104.
  11. Jackson, P.W. (1968). Life in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  12. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  13. Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  14. Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J.G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75-95.
  15. Levine, L.W. (1996). The opening of the American mind. Canons, culture, and history. Boston: Beacon Press.
  16. Mishra, P., Spiro, R.J., & Feltovich, P.J. (1996). Technology, representation, and cognition: The prefiguring of knowledge in cognitive flexibility hypertexts. In H. Van Oostendorp& A. De Mul (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of electronic text processing (pp. 287305).
  17. 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.
  18. National Research Council. (2000) How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  19. Papert, S. (1980): Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
  20. Pennock, R. (2001). Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological& Scientific perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  21. Peruski, L., & Mishra, P. (2004). Webs of activity in online course design and teaching. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 12(1), 37-49.
  22. Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (2000). Bibliography: Student's alternative frameworks and science education (5th ed.). Kiel, Germany: University of Kiel.
  23. 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.
  24. Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
  25. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  26. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
  27. Simon, H. (1969). Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
  28. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon& Schuster.
  29. Zimmerman, J. (2002). Whose America? Culture wars in the public schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Author Note:

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. If There’s TPACK, is There Technological Pedagogical Reasoning and Action?

    Judi Harris, William & Mary School of Education, United States; Michael Phillips, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2018 (Mar 26, 2018) pp. 2051–2061

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact