Article Preview
TopBackground
Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) TPACK framework extended ideas from Shulman’s (1987) concept of a new knowledge that is created at the intersection of content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical knowledge (PK) combined with a reconception of Pierson’s (2001) notion of TPCK. Unlike Shulman, who only considered “commonplace” technologies (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1023), they included “digital computers and computer software, artifacts and mechanisms that are new and not yet part of the mainstream” (p. 1023). Mishra and Koehler build on three basic constructs: content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and technological knowledge (TK), unlike Pierson (2001). Mishra and Koehler accepted Shulman’s (1987) theory that PCK develops from CK and PK and extended that concept by theorizing that at the intersection of CK and TK, technological content knowledge (TCK) arises; at the intersection of PK and TK, technological pedagogical knowledge develops (TPK); and where TPK, TCK, and PCK converge is where technological pedagogical content knowledge emerges within a larger disciplinary context (see Figure 1).
Figure 1.
TPACK framework (© 2012, tpack.org, Used with permission)
Cox and Graham (2009) attempted to describe the TPACK constructs to further define the boundaries of the factors, clarifying what is and is not part of each construct. They provided elaborated definitions for each construct, giving specific examples for each. The redefinition of technology across the technology dimensions to “emerging technologies” (p.63) instead of the “new” technologies suggested by Mishra and Koehler (2006). Cox and Graham did not limit their definition of technology to information and communication technologies (ICT), allowing the definition to change over time and preventing the TPACK framework from becoming obsolete. This conception of technology suggests that measurement instruments will need to evolve as some technologies become common, others die, and more emerge (Cox & Graham, 2009).
Angeli and Valanides (2009) suggested that for TPACK theory to be different from PCK theory (Shulman, 1987), it should concentrate on ICT coupled with TPACK (ICT–TPACK). They proposed a focus on the three base constructs of Mishra and Koehler (2006): CK, PK, and TK, along with two additional constructs: “knowledge of students and knowledge of the context in which the learning takes place” (Angeli & Valanides, 2009, p. 158).
Graham (2011) revisited the boundary issues identified by Cox and Graham (2009). Graham repeated the call for researchers to differentiate between “transparent technologies” and “emerging technologies” (2011; p. 1956). He defined emerging technologies as “new technologies (typically digital technologies) that are being investigated or introduced into a learning environment” (Graham, 2011; p. 1956). He suggested this is one reason some measurement instruments (e.g., Archambault & Barnett, 2010) failed to extract all the expected factors of TPACK in factorial analyses (Graham, 2011).
Yurdakul, Odabasi, Kilicer, Coklar, Birinci, and Kurt (2012) developed a scale to measure TPACK, the central construct of the TPACK framework, through the use of a self-assessment of skill competency using a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., I can easily do/I certainly can’t do it). The TPACK-Deep scale consists of four factors: design, exertion, ethics, and proficiency.