Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009).

What is technological pedagogical content

knowledge?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Editors’ Note: For the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with the notion
of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK), we offer the
following condensed and updated depiction by Mishra and Koehler (2007),
which was presented originally at the annual conference of the Society for
Information Technology and Teacher Education in 2007.

Judi Harris & Matt Koehler

Special Issue Guest Editors

What Is Technological Pedagogical Content

Knowledge?
Matthew J. Koehler and Punya Mishra
Michigan State University

Abstract

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.

1
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(1)

As educators know, teaching is a complicated practice that requires an

interweaving of many kinds of specialized knowledge. In this way, teaching
is an example of an ill- structured discipline, requiring teachers to apply
complex knowledge structures across different cases and contexts (Mishra,
Spiro, & Feltovich, 1996; Spiro & Jehng, 1990). Teachers practice their craft
in highly complex, dynamic classroom contexts (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986)
that require them constantly to shift and evolve their understanding. Thus,
effective teaching depends on flexible access to rich, well-organized and
integrated knowledge from different domains (Glaser, 1984; Putnam &
Borko, 2000; Shulman, 1986, 1987), including knowledge of student thinking
and learning, knowledge of subject matter, and increasingly, knowledge of
technology.

The Challenges of Teaching With Technology

Teaching with technology is complicated further considering the challenges

newer technologies present to teachers. In our work, the word technology
applies equally to analog and digital, as well as new and old, technologies. As
a matter of practical significance, however, most of the technologies under
consideration in current literature are newer and digital and have some
inherent properties that make applying them in straightforward ways
difficult.

Most traditional pedagogical technologies are characterized by specificity (a

pencil is for writing, while a microscope is for viewing small objects);
stability (pencils, pendulums, and chalkboards have not changed a great deal
over time); and transparency of function (the inner workings of the pencil or
the pendulum are simple and directly related to their function) (Simon,
1969). Over time, these technologies achieve a transparency of perception
(Bruce & Hogan, 1998); they become commonplace and, in most cases, are
not even considered to be technologies. Digital technologies—such as
computers, handheld devices, and software applications—by contrast, are
protean (usable in many different ways; Papert, 1980); unstable (rapidly
changing); and opaque (the inner workings are hidden from users; Turkle,
1995).On an academic level, it is easy to argue that a pencil and a software
simulation are both technologies. The latter, however, is qualitatively
different in that its functioning is more opaque to teachers and offers
fundamentally less stability than more traditional technologies. By their very
nature, newer digital technologies, which are protean, unstable, and opaque,
present new challenges to teachers who are struggling to use more
technology in their teaching.

Also complicating teaching with technology is an understanding that

technologies are neither neutral nor unbiased. Rather, particular
technologies have their own propensities, potentials, affordances, and
constraints that make them more suitable for certain tasks than others
(Bromley, 1998; Bruce, 1993; Koehler & Mishra, 2008). Using email to
communicate, for example, affords (makes possible and supports)
asynchronous communication and easy storage 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, or mood possible with face-to-face
communication. Understanding how these affordances and constraints of
2
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
specific technologies influence
Education, 9(1) what teachers do in their classrooms is not
straightforward and may require rethinking teacher education and teacher
professional development.

Social and contextual factors also complicate the relationships between teaching
and technology. Social and institutional contexts are often unsupportive of
teachers’ efforts to integrate technology use into their work. Teachers often have
inadequate (or

3
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(1)

inappropriate) 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 they do not consider themselves sufficiently
prepared to use technology in the classroom and often do not appreciate its
value or relevance to teaching and learning. Acquiring a new knowledge base
and skill set can be challenging, particularly if it is a time-intensive activity
that must fit into a busy schedule. Moreover, this knowledge is unlikely to be
used unless teachers can conceive of technology uses that are consistent
with their existing pedagogical beliefs (Ertmer, 2005). Furthermore, teachers
have often been provided with inadequate training for this task. Many
approaches to teachers’ professional development offer a one- size-fits-all
approach to technology integration when, in fact, teachers operate in diverse
contexts of teaching and learning.

An Approach to Thinking About Technology Integration

Faced with these challenges, how can teachers integrate technology into
their teaching? An approach is needed that treats teaching as an interaction
between what teachers know and how they apply what they know in the
unique circumstances or contexts within their classrooms. There is no “one
best way” to integrate technology into curriculum. Rather, integration efforts
should be creatively designed or structured for particular subject matter
ideas in specific classroom contexts. Honoring the idea that teaching with
technology is a complex, ill-structured task, we propose that understanding
approaches to successful technology integration requires educators to
develop new ways of comprehending and accommodating this complexity.

At the heart of good teaching with technology are three core components:
content, pedagogy, and technology, plus the relationships among and
between them. The interactions between and among the three components,
playing out differently across diverse contexts, account for the wide
variations seen in the extent and quality of educational technology
integration. These three knowledge bases (content, pedagogy, and
technology) form the core of the technology, pedagogy, and content
knowledge (TPACK) framework. An overview of the framework is provided in
the following section, though more detailed descriptions may be found
elsewhere (e.g., Koehler & 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This perspective
is consistent with that of other researchers and approaches that have
attempted to extend Shulman’s idea of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
to include educational technology. (A comprehensive list of such approaches
can be found at [Link]

The TPACK Framework

The TPACK framework builds on Shulman’s (1987, 1986) descriptions of PCK

to describe how teachers’ understanding of educational technologies and
PCK interact with one another to produce effective teaching with technology.
Other authors have discussed similar ideas, though often using different
labeling schemes. The conception of TPACK described here has developed
over time and through a series of publications, with the most complete
descriptions of the framework found in Mishra and Koehler (2006) and
Koehler and Mishra (2008).

4
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
In this model Education,
(see Figure 1), there are three main components of teachers’
9(1)
knowledge: content, pedagogy, and technology. Equally important to the
model are the interactions between and among these bodies of knowledge,
represented as PCK, TCK (technological content knowledge), TPK
(technological pedagogicalknowledge), and TPACK.

5
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(1)

Figure 1. The TPACK framework and its knowledge

components.

Content Knowledge

Content knowledge (CK) is teachers’ knowledge about the subject matter 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 knowledge would include knowledge of concepts, theories,
ideas, organizational frameworks, knowledge of evidence and proof, as well
as established practices and approaches toward developing such knowledge.
Knowledge and the nature of inquiry differ greatly between fields, and
teachers should understand 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 reasoning. In the case of art appreciation, such
knowledge would include knowledge of art history, famous paintings,
sculptures, artists and their historical contexts, as well as knowledge of
aesthetic and psychological theories for evaluating art.

The cost of not having a comprehensive base of content knowledge can be

prohibitive; for example, 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), the Great
Books controversies (Bloom, 1987; Casement, 1997; Levine, 1996), and court
battles over the teaching of evolution (Pennock, 2001) demonstrate, issues
relating to curriculum content can be areas of significant contention and
disagreement.
6
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(1)

Pedagogical Knowledge

Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is teachers’ deep knowledge about the

processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning. They
encompass, among other things, overall educational purposes, values, and
aims. This generic form of knowledge applies to understanding how students
learn, general classroom management skills, lesson planning, and student
assessment. 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 construct knowledge and acquire skills and how
they develop habits of mind and positive dispositions toward 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 is consistent with and similar to Shulman’s idea of knowledge of

pedagogy that is applicable to the teaching of specific content. Central to
Shulman’s conceptualization of PCK is the notion of the transformation 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 knowledge. 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
connections among different content-based 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.

Technology Knowledge

Technology knowledge (TK) is always in a state of flux—more so than the

other two core knowledge domains in the TPACK framework (pedagogy and
content). Thus, defining it is notoriously difficult. Any definition of technology
knowledge is in danger of becoming outdated by the time this text has been
published. That said, certain ways of thinking about and working with
technology can apply to all technology tools and resources.

The definition of TK used in the TPACK framework is close to that of Fluency

of Information Technology (FITness), as proposed by the Committee of
Information Technology 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 productively at 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
7
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
computer literacy. Acquiring
Education, 9(1) 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
of TK does not posit an “end state,” but rather sees it developmentally, as
evolving over a lifetime of generative, open-ended interaction with
technology.

8
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(1)

Technological Content Knowledge

Technology and content knowledge have a deep historical relationship.

Progress in fields as diverse as medicine, history, archeology, and physics
have coincided with the development of new technologies that afford the
representation 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. 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 which technologies have provided new perspectives for
understanding phenomena. These representational and metaphorical
connections are not superficial. They often have led to fundamental changes
in the natures of the disciplines.

Understanding the impact of technology on the practices and knowledge of a

given discipline is critical to developing appropriate technological tools for
educational purposes. The choice of technologies affords and constrains the
types of content ideas that can be taught. Likewise, certain content
decisions can limit the types of technologies that can be used. Technology
can constrain the types of possible representations, but also can afford the
construction of newer and more varied representations. Furthermore,
technological tools can provide a greater degree of flexibility in navigating
across these representations.

TCK, then, is an understanding of the manner in which technology and

content influence and constrain one 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 particular technologies. 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.

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge

TPK is an understanding of how teaching and learning can change when

particular technologies are used in particular ways. This includes knowing
the pedagogical affordances and constraints of a range of technological tools
as they relate to disciplinarily and developmentally appropriate pedagogical
designs and strategies. To build TPK, a deeper understanding of the
constraints and affordances of technologies and the disciplinary contexts
within which they function is needed.

For example, consider how whiteboards may be used in classrooms. Because

a whiteboard is typically immobile, visible to many, and easily editable, its
uses in classrooms are presupposed. Thus, the whiteboard is usually placed
at the front of the classroom and is controlled by the teacher. This location
imposes a particular physical order in the classroom by determining the
placement of tables and chairs and framing the nature of student-teacher
interaction, since students often can use it only when called upon by the
9
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
teacher. However, it would
Education, 9(1) 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 an advertising agency 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. It can be used by
anybody in the group, and it becomes the focal point around which
discussion and the negotiation/construction of meaning occurs. An
understanding

10
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(1)

of the affordances of technology and how they can be leveraged differently

according to changes in context and purposes is an important part of
understanding TPK.

TPK becomes particularly important because most popular software

programs 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 business environments. Web-
based technologies such as blogs or podcasts are designed for purposes of
entertainment, communication, and social networking. Teachers need to
reject functional fixedness (Duncker, 1945) and develop skills to look beyond
most common uses for technologies, reconfiguring them for customized
pedagogical purposes. Thus, TPK requires a forward-looking, creative, and
open-minded seeking of technology use, not for its own sake but for the sake
of advancing student learning and understanding.

Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge

TPACK is an emergent form of knowledge that goes beyond all three “core”
components (content, pedagogy, and technology). Technological pedagogical
content knowledge is an understanding that emerges from interactions
among content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge. Underlying truly
meaningful and deeply skilled teaching with technology, TPACK is different
from knowledge of all three concepts individually. Instead, TPACK is the
basis of effective teaching with technology, requiring an understanding of
the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques
that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of
what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help
redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students’
prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how
technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge to develop new
epistemologies or strengthen old ones.

By simultaneously integrating knowledge of technology, pedagogy and

content, expert teachers bring TPACK into play any time they teach. Each
situation presented to teachers is a unique combination of these three
factors, and accordingly, there is no single technological solution that
applies for every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching. Rather,
solutions lie in the ability of a teacher to flexibly navigate the spaces defined
by the three elements of content, pedagogy, and technology and the complex
interactions among these elements in specific contexts. Ignoring the
complexity inherent in each knowledge component or the complexities of the
relationships among the components can lead to oversimplified solutions or
failure. Thus, teachers need to develop fluency and cognitive flexibility not
just in each of the key domains (T, P, and C), but also in the manner in which
these domains and contextual parameters interrelate, so that they can
construct effective solutions. This is the kind of deep, flexible, pragmatic,
and nuanced understanding of teaching with technology we involved in
considering TPACK as a professional knowledge construct.

The act of seeing technology, pedagogy, and content as three interrelated

knowledge bases is not straightforward. As said before,

… separating the three components (content, pedagogy, and

technology) … is an analytic act and one that is difficult to tease
11
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
out in practice. In9(1)
Education, 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 transactional relationship (Bruce,
1997;

12
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(1)

Dewey & Bentley, 1949; Rosenblatt, 1978) between the three

components in our framework; a change in any one of the factors
has to be ‘‘compensated’’ by changes in the other two. (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006, p. 1029)

This compensation is most evident whenever using a new educational

technology suddenly forces teachers to confront basic educational issues
and reconstruct the dynamic equilibrium among all three elements. This
view inverts the conventional perspective that pedagogical goals and
technologies are derived from content area curricula. Things are rarely that
simple, particularly when newer technologies are employed. The
introduction of the Internet, for example – 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 represent content on
the Web and how to connect students with subject matter and with one
another (Peruski & Mishra, 2004).

Teaching with technology is a difficult thing to do well. The TPACK

framework suggests that content, pedagogy, technology, and
teaching/learning contexts have roles to play individually and together.
Teaching successfully with technology requires continually creating,
maintaining, and re-establishing a dynamic equilibrium among all
components. It is worth noting that a range of factors influences how this
equilibrium is reached.

Implications of the TPACK Framework

We have argued that teaching is a complex, ill-structured domain.

Underlying this complexity, however, are three key components of teacher
knowledge: understanding of content, understanding of teaching, and
understanding of technology. The complexity of technology integration
comes from an appreciation of the rich connections of knowledge among
these three components and the complex ways in which these are applied in
multifaceted and dynamic classroom contexts.

Since the late 1960’s a strand of educational research has aimed at

understanding and explaining “how and why the observable activities of
teachers’ professional lives take on the forms and functions they do” (Clark
& Petersen, 1986, p. 255; Jackson, 1968). A primary goal of this research is
to understand the relationships between two key domains: (a) teacher
thought processes and knowledge and (b) teachers’ actions and their
observable effects. The current work on the TPACK framework seeks to
extend this tradition of research and scholarship by bringing technology
integration into the kinds of knowledge that teachers need to consider when
teaching. The TPACK framework seeks to assist the development of better
techniques for discovering and describing how technology-related
professional knowledge is implemented and instantiated in practice. By
better describing the types of knowledge teachers need (in the form of
content, pedagogy, technology, contexts and their interactions), educators
are in a better position to understand the variance in levels of technology
integration occurring.

In addition, the TPACK framework offers several possibilities for promoting

research in teacher education, teacher professional development, and
teachers’ use of technology. It offers options for looking at a complex
13
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
phenomenon Education,
like technology
9(1) integration in ways that are now amenable to
analysis and development. Moreover, it allows teachers, researchers, and
teacher educators to move beyond oversimplified approaches that treat
technology as an “add-on” instead to focus again, and in a more ecological
way, upon the connections among technology, content, and pedagogy as they
play out in classroom contexts.

14
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(1)

References

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.

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.

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 University Press.

Bruce, B. C. (1997). Literacy technologies: What stance should we take?

Journal of Literacy Research, 29(2), 289-309.

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.

Casement, W. (1997). The great canon controversy: The battle of the books in
higher education. Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

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. Dewey, J., & Bentley, A.F. (1949). Knowing and the known.

Boston: Beacon.

Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), 1-

110.

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.

Glaser. R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American

Psychology, 39(2), 93-104.

Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.

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.

15
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential
Education, 9(1) tension. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.

Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J.G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75-95.

16
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(1)

Levine, L. W. (1996). The opening of the American mind. Canons, culture, and
history.
Boston: Beacon Press.

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. 287- 305). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2007). Technological pedagogical content

knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with
technology. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for
Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference
2007 (pp. 2214-2226). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content

knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge.
Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

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. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Papert, S. (1980): Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas.

New York: Basic Books.

Pennock, R. (2001). Intelligent design creationism and its critics:

Philosophical, theological & scientific perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

Peruski, L., & Mishra, P. (2004). Webs of activity in online course design and
teaching.
ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 12(1), 37-49.

Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (2000). Bibliography: Student's alternative frameworks

and science education (5th ed.). Kiel, Germany: University of Kiel.

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.

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional
theory of literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.

Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

17
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge
Education, 9(1) and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Simon, H. (1969). Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

18
 Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(1)

Spiro, R.J., & Jehng, J.-Ch. (1990), Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory
and technology for the nonlinear and mutlidimensional 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 Erlbaum Associates.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New
York: Simon & Schuster.

Zimmerman, J. (2002). Whose America? Culture wars in the public schools.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Author Note:

The authors contributed equally to this work. We rotate order of

authorship in our writing.

Matthew J. Koehler
Michigan State
University
mkoehler@[Link]

Punya Mishra
Michigan State
University
punya@[Link]

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education is an online journal. All text, tables, and figures in the
print version of this article are exact representations of the original. However, the original article may also include
video and audio files, which can be accessed on the World Wide Web at [Link]

19