Educational Research and Reviews

  • Abbreviation: Educ. Res. Rev.
  • Language: English
  • ISSN: 1990-3839
  • DOI: 10.5897/ERR
  • Start Year: 2006
  • Published Articles: 1923



Hulya Gur1*
  • Hulya Gur1*
  • 1Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Bal?kesir University, 10100 Bal?kesir, Turkey
  • Google Scholar
Ay?en Karamete2
  • Ay?en Karamete2
  • 2Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Bal?kesir University, 10100 Bal?kesir, Turkey.
  • Google Scholar

  •  Received: 30 October 2014
  •  Accepted: 23 March 2015
  •  Published: 10 April 2015


The aim of this descriptive study is to examine review of the ICT and TPACK literature for teacher education.  Firstly, the general characteristics of the ICT and TPACK have been examined. In the study, the researchers answer the questions namely “How is the distribution of the articles of TPACK of the year?”, “How is the distribution of the subject of article of ICT and TPACK?”, “What is the distribution according to the year of the subject of article of ICT and TPACK?” and “How can we integrate the TPACK to our teacher training program?” 116 articles were analysed.  It focused on ICT and TPACK and findings and discussions were conducted. The study presents some recommendations to the teacher education.

Key words: Knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, technological pedagogical content knowledge, ICT.


A broad use of technology facilitates everyday life and brings many advantages for people. Technologies have the potential to primarily change the way we think about teaching and learning. Technological tools are seen among the most effective tools both in and out of the school in the educational process of pupils and teachers. Teachers have a role in the schools to integrate the technology into the teacher learning process. For this reason teacher and teachers trainees should follow and integrate technological developments in education. ICT and TPACK studies rapidly increased in last decay. In the literature there are seven kinds of knowledge of teachers such as technological knowledge (TK); pedagogical knowledge (PK); content knowledge (CK); technological content knowledge (TCK); pedagogical content know-ledge (PCK); technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK); technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).

Technological Knowledge (TK) Knowledge of how to operate computers and relevant software.

Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) Knowledge for teaching that includes“…understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, presented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners;” and the “…most useful forms of representation of these ideas, most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations,” and “…the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others,” (Shulman, Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform, 1987, pp. 8-9) Content Knowledge (CK) The grasp of information, processes, principles, theories, and skills within a field of study (Shulman, 2004).

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) Technologi-cal content knowledge understands technology in a specific subject or discipline; and represents technology.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) Blends the content and the pedagogy into understanding of how these are associated for successful teaching (Shulman, 1986): The category of pedagogical content knowledge includes the most regularly taught topics in one’s subject area, the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, exam-ples, explanations, and demonstrations, in a word, ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others. Pedagogical content know-ledge also contains an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult; the concep-tions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning of those most frequently taught topics and lessons (p. 9).

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK): Technological pedagogical knowledge understands how technology can shape the ways of teaching. PCK is described as the relationship between the teaching subject and associated pedagogy. For (Shulman, 1987), pedagogical content knowledge identifies the distinctive bodies of knowledge for teaching. It represents the blend-ing of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction. Pedagogical content knowledge is the category most likely to distinguish the understanding of the content specialist from that of the pedagogue. (p. 4). In teacher education, Pedagogical Content Knowledge has been seen as an important support for teachers’ professional development. In order to acquire and update their skills, teachers must keep pace with increasing educational requirements that necessitates adaptable strategy and a long time commitment. An important factor that can help mathematics teachers keep their potentials is the use of technology in classrooms.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The use of technological tools that helps in delivering PCK (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). TPACK– The new acronym for TPCK (Thompson and Mishra, 2007).

The TPACK theoretical framework has been adopted by different researchers in a multitude of educational areas, and is considered to have shown promising results in integrating technology in teachers’ practices. In education such as mathematics education, there have been several studies in using the TPACK framework. Researchers have acknowledged the lack of adequate theoretical and professional frameworks that provide help, guidance, and efficiency to teachers to integrate technology in classrooms (Koehler and Mishra, 2005; Mishra and  Koehler,  2006;  Niess,  2008;  Niess  et  al.,  2009; Valanides and Angeli, 2008a). Many different approaches have been attempted in order to help teachers overcome difficulties of integrating technology in mathematics classrooms (Hew and Brush, 2007)

Technology and ICT were integrated in teaching and learning for teachers, students, educators so on. Research results show evidence of technology being implemented widely in classrooms for teaching (Cuban, 2001; Guzman and Nussbaum, 2009; Hew and Brush, 2007; Kincaid and Feldner, 2002; Lawless and Pellegrino, 2007; McCormick and Scrimshaw, 2001, Banas 2010). Other research results have also asserted that a great number of teachers remain unprepared to use computers in teaching (Cuban, 2001; Hokanson and Hooper, 2004; Russell et al., 2003). Education-technology integration is called the Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Yurdakul, Examining techno pedagogical knowledge competencies of preservice teachers based on ICT usage., 2011, p. 398). Firstly it focused on content know-ledge in these processes (Shulman, 1986; Koehler and Mishra, 2005; Mishra and Koehler, 2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), technology program content and pedagogical approaches to connec-ting content, pedagogy and technology information field describe the type of interaction (Shin 2010). This model represents teachers’ teaching-learning process on how to integrate the technology of technological, pedagogical and content knowledge of the structure. It consists of TPACK, the interaction and combines three information fields (Harris et al., 2009). How to use information technology in teaching pedagogy of various technologies, knowledge, and ability to express change the way teachers teach using technology (Shin 2010). To integrate technology in education, learners and teachers continue to struggle with issues of using educational technology in teaching and learning. Teachers and teacher trainees should adopt seven kinds of knowledge using pedagogical approaches.



The purpose of this literature review was to examine the theoretical basis, practical use of TPACK and the development of the TPACK framework. The purpose of this paper is to understand what role, if any, the TPACK construct can provide in advancing the new agenda in teacher education. This study may guide teachers, researchers, teacher educators, educationalists, program makers and so on. ICT and TPACK literature might be analysed according to years.


Research questions

The present study is a qualitative study (Miles and Huberman, 2014). This study has used a descriptive method. A literature review was conducted to answer these research questions.

1. How is the distribution of the articles of TPACK of the year?

2. How is the distribution of the subject of article of ICT and TPACK?

3. What is the distribution according to the year of the subject of article of ICT and TPACK?

4. How can we integrate the TPACK to our teacher training program?


Shulman (1986) asserted that teacher must be organized with content knowledge, curricular knowledge, pedago-gical strategies, and pedagogical content knowledge upon which to base professional judgment. Using instructional strategies and programs that have been empirically evaluated can validate the selection of pedagogy. One of the most important ways of providing technological support is to use a framework for integrating complex problems of knowledge from pedagogy, content, technology, and different forms of interactions among these elements in classrooms (Mishra and Koehler, 2008). Adapted from the Pedagogical Content Knowledge model (Shulman, 1986, 1987), the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) model is a framework that treats technological integration in education “as a way of thinking about the knowledge [that] teachers need to understand how to integrate technology effectively in their classrooms” (Mishra and Koehler, 2006 pp. 10-11). TPCK, later renamed as TPACK (Thompson and Mishra, 2007), is comprised knowledge of content, pedagogy, and technology, as well as skills to use the interactions among these components (Koehler and Mishra, 2008).

When introducing educational technology in class-rooms, researchers noticed that the PCK framework did not explicitly support technology. There were some attempts to adapt the old PCK framework. Some of them, such as TPACK, offer adequate support for technology and offer more opportunities to see how integration of the technology takes place. Since the end of the 1990s, there were several attempts to adapt Pedagogical Content Knowledge to the use of educational technology. From all, the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework developed by Mishra and Koehler (2006) is the most well-known.

TPACK is an extension of the PCK, defined as a systematic approach to joining technical expertise in teaching with pedagogical content knowledge. TPACK is an emergent model resulting from the intersection of technology, pedagogy and content. This model considers the context as an important aspect. Teaching practices are very important as a source of learning and not just as a consequence of applying a set of learning theories. The TPACK framework offers many insights into how technology should relate to other components of education   in   order  to  be  successful.  This  framework offers clear explanations of why technology should not be treated in isolation but related with required pedagogy and content (Mishra and Koehler, 2006).  


Identifying journal articles

The literatures were identified in September 2014 by first exploring ERIC database, EBSCOHOST, the Web of Science database and Scopus database. The ICT, TPACK, TPCK, “technological pedagogical content knowledge” entered as keywords. 116 articles has been reached. Only directly related articles were examined. All articles were read, analyzed and coded. All results were repre-sented as a the line graph, the bar graph and the spider graph.


Coding scheme

All articles, subject, content as sub-themes were grouped into themes and years. Themes and years were converted into categories. Basic data, themes of research are also taken into account. Two researchers coded each article. Reliability and validity were considered. The coders’ agreements were found as .96 (Bogdan and Biklen, 2007).


Limitation of the study

This review of literature was limited in technological pedagogical content knowledge. In focusing on the TPACK framework, addi-tional limitations are obvious in the types of manuscripts available and the venues in which these manuscripts are presented.


There is only two-document analysis that engaged the TPACK framework. The first one, Polly et al. (2010) analyze 26 articles. The second one is paper of Chai et al. (2013). Chai et al. examines 55 articles.  This present study analyzed 116 papers from 2001 to 2014. These studies point to the need of helping pre-service and in-service teachers to build deeper understanding about TPACK.  All articles were displayed according to the year in Table 1. 



As seen Table 1, Abrami et al. published articles in 2001; Kincaid and Feldner published articles in 2002; Lundeberg et 2003) al., Russell et al. published articles in 2003; Hokanson and Hooper published articles in 2004; Angeli et al. published articles in 2005; Niess et al. published articles in 2006; Hew et al. published articles in 2007; Akkoç et al. published articles in 2008. In 2009, Angeli and Valanides; Cox and Graham; Cuban; Doering et al.; Graham et al. Groth et al., 2009); Holmes; (Koehler et al., 2007).; Ozgun-Koca  et al.; So et al. published articles. In 2010, Allan et al.; An and Shin; Archambault and Crippen; Archambault and Barnett; Archambault et al.; (Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2010); (Jang, 2010); Jimoyiannis, 2010); (Kaya et al., 2010); (Kramarski and Michalsky 2010);  (Ku?kaya  and  Usluel,  2010);  Landry, 2010; Lee and Tsai; (Nicholas and Ng., 2010); Ozgun-Koca; Ozgun-Koca et al.; (Özmantar et al. 2010); Polly et al.;  Wilson and Wright 2010 . published articles. In 2011, Akkoç; Bowers and Stephens; Chai et al.; Chai et al.; Chueng and Ho (2011); Doukakis et al.; (Harris and Hofer, 20011); Kereluik et al., 2011).; Khan; (Koh and Divaharan, 2011); (Lyublinskaya and Tournaki, 2011); Öztürk and Horzum, 2011); (Pamuk, 2011); (Polly, 2011); (Sahin, 2011); Tee and Lee, 2011; (Timur and Tarsa, 2011). published articles. In 2012, Ad?güzel and Yüksel; (Koh et al., 2010; 2012.); (Mudzimiri, 2012); (Nicholas and Ng, 2012); (Pamuk et al., 2012). published articles. In 2013, Chai et al.; Gömleksiz and Fidan (2013); Karadeniz and Vatanart?ran; Kaya et al. published articles. In 2014, Sancar-Tokmak and Yigit published articles.

The first research questions was analysed in Figure 1. According to the Figure 1, TPACK studies rapidly increased between 2009 to 2011. According to Figure 2, TPACK studies rapidly declined in 2002 to 2007 and 2014. 




According to Figure 3, The biggest improvement of TPACK studies were 2009 to 2011. 



The second research question is how is the subject of article of ICT and TPACK distributed?

The present study also analyzed the articles based on the two  dimensions  ICT and TPACK. Based on these criteria, all 136 studies were analyzed and the outcomes are provided below (some of studies both related to the ict and tpack). 51 articles were related to ICT and 82 articles were related to the TPACK. Table 2 provides a summary of the content analysis of ICT and TPACK.




The third research question is the distribution according to the year of the subject of article of ICT and TPACK

Researchers have acknowledged the lack of adequate theoretical and professional frameworks that provide help, guidance, and efficiency to teachers to integrate technology in classrooms (Koehler and Mishra, 2006; Niess, 2008; Niess et al. 2009; Valanides and Angeli, 2008). Many different approaches have been attempted in order to help teachers overcome difficulties of inte-grating technology in mathematics classrooms (Hew and Brush, 2007). Figures 4 and 5 give emphasis on ICT and TPACK studies. After 2009, Tpack studies have been increased. ICT studies have been increased up to 2009. This is to show that ICT is not only enough for teaching and learning.




Finally, we would like to point out the possibility of cross fertilizing some  older  framework  for  the  study  of ICT integration with the TPACK framework (Figure 6). Established framework such as the technology acceptance model, concern based adoption model and the three models of knowledge creation as reviewed by Paavola et al., (2004) could be brought to bear on TPACK. For example, researchers can possibly envision the acceptance of certain emerging technology by analyzing its TPACK properties and the possible stages of concern that would follow when the technology is implemented.  Angeli and Valanides (2009) asserted that the growth or proficiency of each TPACK knowledge construct does not automatically increase the educator's overall TPACK knowledge (Figure 7).  




Present research found significant relationships between teachers’ TPACK level (Lee and Tsai, 2010; Niess et al., 2006) and their self-confidence in techno-logy, pedagogy, and content (Lee and Tsai). The future studies might focus on teacher characteristics in relation to TPACK and the development of TPACK. Their general conclusion support the foregoing section in that they also found that most intervention produced positive outcomes, especially for TK and pre-service teachers’ willingness to use ICT. As illustrated by their work, the TPACK frame-work can be a common conceptual framework for many more review studies (Figure 7). We would argue that more surveys that compare pre-service teachers TPACK could be helpful in identifying the gaps in their TPACK and teacher educators can then plan how to support the continuous development of TPACK. This is especially so for the faculties in higher education as they are likely to be the most important people to help form the pre-service teachers’ TPACK.

The fourth research question is how do we integrate the TPACK to our teacher training program?

In the teacher training faculty mostly cover three area of knowledge that teacher trainees have to be known. In this study asserted that the components of the TPACK models are enlightened (Table 3). The TPACK framework is a generative framework with many more possible future applications. In this paper, we have reviewed a sizable and representative set of studies and pointed out many possible directions for future research. Based on our review, we would propose a revised representation of the TPACK framework to guide future research as depicted. We can ask how we can integrate TPACK in teacher education program. For these, instructional planning process was given as an example.



The problems with teacher education made a lot of countries re-question its teacher education systems and hence start restructuring them to support social cohe-rence, teaching performance and national enlargement.

For this an application of TPACK was recommended in Table 3.


This information has to answer the question of how technology will change the teaching-learning process when used in certain ways (Kuskaya and Usluel, 2010). Yurdakul (2011) in terms of competencies in general education teacher candidates’ techno pedagojik study concluded   they   see   themselves   advanced.  As  seen literature reviewed, we identified four interdependent contextual factors that are to a certain extent charac-teristic.  To sum up, Angeli and Valanides (2009) argued that the growth or proficiency of each TPACK knowledge construct does not automatically increase the educator's overall TPACK knowledge. We would like to point out the possibility of cross fertilizing some older framework for the study of ICT integration with the TPACK framework. For instance, researchers can possibly imagine the acceptance of certain emerging technology by analyzing its TPACK properties and the possible stages of apprehension that would follow when the technology is implemented. All literature review showed that ICT not only enough, also we need the tpack for teaching and learning. While illustrated, the TPACK framework can be a general conceptual framework for many more review studies. In addition, we suggest that TPACK could also be used to analyze policy documents to examine whether there is a shift towards the use of overlapping constructs namely TPACK to formulate policies or standards, which could reflect a deeper understanding among policy makers.


The author(s) have not declared any conflict of interests.


*This project is supported by BAP project No:30, 2014.


Abrami P (2001). Improving judgments about teaching effectiveness using teacher rating forms. In M. Theall, P.C.


Abrami, and L.A. Mets (Eds.). The student ratings debate: Are they valid? How can we best use them? [Special issue]. New Directions for Institutional Research. 109:59-87.



Adıgüzel A, Yüksel I (2012). Evaluation of Teachers'Instructional Technologies Integration Skills: A Qualitative Need Analysis for New Pedagogical Approaches. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic J. Sci. Math. Educ. 6(1):265-286.



Akkoç H (2011). Investigating the development of prospective mathematics teachers technological pedagogical content knowledge. Research in Mathematics Education - Current Report. 13(1).



Akkoç H, Özmantar F, Bingölbali E (2008). Exploring the technological pedagogical content knowledge. Discussion Group 7, 11th International Congress on Mathematics Education (ICME11):6-13 July. MEXICO: Monterrey.



Allan W, Erickson J, Brookhouse P, Johnson J (2010). Teacher professional development through a collaborative curriculum project - an example of TPACK in Maine. TechTrends. 54 (6):36-43.



Almas A, Krumsvik R (2008). Teaching in technology-rich classrooms: Is there a gap between teachers' intentions and ICT practices? . Research in Comparative and International Educ. 3(2):103-121.



An H, Shin S (2010). The impact of urban district field experiences on four elementary preservice teacher's learning regarding technology integration. J. Technol. Integration in the Classroom. 2(3):101-107.



Angeli C, Valanides N (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPACK: advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers Education 52 (1):154-168.



Angeli C, Valanides N (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: an instructional systems design model based onan expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. J. Computer Assisted Learning. 21(4):292-302.



Archambault L, Barnett J (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers Education. 55:1656-1662.



Archambault L, Wetzel K, Foulger TS, Williams M (2010). Professional development 2.0: Transforming teacher education pedagogy with 21stcentury tools. J. Digital Learning in Teacher Educ. 27(1): 4-11.



Archambault L, Crippen K (2009a). K-12 distance educators at work: Who's teaching online across the United States. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 41(4):363-391.



Archambault L, Crippen K (2009b). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technol. Teacher Educ. 9(1):71-88.



Banas J (2010). Teachers' attitudes toward technology: Considerations for designing preservice and practicing teacher instruction. Community Junior College Libraries. 16(2):114-127.



Bowers J, Stephens B (2011). Using technology to explore mathematical relationships: A framework for orienting mathematics courses for prospective teachers. J. Math. Teacher Edu. 14:285–304.



Bogdan R, Biklen S (2007). Qualitative Research for Education (5th.). Boston: Pearson Education.



Cuban C (2009). Using technological pedagogical content knowledge framework to design online environments and professional development. J. Edu. Computing, 41(3):319-346. Cuban L (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.



Chueng HH, Ho CJ (2011). An investigation of early childhood teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Know¬ledge (TPACK) in Taiwan. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi EÄŸitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12 (2):99-117.



Chai CS, Koh JHL, Tsai CC (2013). A Review of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Educational Technol. Society. 16 (2): 31–51.



Chai C, Koh J, Tsai C (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers' development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Educ. Technol. Society. 13(4):63–73.



Chai C, Koh J, Tsai CC, Tan L (2011). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Computers Educ. 57(1):1184-1193.



Cox S, Graham C (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: using and elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. Tech Trends 53 (5): 60–69.



Doering A, Veletsianos G, Scharber C, Miller C (2009). Using the Technological, Pedagogical, And Content Knowledge Framework to Design Online Learning Environments and Professional Development. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 41(3):319-346.



Doukakis S, Koilias C, Chionidou-Moskofoglou M (2011). An undergraduate primary education teaching practicum design and undergraduate primary teachers' satisfaction on developing technological, pedagogical and mathematical knowledge. Intl. J. Teaching. Case Stud. 3 (2-4):180-195.



Guzman A, Nussbaum M (2009). Teaching competencies for technology integration in the classroom. J. Comput. Assisted Learn. 25:453-469.



Graham C, Burgoyne N, Borup J (2010). The decision-making processes of preservice teachers as they integrate technology. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. (1): 3826-3832.



Graham C, Burgoyne N, Cantrell P, Smith L, St. Clair L, Harris R (2009). TPACK development in science teac¬hing: Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends, Special Issue on TPACK, 53(5):70-79.



Gömleksiz M, Fidan E (2013). Sınıf ÖÄŸretmeni Adaylarının Teknolojik Pedagojik Ä°çerik Bilgisi Öz-Yeterliklerine Ä°liÅŸkin Algı Düzeyleri. Inonu University J. Faculty of Educ. 14(1):87-113.



Greenhow C, Dexter S, Hughes J (2008). Teacher knowledge about technology integration: An examination of inservice and preservice teachers' instructional decision-making. Sci. Educ. Int. 19(1):9-25.



Groth R, Spickler D, Bergner J, Bardzell M (2009). A qualitative approach to assessing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology andTeacher EducationRetrieved December 15, 2014, from, 9 (4).



Hardy M ((2010a).). Enhancing preservice mathematics teachers' TPCK. J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teaching, 29 (1):73-86.



Hardy M (2010b). Facilitating growth in preservice mathematics teachers' TPCK. Natl Teacher Educ. J. 3(2):121-138.



Harris J, Hofer M (2011). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers' curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 43 (3):211-229.



Harris J, Mishra P, Koehler M (2009). Teachers' techno¬logical pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. J. Res.Technol. Educ. 41(4): 393-416.



Hew K, Brush T (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 55(3):223-252.



Hewitt J (2008). Reviewing the handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. Canadian J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ. 8(4):355–360.



Hofer M, Swan K (2008). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in action: A case study of a middle school digital documentary project. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 41(2):179-200.



Hokanson B, Hooper S (2004). Integrating technology in classrooms: We have met the enemy and he is us. . Chicago, IL: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.



Jamieson-Proctor R, Finger G, Albion P (2010). Auditing the TK and TPACK confidence ofpre-service teachers: Are they ready for the profession? Aust. Educ. Comput. 25(1):8-17.



Jang SJ (2010). Integrating the IWB and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers. Comput. Educ. 55(4):1744-1751.



Jang SJ, Chen K (2010). From PCK to TPACK: Developing a transformative model for preservice science teachers. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 19(6):553-564.



Jimoyiannis A (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Comput. Educ. 55(3):1259-1269.


Karadeniz Ş, Vatanartıran S (2013). Adaptation of a TPACK survey to Turkish for secondary school teachers. Intl. J. Hum. Sci.10(2):34-47.



Kabakçı-Yurdakul Ä°, Coklar A (2014). Modeling preservice teachers' TPACK competencies based on ICT usage. J. Comput. Assisted Learn. 30(4):363–376.



Kaya S, Dag F (2013). Turkish Adaptation of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Survey for Elementary Teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory. Pract. 13(1):302-306.



Kaya Z, Emre Ä°, Kaya O (2010). Sınıf öÄŸretmeni adaylarının Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi (TPAB) açısından öz-güven seviyelerinin belirlenmesi. 9.Ulusal Sınıf ÖÄŸretmenliÄŸi Sempozyumu, Elazığ: FıratÜniversitesi. pp. 643-651.



Kereluik K, Mishra P, Koehler MJ (2011). On learning to subvert signs: Literacy, technology and the TPACK framework. California Reader, 44(2):12-18.



Khan S (2011). New pedagogies on teaching science with computer simulations. J. Sci. Educ.Technol. 20 (3): 215-232.



Kincaid T, Feldner L (2002). Leadership for Technology Inegration: The role of principals and mentors. Educ. Technol. Society. 5(1):75-80.



Koehler MJ, Mishra P (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 32(2):131-152.



Koehler M, Mishra P (2008). Introducing TPACK. In AACTE. (Ed.), . Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators içinde New York: Routledge. Pp. 3-29.



Koehler M, Mishra P (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technol. Teacher Educ. 9 (1):60-70.



Koehler M, Mishra P, Yahya K (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers Educ. 49(3):740–762.



Koh J, Divaharan S (2011). Developing pre-service teachers' technology integration expertise through the TPACK-developing instructional model. J. Educ. Comput. Res 44(1):35-58.



Koh J, Chai C, Tsai C (2010). Examining the technological pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore preservice teachers with a large-scale survey. J. Comput. Assisted Learn. 26:563–573.



Koh J, Chai C, Tsai CC (2012). Examining practicing teachers' perceptions of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) pathways: a structural equation modeling approach. Instl. Sci. 1-17.



Kramarski B, Michalsky T (2010). Preparing preservice teachers for self-regulated learning in the context of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Learn. Instruction. 20:434-447.



KuÅŸkaya F, Usluel Y (2010). Teknolojik pedagojik içerik bilgisi modeline göre bit'in öÄŸrenme-öÄŸretme sürecine entegrasyonuyla ilgili ölçek geliÅŸtirme çalışması. 10th International Educational Technology Conference (IETC), Ä°stanbul BoÄŸaziçi Üniversitesi. (26-28 Nisan).



Lyublinskaya I, Tournaki E (2011). The Effects of Teacher Content Authoring on TPACK and on Student Achievement in Algebra: Research on Instruction with the TI-Nspire Handheld Educational Technology, Teacher. In R. Ronau, C. Rakes, & M. Niess (Eds.), Educational Technology, Teacher Knowledge, and Classroom Impact: A Research Handbook on Frameworks and Approaches. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.



Lundeberg M, Bergland M, Klyczek K, Hoffman D (2003). Using action research to develop preservice teachers' confidence, knowledge and beliefs about technology. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 




Lawless K, Pellegrino J (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue betterquestions and answers. Rev. Educ. Res. 77(4): 575-614.



Landry GA (2010). Creating and validating an instrument to measure middle school mathematics teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). University of Tennessee, Knoxville.



Lee M, Tsai C (2010). Exploring teachers' perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the world wideweb. Instructional Sci. 38:1–21.



Mudzimiri R (2012). A Study of the Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in Pre-service Secondary Mathematics Teachers. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Publication No. 3523442) .



McCormick R, Scrimshaw P (2001). Information and communications technology, knowledge, and pedagogy. Education, Communication and Information, 108(6):37-57.



Mishra P, Koehler M (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6):1017-1054.



Mishra P, Koehler, M. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed). Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.



Mishra P, Koehler M, Kereluik K (2009). The song remains the same: looking back to the future of educational technology. . Techtrends, 53 (5):48–53.



Nicholas H, Ng W (2010), 'Adolescents' formal and informal use of handheld computers', Proceedings of the IADIS Intl. Conf. Mob. Learn. pp. 316 - 321



Nicholas H, Ng W (2012). Factors influencing the uptake of a mechatronics curriculum initiative in five Australian secondary schools. Intl. J. Technol. Design Educ. 22(1): 65-90.



Niess M, Suharwoto G, Lee K, Sadri P (2006, April). Guiding inservice mathematics teachers in developing TPCK. American Education Research Association Annual Conference. San Francisco, CA.



Niess ML (2008). Guiding preservice teachers in developing TPCK. In In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.),Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators New York: NY: Routledge for the American Ass. pp. 223-250.



Niess ML (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching. TeacherEduc. 21(5):509–523.



Niess ML, Ronau R, Shafer K, Driskell S, Harper S, Johnston C (2009). Mathematics Teacher TPACK Standards and Development Model. Contemporary Issues in Technol. Teacher Educ. 9(1):4-24.



Özmantar M, Akkoç H, Bingölbali E, Demir S (2010). Pre-service mathematicsteachers' use of multiple representations in technology-rich environments. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 6 (1):19-36.



Özgun-Koca SA (2010). Prospective teachers' views on the use of calculators with Computer Algebra System in algebra instruction. J. Math. Teacher Educ. 13 (1): 49-71.



Ozgun-Koca S, Meagher M, Edwards M (2010). "PreserviceTeachers, Emerging TPACK in A Technology-RichMethods Class". The Mathematics Educator, 19(2):10-20.



Öztürk E, Horzum M (2011). Teknolojik Pedagojik Ä°çerik Bilgisi ÖlçeÄŸi'nin Türkçeye Uyarlaması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi EÄŸitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(3):255-278.



Paavola S, Lipponen L, Hakkarainen K (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 74(4):557-577.



Pamuk S (2011). "Understanding Preservice Teachers' Technology Use Through TPACK Framework". J. Comput. Assisted Learn. 



Pamuk S, Ülken A, Dilek N (2012). The Investigation of Preservice Teachers' Technology Integration Competencies From Technological Pedagogical Cont. Mustafa Kemal University J. 9(17):415-438.



Pierson ME (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Educ. 33 (4):413–430.



Polly D (2011). Examining teachers' enactment of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in their mat¬hematics teaching after technology integration professional development. J. Computers Math. Sci. Teach. 30(1):37-59.



Polly D, Brantley-Dias L (2009). TPACK: where do we go now? TechTrends. 53 (5):46–47.



Polly D, Mims C, Shepherd C, Inan F (2010). Evidence of impact: transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow's teachers to teach with technology (PT3)grants. Teach. Teacher Educ. 26: 863–870.



Russell M, Bebell D, O'Dwyer L, O'Connor K (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice andinservice teacher preparation. J. Teacher Educ. 54(4):297-310.



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 [Online serial], 9 (2).



Sahin I (2011). Development of survey of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). Turkish Online J. Educ. Technol. 10(1): 97-105.



Sancar-Tokmak H (2014). Preservice teachers perceptions on TPACK development after designing educational games. Asia-Pasific J. Teacher Educ.




Sancar-Tokmak H, Yavuz-Konokman G,Yanpar-Yelken T (2013). Pre-service Teachers' Perceptions on Development of Their IMD Competencies through TPACK-based Activities. . Educational Technology and Society .



Schmidt D, Baran E, Thompson A, Koehler M, Mishra P, Shin T (2009). Technological Pedagogical Con¬tent Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. J. Res. Technol. Educ 42(2):123-149.



Shulman LS (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2): 4-14.



Shulman LS (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57: 1-23.



Shulman LS (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach. S. Wilson (Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc



Shafer KG (2008). Learning to teach with technology through an apprenticeship model. Contemporary Issues in Technol. Teacher Educ. 8 (1): 27-44.



Shin TS, Koehler MJ, Mishra P, Schmidt DA, Baran E, Thompson AD (2009). Changing technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) through experiences. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology.



So H, Kim B (2009). Learning about problem based learning: student teachers integrating technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Austr. J. Educ. Technol. 25(1):101-116.



Tee M, Lee S (2011). From socialisation to internalisation: Cultivating technological pedagogical content knowledge through problem-based learning. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 27(1):89-104.



Timur B, TaÅŸar M (2011). Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi Öz Güven ÖlçeÄŸinin (TPABÖGÖ) Türkçe'ye uyarlanması. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(2): 839 -856.



Thompson AD, Mishra P (2007). Breaking News:TPCK Becomes TPACK! J. Comput. Teacher Educ. 24 (2): 38-64.



Valanides N, Angeli C (2008a). Professional Development for Computer-Enhanced Learning: A Case Study with Science Teachers. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 26 (1):3-12.



Wilson E, Wright V (2010). Images over time: The intersection of social studies through technology, content, and pedagogy. Contemp. Issues. Technol. Teacher Educ (CITE Journal), 10(2): 220-233.



Yigit M (2014). A review of the literature: How pre-service mathematics teachers develop their technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. Intl. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol. 2 (1): 26-35.



Yurdakul I (2011). Examining techno pedagogical knowledge competencies of preservice teachers based on ICT usage. Hacettepe University J. Educ. 40:397-408.



Yurdakul I, Odabasi H, Kilicer K, Coklar A, Birinci G, Kurt A (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A technological pedagogical content knowledgescale. Comput. Educ. 58:964-977.