Where TPACK Came From
The evolution of TPACK
- Pre-1986: Content and Pedagogy were taught as completely separate skills.
- 1986 (Lee Shulman): Introduced PCK, proving that teachers need specific strategies for specific subjects.
- Early 2000s: Computers entered schools but were used as isolated tools (e.g., separate “computer classes”).
- 2006 (Mishra and Koehler): Introduced TPACK, arguing technology changes how every subject should be taught.
The foundation: Shulman and PCK (1986)
TPACK did not appear from nothing. It was built on the work of educational psychologist Lee Shulman.
In 1986, Shulman introduced Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). Before his work, teacher training treated subject knowledge and teaching methods as two separate skills. A teacher learned chemistry in one course and lesson planning in another. The two never met.
Shulman argued that the real expertise of teaching lives at the intersection. A chemistry teacher who knows the periodic table but cannot explain why students confuse ionic and covalent bonds is missing PCK. The knowledge of how to teach a specific subject is different from knowing the subject or knowing how to teach in general.
PCK became one of the most referenced ideas in education research. It changed how universities designed teacher preparation programs.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)
The idea that effective teaching requires more than knowing a subject and knowing how to teach. It requires knowing how to teach that specific subject, including common student misconceptions and the best strategies for explaining difficult concepts.
The technology gap (early 2000s)
By the early 2000s, computers were entering classrooms in large numbers. Schools bought projectors, laptops, and software licenses. But most teachers used these tools the same way they used chalkboards. A projector displayed notes. A word processor replaced handwriting. The technology was there, but it did not change how anyone taught or learned.
“Computer class” was a separate period on the timetable. Students learned to use Microsoft Word or Excel as a standalone skill, disconnected from science, literature, or mathematics.
Shulman’s PCK model explained the relationship between subject knowledge and teaching methods, but it had no place for technology. Two researchers at Michigan State University noticed this gap.
As completely separate skills.
A teacher learned their subject in one course and teaching methods in another, without exploring how the two intersect. Shulman’s PCK argued that the real expertise of teaching lives at this intersection.
Mishra and Koehler add technology (2006)
In 2006, Punya Mishra and Matthew J. Koehler published the TPACK framework. They added Technology Knowledge (TK) as a third circle to Shulman’s model. The three circles (CK, PK, TK) and their overlaps (PCK, TCK, TPK) form the Venn diagram that defines TPACK.
Their core argument: technology is not a separate subject to teach. It is a tool that changes how you teach every subject. A teacher who uses a PhET simulation to teach photosynthesis is doing something fundamentally different from a teacher who reads from a textbook. The technology changes the content representation (TCK), the teaching method (TPK), and the overall lesson design (TPACK).
The impact
Before TPACK, professional development for teachers looked like this: “Here is how to use Microsoft Word.” After TPACK, it shifted to: “Here is how a word processor changes the way you teach the writing process.”
The framework changed how universities design B.Ed. and teacher education programs. Instead of teaching technology in a separate course, programs now ask: how does this tool connect to the subject and the pedagogy?
TPACK is one of the most cited theories in educational technology. It is part of teacher education curricula worldwide.