USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

This is a post-print copy of the following article:

Sobel, K. and Grotti, M. G. (2013). Using the TPACK framework to facilitate decision making on
instructional technologies. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship 25(4), 255-262.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2013.847671

Using the TPACK Framework to Facilitate Decision-Making on Instructional Technologies

Karen Sobel
University of Colorado Denver

Margaret G. Grotti
University of Delaware
USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

“TPACK” stands for “technological pedagogical content knowledge.” While the name

sounds complex, TPACK provides a straightforward and practical framework for evaluating and

successfully implementing workplace technologies. It focuses on defining real workplace needs

and determining whether the total costs (e.g. time, money, etc.) associated with a technology are

worth the need that the technology is intended to address.

At present, TPACK is primarily used in the field of education, though it has occasionally

been applied to various library settings. The authors have worked to adapt its methods to the

field of academic library instruction, which proved an easy and effective conversion. After

academic librarians in other specialty areas began expressing interest in discovering how the

TPACK framework could assist in their technology-related decisions, the authors worked to

shape discussion and examples that could assist a broader audience. This article is the result of

those efforts.

In the following pages, the authors will present reasons for using TPACK, provide a

history of the method, explain the method in detail, and then share detailed examples. In order to

better illustrate the step-by-step use of this theoretical model, we first will examine the rationale

behind the use of TPACK and why it can be helpful.

Confronting Familiar Challenges

One way or another, all librarians have encountered this scenario: There’s an ongoing

challenge that’s a part of the job. A colleague or an administrator mentions a piece of technology

that may or may not provide a solution, and asks the librarian to evaluate whether the library

should consider this option. The price isn’t prohibitive, but it isn’t cheap, either. Typically, there

are only a couple of weeks left in the library’s budget cycle. How can the librarian make a quick

yet informed decision?

USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

Alternatively, a librarian attends a conference and hears about a technology that might

just do the trick. A colleague at another institution provides an honest, detailed assessment, and

the librarian decides to give the technology a try. The budget, however, is tight, and there will be

many other competing requests for funding. How can he or she best craft a request that will

argue for the technology’s fit with a particular library’s needs, staff, and patron base? TPACK

can provide an effective solution to these questions.

TPACK guides librarians to directly address many common categories of challenge in

formulating requests, including suitability for future librarians, efficiency, financial costs,

investment of staff time, and training needs. The TPACK model is most suitable for technologies

that will directly affect large numbers of individuals, be they patrons or staff. It also accounts for

the reality that libraries’ environments and needs change rapidly, and that new solutions appear

frequently. The model also can accommodate the fact that many librarians not only select

technologies but provide some or all of the training for them.

Literature Review

Literature about the TPACK method spans many disciplines and media. This literature

review is not intended to provide a comprehensive guide to commentary on the method, but

rather to give a representative sampling and a few key pieces. The most important single piece to

read for those interested in TPACK is Dr. Matthew J. Koehler’s site, www.tpack.org. Koehler,

TPACK’s creator, uses his site to lay out the basics of TPACK and to index research on the

subject across many fields.

For those interested in an overview of TPACK in textual form, Koehler and Punya

Mishra spell out the method and provide their own reading list in “What is Technological

Pedagogical Content Knowledge?” (2009).

USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

A History of TPACK

TPACK is based upon Pedagogical Content Knowledge (“PCK”), a similar theoretical

framework developed in 1986 by Lee Shulman in his work “Those who Understand: Knowledge

Growth in Teaching” (1986). Shulman’s work proposed that the interaction between two spheres

of knowledge (pedagogical and content knowledge) could deepen understanding of how subjects

could be organized and effectively taught. Koehler and Mishra unveiled TPACK, an expanded

version of Shulman’s framework (2006). TPACK represents an evolution of this framework, as

it proposes that an additional sphere of knowledge (technological knowledge) must also be taken

into account for effective teaching and learning. Koehler is now the primary force in the

TPACK movement. The article “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework

for Teacher Knowledge” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) is the article that established TPACK as a

unique framework in its own right and is highly recommended for those seeking a thorough

knowledge of the framework.

TPACK in Libraries

An increasing number of librarians are experimenting with TPACK in libraries. K-12

school libraries were among the earliest adopters, likely due to the close working relationships

that school librarians develop with teachers who were already using the method in traditional

classrooms. Smith’s 2010 article provides excellent narrative on using TPACK in school

libraries. Many of her examples will strike academic librarians as familiar. For example, she

uses TPACK to evaluate potential educational usage of blogs, wikis, and video conferencing.

Smith also provides excellent commentary on potential technologies and organizational culture.

Banas discusses the use of TPACK in additional “train-the-trainer” situations, this time in

academic libraries (2010). Linton returns to the K-12 library in her discussion of TPACK in
USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

learning-commons planning (2012). Linton discusses modes of collaborative inquiry and

communication between librarians and teachers. Considering the importance of learning

commons design in academic libraries, many academic librarians may find the principles

detailed in this article to be of particular interest.

TPACK in Other Educational Settings

Bull, Hammond, and Ferster discuss TPACK in the context of choosing online tools in

the field of social studies (2008). Their use of the model highlights a challenge that academic

librarians face daily: a wealth of tools online and the difficulty of sifting out the best for use in

one’s own classroom or setting.

Hardy provides more “train-the-trainer” scenarios in “Enhancing Preservice Mathematics

Teachers’ TPACK” (2010). He presents TPACK as a particularly useful tool for new teachers

who are developing their initial preferences regarding classroom technologies. His ideas translate

well for academic librarians who guide master of library science candidates or other new

librarians. Hechter gives another preservice scenario in the context of science education (2012).

He notes that many new science teachers have been trained to think of the three components of

TPACK (technology, content, and pedagogy) separately; learning to combine the parts will

greatly enhance their teaching skills.

Banister and Reinhart examine TPACK in the context of the digital divide among middle

school students (2011). As the digital divide affects students at many institutions of higher

education in addition to those in K-12 environments, Banister and Reinhart’s methods and

findings will apply directly to the work of many academic librarians.

Stages of TPACK
USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

TPACK is comprised of three initial stages and its concluding, summative stage. These

are directly based on Matthew Koehler’s original stages of TPACK (see www.tpack.org for

greater detail). Figure 1 diagrams the interaction of these stages. Learning to deploy them

effectively helps librarians create strong arguments in favor of their technological decisions. The

stages are strikingly simple, and the first three can be completed in any order the librarian

prefers. For the purposes of this article, the authors will put the stages in their preferred standard

order.

Stage A: Content Knowledge

In this stage, the librarian identifies content that must be directly and effectively

conveyed to the intended audience using the technology. What will the audience learn or collect

from this technology? While this stage seems simplistic, keeping this core content in mind helps

the TPACK librarian focus on tasks that will need to be accomplished successfully using this

technology. In subsequent stages, it will also aid the librarian in identifying the technology

training that will need to be accomplished.

Stage B: Technology Knowledge

This stage asks what the librarian will need to do to set up, activate, and use this

technology effectively. Librarians investigating the technology at issue should work with

colleagues who will have to perform the configuration, activation, and so on in order to gather

realistic and detailed information. The librarian should think broadly about the various stages at

which understanding and skill in the technology will be needed, and who will need to complete

the tasks associated with these stages. Most projects will have both back-end and user-end

technological requirements. A web librarian, programmer, or other IT staff may be expected to

USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

perform the back-end work, while the librarian often performs significant work in setting up the

patron side.

The ultimate goals of this stage are to clearly spell out the effort and the expertise that

will be needed in order to implement a technology and for patrons to use it effectively.

Interestingly, this point is often the stopping block in a particular technology’s consideration.

The librarian may well decide that for the small, niche benefit that a technological resource

provides, it just isn’t worth months of working with IT and performing usability testing. Or

usability testing with patrons may reveal that patrons do not find the technology to be an efficient

way to complete the tasks for which it is being implemented. This investigation, however, may

reveal that it may very well be worth taking the leap.

Stage C: Pedagogical Knowledge

Often the librarian expects to perform a significant amount of work in terms of training

others to use this technology. Thus he or she will likely be the best assessor for this stage.

The librarian should plan by listing the groups that will need to be taught to use this

technology, then the skills that will need to be taught to each group. Quite often, there will be

multiple groups (such as fellow librarians and students) who will learn to perform very different

tasks with the technology. It is important to consider what the learning differences between

these groups may be and how to best address the needs of different learners. After making these

lists, the librarian should consider if the patrons will need to learn any additional skills in order to

work up to this point. Frequently, when librarians teach a cutting-edge piece of technology, they

need to give at least some users the background knowledge needed to perform tasks with the

technology.

Concluding Stage
USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

The most central aspect of TPACK is the interplay between technology, pedagogy, and

content, which emerges in the concluding stage of the analysis. After assessing content,

technological, and pedagogical needs, the librarian will form a holistic picture of whether or not

this technology seems appropriate given time constraints, the specific environment of the

workplace, and the needs of the local library patrons. This often involves a strong degree of

holistic reaction based on one’s own experience.

After deciding on the intended outcome of the TPACK process, the librarian should write

up the gathered arguments and data that he or she has gathered, and state the conclusion. In some

settings it could be appropriate to spell out the decision using the four stages of TPACK directly.

In others, the librarian might decide to mine the information from TPACK and make an

argument in another format. Either way, the librarian will have compiled a great deal of evidence

coming from a variety of angles. This can help to launch a conversation that is inclusive, well-

rounded, and which keeps the needs of the various stakeholders at the forefront of the discussion.

[INSERT FIGURE 1.]

TPACK in Use

As with many new concepts, seeing TPACK in use may aid understanding. In this

section, the authors present two hypothetical scenarios featuring TPACK. In the first, the

librarian chooses to use the chosen technology in the classroom. In the other, TPACK leads the

librarian to the conclusion that the technology is not a practical choice given workplace

constraints. These examples center on instruction-related technologies and the classroom.

However, the authors have chosen familiar pieces in hopes that readers who work in a variety of

specialty areas will relate.

Scenario 1: Google Docs and Search Strategies

USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

Teaching first-year college students to perform effective searches in library databases is a

major part of instruction librarians’ work. Students’ success in the classroom increases greatly

when they learn to select a database, plan a search, refine the search, and keep track of search

strategies early in their college careers. Using simple technological tools to guide them, such as a

Google Doc spreadsheet for recording their strategies, is a possible method for that task.

In this situation, the instructor is considering sharing a Google Docs spreadsheet with all

students in an English composition class for first-year college students. Students all sign into a

single Google Doc spreadsheet that the librarian has created. As they work, they fill in specific

details of their search strategy – resources they have used, search terms that have or have not

worked well, notes on what to try in the future, and so forth. The librarian leaves the spreadsheet

open on her computer, and can easily monitor the class’s progress, as well as challenges the

students are running into, in real time. Colleagues at other institutions have given her mixed

reviews of similar strategies, but she has heard enough positive feedback to be interested. She

decides to use TPACK to make her final choice a few days prior to class.

Content Knowledge. The students will be performing research in preparation to write a

speech on a controversial topic. The instructor has worked with these assignments numerous

times in the past, and knows that she will want to teach the students to use a multisubject

database such as Academic Search Premier, plus a database that focuses on controversial issues,

such as CQ Researcher. For her, the “content” refers to the resources she will share with the

students, and the skills she will teach the students to use in their research. Content in this case

does not refer to the text of materials that will be used.

Technology Knowledge. Now the instructor focuses on the nuances of Google Docs.

Which features will she need to teach the students to use? Will most students already have
USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

enough general knowledge of computers to adapt to this program quickly? If not, what will she

need to do to get them up to that point?

The instructor also considers what she will need to do in order to make sure the

technology will work in her particular classroom setting. Will she need to ask IT to add any

software to the computers in the instruction room? Will she need to ask students to set up a

Google account ahead of time?

Pedagogical Knowledge. The instructor thinks about what she will need to teach students

to do, and why this effort is or is not worthwhile. First and most importantly, she will focus on

teaching the students the research skills they will need in order to complete the research for the

assignment. Her ultimate goal with the session is to enable them to be self-sufficient by the end

of class. Her secondary goal is to teach the students a few basic skills related to using Google

Docs spreadsheets, which may very well be useful to them in the future. After considering each

of these pieces separately, she works to make a lesson plan that will weave together the research

skills and the Google Docs skills smoothly.

Conclusion. The librarian decides that she can use the first 10 minutes of the 75-minute

class to teach the students the skills they will need for using Google Docs. She can then focus on

the research content for the remainder of class, likely with little technological troubleshooting.

She believes that having the ability to monitor students’ search techniques and save the results to

review when she has more time later will benefit these students and all the classes she will have

in the future. She does indeed choose to use Google Docs in class.

After using Google Docs in class a few times, the librarian decides that she would like to

share this technique with her department at a staff meeting. She uses TPACK to format the

discussion that she plans to lead.

USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

Scenario 2: Clickers in the Library Instruction Classroom

“Clickers” are a popular current technology across college campuses. Much like a simple

remote control with several buttons, clickers allow professors to ask multiple-choice questions to

the class and gather feedback from students immediately. Some institutions or departments

require students to purchase a clicker; in these cases, clicker responses can be connected with an

individual student and thus used for grading or to take attendance.

Many academic libraries have purchased sets of clickers in order to monitor

comprehension and increase student engagement during library instruction. Clickers can be used,

for example, to ask students to find specific pieces of information using library resources, and

then to answer multiple-choice questions based on their findings. Although clickers can be an

ideal teaching technology, they are still worth critically examining to determine if they will truly

expand student learning in library instruction classes given the unique environment of a specific

institution.

In this scenario, an instruction librarian works to decide whether to use clickers to

monitor comprehension throughout library instruction to students in an English composition

course. She considers pros and cons from the four stages of TPACK in order to inform her

choice.

Content Knowledge. This stage is simple and manageable. The librarian considers the

learning outcomes of the class and crafts task-based, multiple-choice questions to scatter

throughout her lesson which will test student mastery of these outcomes. Since the content of a

basic composition course is already familiar to her, writing the questions constitutes her main

task for now.

USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

Technology Knowledge. Through discussions with faculty in other departments, the

librarian knows that her institution does not require students to purchase their own clickers. Thus

the library would need to obtain enough clickers for all the students in a class. She prices out a

set and finds that the cost is not prohibitive, but it is enough to merit thoughtful consideration

before spending.

Now the librarian thinks about the technological knowledge that she and her colleagues

will need in order to use clickers successfully in the classroom. She will need to teach

approximately 14 colleagues who perform instruction at her library to set up the clickers and

perform troubleshooting. Most significantly, she will need to teach the students to use the

clickers at the beginning of each class. While clickers are easy to learn and to use, a brief

explanation will be necessary and will cut into the amount of time that can be spent on other

activities.

Pedagogical Knowledge. The librarian considers teaching techniques she will use with

the clickers. Ultimately, she feels that they are best suited for comprehension checking using

simple polls and multiple choice questions. She feels concerned that by using a lesson based on

clickers and multiple-choice questions alone, she may not address other learning styles as

smoothly as she usually does. For example, this approach may place undue emphasis upon

memorization of details rather than holistic and critical thinking about the search process. It may

also take time away from valuable activities such as student-led discussion and group work.

In the process of finding out more, the librarian investigates the perceived benefits of

using clickers in the classroom. While the potential for formative assessment impresses her, she

realizes that she will not profit from other commonly stated benefits such as the ability to take

attendance or to administer and instantly grade quiz questions. Clickers can improve student
USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

engagement, but they are known for doing so particularly well in large lecture classes in which

students cannot benefit from individual attention from the instructor.

Conclusion. The librarian in this scenario feels that the segments of TPACK are not in

harmony in this situation. She believes that using clickers will not greatly aid her students’

learning and may detract from the current instruction model which stresses different kinds of

activities in order to check comprehension. She also worries that her colleagues will find this

technology cumbersome and time-consuming. In addition, she has considered the benefit of

continually checking in on students’ comprehension and realizes that she has many other tools

for doing so in a small class scenario. While clickers may be an ideal solution for many library

instruction programs, in this case, the librarian does not choose to recommend clickers for

purchase or use.

Further Work

Recent studies, primarily in the field of education, have performed quantitative analysis

of TPACK’s effectiveness in various tasks which involve technology-related decisions similar to

those encountered in the library instruction classroom. Other studies have performed detailed

analysis and mapping of decision-making processes used by teachers who have been trained in

TPACK. As TPACK is quickly catching on in the field of library science, a more thorough study

of how TPACK is being applied in this field is warranted. The authors hope that colleagues in

academic and other libraries will take up this task.

Conclusion

The TPACK method guides informed decision-making regarding technologies for library

use. A thoughtful documentation of technology-related decision making facilitated by TPACK

can provide librarians with support for their decisions and discussions with stakeholders. It is
USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

also a deeply useful tool for evaluating technologies given the benefits and constraints of real

workplaces. The authors hope that it will help readers effect real change in their libraries and in

their working lives.

USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

References

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

Bannister, S. and Reinhart, R.V. (2011). TPACK for impact: Classroom teaching practices that
promote social justice and narrow the digital divide in an urban middle school.
Computers in the Schools, 28(1) 5-26.

Bull, G. Hammond, T. & Ferster, B. (2008). Developing web2.0 tools for support of historical
inquiry in social studies. Computers in the Schools, 25(3-4) 275-287.

Hardy, M. (2010). Enhancing preservice mathematics teachers’ TPACK. Journal of Computers

in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(1), 1-14.

Hechter, R.P. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ maturing perceptions of a TPACK-framed signature

pedagogy in science education. Computers in the Schools, 29(1-2), 53-69.

Koehler, M.J. and Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Linton, J. N. TPACK as a framework for collaborative inquiry in the learning commons.

Teacher Librarian, 39(6), 25-29.

Kohen, Z., and Kramarski, B. (2012). Developing a TPACK-SRL assessment scheme for
conceptually advancing technology in education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38,
1-8.

Lee, M. and Tsai, C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and technological
pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web.
Instructional Science, 38(1), 1-21.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Sahin, I. (2011). Development of survey of technological pedagogical and content knowledge

(TPACK). Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 97-105
USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

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

Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Smith, D. (2010). Making the case for the leadership role of school librarians in technology
integration. Library Hi Tech, 28(4), 617-631.
USING THE TPACK FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING ON INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

Figure 1: The stages of TPACK.

Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 tpack.org