Technology Integration in K-12 Geography Education Using TPACK as a
Theoretical Model
Aaron Doering
University of Minnesota
USA
adoering@umn.edu
Suzan Koseoglu
University of Minnesota
USA
kose0031@umn.edu
Abstract: There is a need for designing effective professional development programs and
instructional models addressing the needs and challenges of K-12 technology integration. In this
longitudinal research study, we examine the impact of a professional development program that
was designed with an explicit focus on developing in-service K-12 geography teachers’
technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) through content-specific learning
tools and resources. Teachers’ perceived TPACK levels and their experiences with integrating a
specific technology in their classes have been analyzed using data collected via surveys and video
recordings. Preliminary analysis suggests that introducing teachers to GeoThentic, a learning
environment grounded in TPACK and situated learning, as well as to the conceptual TPACK
framework itself improved teachers' understanding and application of current and emerging
technologies in the geography classroom. We emphasize the role of authentic learning and the
affordances of content-specific learning tools and resources, and discuss commonly experienced
barriers in technology integration.
Issues with Technology Integration
Social studies education has been notoriously slow in adopting current and emerging technologies
(Doering, Veletsianos, & Scharber, 2007; Whitworth & Berson, 2003; Zhao, 2007) that could be utilized to enhance
and transform everyday practices in the K-12 classroom. Teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, access to equipment and
resources, opportunities for professional development (Becker, 2000; Bitner & Bitner, 2002; Ertmer, 2005), as well
as the dynamics of the classroom ecology (Zhao, 2003), no doubt affect the adoption rate and quality of technology
integration. In addition, limited knowledge and skills in using technology are major barriers. In an extensive metaanalysis on common barriers in K-12 technology integration, Hew and Brush (2006) report the “lack of specific
technology knowledge and skills, technology-supported-pedagogical knowledge and skills, and technology-relatedclassroom management knowledge and skills” (p. 227) as some of the primary factors inhibiting technology use in
the classroom.
There is clearly a need for designing effective professional development programs and instructional models
that address the needs and challenges of using technology for teaching and learning (Bitner & Bitner, 2002; Doering,
Veletsianos, Scharber, & Miller, 2009). In this study, we explore the impact of a professional development program
that was designed with an explicit focus on developing in-service K-12 geography teachers’ technological,
pedagogical, and content knowledge through content specific learning tools and resources. More specifically, we
used the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) to
model successful ways of technology integration and we introduced teachers to GeoThentic, an online learning
environment grounded in TPACK and situated learning (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991).
TPACK builds on Shulman's (1987) conceptualization of pedagogical and content knowledge -knowledge
that all teachers need to know for successful teaching- and reframes the "essential qualities of knowledge required
by teachers for technology integration in their teaching" (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1017) by introducing
technology knowledge as an additional domain. This study builds on previous TPACK research within geography
(G-TPACK) (Doering & Veletsianos, 2007; Doering, Veletsianos, Scharber, & Miller, 2009) and conceptualizes the
development and application of TPACK as a dynamic process tied to contextual factors. We address the following
research questions: (1) To what extent did in-service geography teachers’ perceived technological, pedagogical, and
content knowledge change, if any, after a week-long professional development program that focused explicitly on
TPACK? (2) What were teachers’ overall perceptions of technology integration before and after the week-long
professional development program? (3) In what ways was teachers’ theoretical knowledge of the TPACK
framework reflected in their actual classroom practices?
Context
The Teaching Minnesota Standards to Experience Geography Institute was designed to develop in-service
geography teachers’ TPACK within geography, as well as its general application in the K-12 classroom. A
weeklong face-to-face training was offered in two sessions: one to middle school teachers and one high school
teachers. Teachers received the same technology training and shared an online social networking space, in which
they participated in joint discussions and social activities.
The workshop sessions focused on assessment skills, geography content, geospatial technologies,
instructional strategies, and academic standards and benchmarks appropriate for the grade level teachers were
teaching. During the technology sessions teachers were first introduced to Google Earth and other similar
Geographical Information Systems (GIS). The next day, teachers spent a full day working on GeoThentic, “an
online teaching and learning environment for K-12 geography teachers and students that focused on real-world
issues (e.g., global warming), content-specific technologies (Google Earth), and appropriate pedagogies (e.g.,
problem-based learning)" (Doering, Scharber, Miller, & Veletsianos, 2009). Teachers were encouraged to
experiment with GeoThentic in their classes and received ongoing technical support in using the program through
the online networking platform and via e-mails. Finally, towards the end of the workshop, teachers received a final
training on other technology tools that could be utilized in the geography classroom.
As part of the program, teachers were required to integrate a specific technology of their choice in their
classes during the four months following the initial training and were asked to share their experiences with the
program designers and the other program participants via a digital presentation.
Research Design
We used a longitudinal research design and divided our study into two phases. During the first phase, we
employed a convergent parallel design (Creswell & Clark, 2011). This mixed methods study was followed up
approximately 4 months after the initial professional development program with a qualitative study that focused
primarily on teachers' experiences with implementing a specific self-chosen technology in their classrooms.
Participants
Phase 1. An invitation to participate in a pre-survey was sent to all teachers who registered in the institute.
Forty-four teachers completed the pre-survey before the institute started. All participants were K-12 in-service
teachers teaching geography at the middle or high school level. The majority of participants were female (n = 27)
and had been teaching for 10 years or more (n = 30). Most teachers had 5 or more years of experience using
technology in their classrooms (n = 29). Thirty-four teachers completed the post-survey. Pre- and post-survey data
were paired for 22 participants.
Phase 2. After approximately 4 months, 20 teachers who participated in the initial professional development
program presented their experiences with implementing a specific technology in their classes to other program
participants and program directors, and completed a final survey.
Data Sources and Measures
Phase 1. Quantitative measures. Single pre-and post-surveys were used to collect data on in-service teachers'
metacognitive awareness of their TPACK. We adapted the “Survey of Pre-service Teachers' Knowledge of Teaching
and Technology” (Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Koehler, Mishra, & Shin, 2009) to measure changes in in-service
teachers’ perceived TPACK. Participants were asked to rate each survey item on a five-point Likert-type scale,
where 0 was assigned to strongly disagree and 4 to strongly agree. Reliability measures ranged from .8 to .92 for the
pre-survey, and .76 to .94 for the post-survey.
Qualitative Measures. Six items addressing demographic information and three open-ended questions tapping
into teachers' overall experiences and perceptions using technology in educational settings were included in each
survey in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the participants’ experiences with technology
integration.
Phase 2. Findings from Phase 1 informed the design of a final survey. The final survey was primarily
designed to serve as a metacognitive tool rather than a measurement instrument. The survey questions tapped into
teachers' practical understanding of TPACK and the persistency of common barriers that were identified during the
first phase of the study. Additionally, video recordings of teachers’ presentations were used to examine the ways
teachers’ theoretical knowledge in the TPACK framework were reflected in their actual classroom practices.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data analysis. Quantitative data analysis was performed using descriptive and inferential
statistics. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests, and dependent t-test results were corrected for Type
I errors using the Bonferroni method.
Qualitative data analysis. Qualitative pre- and post-survey data collected during the first phase of the study
were analyzed using grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). We observed that the emergent categories were
similar in the pre-and post-data, except the perceived gains that were reported in response to the first open-ended
question in the post-survey. In our study, we report pre- and post-qualitative findings together; however, we also
discuss notable differences between the pre-and post-data.
We report preliminary descriptive data from the second phase of the study. The given quotes are chosen
according to their relevancy to the discussion context and the richness of information they provide. All names are
pseudonyms. Video recordings of teachers’ presentations are currently being analyzed using the verbal analysis
method (Chi, 1997).
Procedure
Phase 1. The pre- and post-surveys were administered online one week before and one week after teachers
completed the professional development training. All participants received an email from program designers and
were asked to participate in the survey. Participants remained anonymous in their responses and were not asked any
questions that could directly reveal their true identity.
Phase 2. Teachers received the final survey in paper format after they had given their presentations. Video
recordings were completed during the presentations.
Findings -Phase 1
Quantitative findings
We first report descriptive data (Table 1) of the pre- and post-survey results below.
Table 1. Summary of descriptive statistics of the pre- and post-surveys.
Technology
Knowledge (TK)
Content
Knowledge (CK)
Pedagogical
Knowledge (PK)
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge (PCK)
Technological
Content
Knowledge (TCK)
Technological
Pedagogical
Knowledge (TPK)
Technological
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge
(TPACK)
Pre-Survey Results
N
Mean
SD
44 2.05
.85
Post-Survey Results
N
Mean
SD
35
2.26
.81
44
2.72
.72
35
3.07
.54
44
3.20
.42
35
3.24
.46
44
3.02
.51
35
3.20
.53
44
2.20
.88
35
2.89
.68
44
2.62
.62
35
3.03
.56
44
2.48
.85
35
3.17
.51
Our hypothesis was that there would be a change in in-service teachers’ perceived TPACK. We used
dependent t-tests to examine differences between the pre- and post-survey data (Table 2). Tests for these priori
hypotheses were conducted using Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels of .007 per test (.05/7). The results of paired ttests suggested that there were statistically significant changes in teachers’ TK, TCK, TPK and TPACK; however,
there were not significant changes in their CK, PK, and PCK.
Table 2. Results of paired-samples t-tests.
Scale
Technology
Knowledge
(TK)
Content
Knowledge
(CK)
Pedagogical
Knowledge
(PK)
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge
(PCK)
Technological
Content
Knowledge
(TCK)
Pre Test:
Mean
(SD)
Post Test:
Mean
(SD)
2.08
(.87)
2.41
(.75)
Post-Pre
Test:
Mean
(SD)
.33
(.43)
MatchedPair t
(df=21)
p-value
(twotailed)
r
3.51
.002*
.61
2.88
(.60)
3.11
(.54)
.23
(.51)
2.10
.048
.42
3.18
(.43)
3.22
(.46)
.04
(.40)
.45
.658
.1
2.95
(.58)
3.18
(.50)
.23
(.61)
1.74
.096
.35
2.32
(.78)
2.91
(.61)
.59
(.73)
3.78
.001*
.64
Technological
2.63
Pedagogical
(.66)
Knowledge
(TPK)
Technological
Pedagogical
2.59
Content
(.73)
Knowledge
(TPACK)
*: Significant when p < .007
3.10
(.48)
.47
(.46)
4.89
.000*
.73
3.23
(.43)
(.64)
.66
4.54
.000*
.70
Qualitative findings
Due to proceedings page limitations, we have left out direct quotes from teachers that support findings in
each category below, and instead summarize briefly our findings within each category. The words and phrases that
are quoted in each category are stemming from our collected data and teachers' own words.
Using technology to enhance teaching and learning
The first central theme that emerged from the qualitative data was the perceived benefits of using technology
to enhance teaching and learning. This theme was predominantly evident in the pre- and post-survey responses to
the second open-ended question, “What do you like most about using technology for teaching geography?”,
revealing two major categories: providing opportunities for authentic learning (pre = 44%, post = 50%) and
fostering student engagement (pre = 37%, post = 36%).
a. Providing authentic learning opportunities. The benefit of providing authentic learning activities and
resources utilizing technology were pronounced heavily both in the pre-and post-data. The data suggested that
compared to traditional print-based learning resources, authentic technology tools allow teachers to enhance their
content with "current," "real-world," and "instantaneous" data that lead to significant gains in student engagement
and students’ understanding of geographical concepts. One of the most frequently commented benefits of teaching
with technology is the ability to immerse students in real-life problems and issues, which in turn enables students to
examine curricular issues from a “broad” perspective, make "real-life connections," and grasp the
"interconnectedness" of our world.
b. Fostering student engagement. This theme was strongly evident in both pre-and post-survey responses.
The impact of interactive and hands-on aspects of technology on student engagement and motivation was
particularly emphasized. Teachers noted that the introduction of technology into the learning environment could
immediately raise students’ "interest level." Using technology as a “hook” was more emphasized in the post-survey
data.
Barriers in technology integration
The second central theme that emerged from the qualitative data was barriers in technology integration. This
theme was predominantly evident in the pre- and post-survey responses to the third open-ended question, “What are
some challenges you have experienced, or anticipate to experience in the future, with using technology for teaching
geography?”, revealing three major categories: limited access to equipment (pre = 43%, post = 45%), limited
technology knowledge (pre = 27%, post = 24%), and limited technical support and infrastructure (pre = 13%, post =
17%).
a. Limited access to equipment. Limited access to classroom equipment was the most frequently commented
barrier. Teachers commonly reported problems with accessing computers. In most cases, teachers had concerns
about using computer labs for technology-related activities. In some cases, the dependence on school resources
prevented teachers from bringing new ideas and practices into the classroom.
b. Limited technology knowledge. Teachers reported the need to develop their technology knowledge both for
relatively simple technical tasks (e.g., setting up equipment before a class activity, storing information, downloading
software programs) and for more complex tasks requiring knowledge in other areas (e.g., pedagogy), such as being
able to understand a software program in-depth and utilize it to its fullest potential. Teachers also noted the need to
have time and opportunities for professional development in order to “keep up” with technology changes.
c. Limited technology support and infrastructure. Problems with technology support and inadequate
infrastructure were concerns for most teachers, especially after the training was over. Data suggested that when
teachers lacked problem-solving skills or when they felt they did not have control over using the technologies they
needed, they became more dependent on technology support, and perceived that as challenge. Teachers needed
technology support people staff who were “willing and able to assist in a timely manner,” as well as a reliable
infrastructure capable of running geographic information systems (GIS) software such as Google Earth. Teachers
complained of “computer server failures and blocks,” “limited bandwith,” “sporadic” infrastructure, and not being
able to download programs without technology support’s approval.
Findings -Phase 2
Preliminary findings from phase 2 are reported in this section. Video recordings of teachers’ presentations
are currently being analyzed to examine the ways teachers’ theoretical knowledge of the TPACK framework were
reflected in their actual classroom practices.
In the final phase of the study, teachers presented their experiences with implementing a specific technology
of their choice in their classes. The tools that teachers used for implementation were Geothentic: Build a Hospital
Module (n = 11), GeoThentic: Avian Flu Module (n = 4), Google Earth (n = 3), social media (n = 2), Google maps
(n = 2), ArcGIS (n = 2), MassGIS (n = 1) and other various online graphs and maps (n = 3). All GeoThentic
modules utilized Google Earth.
In response to the survey question, “Do you believe that teachers need to know all three knowledge
domains equally well for every classroom activity utilizing technology? Can you provide an example illustrating
your point?,” 13 out of 20 teachers replied that they did not. Eight of these teachers noted, however, that it was
beneficial to be good at all three domains. For example, one teacher responded:
No, not for every classroom activity. With GeoThentic for example, I think you need to
know the technology more than the content, since the content is so provided, structured, and
guided. Clearly, though, mastery of all three realms is better for education.
Teachers who believed that TPACK was equally important in every classroom activity utilizing technology
emphasized the growing use of technology in schools across content areas, the imperative role of technology in
globalization, and the negative consequences of not having sufficient technology and/or pedagogy knowledge when
teaching.
Discussion
Our first hypothesis was that there would be significant changes in teachers' TPACK after the initial weeklong professional development program. We observed mean increases in all domains with significant changes in TK,
TPK, TCK and TPACK.
Qualitative data from the first phase revealed that the majority of teachers were aware of the various
benefits of using digital technology for teaching and learning and were eager to use technology in their classes, but
they had major interrelated barriers in achieving their goals. Identified barriers are consistent with previous literature
(Bitner & Bitner, 2002; Ertmer, 2005; Hew and Brush, 2006; Zhao, 2007) with a notable difference: we did not
observe any resistance to change in our sample, except one teacher who implicitly stated that he/she did not like new
technologies. It is, however, not very clear if there were hidden barriers—such as pre-constructed beliefs about what
teaching and learning should look like—that confounded the strength of the visible barriers. Yet, the qualitative
findings draw our attention to the limitation of only examining changes in teachers' TPACK to evaluate the
effectiveness of teacher practices in technology integration. Our data confirms previous findings on barriers in
technology integration considerably, and suggests that being able to use technology effectively depends on
individual factors, such as positive engagement with technology, motivation to develop one’s abilities, the extent of
one’s technology knowledge, and environmental factors such as the availability of technical support, opportunities
for professional development, and access to equipment and modern infrastructure.
As evidenced in the qualitative findings from the first phase of the study, technology is vital to bringing
real-life experiences and issues into the classroom, fostering student engagement, and enhancing students’
understanding of geographical concepts and issues through hands-on and personalized activities. However, without
practical knowledge, the affordances of technology can increase the number of everyday problems that teachers
experience in the classroom, as reflected in the identified barriers in our study. Using advanced GIS tools in the
ordinary classroom, for example, require high bandwidth, reliable machines to run on, and sound technological
knowledge. Most importantly, teachers need to know how to use technologies and their capabilities in a
pedagogically sound way for seamless integration.
Preliminary findings from the last phase of the study suggest that explicitly introducing the TPACK
framework in the context of content-specific learning tools and resources enabled teachers to experiment with
technology integration while still developing their abilities in TPACK and gaining practical knowledge.
Additionally, we observed that GeoThentic, a learning environment grounded in TPACK, has the potential to
change the perspective that teachers need to be experts in all three knowledge domains equally well before
integrating technology successfully in their classroom. In other words, such learning environments can model for
teachers how to integrate technology effectively even if they are not advanced in TPACK. For example, in
GeoThentic, teachers are provided with pedagogical strategies to implement the activities along with step-by-step
instructions describing how to use the learning environment and the GIS technologies introduced. Teachers’
comments showed that although in some cases additional technology support in implementing new technologies is
needed, such scaffolds can help teachers to overcome frequently experienced barriers such as limited technology
knowledge, understanding of pedagogical applications of content-specific technologies, as well as technical problem
solving.
Conclusion
We reported our experiences with a professional development program that focused explicitly on the TPACK
framework. The preliminary analysis led us to conclude that the program was effective in improving teachers’
TPACK, as well as in increasing their metacognitive awareness of the individual knowledge domains and the
individual domain’s relationship to each other. We suggest explicitly introducing teachers to the TPACK framework
and investing in designing instructional tools and resources based on the TPACK framework.
Finally, for future research, we encourage the reader to think about the expanding boundaries of curricular
content. In geography, the learning tools have become increasingly authentic, allowing students to get immersed in
“real-world and ill-structured problem scenarios based on genuine, valid, and legitimate needs, specifications, data,
and expectations” (Doering & Miller, 2010). We argue that these learning activities have the potential to create
shared experiences and reframe the traditional roles of students and teachers as learners developing their abilities in
collaboration with others. We ask, if the learning context is increasingly becoming more complex, directly dealing
with real-life experiences, and if shared experiences reframe our conceptions of teaching and learning (2010), should
we always expect teachers to know more than students? Perhaps we also need to ask, do teachers need to know
technology, pedagogy, and content equally well in every context, or should the learning context redefine where
teachers are situated, and should be situated, within TPACK? We argue that teachers do not need to be experts in
technology, pedagogy, and content equally well for successful integration and draw emphasis on gaining practical
knowledge that helps teachers solve their everyday problems in the classroom.
References
Doering, A., & Miller, C. (2010). The layers of authenticity: Designing for learner experience. In Proceedings of the
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) ELearn Conference, Orlando, FL.
Doering, A., Scharber, C., Miller, C., & Veletsianos, G. (2009). GeoThentic: Designing and assessing with
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education [Online serial], 9(3).
Doering, A., & Veletsianos, G. (2007). An investigation of the use of real-time, authentic geospatial data in the K-12
classroom. Journal of Geography, 106(6), 217-225.
Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., & Scharber, C. (2007). Coming of age: Research and pedagogy on geospatial
technologies within K-12 social studies education. In A. J. Milson & Alibrandi, M. (Eds.), Digital
geography: Geo-spatial technologies in the social studies classroom (pp. 213-226). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
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. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319-346.
Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to success. Jl. of Technology
and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95-100.
Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/442
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 6(3), 271-351.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and
mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser
(pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 25-39.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps
and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(3), 223252
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher
knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Survey of preservice
teacher's knowledge of teaching and technology. Retrieved from
http://mkoehler.educ.msu.edu/unprotected_readings/TPACK_Survey/Schmidt_et_al_Survey_v1.pdf
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,
57(1), 1-22.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Whitworth, S. A., & Berson, M. J. (2003). Computer technology in the social studies: An examination of the
effectiveness literature (1996-2001). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online
serial], 2(4). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol2/iss4/socialstudies/article1.cfm
Zhao, Y. (2007). Social studies teachers' perspectives of technology integration. Jl. of Technology and
TeacherEducation, 15(3), 311-333.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American
Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.