Running in circles: A systematic review of reviews on technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)

IF 8.9 1区 教育学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Computers & Education Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105024
Mirjam Schmid , Eliana Brianza , Sog Yee Mok , Dominik Petko
{"title":"Running in circles: A systematic review of reviews on technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)","authors":"Mirjam Schmid ,&nbsp;Eliana Brianza ,&nbsp;Sog Yee Mok ,&nbsp;Dominik Petko","doi":"10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Extensive research exists on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model and has led to a substantial number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. These publications vary greatly in their focus and provide overviews of specific aspects of TPACK research. This paper aims to consolidate these insights and investigate the following research questions: What do systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses reveal about the current state of the art of TPACK research? What is the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of TPACK? This study identified 21 systematic reviews and 2 meta-analyses eligible for analysis. Overall, the review of the reviews revealed that many of the recurring theoretical or methodological issues of the TPACK framework remain unresolved. To address these issues, research on TPACK needs to simultaneously account for the complex, situated, and dynamic nature of TPACK and clarify the concept of professional knowledge. The review engenders several directions for future research, including a better operationalization of knowledge, more experimental and longitudinal studies, and a more comprehensive measurement and integration of student learning as a dependent variable in research on TPACK.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10568,"journal":{"name":"Computers & Education","volume":"214 ","pages":"Article 105024"},"PeriodicalIF":8.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131524000381/pdfft?md5=2b51ef87f55cbca775552b5863783682&pid=1-s2.0-S0360131524000381-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers & Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131524000381","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Extensive research exists on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model and has led to a substantial number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. These publications vary greatly in their focus and provide overviews of specific aspects of TPACK research. This paper aims to consolidate these insights and investigate the following research questions: What do systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses reveal about the current state of the art of TPACK research? What is the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of TPACK? This study identified 21 systematic reviews and 2 meta-analyses eligible for analysis. Overall, the review of the reviews revealed that many of the recurring theoretical or methodological issues of the TPACK framework remain unresolved. To address these issues, research on TPACK needs to simultaneously account for the complex, situated, and dynamic nature of TPACK and clarify the concept of professional knowledge. The review engenders several directions for future research, including a better operationalization of knowledge, more experimental and longitudinal studies, and a more comprehensive measurement and integration of student learning as a dependent variable in research on TPACK.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
兜圈子:关于技术教学内容知识(TPACK)的系统性综述
关于技术教学内容知识(TPACK)模型的研究非常广泛,并产生了大量的系统综述和荟萃分析。这些出版物的侧重点大相径庭,概述了 TPACK 研究的具体方面。本文旨在整合这些见解,并探讨以下研究问题:系统文献综述和荟萃分析揭示了 TPACK 研究的哪些现状?关于 TPACK 的系统性文献综述和荟萃分析的方法论质量如何?本研究确定了符合分析条件的 21 篇系统综述和 2 篇荟萃分析。总体而言,综述显示,TPACK 框架中许多反复出现的理论或方法问题仍未得到解决。为了解决这些问题,TPACK 研究需要同时考虑 TPACK 的复杂性、情景性和动态性,并澄清专业知识的概念。本综述为今后的研究提出了几个方向,包括更好地操作知识、更多的实验和纵向研究,以及更全面地测量和整合学生的学习,将其作为 TPACK 研究的一个因变量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Computers & Education
Computers & Education 工程技术-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
27.10
自引率
5.80%
发文量
204
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: Computers & Education seeks to advance understanding of how digital technology can improve education by publishing high-quality research that expands both theory and practice. The journal welcomes research papers exploring the pedagogical applications of digital technology, with a focus broad enough to appeal to the wider education community.
期刊最新文献
Unpacking help-seeking process through multimodal learning analytics: A comparative study of ChatGPT vs Human expert A meta-analysis on the effect of technology on the achievement of less advantaged students Personalization in educational gamification: Learners with different trait competitiveness benefit differently from rankings on leaderboards Plugging in at school: Do schools nurture digital skills and narrow digital skills inequality? Reducing interpretative ambiguity in an educational environment with ChatGPT
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1