Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 1771–1796 | Cite as

Processes of practice and identity shaping teachers’ TPACK enactment in a community of practice

  • Michael PhillipsEmail author


Technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) has been used by hundreds of studies as a theoretical framework to explore teachers’ technology use in classroom settings. While these studies have contributed to understandings of the interplay between these different knowledge domains and the differences between pre- and in-service teachers’ knowledge, little work has been done to examine the influence of teachers’ socially mediated workplace settings on TPACK enactment. This paper examines the impact of situated, social contextual factors on teachers’ knowledge development and enactment by reporting findings from an eight month case study involving ten teachers in an Australian secondary school. Results reported in this paper indicate that TPACK enactment is influenced by processes of identity development and practice. These findings challenge the established position of knowledge as an epistemological possession inherent in the TPACK framework rather than also considering knowing as an epistemology of practice. Implications for in-service teachers and school authorities are discussed and three conclusions are presented.


TPACK Communities of practice Situated learning 


  1. Abramovich, S., & Schunn, C. (2012). The Influence of Teacher Created Metadata in Online Resource Exchanges. Paper presented at the world wide web conference. France: Lyon.Google Scholar
  2. Albion, P., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Finger, G. (2010). Auditing the TPACK confidence of Australian pre-service teachers: the TPACK Confidence Survey (TCS). Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010, San Diego, CA, USA.
  3. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualiation, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers and Education, 52(1), 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88.Google Scholar
  5. Ayling, D., & Flagg, E. (2012). Getting stuck in: Learners participation in an online community of practice. Paper presented at the New Zealand Association for Cooperative Education 2012 Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
  6. Bagnoli, A. (2009). Beyond the standard interview: the use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods. Qualitative Research, 9(5), 547–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. Theoretical foundations of learning environments, 1(1), 25–55.Google Scholar
  8. Barkley, C. (2012). School leader use of social Media for Professional Discourse.Google Scholar
  9. Barton, D., & Tusting, K. (Eds.) (2005). Beyond communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bulfin, S. (2009). Literacies, new technologies and young people: Negotiating the interface in secondary school. (PhD), Monash University, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  11. Cook, S., & Brown, J. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox, S. (2008). A conceptual analysis of technological pedagogical content knowledge. (PhD), Brigham Young University, Provo.Google Scholar
  13. Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crilly, N., Blackwell, A. F., & Clarkson, P. J. (2006). Graphic elicitation: using research diagrams as interview stimuli. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 341–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cuban, L. (2004). The blackboard and the bottom line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice a research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of mixed methods research, 2(3), 270–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drath, W. H., & Palus, C. J. (1994). Making common sense: Leadership as meaning-making in a community of practice. Greensboro, North Carolina: Center for Creative Leadership.Google Scholar
  18. Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., . . . Sussex, W. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: findings from the first student cohort. Retrieved from Washinton, D.C.:
  19. Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case: approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  20. Elkjaer, B. (2003). Organisational learning with a pragmatic slant. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(5), 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fuller, A., Hodkinson, H., Hodkinson, P., & Unwin, L. (2005). Learning as peripheral participation in communities of practice: a reassessment of key concepts in workplace learning. British Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 49–68. doi: 10.1080/0141192052000310029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online Community of Practice. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 20–35.Google Scholar
  24. Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical knowledge (TPACK). Computers and Education, 57, 1953–1960.Google Scholar
  25. Hager, P. (2005). Current theories of workplace learning: a critical assessment. In N. Basica, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood & D. Livingstone (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Policy (pp. 829–846). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R., & Clark, T. (2006). Within and beyond communities of practice: making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 641–653. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00605.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Henderson, M. (2007). Investigating the role of community in sustaining teacher participation in blended professional development. (PhD), James Cook University, Townsville.Google Scholar
  28. Hildreth, P. M., Kimble, C., & Wright, P. (1998). Computer mediated communications and communities of practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Ethicomp.Google Scholar
  29. Howley, A., Wood, L., & Hough, B. (2011). Rural elementary school teachers’ technology integration. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26(9), 1–13.Google Scholar
  30. Jain, A., Thomson, D., Farley, A., & Mulready, P. (2012). Engagement and learning through social software in finance: a retrospective on the trading room experience. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 701–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jang, S. (2006). Research on the effects of team teaching upon two secondary school teachers. Educational Research, 48(2), 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1259–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 45.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jordan, K., & Dinh, H. (2012). TPACK: trends in current research. Paper presented at the Australian Computers in Education Conference (ACEC), 2012. Perth: Australia.Google Scholar
  35. Kelly, M. A. (2008). Bridging digital and cultural divides: TPCK for equity of access to technology. In AACTE Committee on Inovation and Technology (Ed.), The Handbook of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Kensler, L. A. W., Reames, E., Murray, J., & Patrick, L. (2012). Systems thinking tools for improving evidence-based practice: a cross-case analysis of two high school leadership teams. The High School Journal, 95(2), 32–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge TPCK for Educators Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  42. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319–341. doi: 10.1080/14759390000200096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Phillips, M. (2012). The role of community in teachers’ knowledge development. In Paper presented at the ACEC 2012. Perth: Western Australia.Google Scholar
  45. Phillips, M. (2013). Investigating In-service teachers’ workplace TPACK development. Australian Educational Computing, 28(2), 21–31.Google Scholar
  46. Phillips, M. (2014). Teachers’ TPACK enactment in a Community of Practice. (PhD), Monash University, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  47. Phillips, M. (2015). Models of technology integration. In M. Henderson & G. Romeo (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies (pp. 318–331). Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Phillips, M. (2016). Re-contextualising TPACK: exploring teachers’ (non)use of digital technologies. Pedagogy and Education: Technology.Google Scholar
  49. Phillips, M., Lancaster, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Team teaching with technology: Upsetting the TPACK applecart. Paper presented at the Australian Computers in Education Conference 2014, Adelaide, SA. teaching with techonology. Upsetting the TPACK applecart.pdf
  50. Phillips, M., Koehler, M., & Rosenberg, J. (2016). Looking outside the circles: Considering the contexts influencing TPACK development and enactment. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technologies in education conference. Georgia, USA: Savannah.Google Scholar
  51. Porras-Hernández, L. H., & Salinas-Amescua, B. (2013). Strengthening TPACK: a broader notion of context and the use of Teacher’s narratives to reveal knowledge construction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rogers, J. (2000). Communities of practice: a framework for fostering coherence in virtual learning communities. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 384–392.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  54. Rose, G. (2012). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials:. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Rosenberg, J., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and Teaching with Technology in the Digital Age. In M. L. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age, (p. 440.). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  56. Roth, W., Tobin, K., Carambo, C., & Dallard, C. (2004). Co teaching: creating resources for learning and learning to teach chemistry in urban high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 882–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sandholtz, J. (2000). Interdisciplinary team teaching as a form of professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(3), 39–54.Google Scholar
  58. Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shulman, L. S. (1993). Teaching as community property. Change, 25(6), 6–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Simon, H. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 449–460). New York: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Squires, S., & Van De Vanter, M. L. (2012). Communities of practice. A Companion to Organizational Anthropology, 289–310.Google Scholar
  64. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Varga-Atkins, T., & O’Brien, M. (2009). From drawings to diagrams: maintaining researcher control during graphic elicitation in qualitative interviews. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(1), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Willis, J. (2007). Foundations in qualitative research: interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations