Instructional Design Knowledge (IDK) can inform technology integration decisions and Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK) can help instructional design processes. As a means to understand how teachers may draw from their TPACK and IDK as they design instructions and develop technology-enhanced learning activities, we examined the final projects of two groups of teachers enrolled in graduate-level instructional design and technology courses. By using both content and social network analysis methods, we identified the IDK and TPACK components exemplified in teachers’ projects. While the content analysis revealed differences between the two groups, some findings were common across the courses such as teachers minimally connecting technology to their content areas, exhibiting limited knowledge on learning needs, and having difficulties in engaging in design thinking processes. Furthermore, the social network analysis identified various communities of the knowledge components, highlighting when teachers tended to use their IDK and TPACK as they planned technology-enhanced learning activities and were engaged in instructional design respectively.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Angeli, C. (2005). Transforming a teacher education method course through technology: Effects on preservice teachers’ technology competency. Computers & Education, 45(4), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.06.002.
Bauer, M. (2000). Classical content analysis: A review. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (pp. 131–151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. M. (2014). Understanding decision making in teachers’ curriculum design approaches. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 393–416.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2007). Evaluation of the persistent issues in history laboratory for virtual field experience (PIH-LVFE). Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
Cennamo, K., & Kalk, D. (2019). Real world instructional design: An iterative approach to designing learning experiences (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Chai, C., Koh, J., Tsai, C., & Tan, L. (2011). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57, 1184–1193.
Chang, W. (2014). Extrafont: Tools for using fonts. Retrieved September 13, 2019, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=extrafont.
Chen, S. Y., Feng, Z., & Yi, X. (2017). A general introduction to adjustment for multiple comparisons. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 9(6), 1725–1729.
Csardi, G., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695.
Davis, E. A., Beyer, C., Forbes, C. T., & Stevens, S. (2011). Understanding pedagogical design capacity through teachers’ narratives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 797–810.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 393–416.
Hegedus, S. J., Dalton, S., & Tapper, J. R. (2015). The impact of technology-enhanced curriculum on learning advanced algebra in US high school classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9371-z.
Henriksen, D., & Richardson, C. (2017). Teachers are designers: Addressing problems of practice in education. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(2), 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717734192.
Herring, S. C. (2004). Content analysis for new media: Rethinking the paradigm. In: New Research for New Media: Innovative Research Methodologies Symposium Working Papers and Readings (pp. 47–66). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass Communication.
Hew, K., & 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), 223–252.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x.
Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1998). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hoogveld, A. W. M., Paas, F., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2005). Training higher education teachers for instructional design of competency-based education: Product-oriented versus process-oriented worked examples. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.002.
Hulon, S. I. (2015). Does training in instructional design practices increase a preservice teacher’s ability to integrate technology? (Publication No. 1748053884). Doctoral dissertation, University of South Alabama. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I.
Hur, J. W., Shen, Y. W., Kale, U., & Cullen, T. (2015). An exploration of pre-service teachers’ intention to use mobile devices for teaching. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 7(3), 1–18.
Johnson, A. M., Jacovina, M. E., Russell, D. E., & Soto, C. M. (2016). Challenges and solutions when using technologies in the classroom. In S. A. Crossley & D. S. McNamara (Eds.), Adaptive educational technologies for literacy instruction (pp. 13–29). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Jordan, M. E. (2016). Teaching as designing: Preparing pre-service teachers for adaptive teaching. Theory Into Practice, 55(3), 197–206.
Kale, U. (2013). Can they plan to teach with Web 2.0? Future teachers’ potential use of the emerging web. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(4), 471–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2013.813408.
Kale, U. (2017). Technology valued? Observation and review activities to enhance future teachers' utility value toward technology integration. Computers & Education, 117, 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.007.
Kale, U., & Akcaoglu, M. (2017). The role of relevance in future teachers’ utility value and interest toward technology. Educational Technology Research and Development., 66(2), 283–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9547-9.
Kale, U., Akcaoglu, M., Cullen, T., & Goh, D. (2018). Contextual factors influencing access to teaching computational thinking. Computers in the Schools. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2018.1462630.
Kale, U., & Whitehouse, P. (2012). Structuring video cases to support future teachers’ problem-solving. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 175–202.
Kale, U., Wu, C. H., & Clausell, C. (2014). WebPACK: Future teachers’ plans and practices with emerging tools. Journal for Computing Teachers, 1, 43–54.
Kale, U., Wu, C., & Convey, E. (2013). Scaffolding pre-service teachers’ reflection on technology integration. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA.
Kali, Y., McKenney, S., & Sagy, O. (2015). Teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning. Instructional Science, 43(2), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9343-4.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762.
Koh, J. H. L., & Chai, C. S. (2016). Seven design frames that teachers use when considering technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 102, 244–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.003.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Hong, H. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). A survey to examine teachers’ perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their relationships with technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(5), 378–391.
Koschützki, D., Lehmann, K. A., Peeters, L., Richter, S., Tenfelde-Podehl, D., & Zlotowski, O. (2005). Centrality indices. In U. Brandes & T. Erlebach (Eds.), Network analysis: Methodological foundations (pp. 16–61). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Kumar, S., & Vigil, K. (2011). The Net generation as preservice teachers: Transferring familiarity with new technologies to educational environments. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27, 144–153.
Lee, C. J., & Kim, C. (2014). An implementation study of a TPACK-based instructional design model in a technology integration course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 437–460.
McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: An ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instructional Science, 43(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9337-2.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using the TPACK framework: You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36, 14–18.
Newman, M. E. J. (2006). Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. Physical Review E, 74(3), 036104.
Niess, M. L., van Zee, E. H., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2011). Knowledge growth in teaching mathematics/science with spreadsheets: Moving PCK to TPACK through online professional development. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27, 42–52.
Norton, P., & Hathaway, D. (2015). In search of a teacher education curriculum: Appropriating a design lens to solve problems of practice. Educational Technology, 55(6), 3–14.
Owusu, K. A., Conner, L., & Astall, C. (2015). Contextual influences on science teachers' TPACK levels. In M. L. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education in the digital age (pp. 307–333). Hershey: IGI Global.
Pedersen, T. L. (2018). ggraph: An implementation of grammar of graphics for graphs and networks. Retrieved July 27, 2019, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggraph.
Pedersen, T. L. (2019). tidygraph: A tidy API for graph manipulation. Retrieved July 27, 2019, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidygraph.
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R foundation for statistical computing. Retrieved June 2, 2019, from https://www.R-project.org.
Schoch, D. (2019). graphlayouts: Additional layout algorithms for network visualizations. Retrieved July 27, 2019, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=graphlayouts.
Shambaugh, R. N., & Magliaro, S. (1997). Mastering the possibilities: A process approach to instructional design. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Shambaugh, R. N., & Magliaro, S. (2006). Instructional design: A systematic approach for reflective practice. Boston: Pearson College Division.
Sherin, M. G., & Van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 13(3), 475–491.
Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20–37.
Summerville, J., & Reid-Griffin, A. (2008). Technology integration and instructional design. TechTrends, 52(5), 45–51.
Tripp, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.
Tseng, J.-J., Cheng, Y.-S., & Yeh, H.-N. (2019). How pre-service English teachers enact TPACK in the context of web-conferencing teaching: A design thinking approach. Computers & Education, 128, 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.022.
U.S. Department of Education (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Wickham, H. (2017). tidyverse: Easily install and load the 'Tidyverse'. Retrieved June 2, 2019, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyverse.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (WVU IRB, protocol number: 1909720885) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Not applicable due to the retrospective nature of the study conducted on already available/existing data.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Kale, U., Roy, A. & Yuan, J. To design or to integrate? Instructional design versus technology integration in developing learning interventions. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 2473–2504 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09771-8