, Volume 57, Issue 3, pp 34–39 | Cite as

The Reciprocal Relationship Between Technology and Psychology

  • Laura Terry
  • Punya MishraEmail author
  • Danah Henriksen
  • Leigh Graves Wolf
  • Kristen Kereluik
Making It Meaningful:


This article describes the design and implementation of the year 2 curriculum and student learning experiences in the Michigan State University Master of Arts in Educational Technology program. We discuss the ways that this second set of courses builds on the first year of the program that students encounter, and also describe the theoretical impetus and design-based implications for learning how to teach with technology in effective and creative ways. Students in this group usually come in with some prior knowledge of educational theory, as well as some experience of working with classroom technologies. We intentionally build upon this prior knowledge, to take it to the next level of a more sophisticated TPACK-oriented understanding of learning in technology-driven contexts. Our year 2 courses move classical educational psychology theories of learning, along with educational research issues, squarely into the modern context of educational technology and teacher leadership. Our curriculum design focuses centrally on making meaningful experiences for teachers around technology, and helping them develop the knowledge and skills to create such experiences for their students. Our goal is to develop teachers who see themselves as flexible designers of learning experiences through the creative re-purposing of existing technologies.


Technology Design Learning Theories Development Repurposing 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bruce, B. C. (1997). Technology in social practice: Returning to Dewey’s conception of learning. In Tom Huang & Jim Flanagan (Eds.), Toward human-centered systems for solving national challenge problems: NSF/ARL/BI (NAB) workshop (pp. 16–20). Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  2. Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. Boston, Mass: D.C. Heath & Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. New York, NY: Putnam.Google Scholar
  4. Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2010). On learning to subvert signs: Literacy, technology and the TPACK framework. The California Reader, 44(2), 12–18.Google Scholar
  5. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Bouck, E. C., De-Schryver, M., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., Wolf, L. G. (2011). Deep-Play: Developing TPACK for 21st Century Teachers. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(2), 146–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Koehler, M. J., Shin, T. S., & Mishra, P. (2011). How do we measure TPACK? Let me count the ways. In R. N. Ronau, C. R. Rakes, & M. L. Niess (Eds.), Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and approaches (pp. 16–31). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mishra, P. & Koehler. M. J. (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(7), 14–18.Google Scholar
  8. Mishra, P., and Koehler, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017 – 1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mishra, P., and Koehler, M. (2008). Introducing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Paper presented at the American Educational Association Research Conference. Google Scholar
  10. Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking Back to the Future of Educational Technology. TechTrends, 53(5). p. 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., Zellner, A., & Kereluik, K. (2012). Thematic considerations in integrating TPACK in a graduate program. In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K. Persichitte (Eds.), Developing Technology-Rich Teacher Education Programs: Key Issues (pp. 1–12). Hershey, PA: Information Systems.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., Zellner, A., & Kereluik, K. (2012). Thematic considerations in integrating TPACK into a graduate program. In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K. Persichitte (Eds.), Creating technology-rich teacher education programs: Key issues. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  13. Paulson, T. (2007). Feeling the Tug? Managing the Tensions that Pull Leaders in Different Directions. ASAE. ASSOCIATIONS NOW. July, Feature. Perkins, D.N. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Salomon, G., & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: A matter of reciprocal relations. Teachers’ College Record, 100(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  15. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson A. D., Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P. & Shin, T. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 123–149Google Scholar
  16. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  17. Shin, T. S., Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., De-Schryver, M., Schmidt, D. A., Thompson, A. D., & Baran, E. (in press). Changing in-service teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) through course experiences. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. Google Scholar
  18. Wong, E. D., Pugh, K. J., & The Dewey Ideas Group at Michigan State University. (2001). Learning science: A Deweyan perspective. The Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Terry
    • 1
  • Punya Mishra
    • 1
    Email author
  • Danah Henriksen
    • 1
  • Leigh Graves Wolf
    • 1
  • Kristen Kereluik
    • 1
  1. 1.Educational Psychology and Educational Technology Program, College of EducationMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations