TPACKtivity: An Activity-Theory Lens for Examining TPACK Development

  • Marjorie TerpstraEmail author


TPACKtivity is discussed as a means to examine preservice teachers’ TPACK development. TPACKtivity employs activity theory to identify objectives, mediating tools, rules and community, as part of activity settings that contribute to, or detract from, TPACK development. The lens is described and applied in examining seven preservice teachers’ experiences and perceptions of various activity settings’ impacts on their learning to teach disciplinary content with technology. The TPACKtivity lens identified mediating tools for developing TPACK, made explicit the roles of the community members in contributing toward subjects’ TPACK development, and brought to light rules about technology use in classrooms that impact TPACK development. The findings illustrate the effectiveness of the TPACKtivity lens in sorting through the complexities of TPACK development across multiple settings.


Activity theory Preservice teachers Teaching Technology TPACK TPACKtivity 


  1. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52, 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, M., & Leu, D. (2008). Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), The handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Daniels, H., & Warmington, P. (2007). Analysing third generation activity systems: Labour-power, subject position and personal transformation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(6), 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  6. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  7. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grossman, P., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holland, D., & Lachicotte, W., Jr. (2007). Vygotsky, Mead, and the new sociocultural studies of identity. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky (pp. 101–135). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the life world: From garden to earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  12. International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National education technology standards. Retrieved on June 10, 2008, from
  13. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–29). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Google Scholar
  15. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Mann, H. (1848). Twelfth annual report of the secretary of the board of education. Boston: Dutton & Wentworth.Google Scholar
  17. Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. W. (2004). The nature and sharing of teacher knowledge of technology in a student teacher/mentor teacher pair. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 421–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mishra, P., Koehler, M., Shin, T., Wolf, L., & DeSchryver, M. (2010). Developing TPACK by design. Symposium paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Niess, M. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Niess, M. (2008). Knowledge needed for teaching with technology – Call it TPACK. AMTE Connections, 17(2), 9–10.Google Scholar
  22. Niess, M. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107–110). (2002). Retrieved on June 1, 2009, from
  24. Ogawa, R., Crain, R., Loomis, M., & Ball, T. (2008). CHAT-IT: Toward conceptualizing learning in the context of formal organizations. Educational Researcher, 37(2), 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perkins, D. N. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge in teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.Google Scholar
  28. Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L., Moore, C., Jackson, A., & Fry, P. (2004). Tensions in learning to teach: Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smagorinsky, P., Lakly, A., & Johnson, T. S. (2002). Acquiescence, accommodation, and resistance in learning to teach within a prescribed curriculum. English Education, 34(3), 187–213.Google Scholar
  30. Terpstra, M. (2010). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge: Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of how they learn to use educational technology in their teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International-A, 70(10). (UMI No. AAT 3381410).Google Scholar
  31. Thompson, A., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38.Google Scholar
  32. Tozer, S. E., Senese, G., & Violas, P. C. (2005). School and society: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  33. (2009). Retrieved March 2, 2009, from
  34. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  35. University of Helsinki. (2003–2004). University of Helsinki – Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research: Cultural-historical activity theory. Retrieved on April 2, 2008, from
  36. Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2006). Preparing pre-service elementary teachers to teach science through computer models. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education – Science, 6(1), 75–85.Google Scholar
  37. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The psychology of higher mental functions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Zhao, Y. (2003). What teachers should know about technology: Perspectives and practices. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Calvin CollegeGrand RapidsUSA

Personalised recommendations