Digital Learning and Pedagogical Practice

edCircuit note: Diane Mason and Kristi Meeuwse’s 2017 article below explains how teacher beliefs shape technology use, and how the TPACK and SAMR models can guide professional learning. After their article, a 2026 section from edCircuit updates the TPACK model for today’s classrooms, including generative AI.

Leaders must support teachers in the use of technology

by Diane Mason and Kristi Meeuwse

Teacher Beliefs Incorporating Technology

Research has shown that beliefs guide teacher decisions and actions. Specifically, teacher beliefs play a key factor in the decision to integrate technology in the curriculum. For example, low self-efficacy, computer proficiency, and personal opinions regarding the value of technology integration to support learning affect the adoption of technology integration in the classroom. Consequently, it is important to build capacity based upon teacher knowledge, skills, and dispositions to change practice and support technology integration in the curriculum.

For change to occur, teachers must be able to engage in critical self-evaluation of their own efficacy related to technology integration and determine how to make effective connections between teaching knowledge, content knowledge, and technical knowledge. Also, leaders must support teachers in the use of technology by establishing and building a culture for change.

TPACK and SAMR Models

The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition (SAMR) models provide frameworks to help better understand the connections between technology integration and learning. The TPACK model offers a roadmap for meeting teacher professional development needs related to pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, and technological knowledge.

Using surveys, teachers are able to rate themselves on various aspects of technology knowledge related to solving computer tech problems and using basic software types and peripheral digital equipment. In the pedagogical elements, teachers conduct self-ratings about student performance assessments, awareness of learning difficulties, classroom management, and differentiated instruction. Survey questions related to content knowledge focus on key concepts in teaching areas, class activities, and inclusion of relevant resources. The intersection of the three domains (technological – how devices work and enhance learning; pedagogical knowledge – how students learn; and content knowledge – what students learn and why) of how teachers rate themselves is at the heart of where to begin expanding personalized professional learning.

With a better understanding of the three domains of TPACK and individual assessments of each, the SAMR model elements can then be used to develop meaningful technology infused lessons to address student needs. With a good understanding of TPACK, personal strengths, and areas needing enhancement, teachers can better design lessons at varied levels on the SAMR Model to meet learning goals. The four levels of SAMR serve as ways to enhance or transform instructional tasks using technology to change pedagogical practice and ultimately improve learning outcomes.

Barriers to Pedagogical Change Incorporating Technology

Changing pedagogical practice to incorporate technology requires taking risks. When risk equates to reduced security or loss of some element deemed important or valuable, perceptions can become negative. Tech integration often dramatically deviates from traditional instructional approaches. Consequently, some teachers develop negative perceptions about its use due to barriers they view in the implementation process.  So, they continue using traditional pedagogies because of personal insecurities with technology implementation due to limited skillsets or fearful change may lower test scores.

Typical key barriers to pedagogical change with technology discussed in professional literature are:

a) fear of being isolated or ostracized for implementing something different or taking risks that might affect test scores or force colleagues to change

b) unwillingness to observe colleagues in the classroom to support change and improve practice

c)elimination or reduction of instructional textbooks in the classroom

d) loss of control due to elevated student voice for increased engagement and personalized instruction in a student-centered classroom

e) overloaded instructional schedules reducing time to learn technology, create innovative plans, and implement new strategies.

These barriers must be addressed in order to support changing practice and building a culture of trust, and an openness for risk-taking related to innovation, technology, and student-centered learning.

Innovative Pedagogies for Enhancing PPL

Blended and Flipped Learning

With the United States education budget reductions that have occurred, educational leaders are more strongly considering hybrid or blended learning models as an effective way to cut costs, provide resources, extend learning experiences, and increase class loads. Yet, some educators advocate engagement and learning outcomes, driving leaders toward virtual or hybrid learning. Others tout personalized learning, self-directed learning, and student engagement to motivate changing practice and embrace blended learning environments.

Blended learning approaches may be simply hybrids or strategies aligned with current instructional practices, but they could become more disruptive or innovative, thus challenging traditional classroom practice. Overall, face-to-face instruction seems to be morphing into digital and online opportunities to create blended learning experiences, but today’s blended learning approach doesn’t appear to have a single definition. Some interpretations of blended learning focus on hybrid learning (face-to-face and online), ICT, e-learning, 21st Century learning, digital learning, and mobile learning.

Flipped learning, sometimes referred to as inverted learning, is often a teaching method which uses video lectures and other resources stored in online environments where students can access the materials from home or other locations. Then, the face-to-face classroom instruction includes engaging learning activities such as labs, case studies, games, simulations or experiments.

To effectively implement the flipped approach, teachers often need ongoing professional learning experiences because the strategies differ from traditional practice in that digital tools and other technology-based resources are key elements of the instructional process. This engaging approach, when implemented effectively, has shown improved student outcomes in lower-performing populations and with girls motivated to learn science and ICT.  

Collaborative Networking

Collaboration

Students engaged in collaborative activities seem more satisfied with coursework. Like cooperative learning, general collaborative strategies tend to develop critical thinking, incorporate self-reflection, and target increased metacognition (improved understanding of one’s thinking and learning). Positive, strong collaboration also builds a sense of community and results in greater student satisfaction. Research shows that deeper student learning happens when teachers plan activities that engage students in content that embeds collaborative technology instructional strategies. These practices also build confidence as well as needed content and skills at deeper levels.

Peer-to-Peer Learning

Peer-to-peer learning, sometimes referred to as peer-mediated instruction, involves students in tutoring, partner, or small group activities aimed at improved assignment completion and overall achievement. Also, peer-to-peer learning experiences offer opportunities for further practice and feedback in a different way. Some students particularly respond better with peers than adults. Research shows peer-to-peer interventions particularly assist students struggling with reading and writing in content areas. Incorporating technology as the tool for peer editing, revision and feedback helps direct students toward more self-management of determined areas of strength and those needing improvement.

Online Professional Learning Networks

The benefits of collaboration and connecting face-to-face have been well documented in the literature. In recent years, many teaching professionals find online collaborations and connections, often referred to as Professional Learning Networks (PLNs), equally beneficial to those in face-to-face experiences. An advantage to PLNs is the opportunity to personalize individual and collective experiences through connecting online via user-friendly tools. Educators are able to connect with colleagues of like mind to explore, create, examine, and produce products or solutions related to special interests, personal needs, or collective issues.

For example, teachers use Twitter for international collaboration with educators to explore topics related to innovation and inquiries into what works for students. It helps to develop greater instructional capacity by hearing how others are using innovative instructional techniques to target student improvement. Other effective communication tools such as Google-Hangouts, Skype, Whatsapp, and Facebook engage individuals in on-going dialogue for personal and collective learning and professional growth.

Reflective Learning

Reflection is a critical component of experiential learning that engages learners in thinking, talking, and writing about learning experiences to result in new or different ways of thinking. When teachers implement reflective learning, students are able to engage in a process aimed at improving their learning. Likewise, practitioners can then reflect upon implementation of immediate activities and change processes or procedures as needed to enhance student learning. When adults and students reflect, the total learning process has a greater chance of being implemented at higher levels, thus, potentially improving overall student achievement.

The TPACK model in 2026: technology integration after generative AI

TPACK stands for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. The idea, set out by Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler in a 2006 article in Teachers College Record, is that good teaching with technology draws on the overlap of three kinds of knowledge: content knowledge (what students learn), pedagogical knowledge (how students learn and how to teach) and technological knowledge (how tools work). Where two circles overlap, the model names further kinds of knowledge, and at the center sits TPACK itself, the knowledge of how a specific tool can help teach specific content to specific students. Mason and Meeuwse show above how it can guide where professional learning begins.

The framework has stayed in wide use. In a 2018 post Mishra counted more than 7,000 citations of the 2006 article and more than 1,100 journal articles and book chapters using TPACK as a central idea since 2009. Two developments since then matter for schools.

Contextual knowledge joins the TPACK model

The familiar TPACK diagram has always had a dotted outer circle labeled “contexts.” In 2019, in the Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, Mishra renamed it contextual knowledge, abbreviated XK. On his site he describes XK as including a teacher’s awareness of the technologies available, knowledge of school, district and state policies, and an understanding of how the organization makes decisions. The change treats context as something teachers can learn about and that leaders can shape, rather than as a fixed backdrop.

The barriers Mason and Meeuwse list above, such as overloaded schedules, fear for test scores and isolation from colleagues, are contextual conditions, and under the updated model, improving them is part of building teachers’ TPACK rather than a separate administrative matter.

TPACK and generative AI

In 2023 Mishra, Melissa Warr and Rezwana Islam applied the framework to tools such as ChatGPT in “TPACK in the age of ChatGPT and Generative AI,” also in the Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. As Arizona State University’s November 2023 summary explains, the authors see generative AI as different from earlier tools because it produces new content and can act as a conversation partner, while also giving inaccurate or unexpected answers and offering little transparency about how it was trained. Teachers may use it to reduce workload, personalize learning and draft tests and feedback. Because such tools can produce complex, original-looking responses, the authors suggest that assessment may need to shift toward deeper understanding, communication and analytical problem solving. They also argue that schools and districts, not just individual teachers, must supply the contextual support, including policies on student autonomy, plagiarism and curriculum.

Measuring TPACK: a caution about self-ratings

Mason and Meeuwse describe teachers rating themselves on surveys as a starting point. That is common practice, but leaders should treat the results with care. A 2021 review by K. C. Scott of TPACK self-assessment instruments found 233 articles using such surveys since 2006, and reported that early instruments struggled with construct validity (whether a survey really measures what it claims), although several later instruments have been validated more successfully. Self-ratings are useful for opening a conversation about professional learning, but observation and planned lessons show more about what teachers can do.

Where SAMR fits

The SAMR model (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition), which the authors pair with TPACK above, describes how far a technology changes a learning task, while TPACK describes the knowledge a teacher needs to make that change well. edCircuit takes a closer look at SAMR in Revisiting SAMR: Form Leads Function in the New Reality.

Technology integration: what leaders can do now

The U.S. Department of Education’s 2024 National Educational Technology Plan frames the problem in a way that fits TPACK closely. As EdTech Magazine reported in January 2024, the plan names three divides: a digital access divide in devices, content and connectivity; a digital use divide in whether students use technology to explore, create and analyze rather than complete passive tasks; and a digital design divide in whether teachers have the time and professional learning to design technology-supported lessons. The use and design divides are where TPACK is most useful, because both depend on what teachers know and are supported to do.

1. Start professional learning from content. Ask what a unit needs students to understand, then which tool and approach serve it.
2. Use self-ratings as a conversation starter. Pair them with lesson plans and observations before deciding who needs what support.
3. Work on context. Protect planning time, encourage teachers to observe each other, and make clear that thoughtful experiments will not be penalized if a first attempt falls short.
4. Set school-level guidance on generative AI. Teachers need clear policies on acceptable student use, academic honesty and data privacy before they can design lessons with confidence.

Further Reading

1. John Jay – E-portfolios help John Jay students improve digital literacy
2. Akron Beacon Journal – Learning software in classrooms earns praise, causes debate
3. The Robesonian – Teachers get schooled on digital learning

More on Professional Development