Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.


Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat
(or Email:book@scirp.org)

Article citations


Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Anew Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Teacher Profession Development on Technology Integration Using the Mastery of Active and Shared Learning for Techno-Pedagogy (MASLEPT) Model

    AUTHORS: Michael Nkwenti Ndongfack

    KEYWORDS: Technology Pedagogy Content Knowledge, Technology Integration Model, Teacher Profession Development

    JOURNAL NAME: Creative Education, Vol.6 No.3, March 9, 2015

    ABSTRACT: As various learning technologies increasingly become available in schools, teachers are not using them for instructional purposes. Many studies have indicated that one of the reasons for which teachers do not use the tools is because they have not been effectively trained. The purpose of this study was to experiment the use of the MASLEPT school-based professional development model in updating primary school teachers’ knowledge of technology, pedagogy and content (TPACK). The study employed a single group pre-training and post-training quasi-experimental design methodology in the collection of quantitative data from 52 teacher-participants from four separate schools located in the same campus. The data were meant to evaluate their TPACK after 10 weeks of professional development programme. The results indicated teacher-participants who took part in the experiment demonstrate a significant improvement in their TPACK. To test whether improvement had any statistical significant difference, the mean of the pre-training and post-training results were compared using the t-test. The findings indicated that p = 0.005