You are here:

Designing with and for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Evolution of GeoThentic

, University of Minnesota, United States ; , , University of MN, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Nashville, Tennessee, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-84-6 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


How should a K-12 geography teacher use a geospatial technology such as Google Earth in the classroom? Should they have students pinpoint a series of locations and measure the connecting distances, essentially using the technology as a mere digital representation of the traditional globe? Or, should they encourage learners to harness the powerful data-driven affordances of the technology to make and justify decisions on contemporary issues (for example, where to build a hospital in downtown San Francisco based on factors of seismic activity and population density)? We believe it is the latter scenario – this is the foundation of GeoThentic. However, there is a necessary level of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge that an instructor must develop in order to apply this scenario successfully in the classroom.


Doering, A., Miller, C. & Scharber, C. (2011). Designing with and for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Evolution of GeoThentic. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2011--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3816-3822). Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 26, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Bednarz, S.W., & Vander Schee, J. (2006). Europe and the United States: The implementation of geographic information systems in secondary education in two contexts. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 15(2), 191-205.
  2. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning with additional material from the Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.
  3. Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale,
  4. Enkenberg, J. (2001). Instructional design and emerging models in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 495– 506.
  5. Ertmer, P., & Simons, K. (2006) Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K-12 teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 40.
  6. Hughes, J.E. (2000). Teaching English with technology: Exploring teacher learning and practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
  7. Koehler, M.J. & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators (pp. 3-29). New York: American
  8. Lavie, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of websites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60, 269-298.
  9. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  10. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2007). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the Wicked Problems of Teaching with Technology. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 2214-2226). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  11. Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2004). A development research agenda for online collaborative learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 53-65.
  12. Sandoval, W. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213-223.
  13. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.-3822 DASHDASH

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact