The TPACK model in action: towards an integrated system of professional knowledge of prospective teachers

Introduction. Effective preparation of prospective teachers requires developing a system of professional knowledge conceptually framed within the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model. Aim . The present study aims to demonstrate the effectiveness of the TPACK model as a theoretical foundation for designing a university course that integrates evidence-based educational practices and fosters the development of a comprehensive system of professional competencies. Methodology and research methods . The study employs a combination of theoretical and empirical methods. A measurement tool, developed based on the TPACK model, was used alongside preand post-assessment procedures that included tasks from the subject, technological, and methodological domains. Results and scientific novelty . The methodological significance of the TPACK model lies in its role as a conceptual framework for analysing the integrative interaction among the disciplinary, methodological, and technological components of teacher education. This model provides a holistic approach to understanding how educational practices support the development of future teachers’ professional knowledge. Additionally, principles for designing a university course that ensures the balanced development of subject matter, pedagogical, and technological knowledge are formulated. Practical significance . The experience of developing and implementing an elementary geometry course based on the TPACK model enhances the understanding of the unique characteristics of university-level teacher education and can be applied to other disciplines and areas within teacher education.

1. Sarvanova Z.A. Methodical preparation of students of pedagogical high school during studying a course of “Elementary geometry”. Nauka i shkola = Science and School. 2009;2:35–36. (In Russ). Accessed April 11, 2025. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/metodicheskaya-podgotovka-studentov-pedvuza-v-protsesse-izucheniya-kursa-elementarnaya-geometriya

2. Timshina L.V. Improving the geometric training of future teachers of mathematics in the study of elementary geometry. Matematicheskiy vestnik Vyatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Mathematical Bulletin of Vyatka State University. 2021;1(20):33–38. (In Russ). doi:10.25730/VSU.0536.21.006

3. Ball D.L., Thames M.H., Phelps G. Content knowledge for teaching: what makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education. 2008;59:389–407. Accessed May 14, 2025. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ814426

4. Chick H., Beswick K. Teaching teachers to teach Boris: a framework for mathematics teacher educator pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. 2018;21(5):475–499. doi:10.1007/s10857-016-9362-y

5. Hourigan M., Leavy A.M. Preservice primary teachers’ geometric thinking: is pre-tertiary mathematics education building sufficiently strong foundations? The Teacher Educator. 2017;52(4):346–364. doi:10.1080/08878730.2017.1349226

6. Shkerina L.V., Shashkina M.B., Tabinova O.A. Identification and overcoming of subject deficits of students – future math teachers. Perspektivy nauki i obrazovania = Perspectives of Science and Education. 2022;58(4):173–192. (In Russ.) doi:10.32744/pse.2022.4.11

7. Tumasheva O.V., Shashkina M.B., Aleshina E.A. Professional deficiencies in mathematics teachers: an analysis of regional research results. Azimut nauchnykh issledovaniy: Pedagogika i psikhologiya = Azimuth of Scientific Research: Pedagogy and Psychology. 2021;10(1(34)):264–268. (In Russ.) doi:10.26140/anip-2021-1001-0069

8. Mishra P., Koehler M.J. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 2006;108(6):1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

9. Shulman L.S. Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher. 1986;15(2):4–14. doi:10.2307/1175860

10. Delgado-Rebolledo R., Zakaryan D. Relationships between the knowledge of practices in mathematics and the pedagogical content knowledge of a mathematics lecturer. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2020;18:567–587. doi:10.1007/s10763-019-09977-0

11. Dreher A., Lindmeier A., Heinze A., Niemand C. What kind of content knowledge do secondary mathematics teachers need? Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik. 2018;39(2):319–341. doi:10.1007/s13138-018-0127-2

12. Koponen M., Asikainen M., Viholainen A., Hirvonen P. Using network analysis methods to investigate how future teachers conceptualize the links between the domains of teacher knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2019;79:137–152. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.010

13. Morales-López Y., Chacón-Camacho Y., Vargas-Delgado W. TPACK of prospective mathematics teachers at an early stage of training. Mathematics. 2021;9(15):1741. doi:10.3390/math9151741

14. Cox S., Graham C.R. Diagramming TPACK in practice: using and elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends. 2009;53:60–69. doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0327-1

15. Zhang W., Tang J. Teachers’ TPACK development: a review of literature. Open Journal of Social Sciences. 2021;9:367–380. doi:10.4236/jss.2021.97027

16. Soldano C., Luz Y., Arzarello F., Yerushalmy M. Technology-based inquiry in geometry: semantic games through the lens of variation. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2018;100(1):7–23. doi:10.1007/s10649-018-9841-4

17. Apriandi D., Retnawati H., Abadi A.M. Mathematics teachers’ TPACK in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic based on demographic factors. Perspektivy nauki i obrazovania = Perspectives of Science and Education. 2023;63(3):637–650. doi:10.32744/pse.2023.3.38

18. Bonafini F.C., Lee Y. Portraying mathematics pre-service teachers’ experience of creating video lessons with portable interactive whiteboards through the TPACK. The New Educator. 2021;17(4):327–352. doi:10.1080/1547688X.2021.1980167

19. Derbush M.V., Scarbitch S.N. Innovative approaches to the use of information technologies in the process of teaching mathematics. Nepreryvnoe obrazovanie: XXI vek = Lifelong Education: The XXI Century. 2020;2(30):1–15. (In Russ.) doi:10.15393/j5.art.2020.5689

20. Shutenko E.N., Shutenko A.I. Didaskological format of digitalization of university training as an activation factor of students’ personal potential. Perspektivy nauki i obrazovania = Perspectives of Science and Education. 2023;66(6):32–46. (In Russ.) doi:10.32744/pse.2023.6.2

21. Schmidt D.A., Baran E., Thompson A.D., Mishra P., Koehler M.J., Shin T.S. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): the development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2009;42(2):123–149. doi:10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544

22. Agapova T.V., Aisner L.Yu. Basic forms of interaction and teaching methodsin higher school (passive, active and interactive teaching methods). Pedagogicheskii zhurnal = Pedagogical Journal. 2019;9(1A):269–275. doi:10.34670/AR.2019.44.1.054

23. Asadullin R.M., Frolov O.V. Personality-oriented technology of training a future teacher in the university educational process. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. 2024;33(6):92–103. (In Russ.) doi:10.31992/0869-3617-2024-33-6-92-103

24. Thurlings M., den Brok P. Student teachers’ and in-service teachers’ peer learning: a realist synthesis. Educational Research and Evaluation. 2018;24(1–2):3–50. doi:10.1080/13803611.2018.1509719

25. Küçük K., Gün Ö. The effects of GeoGebra-assisted transformation geometry instruction on student achievement, attitudes, and beliefs. Journal of Computer and Education Research. 2023;11(22):671–690. doi:10.18009/jcer.1324668

26. Rvanova A.S. Dynamic models in teaching geometry in the context of developing critical thinking. Vestnik Severo-Kazakhstanskogo universiteta im. M. Kozybayeva = Bulletin of the North Kazakhstan University named after M. Kozybaev. 2018;1(38):51–56. (In Russ.) Accessed April 14, 2025. https://vestnik.ku.edu.kz/jour/article/view/404/0?locale=en_US

27. Sukhodolova E.V. Digital educational technologies and resources in teaching geometry using the example of dynamic environment GeoGebra. Samarskiy nauchnyy vestnik = Samara Scientific Bulletin. 2022;11(3):323–326. (In Russ.) doi:10.55355/snv2022113317

28. Astashova N.A. Dialogic learning: a promising approach to educational organisation. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2025;27(4):9–41. (In Russ.) doi:10.17853/1994-5639-2025-4-9-41

29. Hofmann R., Ruthven K. Operational, interpersonal, discussional and ideational dimensions of classroom norms for dialogic practice in school mathematics. British Educational Research Journal. 2018;44(3):496–514. doi:10.1002/berj.3444

30. Taggart J., Wheeler L.B. Collaborative learning as constructivist practice: an exploratory qualitative descriptive study of faculty approaches to student group work. Active Learning in Higher Education. 2023;26(1):59–76. doi:10.1177/14697874231193938

31. Dzundza A., Moiseyenko I., Tsapov V. Research problems as a means of worldview teaching mathematical disciplines for future mathematics teachers. Didaktika matematiki: problemy i issledovaniya = Didactics of Mathematics: Problems and Investigations. 2024;1(61):34–42. (In Russ.) doi:10.24412/2079-9152-2024-61-34-42

32. Juniantari M., Degeng N.S., Ulfa S., Nakaya A. Mobile seamless inquiry media: effective strategies for enhancing students’ conceptual mathematics learning outcomes in the digital era. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2025;27(5):68–90. doi:10.17853/1994-5639-2025-5-68-90

33. Milner A., Scholkmann A. Future teachers for future societies: transforming teacher professionalism through problem-based professional learning and development. Professional Development in Education. 2023;49(4):739–751. doi:10.1080/19415257.2023.2203173

34. Hillmayr D., Ziernwald L., Reinhold F., Hofer S.I., Reiss K.M. The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: a context-specific meta-analysis. Computers & Education. 2020;153. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897

35. Shabat G.B., Semenov A.L. Computer experiment in teaching mathematics. Doklady Rossijskoj akademii nauk. Matematika, informatika, processy upravleniâ = Reports of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Mathematics, Informatics, Control Processes. 2023;511(1):111–137. (In Russ.) doi:10.31857/S2686954323700212

36. Shmigirilova I.B., Kolisnichenko S.V., Grigorenko O.V. Digital technologies in teaching mathematics. Aktual’nyye voprosy obrazovaniya = Current Issues in Education. 2022;3:153–160. (In Russ.) Accessed April 15, 2025. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=49297707

37. Thurm D., Barzel B. Effects of a professional development program for teaching mathematics with technology on teachers’ beliefs, self-efficacy and practices. ZDM-Mathematics Education. 2020;52:1411–1422. doi:10.1007/s11858-020-01158-6

38. Howell H., Mikeska J.N. Approximations of practice as a framework for understanding authenticity in simulations of teaching. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2021;53(1):8–20. doi:10.1080/15391523.2020.1809033

39. Kazemi E., Ghousseini H., Cunard A., Turrou A.C. Getting inside rehearsals: insights from teacher educators to support work on complex practice. Journal of Teacher Education. 2016;67(1):8–31. doi:10.1177/0022487115615191

40. Trubina L.A., Erokhina E.L. The contents and new forms of methodological subject-training organization while introducing the Core of pedagogical education. Nauka i shkola = Science and School. 2022;4:34–44. (In Russ.) doi:10.31862/1819-463X-2022-4-34-44

41. Koreshnikova Yu.N., Avdeeva E.A. Interest cannot be forced. the role of academic motivation and teaching styles in the development of students’ critical thinking. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. 2022;3:36–66. (In Russ.) doi:10.17323/1814-9545-2022-3-36-66

42. Matos L., Lens W., Vansteenkiste M., Mouratidis A. Optimal motivation in Peruvian high schools: should learners pursue and teachers promote mastery goals, performance-approach goals or both? Learning & Individual Differences. 2017;55:87–96. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2017.02.003

43. Senko C., Dawson B. Performance-approach goal effects depend on how they are defined: meta-analytic evidence from multiple educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2017;109(4):574–598. doi:10.1037/edu0000160

44. Chioban-Piletskaya A.M. The role of mathematical problems in the development of intellectual abilities in schoolchildren. Pedagogicheskii zhurnal = Pedagogical Journal. 2019;9(1–4):64–72. (In Russ.) doi:10.34670/AR.2019.45.4.007

45. Shmigirilova I.B. Didactic value of the task and ways of its improvement. Nauka i shkola = Science and School. 2018;6:130–135. (In Russ.) Accessed April 10, 2025. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/didakticheskaya-tsennost-zadachi-i-puti-ee-povysheniya

46. Toraman Ç., Orakcı Ş., Aktan O. Analysis of the relationships between mathematics achievement, reflective thinking of problem solving and metacognitive awareness. International Journal of Progressive Education. 2020;16:72–90. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2020.241.6

47. Kononenko N.V., Tokareva J.S., Chukhriy P.A. Inter-subject links within the content-methodical lines of math school. Samarskiy nauchnyy vestnik = Samara Scientific Bulletin. 2019;8(3(28)):290–295. (In Russ.) doi:10.24411/2309-4370-2019-13310

48. Rodríguez-Nieto C.A., Font Moll V., Borji V., Rodríguez-Vásquez F.M. Mathematical connections from a networking of theories between extended theory of mathematical connections and on- to-semiotic approach. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 2022;53(9):2364–2390. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2021.1875071

49. Bicer A., Bicer A., Capraro M., Lee Y. Mathematical connection is at the heart of mathematical creativity. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications. 2023;10(1–2):17–40. doi:10.2478/ctra-2023-0002

50. Artemyeva S.V., Kuryakova T. Formation of future mathematics teachers’ professional competences using error correction tasks. Pedagogy. Theory & Practice = Pedagogy. Theory & Practice. 2020;5(1):22–26. (In Russ.) doi:10.30853/pedagogy.2020.1.4

51. Dalinger V.A. Case method in teaching future mathematics teachers the course “Typical mistake, reasons for their occurrence and ways of prevention”. Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal eksperimental’nogo obrazovaniya = International Journal of Experimental Education. 2015;3(5):571–573. (In Russ.) Accessed April 08, 2025. https://expeducation.ru/article/view?id=7339

52. Shaughnessy M., DeFino R., Pfaff E., Blunk M. I think I made a mistake: how do prospective teachers elicit the thinking of a student who has made a mistake? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. 2021;24(4):335–359. doi:10.1007/s10857-020-09461-5

53. Freudenthal H. Mathematics as an Educational Task. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland; 1973. 680 p. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-2903-2

54. Stolyar A.A. Pedagogika matematiki = Pedagogy of Mathematics. Minsk: Higher School; 1986. 414 p. (In Russ.)

55. Koreshnikova Yu.N., Sorokin P.S. From behaviorism to neoconstructivism: a review of educational theories for the development of independence in the conditions of neo-struction. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. 2024;4:126–150. (In Russ.) doi:10.17323/vo-2024-17084

56. Hall J.A., Lei J., Wang Q. The first principles of instruction: an examination of their impact on preservice teachers’ TPACK. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2020;68:3115–3142. doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09866-2

57. Saralar-Aras İ., Birgili B. An assessment of pre-service mathematics teachers’ techno-pedagogical content knowledge regarding geometry. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies. 2022;9(4):1307–1327. doi:10.52380/ijpes.2022.9.4.920