1. INTRODUCTION

The trends of the 21st century demand the constant development of the teacher training process, especially in aspects related to the use of technology. Furthermore, according to authors such as Paidicán (2018) and Van Leendert et al. (2022), professional development spaces need adequate instances of reflection as a way of facilitating the teaching and learning processes of students.

In 2006, the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) model emerged and has gained considerable popularity among educational technology researchers. According to data obtained through Harzing's Publish and Perish program, the original work by Mishra and Koehler (2006) entitled "Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge", presents 17,498 citations (Google Scholar, March 2024), corroborating the above.

TPACK in its genesis is composed of three central dimensions: technological, pedagogical, and disciplinary knowledge. In addition, four dimensions emerge from the intersection of these dimensions. Figure 1 shows each element, described below.

1. Technological knowledge (TK): Corresponds to the knowledge and skills required for using technological tools (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Angeli and Valanides, 2009; Koehler et al., 2014).

2. Content knowledge (CK): Corresponds to the knowledge and skills necessary for incorporating teaching and learning methods, approaches, and processes (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Munyengabe et al., 2017).

3. Pedagogical knowledge (PK): Corresponds to knowledge related to a discipline, incorporating elements related to classroom management, planning, and evaluation of teaching and learning processes (Schmidt et al., 2009; Munyengabe et al., 2017).

4. Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Corresponds to the intersection between CK and PK, where it aims to focus the teaching process of content on the learner (Shulman, 1986; Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Koehler et al., 2014).

5. Technological content knowledge (TCK): Corresponding to the intersection between TK and CK, it aims to relate content-specific learning to the effective use of technology (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Schmidt et al., 2009; Koehler et al., 2014).

6. Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK): Corresponds to the intersection between TK and PK, it aims to use technology with a focus on pedagogical aspects, including strengths and weaknesses (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Schmidt et al., 2009; Terpstra, 2015).

7. Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): Corresponding to the intersection between CK, PK, and TK, it aims to integrate students' prior knowledge and possible learning difficulties (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Schmidt et al., 2009; Koehler et al., 2014).

About the use of the TPACK model, its solid guidelines for the development of educational processes related to ICT stand out (Ortiz et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2018). In addition, authors such as Redmond and Peled (2019) and Schmid et al. (2021) consider TPACK as a fundamental guide for developing ICT-mediated curriculum experiences.

As of 2019, the TPACK model incorporates the concept of contextual knowledge, where teachers must include the realities of the context in their decision-making (Mishra, 2019; Monsalve-Suárez et al., 2024). For authors such as Akyuz (2023), Byrne-Cohen (2020), and Fives and Buehl (2014), contexts are unique and must include beliefs, knowledge, and constraints, including the different actors in schools.

The latest research related to TPACK includes rapidly expanding topics such as Artificial Intelligence (AI). The study by Saz-Perez et al. (2024), validates a generative AI self-report questionnaire, obtaining a valid and reliable tool for the assessment of PK, CK and TK knowledge. In addition, Kong et al. (2024), which addresses the design of STEM activities focused on the Internet of Things (IoT) and AI components, suggests that teacher-centred training processes favour the development of students' competences through problem solving. Other studies develop professional training processes related to TPACK and AI, revealing the existence of significant knowledge gaps in the TK domain (Yue et al., 2024).

Regarding special education, the studies by Jenny et al. (2020) and Neece et al. (2020) highlight the need to develop TPACK studies to support students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) and intellectual disabilities, favoring the social participation of students and their families. A search for systematic literature review (SLR), scientometrics, and/or bibliometrics of the TPACK model and special education did not reveal the existence of this type of research; this procedure is described in subsequent sections. Considering the previous background, this research aims to examine the TPACK model from its scientific production in special education contexts, the following questions are included:

Question 1 (RQ1): What types of studies are derived from the scientific literature on the TPACK model in special education?

Question 2 (RQ2): What are the methodological orientations obtained in the studies of the TPACK model in special education?

Question 3 (RQ3): What results were obtained in studies of the TPACK model in special education?

Question 4 (RQ4): What are the recommendations of the studies of the TPACK model in special education?

2. METHODOLOGY

The SLR was conducted considering the stages proposed by Kitchenham (2004), widely used in the social sciences, see Table 1. Furthermore, this SLR aims to develop a research process according to critical and structured protocols (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006).

2.1. Planning and implementation of SLR

In the preliminary phase, a scoping search was carried out, by the guidelines of Robinson et al. (2014), to identify SLR, bibliometrics, and/or scientometrics of the TPACK, from 2020 onwards. The following databases and/or repositories were included: Dialnet, Google Scholar, Scientific Journals of Latin America and the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal (REDALYC), Semantic Scholar, and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO). The keywords included in the search were "technological AND pedagogical AND content AND knowledge AND TPACK" and adaptation according to the particularities of each database. Thirty-six researches were obtained, and the scientific production is preferentially concentrated in the year 2023 with 55,55% of the total. The most popular databases and/or repositories are SCOPUS, Google Scholar, Web of Science (WoS), and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC). To the subjects addressed, there are studies related to the subjects of mathematics, science, English, and geography and other subjects specific to local realities such as China, Indonesia, and Ibero-America. Finally, the topics of e-learning, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), teacher training, and primary education stand out, see Table 5, Appendix.

In consideration of the previous background, an SLR was developed including the following databases and/or repositories: DIALNET, ERIC, JSTOR, PsycINFO, REDALYC, SCOPUS, and WoS. Keywords were checked in the ERIC and UNESCO thesauri. The search equation included the term TPACK, as it provides a broader view, avoiding focusing on one or two components (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; De Rossi and Trevisan, 2018), see Table 2. The search period covered was from the inception of the model 2006 to October 2023.

Inclusion criteria were: articles, open access, full text, social sciences, and research developed in special education contexts. Exclusion criteria included: abstracts, editorials, press releases, conference papers, master's and doctoral dissertations and theses, areas other than social sciences, and research that did not consider special school contexts.

Figure 2 shows 286 documents documents were obtained in the identification stage, the largest number corresponding to DIALNET (44,02%), followed by JsTOR (35,07%). The articles were reviewed according to titles, keywords, and abstracts, by the inclusion criteria. In addition, in some cases, access to the full text was required. Finally, 16 articles were selected, seven SCOPUS (43,75%), six PsyINFO (37,5%), and one each in ERIC, JsTOR, and WoS (6,25%), see Figure two. Systematic reading of the articles was carried out to obtain information related to the research questions, see Table 3.

3. RESULTS

The first part of the analysis of the documents included, years of publication, geographical distribution, type of research, instruments used, and theme addressed to answer the first question.

3.1. Quantitative data indices of the TPACK model in special education

Publications are distributed between the period 2013 and 2023, with 2021 being the year of highest production, accounting for 25% of the total, see Figure 3.

In terms of geographical distribution, the United States is the country with the highest scientific production, with 50% of the articles reviewed. It should be noted that the European context presents a participation of 11 different countries.

Regarding the type of research, 37,5% are mixed, followed by 25% quantitative and 18,75% design-based research and other types of studies, see Figure 4.

The research is carried out mostly in university education with 56,25%, followed by primary and secondary education with 12,5% ​​respectively. The most representative samples correspond to Karaaslan et al. (2023) and Barbieri et al. (2021) with 446 and 432 students from Turkey, Italy, Greece and Portugal, respectively. On the other hand, the smallest sample of only three teachers (Ciampa, 2017). Regarding the instruments, there is a predilection for the use of questionnaires that represent 43,75% of the total, followed by field notes with 18,75%. Finally, among the research topics or themes, mathematics stands out with 37,5% of the total, followed by the Braille language and science.

3.2. The TPACK model in special education by level of education

The second part of the analysis considers some of the approaches made by Paidicán and Arredondo (2022a) to provide answers to questions two, three, and four.

Table 4 shows that more than half of the studies of the TPACK model in special education are carried out at the university level, followed by primary and secondary with 12,5% respectively. In the primary studies, they present qualitative methodologies and case studies, with samples ranging from three to 80 cases, including students and teachers. Both studies consider three or more instruments including field notes, reflections, interviews, document analysis, observations, and student work. The subjects of educational technology and language through Braille were considered. Finally, the studies were carried out in the United States and South Africa. Referring to the findings, teachers require strong PK, TK, and CK knowledge, which needs to be continuously addressed in professional development processes. In addition, teachers require adequate time to explore and critically evaluate digital resources to strengthen personalization, taking into account the particularities of learners, for example in instances of visual impairment and the use of Braille

About the recommendations, there is a need to opt for participatory action research approach models (McTaggart, 1991) and active learning techniques (Desimone, 2009; Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015), to ensure collaboration and social participation (Ciampa, 2017). To secondary school studies, there are mixed research and consensus statement processes, with samples ranging from five to 125 teachers. The instruments used were the TPACK-21 questionnaire, self-efficacy scale (SE-PETE-D), interviews and logbook. The areas included in the research were physical education and mathematics using Braille. The studies were conducted in Europe, with the research by Kwok et al. (2021) including up to five countries.

The results indicate that teachers require greater TK and CK, both for special education and in mathematics and physical education, favoring the development of classes with appropriate adaptation according to the characteristics and context of the students. Finally, teachers need to be more aware of the importance of student support, such as, for example, the use of Braille. About the recommendations, more space for reflection among teachers is required, including more representative samples, to deepen the aspects related to the European Standards in Adapted Physical Activity (EUSAPA). Also, aspects related to the use and selection of assistive devices for students with SEN should be deepened.

Regarding the studies focused on the university setting, they mostly present design-based, qualitative, and mixed methodologies, which show an average of 129 cases, with the study by Karaaslan et al. (2023) presenting the most significant sample with 446 students, more than 60% of the studies were developed in the United States, including undergraduate and graduate students. The most commonly used instruments were the TPACK questionnaire and rubrics. The study by Anderson et al. (2017) presented the largest variety of instruments including: focus group discussion, focus group, interviews, lesson plans, field notes, and observations.

The results indicate that teacher training in areas related to TPACK facilitates the incorporation of IPAD and DYNABOOK, improving learning experiences and the systematic integration of ICT, including important areas such as logical-mathematical reasoning (Anderson et al., 2017; Courey et al., 2015; Kuo, 2015). Furthermore, the levels of self-efficacy measured utilizing the TPACK questionnaire indicate that women perform better than men and that the use of this type of instrument is valid for postgraduate students (Kaplon-Schilis and Lyublinskaya, 2019; Karaaslan et al., 2023). Also, it was observed that the use of the TPACK model allowed for specific didactic insights in areas related to E-learning, Braille, artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and 3D printing (Kotzebue et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2014). Finally, the use of new tools such as the rubric allows for a broader view of the TPACK model, including both theoretical and practical aspects, as exemplified by the analysis of lesson plans (Lyublinskaya and Tournaki, 2014; Lyublinskaya and Kaplon-Schilis, 2022).

In relation to the recommendations, the consolidation of new instruments related to TPACK is required, in different contexts and with larger samples (Courey et al., 2015; Lyublinskaya and Kaplon-Schilis, 2022). There is also a need to deepen lines of research related to classroom design, classroom culture and organisation, and the use of ICT and their ways of thinking and acting at the time of implementation (Anderson et al., 2017; Kotzebue et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2014). Finally, it requires the development of training processes in special education settings, including teacher and students, as well as the use of feedback as a mechanism for teachers' professional reflection (Kuo 2015; Lyublinskaya and Tournaki, 2014).

Studies that include more than one educational level, are characterized by their mixed methodology, with samples ranging from 60 to 432 individuals, the research by Barbieri et al. (2021), which includes the participation of students from Greece, Italy, and Portugal, stands out. The preferred instruments are the TPACK Questionnaire (Zelkowski et al., 2013) and interviews. The results indicate that high teacher confidence positively affects ICT integration, even though time and resources are the main obstacles (Hill, 2020). Moreover, the incorporation of Serius Game promotes significant changes, especially in mathematics, and, in addition, activates mental resources (Barbieri et al., 2021). It is recommended that future research should delve deeper into classroom observations, as they allow for a more objective view of ICT integration through TPACK.

Finally, the study developed in special schools sought to compare the realities of Chinese and Taiwanese teachers with a sample of 415 schools, the instrument used was the TPACK questionnaire (Chai et al., 2011). The results indicate that Chinese teachers perform better than their Taiwanese peers, the likely explanation being that China has educational policies related to special education. It is recommended that a wider variety of instruments be applied during data collection.

4.DISCUSIONES

Research on the TPACK model, in a context that includes special education, is mainly developed in North America, with the United States being the country with the largest production, according to Lee et al. (2002), Paidicán and Arredondo (2023a) and Sakaria et al. (2023). It is worth noting that only the Huang et al. (2020) study was carried out in a special school, contrary to what might be thought before the present SLR.

There is an increase in TPACK and special education research as of 2021, which is in line with the need arising from the COVID-19 health emergency, which required teachers to acquire new knowledge, skills and abilities that are specific to the demands of using new technologies, similar to what happened with the TPACK model in rural contexts, whose main obstacle was related to the lack of resources and inputs, both technological and human (Paidicán and Arredondo, 2024).

Furthermore, there is agreement on the need to maintain a balance in the development of teachers' PK, TK, and CK knowledge, ensuring the success of the studies, although this is not always comparable and is conditioned by various contextual factors (Paidicán and Arredondo, 2022a; Paidicán et al., 2024; Setiawan et al., 2019; Voogt et al., 2013).

In relation to the use of instruments, there is a diversification of these, ranging from the TPACK questionnaire and its various versions to classroom observation, the latter being the most valued by researchers, as it allows them to obtain a more objective view of the classroom reality, for Schmid et al. (2024) this type of practice allows different conceptualizations of TPACK to be obtained through empirical findings.

Finally, research shows that the lack of resources and inputs affects the development of experiences, weakening the organizational elements and their implementation (Sampaio, 2016; Da Silva et al., 2021).

5.CONCLUSIONES

Concerning the results obtained, it is concluded:

The development of the scientific production of the TPACK model and special education is scarce, obtaining only 16 out of a total of 286 documents, representing 5,59%. The publications are concentrated between 2014 and 2023, although the original TPACK model emerged in 2006.

More than 30 SRs related to the TPACK model are obtained, with the year 2023 standing out as the most productive. However, there are no literature reviews about special education, so this SR represents a real contribution to developing the TPACK model.

Most of the studies are carried out at the university level, with the United States accounting for half of the research reviewed. Furthermore, the studies use the questionnaire as the most common instrument, with the emergence of new instruments such as TPCKS, TPACK-PRE, TPACK-ISE, and TPACK-21 standing out. In the curricular areas, mathematics and the use of Braille show a more significant development, although at a very preliminary stage.

The research mainly recommends expanding the samples in quantity and context, including a greater diversity of research instruments, with classroom observation representing the most objective view when analyzing using the TPACK model. In addition, the instances of professional training through the TPACK model require the participation of teachers and students, being relevant to the development of spaces for reflection, including the various TK, PK, and CK knowledge.

To conclude, the present SLR in its genesis represents a complement in the development of the TPACK model, although it is necessary to carry out analyses that prioritize methodological aspects of the research and, in addition, address areas of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and augmented reality.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

Albeta, S. W., Firdaus, L. N., y Copriady, J. (2023). TPACK-based blended learning as an implementation of progressivism education: A systematic literature review. Jurnal pendidikan vokasi, 13(1), 44-59. https://doi.org/10.21831/jpv.v13i1.51287

Akyuz, D. (2023). Exploring contextual factors for pre-service teachers teaching with technology through planning, teaching, and reflecting. International electronic journal of mathematics education, 18(1), em0721. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12624

Anderson, S., Grifith, R., & Crawford. L. (2017). TPACK in special education: Preservice teacher decision making while integrating iPads into instruction. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 17(1), 97-127. https://acortar.link/OKPa4r

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(1), 154-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006

Assis, S., y Vieira-Santos, J. (2021). Conhecimento tecnológico e pedagógico do conteúdo (TPACK) na construção do saber docente virtual: Uma revisão sistemática. Acta scientiarum. education, 43(1), e51998. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascieduc.v43i1.51998

Barbieri, G. G., Barbieri, R., & Capone, R. (2021). Serious Games in High School Mathematics Lessons: An Embedded Case Study in Europe. Eurasia journal of mathematics, science and technology education, 17(5), e1963. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10857

Bahtiar, B., Yusuf, Y., Doyan, A, & Ibrahim, I. (2023). The Trend of Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Research in 2012-2022: Contribution to Science Learning of 21st Century. Jurnal penelitian pendidikan IPA, 9(5), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i5.3685

Byrne-Cohen, D. (2020). Contextual issues of technology integration in teacher practice [Tesis doctoral]. RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. https://bit.ly/3Cvg4Ta

Brianza, E., Schmid, M., Tondeur, J., y Petko, D. (2022). Situating TPACK: A systematic literature review of context as a domain of knowledge. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 22(4), 707-753. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/221446/

Ciampa, K. (2017). Building bridges between technology and content literacy in special education: Lessons learned from special educators’ use of integrated technology and perceived benefits for students. Literacy research and instruction, 56(2), 85-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2017.1280863

Coronado, G. A. P., & Velásquez, T. E. C. (2023). TPACK para la implementación de recursos educativos digitales: Una revisión sistemática. Praxis, 19(2), 238–255. https://doi.org/10.21676/23897856.5073

Courey, S., LePage, P., Blackorby, J., Siker, J., & Nguyen, T. (2015). he effects of using dynabook to prepare special education teachers to teach proportional reasoning: International journal of web-based learning and teaching technologies, 10(1), 45-64. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijwltt.2015010104

Da Silva, J., Sommer, S., y Machado, L. (2021). Integração de tecnologia na educação: Proposta de modelo para capacitação docente inspirada no TPACK. Educação em revista, 37, e232757. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-4698232757

De Rossi, M., & Trevisan, O. (2018). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in the Literature: How TPCK Is Defined and Implemented in Initial Teacher Education. Italyn journal of educational technology, 26(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/988

Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140

Dewi, R., Rusilowati, A., Saptono, S., Haryani, S., Wiyanto, W., Ridlo, S., Listiaj, P., y Atunnisa, R. (2021). Technological, pedagogical, content knowledge (TPACK) research trends: A systematic literature review of publications between 2010 -2020. Turkish journal of science education, 18(4), 589-604. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.92

Fives, H., & Buehl, M. (2014). Exploring differences in practicing teachers’ valuing of pedagogical knowledge based on teaching ability beliefs. Journal of teacher education, 65(5), 435-448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114541813

Feng, L., & Mustapha, S. M. (2023). Bibliometric Analysis (2012-2022) of Research Hotspots and Trends on Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge in China. Eur opean Journal of computer science and information technology, 11(3), 24-43. https://doi.org/10.37745/ejcsit.2013/vol11n2112

Hill, J.E. & Uribe-Florez, L. (2020). Understanding secondary school teachers’ TPACK and technology implementation in mathematics classrooms. International journal of technology in education (IJTE), 3(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.v3i1.8

Huang, K. Y., Chen, Y. H., & Jang, S. J. (2020). TPACK in special education schools for SVI: A comparative study between Taiwanese and Chinese in-service teachers. International journal of disability, development and education, 69(2), 435-450. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1717450

Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Figg, C. (2015). The framework of TPACK-in-practice: Designing contentcentric technology professional learning contexts to develop teacher knowledge of technologyenhanced teaching (TPACK). In C. Angeli and N. Valanides (Eds.), Technological pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 137–163). Springer US.

Jenny, S. E., Krause, J. M., & Armstrong, T. (2020). Technology for physical educators, health educators, and coaches: Enhancing instruction, assessment, management, professional development, and advocacy. Human Kinetics Publishers.

Jiménez, A., Ortega, J., Cabero, J., y Palacios, A. (2023). Development of the teacher’s technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) from the lesson study: A systematic review. Frontiers in education, 8, 1078913. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1078913

Jinyao, L., & Bhattacharyya, E. (2022). Research Trend on Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) through Bibliometric Analysis (2015-2021). Asia Pacific Journal of business, humanities and education, 7(2), 93-110. https://acortar.link/ExHnyF

Joshi, S. (2023). TPACK and Teachers’ Self-Efficacy: A Systematic Review. Canadian Journal of learning and technology, 49(2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt28280

Kao, M. A., & Mzimela, P. J. (2019). ‘They are visually impaired, not blind… teach them!’: Grade R in-service teachers’ knowledge of teaching pre-reading skills to visually impaired learners. South African journal of childhood education, 9(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v9i1.651

Kaplon-Schilis, A., & Lyublinskaya, I. (2020). Analysis of relationship between five domains of TPACK framework: TK, PK, CK math, CK science, and TPACK of pre-service special education teachers. Technology, knowledge and learning, 25(1), 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09404-x

Karaaslan, Ć., Akdemir, B., & Yavuz, M. (2022). An Investigation of the Relationship between Technological and Pedagogical Content Knowledge Levels and Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Special Education Teacher Candidates. International journal of curriculum and instruction, 14(3), 2932-2953. https://acortar.link/ZTCOi3

Karampelas, K. (2023). Examining the relationship between TPACK and STEAM through a bibliometric study. European journal of science and mathematics education, 11(3), 488-498. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/12981

Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews [Joint technical report]. Keele University, United Kingdom. https://rb.gy/vgsvi

Kholid, M. N., Hendriyanto, A., Sahara, S., Muhaimin, L. H., Juandi, D., Sujadi, I., Kuncoro, K. S., & Adnan, M. (2023). A systematic literature review of Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) in mathematics education: Future challenges for educational practice and research, Cogent education, 10(2), 2269047. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2269047

Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T., & Graham, C. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. En J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen & M. Bishop (eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101-111). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_9

Kong, S.-C., Yang, Y., & Yeung, W. (2024). A proposed tpack model of teaching stem with ai components: Evaluating a teacher development course for fostering digital creativity: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, 163-170. https://doi.org/10.5220/0012511900003693

Kotzebue, L. V., Meier, M., Finger, A., Kremser, E., Huwer, J., Thoms, L.-J., Becker, S., Bruckermann, T., & Thyssen, C. (2021). The framework DiKoLAN (Digital competencies for teaching in science education) as basis for the self-assessment tool DiKoLAN-Grid. Education sciences, 11(12), 775. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11120775

Konyalıhatipoğlu, M. E., & İskenderoğlu, T. A. (2022). The thematic content analysis of technological pedagogical content knowledge studies published in the field of primary school education: Technological pedagogical content knowledge. International journal of curriculum and instruction, 14(3), 2011-2033. https://acortar.link/dUuwjk

Kwok, N., Klavina, A., Ferreira, J. P., Barrett, U., Pozeriene, J., & Reina, R. (2021). Teachers’ preparedness to deliver remote adapted physical education from different European perspectives: Updates to the European Standards in Adapted Physical Activity. European journal of special needs education, 36(1), 98-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1872848

Handayani, S., Hussin, M., & Norman, M. (2023). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Model in teaching: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Pegem journal of education and instruction, 13(3), 176-190. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.13.03.19

Irwanto, I. (2021). Research trends in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A systematic literature review from 2010 to 2021. European journal of educational research, 10(4), 2045-2054. https://doi.org/10.12973/eujer.10.4.2045

Lee, L. W., Mohamed, A. R., & Altamimi, A. A. (2014). Design, development, and evaluation of an automated e-learning tutorial system to instruct pre-service special educators in the Malay braille code. The Asia-Pacific education researcher, 24, 481-494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0219-9

Lee H-Y, Chung C-Y, & Wei G (2022). Research on technological pedagogical and content knowledge: A bibliometric analysis from 2011 to 2020. Frontier in education. 7, 765233. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.765233

Lemke, E., De Araujo, P., & BoffF, O. (2022). Relações entre TPACK, educação básica e conhecimento de professor: o que as pesquisas indicam?. Salão do conhecimento, 8(8), 1-12. https://acortar.link/fPBJ3n

Lyublinskaya, I., & Tournaki, N. (2014). A study of special education teachers’ TPACK development in mathematics and science through assessment of lesson plans. Journal of technology and teacher education, 22(4), 449-470. https://acortar.link/LDMHTp

Lyublinskaya, I., & Kaplon-Schilis, A. (2022). Analysis of differences in the levels of TPACK: Unpacking performance indicators in the TPACK levels rubric. Education sciences, 12(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020079

Major, C., y McDonald, E. (2021). Developing instructor TPACK: A research review and narrative synthesis. Journal of higher education policy and leadership studies, 2(2), 51-67. https://doi.org/10.52547/johepal.2.2.51

McTaggart, R. (1991). Principles for participatory action research. Adult education quarterly, 41(3), 168–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848191041003

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers' College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://rb.gy/jjb0u

Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of digital learning in teacher education, 35(2), 76-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611

Monsalve-Suárez, J. C., Polo-Rueda, S. P. Ruiz-Lacouture, A. C. & Ortega-Iglesias, J. M. (2024). Modelo TPACK y la Lesson Study para desarrollar la comprensión lectora en la básica primaria. Folios, (59), 143-157. https://doi.org/10.17227/folios.59-17397

Munyengabe, S., Yiyi, Z., Haiyan, H., & Hitimana, S. (2017). Primary teachers’ perceptions on ICT integration for enhancing teaching and learning through the implementation of one laptop per child program in primary schools of Rwanda. Eurasia journal of mathematics, science, and technology education, 13(11), 7193-7204. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/79044

Nasir, Bancong, H., Sukmawati, & Hambali, U. (2023). Bibliometric Analysis of TPACK Publication Trends in Scopus Data Base from 2013 to 2022. Studies in learning and teaching, 4(1), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v4i1.199

Neece, C., McIntyre, L. L., & Fenning, R. (2020). Examining the impact of COVID‐19 in ethnically diverse families with young children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of intellectual disability research 64(10), 739–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12769

Ning, Y., Zhou, Y., Wijaya, T. T., & Chen, J. (2022). Teacher Education Interventions on Teacher TPACK: A Meta-Analysis Study. Sustainability, 14(18), 11791. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811791

Ortiz, C, M., Izquierdo, R, T., Rodríguez, M, J., & Agreda, M, M. (2023). TPACK model as a framework for in-service teacher training. Contemporary educational technology, 15(3), ep439. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13279

Paidicán, M. A. (2018). El uso de las TIC para enriquecer los aprendizajes a través de la gestión del currículum. Didáctica, innovación y multimedia, 36, 1-15. https://rb.gy/sn3ie

Paidicán, M. A., & Arredondo, P. A. (2022a). The technological-pedagogical knowledge for in-service teachers in primary education: A systematic literature review. Contemporary educational technology, 14(3), ep370. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11813

Paidicán, M. A., & Arredondo, P. (2022b). Conocimientos tecnopedagógicos y disciplinares en los Teachers de primaria y los factores demográficos. Mendive. Revista de Educación, 20(3), 906-916. https://rb.gy/pdkz0

Paidicán, M. A., y Arredondo, P. A. (2023a). The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model in primary education: A literature review. Italyn journal of educational technology, 31(1), 57-76. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/1285

Paidicán, M. A., & Arredondo, P. A. (2023b). Conocimiento técnico pedagógico del contenido (TPACK) en Iberoamérica: Una revisión bibliográfica. Revista andina de educación, 6(2), 000629. https://doi.org/10.32719/26312816.2022.6.2.9

Paidicán, M. A., Gros, B, S., & Arredondo, P. A. (2024). Technopedagogical and disciplinary knowledge of primary school teachers in different socio-demographic contexts. Campus virtuales, 13(1), 69-82. http://doi.org/10.54988/cv.2024.1.1296

Paidicán, M. A., & Arredondo, P. A. (2024). Conocimiento técnico pedagógico del contenido (TPACK) en contextos rurales: Una revisión bibliográfica. REXE- Revista de estudios y experiencias en educación, 23(51), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.21703/rexe.v23i51.2183

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. John Wiley & Sons. https://rb.gy/2ueqj

Putri, A.H., Robandi, B., Samsudin, A., & Suhandi, A. (2022). Science education research within TPACK framework at a glance: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of technology in education and science (IJTES), 6(3), 458-476. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.404

Rahman, A., Santosa, T. A., Sofianora, A., Oktavianti, F., Alawiyah, R., Putra, R., & Ilwandri, I. (2023). Systematic literature review: TPACK-integrated design thinking in education. International journal of education and literature, 2(1), 65-77. https://doi.org/10.55606/ijel.v2i1.57

Robinson, K. A., Whitlock, E. P., Oneil, M. E., Anderson, J. K., Hartling, L., Dryden, D. M.,Butler, M., Newberry, S. J., McPheeters, M., Berkman, N. D., Lin, J. S., & Chang, S. (2014). Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: Identification of guidance needs. Systematic reviews, 3(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-60

Rukmana, D. (2023). Systematic Literature Review of TPACK Scale Development in Science Learning (2006-2022). International Conference on Elementary Education 5 (1), 133-152. https://acortar.link/yRSI1k

Sakaria, D., Maat, M., & Matore, M. (2023). Factors influencing mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review. Pegem journal of education and instruction, 13(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.13.02.01

Sampaio, P. (2016). Desenvolvimento profissional dos professores de Matemática: Uma experiência de formação em TIC. Revista portuguesa de educação, 29(2), 209-232. https://doi.org/10.21814/rpe.2987

Saz-Pérez, F., Pizá-Mir, B., & Lizana Carrió, A. (2024). Validación y estructura factorial de un cuestionario TPACK en el contexto de Inteligencia Artificial Generativa (IAG). Hachetetepé. Revista científica de educación y comunicación, (28), 1101. https://doi.org/10.25267/Hachetetepe.2024.i28.1101

Sofwan, M., Yaakob, M. F. M., & Habibi, A. (2023). Technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge for technology integration: a systematic literature review. International Journal of evaluation and research in education (IJERE) ISSN, 2252(8822), 8822. http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i1.26643

Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson A., Mishra, P., Koehler, M., & Shin, T. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of research on technology in education, 42, 123-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544

Schmid, M., Brianza, E., & Petko, D. (2021). Self-reported technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service teachers in relation to digital technology use in lesson plans. Computers in human behavior, 115,106586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106586

Schmid, M., Brianza, E., Mok, S. Y., & Petko, D. (2024). Running in circles: A systematic review of reviews on technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & education, 214, 105024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105024

Setiawan, H., Phillipson, S., & Isnaeni, W. (2019). Current trends in TPACK research in science education: a systematic review of literature from 2011 to 2017. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1317(1), 012213. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012213

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

Smit, E., Tuithof, H., Savelsbergh, E., & Béneker, T. (2023). Geography teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review. Journal of geography, 122(1), 20-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2023.2173796

Su, J. (2023). Preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge development: A bibliometric review. Frontiers in education, 7, 1033895. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1033895

Suprapto, N., Sukarmin, S., Puspitawati, R. P., Erman, E., Savitri, D., Ku, C. H., & Mubarok, H. (2021). Research trend on TPACK through bibliometric analysis (2015-2019). International journal of evaluation and research in education, 10(4), 1375-1385. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v10i4.22062

Terpstra, M. (2015). TPACKtivity: An activity-theory lens for examining TPACK development. In C. Angeli y N. Valanides (eds), Technological pedagogical content knowledge: exploring, developing and assessing TPCK (pp. 63-88). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8080-9_4

Van Leendert, A., Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Pel, J., & van der Steen, J. (2022). Teachers’ skills and knowledge in mathematics education for braille readers. Technology, knowledge and learning, 27(4), 1171-1192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09525-2

Vásconez, C.D., & Inga, E.M. (2021). El modelo de aprendizaje TPACK y su impacto en la innovación educativa desde un análisis bibliométrico. INNOVA Research journal, 6(3), 79-97. https://doi.org/10.33890/innova.v6.n3.2021.1773

Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge–a review of the literature. Journal of computer assisted learning, 29(2), 109-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x

Wang, W., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Jin, Y. (2018). Preservice teachers’ TPACK development: A review of literature. Journal of digital learning in teacher education, 34(4), 234-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2018.1498039

Yeh, Y. F., Chan, K. K. H., y Hsu, Y. S. (2021). Toward a framework that connects individual TPACK and collective TPACK: A systematic review of TPACK studies investigating teacher collaborative discourse in the learning by design process. Computers & education, 171, 104238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104238

Yue, M., Jong, M. S. Y., & Ng, D. T. K. (2024). Understanding K–12 teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge readiness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence education. Education and information technologies, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12621-2

Yuliyanto, R., Andriyati, R., & Srimaryani, S. (2023). Overview of the TPACK Model in Digital Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis. International Journal of multicultural and multireligious understanding, 10(10), 37-50. http://doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v10i10.5084

Zhang, W., & Tang, J. (2021). Review of teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in China. Creative education, 12(7), 1726-1743. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2021.127131

Zeng, Y., Wang, Y., & Li, S. (2022). The relationship between teachers' information technology integration self-efficacy and TPACK: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 1091017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1091017

Información adicional

AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS:: Miguel Ángel Paidican Soto (Conceptualisation, formal analysis, research, methodology, original draft, and revision-writing) and Pamela Alejandra Arredondo Herrera (Formal analysis, research, methodology, original draft-writing, and drafting-revision).

FUNDING:: This research did not receive any external funding.

IR