In the last 15 years, the US and India have witnessed increasing bilateral cooperation on broad and multi-sectoral matters especially in the field of education and technology. This has led to enormous policy borrowing and practice sharing in educational technology from the US. Acknowledging the contemporary strategic ties between the countries, this paper compares the historic evolution of educational technology as pedagogic transformation within the K-12 classrooms to identify the critical factors contributing to the contemporary educational technology scenario in the respective countries. The TPACK framework of educational pedagogy is used to analyze and determine the evolutionary journeys of pedagogic transformation during the Digital Phases: the personal computer and the internet. While comparing the two countries, it is found that independent socio-cultural and political factors have influenced the specific trajectory. Thereby, making the scientific investigation of the ‘contextual forces’ affecting the pedagogic transformation of educational technology within both the home (the US) and the target (India) key to policy-makers.

1. Pedagogic Transformation: Comparing Educational Technology in the US and India
Pedagogic Transformation: Comparing Educational Technology in
the US and India
Panchalee Tamulee
Tata Trusts, World Trade Centre, Mumbai - 400005
E-mail: ptamulee@tatatrusts.org; Tel: +917208382345
In the last 15 years, the US and India have witnessed increasing bilateral cooperation on broad
and multi-sectoral matters especially in the field of education and technology. This has led to
enormous policy borrowing and practice sharing in educational technology from the US.
Acknowledging the contemporary strategic ties between the countries, this paper compares the
historic evolution of educational technology as pedagogic transformation within the K-12
classrooms to identify the critical factors contributing to the contemporary educational
technology scenario in the respective countries. The TPACK framework of educational pedagogy
is used to analyze and determine the evolutionary journeys of pedagogic transformation during
the Digital Phases: the personal computer and the internet. While comparing the two countries, it
is found that independent socio-cultural and political factors have influenced the specific
trajectory. Thereby, making the scientific investigation of the ‘contextual forces’ affecting the
pedagogic transformation of educational technology within both the home (the US) and the target
(India) key to policy-makers.
Key words: Education technology, Policy Borrowing, Pedagogy, India, Socio-cultural Influences, TPACK, comparative
study, ICT in education
INTRODUCTION
“Technology is just a tool. In terms of getting the kids
working together and motivating them, the teacher is most
important.” – Bill Gates (Bain and Zundans-Fraser, 2017)
The influence of technology in varied aspects of society
and commerce is inevitable. It has been more than 100
years that technology integration, in the form of its earliest
version of media, was introduced into the teaching and
learning process. This continuous attempt of integration
could be divided into three ‘ages’: 1. Pre-digital, 2. Digital
phase: personal computer and 3. Digital phase: the
internet (Howard and Mozejko, 2015). With the emerging
urge of generating human capital in the 21st century, world
education systems have been promoting digital education
as a strategy for socio-economic transformation.
Furthermore, in recent times with the novel Covid-19
pandemic, there has been a global increase in promoting
educational technology among schools and higher
education institutes (HEIs). On the other hand, by the mere
introduction of educational technology, organic pedagogic
change is not evident. It is the teachers and their
pedagogic choices but also, as Michael Sadler articulates,
‘we should not forget that the things outside the schools
matter even more than the things inside the schools, and
govern and interpret the things inside’ (Sadler, 1900, p.49;
Phillips and Ochs, 2003). As an experienced practitioner, I
am troubled by the socio-systemic aspects that influence
the integration of educational technology into pedagogy
and curriculum. In this paper, I reflect on the pedagogic
transformation and factors that have influenced the
evolution of educational technology in the two countries:
the US and India during the two Digital Phases: personal
computer and the internet.
CONTEXTUALISATION
In the last 15 years, the US and India have witnessed
increasing bilateral cooperation on broad and multi-
sectoral matters, including commerce, defense, education,
science and technology, cybersecurity, civil nuclear
energy, space technology and applications, clean energy,
environment, agriculture and health (MEA, 2013). This has
made the US influence over the internal policies of India.
One of the focus areas for policy borrowing and practice
Research Article
Vol. 6(1), pp. 104-111, July, 2020. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 0437-2611
World Journal of Educational Research and Reviews

2. Pedagogic Transformation: Comparing Educational Technology in the US and India
Tamulee P 105
sharing is ‘Educational Technology’. The US-India
Knowledge Exchange (USIKE), established in 2017 for
creating ‘Innovation and Entrepreneurship’ hubs in Indian
HEIs to bring American universities (Khan, 2019) into
Indian campuses endorses the latest technology-based
solutions and good practices to enhance teaching and
learning. Though the major focus has been higher
education and skill-building, the use of technology in
education has been specifically underlined. It has been
agreed to collaborate with U.S. institutions to integrate
Technology Enabled Learning and Massive Open Online
Courses (MOOCs) inducing alterations in the teacher
training programs in India (MEA, 2013). This provides the
US with greater access to the Indian education system,
larger responsibility on training and curriculum
implementation support, and undertaking field action
research on local education projects (S4, 2018).
Furthermore, it has also opened the door to increasing
India’s access to controlled American technologies (Tellis,
2019). Acknowledging the contemporary strategic ties
between the countries, this interpretative paper compares
the historic evolution of educational technology as
pedagogic transformation within the K-12 classrooms of
the respective countries.
METHODOLOGY
The research study is based on interpretative literature
review of policy documents and technical reviews on
‘Digital technology in the US and India’. The theoretical
framework ‘TPACK’ as described in the next section was
used to conduct the comparative analysis and discussion.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In the education system, the classroom is an intricate
space of interaction where pedagogy, the approach to
teaching and learning, come to action to deliver the
curriculum. Teachers possess what Shulman (1987)
termed pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) which
refers to the intersection of three types of body of
knowledge: knowledge of subject matter (content
knowledge), knowledge of how to teach (pedagogic
knowledge), and knowledge of the learners (Bekker,
2013). Developing on this theory, Koehler (2014)
introduced the TPACK framework to understand and
explain teachers’ use of technology while integrating
technological knowledge (TK) with Content Knowledge
(CK) and Pedagogic Knowledge (PK). These components
co-exist depending upon teachers’ experiential knowledge
on interacting with them, which when interact create
pedagogies described below:
1. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) refers to
knowledge of the relationship between technology and
content.
2. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) is
understanding of how particular topics, problems, or
issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the
diverse interests and abilities of learners, and
presented for instruction (Shulman, 1987)”
3. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) refers
to an understanding of technology that can constrain
and afford specific pedagogical practices.
4. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK) refers to knowledge about the complex
relations among technology, pedagogy, and content
that enable teachers to develop appropriate and
context-specific teaching strategies.
Diagram 1: The technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK) framework (Koehler, et al., 2014)
The framework elaborates on three trends of pedagogic
change based on the style of teachers’ use of technology
in teaching and learning:
1. PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge) to TPACK
where existing teaching-learning strategies are
supported and enhanced with the integration of
technology.
2. TPK (Technological Pedagogical Knowledge) to
TPACK where exiting technical strategies are used to
enhance context-specific teaching and learning
methods.
3. PCK and TPACK Simultaneously where teachers
develop concurrent practices on pedagogy, and
integration of technology in curriculum and instruction.
The framework highlights the importance of the use of
educational technologies in teaching and learning, having
equal value with pedagogical and content knowledge for a
21st-century teacher (Bray, 2018). The first emphasis on
pedagogic transformation is designed effective teaching
using PCK which can be enhanced through effective use
of technology (Koehler, et al., 2014). It further suggests
teacher training as a prerequisite to developing teachers’
pedagogic choices for determining the integration of
educational technology into teaching. It does provide a
theoretical structure acknowledging the importance of
teachers understanding the relationships between
teaching and technology (Phillips, 2019) and translating

3. Pedagogic Transformation: Comparing Educational Technology in the US and India
World J. Edu. Res. Rev. 106
these interactions into pedagogic practice within
classrooms. However, it does not elaborate on geo-social
or cultural factors affecting teacher choices for adapting
TPACK into the classroom.
DISCUSSION
Comparing Historic Evolution of Education Technology
Pedagogy:
The Digital Age demonstrates pedagogic transformations;
each age can be associated with a specific trend. The mid-
1900s saw the advent of a digital era characterized by the
‘personal computer’ emphasizing on using tutoring
programs, games, electronic reference materials, word
processing, and database tools to facilitate teaching. This
is what Koehler, et al. (2014) called ‘TPK’ style of
pedagogy where teachers developed their ‘instructional
practices, strategies, and methods to promote students’
learning by appropriate use of technologies’. With teachers
being encouraged to use computers, computer
applications, and equipment like projector, smartboard to
conduct classes, there was a visible advancement of the
‘TPK’ pedagogy. However, the degree of student
involvement remained restricted as the students remained
as recipients of technology. In the Digital era: ‘internet’,
teaching is considered to be dynamic where teachers build
on their ‘PCK’ and ‘TPK’ to develop unconventional
methods of posing authentic conceptual problems for
scientific or historical inquiry, which follow specific learning
objectives and path of investigation using a range of online
resources (Howard and Mozejko, 2015). This typically
reflects a TPACK style of pedagogy.
The global progression of the digital era has influenced the
US and the Indian public-school systems; pedagogic
transformation has emerged in both countries. The case
illustrations below would detail the US and India policies
and programs encouraging the growth of educational
technology. This paper further reflects on these
independent journeys of transformation and the
influencers in facilitating the journey.
FINDINGS
Country Case Illustration - The United States of America:
The digital era in the US education system began in the
1980s with the setting up of computer labs, and the
increasing urge to make future-ready students. Though the
earliest attempt was in the 1950s with the introduction of
computer-assisted instruction (CAI) by IBM, there was no
recorded significant change in the overall education
system. The early 1980s saw a steady increase in
technology infrastructure. The Survey of 'School Uses on
Microcomputers' reported computers being available for
instructional purposes in more than 40% of all elementary
schools and more than 75% of all secondary schools
(CSOS, 1983). On the contrary, the use was reported as
inadequate stating classroom instances of ‘primary school
teachers making students practice mathematics using
computers and secondary school teachers making
students practice typing over the MS-word'. This direct
replacement of notebooks with computer applications was
the beginning of the pedagogic transformation from
existing ‘PCK’ to ‘TPK’.
The 1990s saw the outbreak of the internet; its enticing
prospect was widely discussed across the business and
politics spheres. Consequently, the US education system
had an enormous adaptation with 90% of schools having
internet access (Anderson & Ronnkvist, 1999). Teachers
used online resources to strengthen their lesson plans.
The 1998 National Survey stated though the student
access to the internet was limited (Reiser, 2001), the
teachers used computers and the internet for assisting
their teaching. It was expected that with the interactive
nature of computers and internet teachers would adapt to
interactive classrooms and provide engaging learning.
This would evolve pedagogic choice from the existing TPK
pedagogy into TPACK. On the contrary, the integration of
technology into teaching and learning was attributed to
poor training or lack of proper training (Reiser, 2001). The
use of technology was limited to teachers and students
continued to be passive consumers of educational
technology content.
With the advent of the 21st Century, the US education
system witnessed a systemic pressure for the active
involvement of the student as creators of knowledge, using
apt technologies. Internet and interactive technologies
were introduced in classrooms. By 2006, the P21
framework was developed by a coalition of the US
Department of Education, businesses including Apple,
AOL, Microsoft, Cisco, and SAP, and organizations
involved in education such as the NEA called the
Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21 Network)
(Anon., 2016). The P21 elaborated on the role of a teacher
as a facilitator rather than an instructor. According to the
P21 document’s definition (2009), teachers were to
provide opportunities for the student to apply skills across
core subjects by integrating the use of supportive
technologies, inquiry- and problem-based approaches,
and higher-order thinking skills (P21, 2009). In other
words, the US education system was proposing a
pedagogy transformation promoting TPACK. The
Department of Education released the revised ‘National
Education Technology Plan (NETP)’ 2017 with a focus on
integrating technology to transform learning experiences
for providing greater equity and accessibility (OET, 2017);
teachers were central to this transformation plan. The
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE) affirmed the coupling of content, pedagogy,
technology, and practice as a core principle to the redesign
of teacher professional development (NCATE, 2010);
thereby urging schools for a pedagogic shift towards

4. Pedagogic Transformation: Comparing Educational Technology in the US and India
Tamulee P 107
TPACK. In 2011 Society for Information Technology and
Teacher Education (SITE) conference through 32
sessions exhibited how teachers in US schools made rich
connections among technology, the subject matter, and
pedagogical choices (Wetzel & Marshall, 2012) explaining
the pedagogic transformation into using TPACK
pedagogy within the US classrooms. Harris and Hofer
(2017) highlighted the way TPACK emerged and
continues to be implemented as a connector, a check-and-
balance, an instructional planning tool, a technological
focus, a compass, and a collaborative process for
addressing learning objectives.
Factors affecting the evolution
The evolution of education technology (PCK – TPK –
TPACK) within the US classrooms illustrates pedagogic
transformation. Undoubtedly, infrastructure development
and policy reforms have influenced the pedagogic
transformation. Additionally, the adaptation of TPACK has
been attributed to the strong influence of the local context
and culture of the schools (Harris & Hofer, 2017). Koh and
Lim (2008) in their work on ‘the emergence of Information
Technology (IT) for educational purposes’ emphasized on
the importance of culture in developing educational
technology. It is how the overall cultural redefinition of
education influenced the changing pedagogic choice and
specifically the integration of educational technology.
Similarly, Niki Davis (2003) reinstates how technology has
been embedded within the US culture (Macionis, 2002)
leading to the mass implementation of educational
technology as a pedagogic practice beginning with
programmed learning/behaviorism. Gradually, localized
efforts were made by US schools to adapt to embrace
educational technology. In Briarwood County, shifting
student demographics with an increasing number of
English language-learning students, encouraged the
Technology Director to negate "one-size-fits-all" approach
and identify teacher leaders with different expertise (e.g.,
content experts, special education teachers, instructional
technology resource teachers) (Harris & Hofer, 2017) to
develop individualized educational plan for meaningful
technology-enabled language learning. In 2001, a federal
program ‘Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to use
Technology’ provided special localized e-rates for
equitable internet access for poorly resourced schools
(Davis, 2003). The 2005 national ICT teacher training is a
contributing factor in pedagogic transformation. The joint
systemic efforts for infrastructure development, localized
adaptation, and teacher professional development
enabled the evolution of PCK to TPK and further to
practice TPACK for integrating educational technology.
Despite such pedagogic transformations like constructive
use of educational technology within classrooms or e-
learning, the programs on pedagogy training on integrating
educational technology continued to diverge from the
educational needs and reach of the populations that are
historically Black, Hispanic, and Tribal (Davis, 2003). This
exposed cultural digital equity as a remaining predominant
challenge to pedagogic transformation. Being cognizant of
the growing digital divide, influenced by cultural elements
of language and social hierarchies — the disparity
between the use of technology to create, design, build,
explore, and collaborate and simply use technology to
consume and follow media passively (OET, 2017;
Fishman & Dede, 2016; Purcell, et al., 2013), the US policy
continues to promote TPACK as pedagogic practice for
closing the digital divide.
Country Case Illustration - India
Digital technologies in the Indian education system
commonly referred to as ‘ICT in Schools’ was first
introduced during the 1990s. The National IT Task Force
on Information Technology and Software Development
(1998) recommended the introduction of Information
Communication and Technology (ICT) within Indian public
schools. A joint action plan for schools was drafted along
with various public sector facilities like railways, banking
operations, and commercial undertakings (Bajwa, 2003).
The main objective was to computerize these services
including curriculum and instruction. This became the
guiding principle for the headway for educational
technology into the Indian public schools. In 2000, the
Task Force on Human Resource Development in IT was
set up to prepare a long-term strategy that envisaged the
role of education at the primary, secondary, and tertiary
levels of paramount importance (Bajwa, 2003). However,
until this period, digital technology remained a concept of
high appreciation among policy-makers without any
school-level implementation actualization. Unlike the US
counterpart which vigorously worked on infrastructure
development and pedagogic integration, Indian
departments struggled to implement ICT policies owing to
economic and social constraints (Delponte, et al., 2015).
Nevertheless, with the high political zeal and
implementation roadmaps, the ‘ICT in school’ program
began in 2004. India was about 20 years behind the
developed nation in introducing technologies (ICT) in
public schools. The initial years of this program
concentrated on setting up of ‘computer labs’ in selected
secondary public school with maximum focus on providing
digitized content through these labs, instead of pedagogic
integration. In a study to measure the effectiveness of the
'ICT in School' program, the report highlighted the
availability of computers in 80% schools in the states of
Delhi, Kerala, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and
Puducherry (EQFI, 2012). On the contrary, only 28% of
teachers reported using ICT equipment and material for
teaching subject content. Though the Indian policymakers
envisioned the introduction of ICT to produce educational
benefits catering to the diverse schoolchild population
(MHRD, 2010), it was limited to infrastructure development
and limited ICT training as an optional subject. PCK for
core subjects existed in parallel PCK for ICT as a subject;
there was no evidence of TPK.

5. Pedagogic Transformation: Comparing Educational Technology in the US and India
World J. Edu. Res. Rev. 108
In the year 2010, the ‘revised ICT in schools’ program
revisited the need for infrastructural development,
including establishing SMART classrooms. It expanded
the scope of educational technology into using digital tools
for teaching, developing e-content, and teacher training
(MHRD, 2016). The Indian public schools were introduced
with learning software, teaching hardware, internet, and
ubiquitous technologies (Goswami, 2014) which promoted
the knowledge relationship between pedagogy and
technology (TPK). However, pedagogic transformation
does not automatically follow with the mere introduction of
ICT as digital tools or teacher education curriculum (Beri &
Sharma, 2019). The field stories within the Indian public
school classrooms continued to narrate access and
availability tussles to integrate educational technology,
indicating the digital divide influenced by geo-social factors
widening this digital gap (Tamulee, 2020). Byker (2014)
cites an example of rural Indian schools, and that how
cartons of computer devices were never opened owing to
no electricity. The digital divide is not limited to rural-urban
location but layered by geographical terrain, socio-
economic status, and gender. Many such reflections are
anecdotal as a consequence of the lack of empirical
research in the use of ICT within Indian public schools
(Byker, 2014). In midst of this digital inequity, the flagship
program ‘Digital India’ envisaging to ‘transform India into a
digitally empowered society and knowledge economy’
(GoI, 2015) provided a favorable policy environment for
enabling digital accessibility. In its attempt to promote the
global belief on learner-centered approaches enhancing
students’ experiences in schools (Schweisfurth, 2013), the
National Curriculum Framework (2005) highlighted the
need for facilitating computational thinking and scientific
temper through the integration of educational
technologies; Computer Science continued to be a
separate optional subject for high school students. This
guiding policy document appealed for a change in teacher
professional development and pedagogy transformation
within Indian classrooms. This was the beginning of a
pedagogic dialogue on TPACK. Miglani and Burch (2019)
elaborates on rising efforts on professional development
among government teachers through pilot initiatives on
continuous educational technology training by the
government departments and a host of non-state actors
(foundations, philanthropic organizations, consulting,
development organizations and a range of for-profit or not-
for-profit NGOs). The teacher training conducted by TESS
– India, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, TeachNext, Khan
Academy, MathsLab, Next ERP to name a few, show
simultaneous inclusion of concepts of PCK and TPACK,
online technologies, open education resources and
pedagogic inputs to integrate ICT into curriculum delivery
(Wolfenden, 2015; Yadav, et al., 2018 ). Beri and Sharma
(2019) in their study on 'TPACK among teacher educators
in Punjab region' point out the augmentation of using
TPACK by teacher-educators and teachers. Educational
technology in the form of TPACK is a growing pedagogic
choice among government school teachers but little has
been researched on pedagogic transformation within the
classroom.
Factors affecting the evolution
The Digital era and Educational Technologies in the Indian
education system have witnessed a delayed but steady
growth. It has predominantly been dominated by
infrastructure development instead of a pedagogic
dialogue. From the 1990s until recent times, Indian policy-
makers emphasized on computer technology delivering
educational benefits (Byker, 2014); however, the Indian
societal realities have highly challenged the evolution of
digital technologies. The basic idea of personal ownership
was alien to Indian families with a record low of 0.6 per 100
inhabitants with personal computers (Pernia, 2008). In
comparison to the US, ICT infrastructure provisioning and
development within schools was important because of
limited access to technology at home, yet challenging due
to the existing geo-socio and cultural factors. India has
around half a million software developers and is second
only to the US but 26% of the population living below the
poverty line and 35% illiterate (Singh, 2010). Singh (2018)
counted the complexity of challenges that includes
infrastructural hindrances, cultural issue i.e. language and
attitude, lack of trained teachers, and technologically
challenged parents. Undoubtedly, the political fervor
towards educational technology was evident in forms of
ICT policy reforms, departmental investments and non-
state collaborations on ICT infrastructure, and improved
continuous teacher professional development. However,
despite these attempts, physical and cultural barriers
persist to exist (Byker, 2014) reinforcing the digital gap in
access and ability to use ICT. The digital divide is
significant between rural and urban India (Singh, 2007 ;
Mahajan, 2003). However, this geographical divide is
complimented by cultural passiveness towards using
computers and the internet. Singh (2010) describes the
disassociation of India rural people including teachers with
the benefits of the Internet and other communication
technologies. Linguistic barriers add to this struggle to
integrate technology. The e-content is mostly available in
English or Hindi with few being reproduced in local
languages (Karnati, 2008). Thirumurthy and Sundaram
(2003) explains how the scarcity of ICT resources affect
teachers’ attitude about using such resources making
teachers view the use of technology in the curriculum as
an 'additional work'. This attitudinal barrier further
influences the pedagogic choice towards adapting TPACK
into curriculum delivery. The teacher training and in-school
support have facilitated pedagogic transformation from
PCK to TPK/TPACK. Still, the geo-cultural factors clubbed
with teacher attitudes towards educational technology
have slowed the process of pedagogic transformation.
CONCLUSION
The review of the secondary literature reveals that the
evolution of educational technology viz-a-viz pedagogic
transformation within the US education system is well-
researched and documented. The journey of the US
education pedagogic transformation provides evidence

6. Pedagogic Transformation: Comparing Educational Technology in the US and India
Tamulee P 109
that this developed nation has policies informed by the
knowledge created by social research with special
attention to teacher education (Spiel, et al., 2019) which
has contributed in escalating them as one of the global
leaders in educational technology and pedagogic
transformation. On the contrary, the Indian education
system has seen a slow pedagogic transformation with the
contemporary addition of educational technology as a
pedagogic choice among the Indian teachers. As an
experienced practitioner specializing in educational
technology in India, I am aware that pedagogic
transformation in integrating technology is not an
independent isolated decision of the teacher. The
pedagogic choice is influenced by the topographical
positioning, socio-economic demographics, and culture
varying the process of integrating and societal adaptation
of technology through the digital ages. Thereby, it makes
educational technology a complex process of pedagogic
transformation exposing the distinct equity issues in the
respective countries.
Based on the case illustrations, table 1 provides a
comparative interpretation of the pedagogic transformation
of these two independent countries during the digital era.
Table 1: Comparing the two countries: pedagogic transformation
The United States of America India
The 1980s – 1990s
(Digital Era: Personalised
Computers)
Use of computers as a teaching aid
Pedagogic Transformation: PCK to TPK
The 1990s – 2000
(Digital Era: Internet)
Use of internet for developing teaching
content or lesson plans
Continued use of computers as a
teaching aid
Continued with TPK pedagogy
Policy introduction to educational
technology, no classroom usage
Pedagogic Transformation: Parallel
existence of PCK and TCK, no TPK
2000 – Contemporary
(Digital Era: Internet)
Using Interactive Technologies for
learner-centered teaching
Pedagogic Transformation: TPK to
TPACK
Infrastructure development and teacher
professional development; using computers
and the internet as a teaching aid
Pedagogic Transformation: Introduction to
TPACK, limited classroom implementation
The US digital divide is correlated to the style of technology
use; whether teachers assist passive or active use of
educational technology is the main defiance. In India,
despite high political appreciation for technology and
infrastructural development, the digital divide to access
and availability of resources and content among
government teachers and students exist. The distinct
digital inequalities influenced by specific physical and
cultural factors have established different educational
technology pathways for these two countries.
WAY FORWARD
The US is an international strategic partner influencing the
Indian policy development and program implementation;
educational technology is inclusive of this tactical
alignment. Though innovation-led global approaches see
higher education lagging in the race with technology, even
in the US of today (Spiel, et al., 2019), Indian government
look up to borrowing TPACK practices from the US
universities and organizations to incorporate educational
technology within HEIs for teacher professional
development and further accelerate the pedagogic
transformation within the schools. However, Indian policy-
makers ought to be cognizant of the US contextual
influencers that have prescribed the progression of
educational technology, which otherwise might lead to
superficial mobilization of pedagogic practice (Takayama,
et al., 2017). The Indian realities within and beyond the
schools reinforcing pedagogic transformation are more
complex than the US. The US policy and practices aimed
at closing the digital divide through meaningful ICT usage;
the Indian ICT program tussles with prerequisites for
access confronting barriers of geo-social, cultural, and
economic factors. Thereby making the scientific
investigation of the ‘contextual forces’ affecting the
pedagogic transformation of educational technology within
both the home (the US) and the target (India) important to
policy-makers, this is to identify the foci of attraction—
aspects of educational technology policies and practices
that can be borrowed (Phillips & Ochs, 2003).
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. and Ronnkvist, A., 1999. The presence of
computers in American schools: Teaching, learning and
computing: 1998 national survey (CA: Center for
Research on Information Technology and
Organizations.
Anon., 2016. Demystifying Learning Frameworks: The P21
Framework. [Online] Available at:
https://remakelearning.org/blog/2016/04/29/demystifyi
ng-learning-frameworks-the-p21-framework/
[Accessed 08 February 2020].
Bain, A. and Zundans-Fraser, L., 2017. Technology for
Learning and teaching. In: The Self-organizing
University: Designing the Higher Education

7. Pedagogic Transformation: Comparing Educational Technology in the US and India
Organization for Quality Learning and teaching.
Singapore: Springer Nature, p. 134.
Bajwa, G. S., 2003. ICT policy in India in the era of
liberalisation: its impact and consequences.. GBER.
Bekker, M. P. V. d. M. and. T. L.-A., 2013. Exploring
Pedagogical Choices of Preservice Teachers for
Culturally. Educational Research for Social Change
(ERSC), November, pp. pp. 59-75.
Beri, N. and Sharma, L., 2019. A Study on Technological
Pedagogical and Content Knowledge among Teacher-
Educators in Punjab Region. International Journal of
Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), 8(5C),
pp. 1306 - 1312.
Bray, O., 2018. Digital Technology In Scottish secondary
schools: how school leaders can harness its potential
to drive both school- and system- wide improvement.
Glasgow: University of Glasgow.
Byker, E. J., 2014. ICT in India’s Elementary Schools: The
Vision and Realities. The International Education
Journal: Comparative Perspectives , 13(2), pp. 27-40.
CSOS, C. f. S. O. o. S., 1983. School uses of
microcomputers: Reports from a national survey,
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for
Social Organization of Schools..
Davis, N., 2003. Technology in teacher education in the
USA: what makes for sustainable good practice?.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(1), pp. 59-
84.
Delponte, L. et al., 2015. ICT in the developing world,
Brussels : European Parliament.
EQFI, E. Q. F. o. I., 2012. Use of Information and
Communication Technology in Secondary Schools,
NEw Delhi: NITI Ayog.
Fishman, B. and Dede, C., 2016 . Teaching and
technology: New tools for new times. In: D. H. Gitomer
and C. A. Bell, eds. Handbook of Research on
Teaching. s.l.:American Educational Research
Association, pp. 1269-1334.
GoI, G. o. I., 2015. E-Governance policy initiatives under
digital India, New Delhi: Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology.
Goswami, C., 2014. Role of Technology in Indian
Education. International Proceedings of Economics
Development and Research (IPEDR), 79 (2), pp. 6-10 .
Harris, J. B. and Hofer, M. J., 2017. “TPACK Stories”:
Schools and School Districts Repurposing a
Theoretical Construct for Technology-Related
Professional Development. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 49(1-2), pp. 1-15.
Howard, S. K. and Mozejko, A., 2015. Considering the
history of digital technologies in education. In: M. H.
and. G. Romero, ed. Teaching and Digital
Technologies: Big Issues and Critical Questions. Port
Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press, pp.
157-168.
Karnati, R., 2008. Computer aided instruction for out -of -
school children in India: An impact study in Andhra
Pradesh. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania.
Khan, R., 2019. India’s US$20m investment to build US-
India education links on its own turf. [Online]
Available at: https://thepienews.com/analysis/indias-
us20m-investment-to-build-us-india-education-links-
on-its-own-turf/
[Accessed 10 April 2020].
Koehler, M. J. et al., 2014. The Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge Framework. In: J.M. Spector et al.
(eds.), ed. Handbook of Research on Educational
Communications and Technology. New York: Springer
Science+Business Media, pp. 101-111.
Koh, E. and Lim, J., 2008. The Emergence of Educational
Technology. Milano, Italy, IFIP International Federation
for Information Processing, pp. 99-112.
Macionis, J., 2002. Sociology. 9 ed. Prentice Hall: Upper
Saddle River.
Mahajan, S., 2003. Impact of Digital Divide on Developing
Countries with Special Reference to India. SERALS
Journal of Information Management, 40 (4), pp. 328-
329.
Mahashevta, 2017. REVIEW OF ICT POLICIES IN INDIA.
BHARTIYAM INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
EDUCATION and RESEARCH, 7(1).
MEA, M. o. E. A., 2013. Brief on India-U.S. [Online]
Available at: https://www.mea.gov.in/Portal/Foreign
Relation/India-U.S._Relations.pdf
[Accessed 5 February 2020].
MHRD, 2010. Annual Education Report 2009 - 2010, New
Delhi : Indian Government .
MHRD, 2016. Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) >> Overview, New Delhi: Ministry of
Electronics and Information Technology, Government
of India.
Miglani, N. and Burch, P., 2019. Educational Technology
in India: The Field and Teacher’s Sensemaking.
Contemporary Education Dialogue, 16(1), p. 26–53.
Morrison, J. a. C. D., 2004. The Future of Learning
Technologies. Innovate , 1(1).
NCATE, B. R. P. o. C. P. a. P. f. I. S. l., 2010. Transforming
teacher education through clinical practice: A national
strategy to prepare effective teachers, Washington, DC:
NCATE.
NCERT, 2005. National Curriculum Framework (NCF),
New Delhi,: National Council for Educational Research
and Training.
OET, O. o. E. T., 2017. Reimagining the Role of
Technology in Education:2017 National Education
Technology Plan Update, Washington, D.C.,: U.S.
Department of Education.
P21, T. P. f. 2. C. S., 2009. P21 Framework Definitions,
Columbus: The Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
Pernia, E. E., 2008. Strategy framework for promoting ICT
literacy in the Asia-Pacific region. 1 ed. Bangkok:
UNESCO.
Phillips, D. and Ochs, K., 2003. Processes of Policy
Borrowing in Education: some explanatory and
analytical devices. Comparative Education , 39(4), pp.
451-461.

8. Pedagogic Transformation: Comparing Educational Technology in the US and India
Phillips, N., 2019. Factors Impacting on the Integration of
Digital Technology in Learning and Teaching in
Educational Establishments. Glasgow: University of
Glasgow.
Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J. and Friedrich, L.,
2013. How teachers are using technology at home and
in their classrooms, Washington, DC: Pew Research
Center’s Internet and American Life Project. .
Reiser, o. A., 2001. A History of Instructional Design and
Technology: Part II: A History of Instructional Design.
Educational Technology Research and Development,
Vol. 49, (2), pp. 57-67.
Reiser, R. A., 2001. A History of Instructional Design and
Technology: Part I: A History of Instructional Media.
Educational Technology Research and Development,
49(1), pp. 53-64.
S4, S., 2018. ABOUT THE U.S.-INDIA KNOWLEDGE
EXCHANGE. [Online] Available at:
https://usike.org/about/ [Accessed 10 April 2020].
Sadler, M., 1900. How far can we learn anything of
practical value from the study of foreign systems of
education? Address of 20 October. In: J. H. Higginson,
ed. Selections from Michael Sadler. Liverpool ed.
Liverpool: Dejall and Meyorre.
Schweisfurth, M., 2013. Learner-centred Education in
International Perspective: Whose pedagogy for whose
development?. London: Routledge.
Shulman, L., 1987. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations
of the new reform.. Harvard Educational Review,
Volume 57, pp. 1-22.
Singh, I., 2018. Digital Education: Scope and Challenges
of a Developing Society. ParipexIndian Journal of
Research, 7(5).
Singh, N., 2007 . Bridging the Digital Divide in India:
Challenges and Opportunities. World Libraries, 17 (1).
Singh, S., 2010. Digital Divide in India: Measurement,
Determinants and Policy for Addressing the Challenges
in Bridging the Digital Divide. IJIDE, Volume 1, pp. 1-
24.
Spiel, C. et al., 2019. The contribution of education to
social progress. In: Rethinking Society for the 21st
Century: Report of the International Panel for Social
Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Takayama, K., Sriprakash, A. and Connell, R., 2017.
Toward a postcolonial comparative and international
education. Comparative Education Review, 61(1).
Tamulee, P., 2020. The Rapid Move to Online Learning in
HE: Equity Lessons from India, Glasgow: EPPE
Network .
Tellis, A. J., 2012. The logic of this strategy is analysed .
In: Nonalignment Redux: The Perils of Old Wine in New
Skins. Washington: Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace.
Tellis, A. J., 2019. Narendra Modi and US–India Relations
. In: A. G. K. D. Bibek Debroy, ed. Making of New India:
Transformation Under Modi Government. s.l.:Wisdom
Tree, pp. 525-535.
Thirumurthy, V. and Sundaram, N., 2003. Mathematics
curriculum in India and Singapore. Computers for
young children in India, 79(5), pp. 307-313.
Wetzel, K. and Marshall, S., 2012. TPACK Goes to Sixth
Grade: Lessons from a Middle School Teacher. Journal
of Digital Learning in Teacher Education in a High-
Technology-Access Classroom, 28(2), pp. 73-81.
Wolfenden, F., 2015. OER: Collaborative practices to
improve teacher education. Indian Journal of Teacher
Education, 1(3), pp. 33-38.
Yadav, N., Gupta, K. and Khetrapal, V., 2018 . Next
Education: Technology Transforming Education. South
Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases,
7(1), p. 68–77.
Accepted 17 July 2020
Citation: Tamulee P (2020). Pedagogic Transformation:
Comparing Educational Technology in the US and India.
World Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 6(1):
104-111.
Copyright: © 2020: Tamulee P. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.