Is TPACK framework effective for Executive Coaching?
Reference:
Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782570
Annotation:
Judith Harris and Mark Hofer (2011) examined how experienced teachers plan instruction that effectively integrates technology with content and pedagogy. Through qualitative interviews, unit analyses, and reflective journals, the researchers found that teachers’ use of technology became more conscious, strategic, and student-centered after participating in professional development focused on content-based “learning activity types.” Teachers began selecting technologies not for their novelty but for how well they served learning goals, demonstrating that effective integration requires understanding the nuanced “fit” between tools, content, and learners.
The study introduced a replicable framework for developing adaptive expertise through reflective planning and design thinking principles that extend far beyond education - hence why it is relevant to executive coaching!
For leadership and management consultants, Harris and Hofer’s study offers a powerful parallel to the challenges of coaching and organizational learning. Their methodology is deeply interpretive, reflective, and evidence-based which mirrors the way executive coaches guide leaders through awareness, experimentation, and refinement. By mapping how teachers evolve from “technocentric” to “learner-centric” thinking, the research models how leaders can move from “tool orientation” (e.g., implementing AI dashboards or engagement platforms) to behavioral fluency like integrating technology with strategy, culture, and context.
The study’s TPACK framework can be adapted for leadership enablement, where:
content = strategy
pedagogy = leadership approach
technology = tools
These facilitate decision-making and communication. HR professionals can use this lens to design more effective coaching interventions shifting from system implementation to skill integration, much like educators learned to shift focus from software features to meaningful outcomes.
Traditional Executive Coaching example:
Coach: “You’ve mentioned frustration with your team’s resistance to the analytics platform. What emotions come up for you when you see that resistance?”
COO: “It feels like they’re not moving fast enough, like they’re clinging to old ways.”
Coach: “What leadership behaviors could help model the adaptability you’d like to see?”
COO: “Maybe I could be more transparent about my learning curve too.”
Coach: “Excellent. Let’s develop a communication plan that frames your learning story and sets expectations.”
Result: The coach helps the leader become more self-aware, emotionally intelligent, and strategic in communication, but the technology integration challenge remains largely unaddressed.
TPACK Framework Executive Coaching Example:
Coach: “You’re leading a transformation that depends on your team’s ability to use data strategically. Let’s explore how your communication methods and tool use align with that goal.”
COO: “I’ve asked them to adopt the dashboard, but they still default to old reports.”
Coach: “That’s an example of a content-technology gap. What if we designed learning sessions that focus not just on using the tool but on interpreting data for strategic decisions? You could co-facilitate those sessions modeling the kind of data-driven thinking you expect.”
COO: “That makes sense. I can use our next operations meeting to walk through how I’m using the data for forecasting.”
Coach: “Exactly. That integrates the technology into your leadership pedagogy turning the tool into a platform for shared sense-making, not compliance.”
Result: The coaching moves from personal reflection to adaptive system design aligning how the leader teaches, communicates, and models behavior through the actual technology being adopted.
Coach’s Focus:
Technology = digital tools and data systems being implemented.
Pedagogy = the coaching approach or facilitation method (how the leader learns).
Content = the business strategy, goals, or leadership outcomes being developed.
Perception drives Interpretation of Feedback
Reference:
Newman, D. (2025). Examining the emotional tone of student evaluations of teaching. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 51(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.21432/CJLT-28695
Annotation:
How does perception affect feedback? Newman (2025) analyzed 600 student-written evaluations from Rate My Professors (2018–2023) to determine the emotional tone of the language used. Students feedback was reviewed using indicators such as pleasantries and words with positive connotations using Whissell’s Dictionary of Affectionate (DOA). The study found that students provided feedback to instructors in the evaluations that were emotionally neutral in tone however, the instructors perceived the tone to be overly critical on average.
The study’s strengths lie in the reliability of the tools used, like the DOA, and the simplicity of how the study is measured. The correlations are easy to understand and the study itself and its methods are easy enough to understand that replication can be completed with ease. Newman (2025) also provided adequate acknowledgements to the limitations of the information reviewed such as sampling bias, word count variability, and the constraints of publicly available online data.
In the context of organizational performance management, this article underscores the value of distinguishing emotional perception from objective data. Similar to how faculty may overinterpret student comments as overly negative, employees and managers often perceive performance evaluations as more emotionally charged than they actually are. For consultants, the findings point to the importance of designing evaluation systems that emphasize neutrality and balance. By integrating structured training on how to give and receive feedback, organizations can foster a shared understanding that feedback is a tool for growth rather than criticism. Embedding “feedback literacy” into workplace practices not only reduces defensiveness and bias but also equips both leaders and staff with the skills to interpret evaluations constructively. This approach supports the development of resilient, evidence-based performance systems that encourage trust, reduce anxiety, and create a culture where feedback is seen as an essential driver of individual and organizational improvement.