Successful implementation of tpack in teacher

International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) Vol.4, No.1, March 2015
DOI :10.5121/ijite.2015.4102 17
Successful Implementation of TPACK in Teacher
Preparation Programs
Barbara Martin
Illinois State University, United States
Abstract
Today’s teacher education programs should be providing pre-service teachers with ample preparation in
shifting instructional approaches enriched with innovative educational technologies. In fact as Lambert &
Gong (2010) stated “We have entered a crucial time when the technological preparation of teachers has
become an urgent problem we can no longer afford to marginalize” (p. 55). This review of literature
examines recent publications on the topic of technology in teacher preparation through the theoretical lens
of Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK) which has shown potential to emphasize a
teacher’s understanding of how technologies can be used effectively as a pedagogical tool.
1.INTRODUCTION
Today’s teacher preparation students are considered to be part of the population called “digital
natives” (Prensky, 2001). “Digital natives” have been using technologies in their daily lives for
as long as they can remember. Students are frequently comfortable and savvy with various types
of media and can navigate through various technology obstacles unfazed. However, a recent
study suggests that perhaps education students are not as prepared for 21st
century technology
integration as one might expect. Lei (2009) found that although “digital natives” as pre-service
teachers use technology extensively, their use of technology has been mainly focused on and
related to their social-communication activities and their learning activities as students. As pre-
service teachers, they lack the knowledge, skills, and experiences to integrate technology into
classrooms to help them teach and to help their students learn, even though they fully recognize
the importance of doing so.
With the integration of technology into the daily lives of educators and students it is vital that
teacher preparation programs across the nation respond (Kyei-Blankson, Keengwe & Blankson,
2009). In fact, the National Research Council (2005, 2010) recognizes this need to address
technology integration in both content (e.g., undergraduate science and math courses) and
instructional pedagogy courses. Teacher preparation programs need embrace the shift from skill
focused technology courses to technology infused pedagogy curriculum. Today’s teacher
education programs should provide pre-service teachers with ample preparation in shifting
instructional approaches enriched with innovative educational technologies.

18
In a meta-analysis of the value and use of technology in K–12 education (Valdez, McNabb,
Foertsch et al., 2004), the North Central Regional Laboratory found that “technology innovations
are increasing the demand for reforms in teaching and learning approaches that, in turn, are
having a significant impact on technology use expectations” (p. iii). New teacher
education graduates should be as literate as the “digital natives” they are intending to
teach and should be confident in embracing the ever-changing world of technology in education
as this will play an integral role in their future classrooms.
In response to this need, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) created
standards for administrators and educators regarding the use of technology in the classroom.
These needs include such things as inspiring student learning, model digital age work and
develop authentic learning experiences for students. These ISTE standards emphasize the
importance of the teacher as a facilitator of knowledge construction and aim to foster continued
improvement in the field of education.
To successfully integrate digital technologies into instructional practices, pre-service teachers
must be trained throughout their undergraduate experiences on technology implementation
resources and strategies (Williams, Foulger, & Wetzel, 2009). The National Educational
Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS.T) were created by ISTE to provide this instructional
support in technology integration. The following concentration areas are covered:
1. Facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity
2. Design and develop digital age learning experiences and assessments
3. Model digital age work and learning
4. Promote and model digital citizenship and responsibility
5. Engage in professional growth and leadership (www.iste.org)
The NETS.T framework for teacher candidates communicates goals for teacher education
curriculum and articulates objectives for successful technology implementation. With this
framework in mind, schools across the country are developing and delivering curriculum
embedded with technology. Institutions of higher education are aligning teacher certification,
promotion, and tenure requirements with a corresponding set of professional standards (Cohen&
Tally, 2004; Richardson, 2012). Most recently the Council for Accreditation of Educator
Preparation (CAEP formerly known as NCATE), the governing body solely in charge of
accreditation of teacher preparations across the nation, has begun vocalizing the importance of
technology integration across teacher preparation curricula. In the most recent revision of teacher
preparation standards, CAEP has articulated that “technology is a critical area that will require
new learning and substantial innovation by preparation providers” (CAEP, 2014). The
organization also emphasized the importance of technology integration be “imbedded in every
aspect of educator preparation” and chose to recognize it throughout the recommended standards
as opposed to providing an isolated section for technology standards (CAEP, 2014).
Nationally educators agree that there is vital importance in pre-service teachers developing 21st
century technology skills (Pellegrino, Goldman, Bertenthal, &Lawless, 2007). “We have entered
a crucial time when fundamental shifts in the economy, changing nature of the workforce,
demographic shifts, educational competitiveness, globalization of society, and computerization of

19
the workplace make the technological preparation of teachers an urgent problem we can no longer
afford to marginalize” (Lambert& Gong, 2010, p. 55). While it seems that most teacher
preparation programs would agree with this argument, many are still operating under an older,
skill-oriented framework that provides technology instruction in a stand-alone course (Parette,
Quesenberry.,& Blum, 2010). Moreover, many programs have not taken the time to rigorously
evaluate if the students are successfully being technologically prepared (Williams et al., 2009).
2.What is TPACK?
Educators interested in successful technology implementation and integration into K-12
classroom as well as teacher education programs have become familiar with the TPACK
framework (Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge model). TPACK is a framework for
describing and understanding the goals for technology use. The model introduces the
relationships and overlapping between all three basic components of knowledge (technology,
pedagogy, and content) (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). TPACK emphasizes a teacher’s
understanding of how technologies can be used effectively as a pedagogical tool and illustrates
the rich overlap among the pedagogy, content and technology knowledge bases (see Figure 1).
Figure 1:TPACK framework (Koehler & Rosenberg, 2014)
TPACK is based on the work of Shulman (1986) which suggested the combination of pedagogy,
content and knowledge (PCK) as the key to effective teaching practices. Rather than providing
information on content and knowledge separately, Shulman illustrated strength in the overlap
between the two constructs. To address a growing need for guidance in technology integration,
Koehler and Mishra (2009) expanded Shulman’s PCK model by adding an additional dimension,

20
technology (Figure 1). At the core of TPACK, technology, pedagogy and content combine to
illustrate the optimal goal of technology infused curricula as suggested by ISTE NETS
technology standards as well as the accreditation body CAEP. This meeting point at the core of
TPACK clearly articulates the utopian goal for both classroom teachers and higher education
instructors. Thus, the creation of the TPACK model emerged to become a very valuable tool in
examining how integrated technology can seamlessly strengthen instructional strategies as well as
content knowledge in curricula (Brantley, Kinuthia, Shoffner, et al., 2007; Cox & Graham, 2009;
Hu& Fyfe, 2010; Hsu, 2012; Koelher& Mishra, 2008; Schmidt, 2009).
Through the TPACK lens, researchers examine strategies for successful technology integration.
In this review of 35recent professional journal articles on TPACK, several reoccurring themes
emerged: Student technology confidence, Leadership and modeling of technology integration,
and assessment/evaluation of technology integration. This paper will examine and synthesize
these suggestions for successful technology integration in teacher preparation in an effort to
articulate key supported considerations for implementation.
3.Student Confidence
Much of the research and literature published on the topic of TPACK is based on the building and
assessment of student confidence in technology integration (Gao,Choy, Wong, & Wu, 2009;
Hersh, 2013; Mayo,Kajs,&Tanguma,2005). One might hypothesize that this theme is so
prominent due to the difficulty of quantifying technology integration and the relative ease of
obtaining student perception via survey responses. On the other hand, it is important to note that
student confidence in technology integration does play a significant role in continued use of
technological tools and strategies (Mayo et al., 2005).
In fact, a recent publication Gao et al. (2009) stated “failure to raise the teachers’ competence
during pre-service education may result in the pre-service teachers quickly forsaking the use of
instructional computer technology in practice” (pg. 725). Similar research by Hersh (2013)
suggests that for successful implementation, the use of technology should be embedded in
content-specific and methods coursework to increase teacher confidence. Finally, Mayo et al.
(2005) concluded that increased use of educational technologies resulted in increased self-
efficacy of technology integration. These findings all suggest that the first step to building
TPACK in teacher preparation is through building confidence through exposure.
4.Leadership and Modeling of Technology Integration
While exposure to technology learning opportunities was often cited in TPACK literature,
exposure to technology modeling was equally emphasized as an integral factor of successful
technology integration. In fact, TPACK literature frequently cited education instructors as vital
components in technology learning as they play an important part of technology role models for
pre-service teachers (Koch,Heo, & Kush, 2012; Kopcha, 2010; Thomas, Herrring, Redmond &
Smaldino, 2013).
In another recent publication, Goktas, Yildirim, andYildirim, (2009) articulate how important it is
for teacher educators to act as role models for prospective teachers by using technologies in their
own teaching. The authors illustrates how specifically instructor competency and willingness to

21
use technologies in teaching will enrich their courses in the technology-integration process while
modeling best practices for pre-service teachers. This sentiment was echoed in another article by
Hsu (2012) that stated “modeling from course instructors is a critical component” of technology
in teacher preparation (p. 198).
This point was even further supported by recent research by Kovalik, Kuo, and Karpinski.
(2013).Results from the study indicated that teacher candidate observations of technology-rich
elementary classrooms significantly increased pre-service teacher technology knowledge in all
five standard areas of the NETS technology standards for teachers. Similarly, Koch et al. (2012)
published a study that showed that technology modeling and program design within a teacher
education program can have a significant impact on pre-service teachers, thus improving their
perceptions about their ability to integrate technology. This professional goal may seem easier
said than done as Gronseth, Brush and Ottenbreit - Leftwich, et al. (2010) suggest “Many
methods faculty fail to provide appropriate modeling, as they themselves struggle with keeping
up with best practices in current technologies” (pg. 30).
While these findings articulated the profound influence that instructor modeling can have on
teacher candidates, Thomas et al. (2013) extended this concept by stating “Leaders, deans and
department heads must be an integral part of the change process for successful technology
integration to take place”(pg. 55). These recent publications illustrate the importance of modeling
technology integration not only by education instructors but also by university leadership and
administrators as these individuals articulate the expectations by which the students model their
own efforts.
However, building confidence through exposure and modeling are just two of the many ways that
TPACK can be established in teacher preparation programs. As Gao et al.(2009) suggest,
building TPACK in teacher preparation programs takes a multifaceted effort. The authors
illustrate this concept particularly well in their recent publication by stating the following:Teacher
education programs need to adopt various strategies to nurture a sophisticated, constructivist view
of technology integration. For example, teacher education programs need to challenge pre-service
teachers by involving them in critical reflection upon their own practice, providing on going
guidance, modelling and collaboration (p. 726).
In fact in many recent publications researchers cited reflection as a suggested integral part of
building and evaluating successful TPACK in teacher preparation programs (Goktas et al. 2009;
Pierson & Borthwick, 2010).
5.Assessment/Evaluation of Technology Integration
Over the past ten years, the field of technology in education has really struggled with ways to
quantify progress toward technology standards. For example, Coffman (2013) describes how the
only measure of whether pre-service teachers possess the technology capabilities to satisfy the
ISTE NETS•T standards at Kent State University relied on whether or not they successfully
completed the one Educational Technology course required. This shows the concern for how
programs are evaluating technology standards.

22
Due to this concern, researchers have recently been dedicated to developing reliable assessment
approaches for measuring TPACK and its constructs(Abbitt, 2011; Koehler & Mishra, 2009;
Schmidt, 2009).The goal of this effort is to better understand which areas of strengths and
weaknesses as well as which professional development approaches do increase teachers’
technology knowledge.
In a recent publication Kyie-Blankson et al. (2009) articulated this effort well by stating
“Monitoring and examining students’ expectations and evaluation of faculty use of technology in
instruction is necessary to provide valuable feedback to educators and administrators regarding
effective technology integration in teaching and learning” (p. 211). It’s clear that researchers and
educators are beginning to see the need for systematic design, evaluation, reflection and redesign
is essential in building a strong TPACK foundation (Goktas et al., 2009).
In fact to support and define this need further Pierson & Borthwick (2010) created a model for
meaningful assessment and reflection with TPACK at the core (see Figure 2). This model
illustrates how effective and meaningful assessment of educational technology professional
development (ETPD) requires that educators design in-service learning activities that can be
measured using methods consistent with teaching and learning. The authors importantly note that
reflection and evaluation is an inseparable component of ongoing teacher action and growth.
Figure 2: Assessment of educational technology based on a contextually-situated TPACK model

23
6.Integrated Technology in Teacher Preparation
The final theme that became evident through the review of literature on TPACK was in the
delivery of information to pre-service teachers. According to a 2006 Educational Technology in
Teacher Education Programs for Initial Licensure study, 100% of all teacher preparation
programs in the United States provide instruction on technology integration (Kleiner, Thomas,
Lewis, & Greene, 2007). While standards have consistently provided a guideline for what
students need to know, universities have chosen the delivery of technology in teacher preparation
courses in two separate ways (Kay 2006; Teclehaimanot, Mentzer,& Hickman, 2011; Torre,
2013; Wentzler, 2008) the traditional, stand-alone and the nontraditional, integrated approach.
More recent research in teacher preparation has encouraged instructors to incorporate
technologies into their courses to strengthen student confidence, build contextual knowledge and
model technology integration (Wetzel, Foulger, & Williams, 2008). However because many
universities have not moved to full technology integration, there is a heavy reliance upon the
traditional, stand-alone technology courses to provide all of the technology knowledge needed by
pre-service teachers.
In fact, in a national study by Gronseth et al. (2010), eighty percent of faculty members
responsible for technology experiences indicated all or some of their programs required a
standalone educational technology course. In the same study when asked to describe changes they
would make in their programs, more than half of the educational technology faculty expressed a
desire to have more systemic technology integration, particularly in field experiences and
methods courses. Similarly, Mouza& Klein (2013) mentioned “Often, pre-service teachers learn
about technology, content, and pedagogy in separate course work, giving them an incomplete
picture of how technology can support student learning”(pg. 149).
In a recent study that analyzed technology perceptions in teacher preparation programs, students
communicated a disconnect between their technology training and the rest of their program
courses. Sutton (2011) shared that students articulated a misalignment with the program
expectations of technology integration into course work. However, paradoxically students
noticed a lack of emphasis on technology training outside the one required technology course. So
frequently noticed is this phenomena that it has created its own name: Techno centric. A term
that Seymour Papert (1987) coined to identify overemphasis on the tools of the technologies
rather than the learning that they can support, techno centrism defines the stand alone traditional
technology courses that are stifling the depth suggested by the TPACK model.
As an alternative to more traditional stand-alone courses, Hersh(2013) suggests that the use of
technology should be embedded in content-specific and methods coursework to increase teacher
candidate confidence in their technology implementation skills. Collier, Weinburgh and
Rivera(2004) echoed the same sediment when it stated that “a key recommendation for teacher
educators is to consider that technology literacy no longer be acquired through a series of
discrete, perhaps isolated courses, but integrated in and across the curriculum content” (p.466).
Hsu (2012) examined the impact of educational technology courses on pre-service teachers’
development of knowledge of technology integration in a teacher preparation program and
recommended the following:

24
• First, although it is important to introduce technology knowledge (TK) early in a teacher
education program, professional development activities might be offered regularly to pre-
service teachers to keep them updated on emerging technology and technology
commonly available in their placement schools.
• Second, it is essential that educational technology faculty, methods course faculty and
school teachers collaborate to develop technology-integrated teacher education curricula
that help pre-service teachers to develop technology content knowledge (TCK).
Another suggestion from recent literature by Kovaliket al. (2013) found that when teacher
preparation courses were redesigned with all five standard areas of NETS-T in mind, pre-service
teachers made significant progress in technology knowledge. To support the previously
mentioned Pierson & Borthwick model, the importance of student reflection for technology
growth was again cited this time in the form of student work. Specifically Mouza& Klein (2013)
suggest projects such as case studies that allow pre-service teachers to engage in reflection on
their own practice have the potential to help participants begin to notice the interacting
connections that form the ultimate goal of successful TPACK integration.
Hu & Fyfe (2010) recently shared another illustration when their teacher preparation program
recently updated the curriculum. The more modern integrated approach to technology instruction
shared how students quickly began to show evidence of TPACK development. In the study Hu &
Fyfe (2010) shared findings that suggested the new curriculum helped boost the pre-service
teacher’s confidence in their abilities in choosing the right technology tools to enhance
the teaching approaches for a lesson and students' learning.
7.Conclusion
Through the review of TPACK literature, it is evident that many teacher preparation programs are
relying on out-of-date technology models and are in need of redesign. Suggested improvements
have focused on building confidence through exposure, instructor and administrative modeling,
effective evaluations and technology embedded curriculum. All of these strategies have potential
to strengthen teacher education programs and prepare pre-service teachers for 21st
century
instruction. Perhaps Gaoetal. (2009) illustrated the complexity of improving technology
integration in teacher preparation best when they stated “The development of technology based
pedagogy is an active, on-going process situated in multiple contexts. It is therefore imperative
for teacher education programs to adopt various strategies to guide, model and support pre-
service teachers’ development of technology based pedagogy, until it becomes an integral part of
their professional growth” (p. 727).
Perhaps what educators should consider is how we can expect students to grow when we have not
grown ourselves as instructors? We cannot teach with 19th
century skills and expect our students
to be prepared in the 21st
century. What should our 21st
century teacher preparation courses look
like?

25
References
1] Abbitt, J. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher
education: A review of current methods and instruments.Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 43(4), 281-300.
2] Brantley-Dias, L., Kinuthia, W., Shoffner, M. B., De Castro, C., &Rigole, N. J. (2007).Developing
pedagogical technology integration content knowledge in preservice teachers: A case study
approach.Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(4), 143-150.
3] Coffman, V. G. (2013). The perceived technology proficiency of students in a teacher education
program. (Order No. 3617732, Kent State University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 229.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1531329184?accountid=11578. (1531329184).
4] Cohen, M., & Tally, B. (2004). New maps for technology in teacher education: After standards, then
what?. Journal of computing in teacher education, 21(1), 5-9.
5] Collier, S., Weinburgh, M. H. & Rivera, M. (2004). Infusing technology skills into a teacher
education program: Change in students' knowledge about and use of technology. Journal of
Technology & Teacher Education, 12(3), 447-468.
6] Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPCK in Practice: Using and elaborated model of the
TPCK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge.TechTrends, 53(5), 60-69.
7] Gao, P., Choy, D., Wong, A. F. L., & Wu, J. (2009). Developing a better understanding of
technology-based pedagogy.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 714-730.
8] Goktas, Y., Yildirim, S. &Yildirim, Z. (2009).Main barriers and possible enablers of ICT integration
into preservice teacher education programs.Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 193-204.
9] Gronseth, S., Brush, T., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Strycker, J., Abaci, S., Easterling, W., & ... van
Leusen, P. (2010). Equipping the next generation of teachers: Technology preparation and
practice.Journal of Digital Learning In Teacher Education, 27(1), 30-36.
10] Hersh, E. C. (2013). Change and challenge: The influence of technology integration in teacher
preparation programs.
11] Hu, C., & Fyfe, V. (2010).Impact of a new curriculum on pre-service teachers’Technical, Pedagogical
and Content Knowledge (TPACK).Curriculum,Technology& Transformation for an Unknown
Future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010.
12] Hsu, P. (2012). Examining the impact of educational technology courses on pre-service teachers'
development of technological pedagogical content knowledge.Teaching Education, 23(2), 195-213.
13] ISTE National Educational Technology Standards. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org
14] Kay, R. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A
review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 383–408.
15] Kleiner, B., Thomas, N., Lewis, L., & Greene, B. (2007, December).Educational technology in
teacher education programs for initial licensure (NCES 2008-040). National Centerfor Education
Statistics, Institute of EducationSciences, U.S. Department of Education.Washington, DC.
16] Koch, A., Heo, M., & Kush, J. (2012).Technology integration into pre-service teacher
training.International journal of information & communication technology education, 8(1), 1-
14.doi:10.4018/j icte.2012010101
17] Koehler, M. J. & Rosenberg, J. (2014) [Graphic image of TPACK framework].Retrieved from
http://www.TPACK.org.
18] Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)?.Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
19] Kopcha, T. J. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and
communities of practice. Educational Technology and Research Development, 58, 1042–1629.
DOI:10.1007/s11423-008-9095-4
20] Kovalik,C., Kuo,C.L. &Karpinski.A. (2013). Assessing pre-service teachers’ information and
communication technologies knowledge.Journal of technology and teacher education, 21(2)179-202.

26
21] Kyei-Blankson, L., Keengwe, J., &Blankson, J. (2009).Faculty Use and Integration of Technology in
Higher Education.AACE Journal, 17(3), 199-213.
22] Lambert, J., & Gong, Y. (2010).21st Century paradigms for pre-service teacher technology
preparation.Computers in the Schools, 27(1), 54-70.
23] Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed? Journal
of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87-97.
24] Mayo, N. B., Kajs, L.T., &Tanguma, J. (2005).Longitudinal study of technology training to prepare
future teachers.Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 3-15.
25] Parette, H. P., Quesenberry, A. C., & Blum, C. (2010). Missing the boat with technology usage in
early childhood settings: A 21st century view of developmentally appropriate practice. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 37(5), 335-343.
26] Pellegrino, J., Goldman, S., Bertenthal, M., & Lawless, K. (2007). Teacher education and technology:
Initial results from the “what works and why” project. Yearbook of the NationalSociety for the Study
of Education, 106(2), 52–86.
27] Pierson, M., &Borthwick, A. (2010).Framing the assessment of educational technology professional
development in a culture of learning.Journal of Digital Learning inTeacher Education, 26(4), 126-
131.
28] Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
29] Richardson, J. D. (2012). NETS*A Scholarship: A review of published literature. Journal of research
on technology in education (International Society for Technology in Education), 45(2), 131.
30] Schmidt, D. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development
and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of research on technology
in education (International Society For Technology In Education), 42(2), 123.
31] Sutton, S. R. (2011). The preservice technology training experiences of novice teachers. Journal of
digital learning in teacher education (International Society for Technology in Education), 28(1), 39.
32] Teclehaimanot, B., Mentzer, G., & Hickman, T. (2011).A mixed methods comparison of teacher
education faculty perceptions of the integration of technology into their courses and student feedback
on technology proficiency. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19, 5–21. Retrieved from
http://www.aace.org/pubs/jtate/
33] Thomas, T., Herrring, M., Redmond, P., &Smaldino, S. (2013). Leading change and innovation in
teacher preparation: A blueprint for developing TPACK ready teacher candidates. Techtrends, 57(5),
55-63.
34] Torre J. (2013) Instructional predictors of students' technology standards.International journal of
educational research & technology.4(3):37. Ipswich, MA.
35] Valdez, G., McNabb, M., Foertsch, M., Anderson, M., Hawkes, M., &Raack, L. (2004). Computer-
based technology and learning: Evolving uses and expectations. North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory.
36] Wetzel, K., Foulger, T. S., & Williams, M. K. (2008).The evolution of the required educational
technology course.Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(2), 67–71.
37] Williams, M. K., Foulger, T. S. & Wetzel, K. (2009).Preparing preservice teachers for 21st century
classrooms: Transforming attitudes and behaviors about innovative technology.Journal of Technology
& Teacher Education, 17(3), 393-418.

Successful implementation of tpack in teacher

More Related Content

What's hot (15)

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Successful implementation of tpack in teacher (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Successful implementation of tpack in teacher