Aim/Purpose: To examine how chemistry teachers’ content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge (CK, PK, TK) and their intersection domains, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) interact within the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework when integrating augmented reality (AR), with a particular focus on the mediating roles of PCK, TCK, and TPK in predicting overall TPACK. Background: AR is increasingly used to visualise abstract and sub-microscopic chemistry concepts, yet little is known about how in-service teachers’ TPACK is structured in this context. Prior TPACK studies have largely treated TPACK as a global construct or have replicated the original model with conventional technologies, offering limited insight into how intersectional domains function as pathways to TPACK in AR-enhanced chemistry teaching. Methodology: A cross-sectional survey was administered to 337 in-service chemistry teachers who had prior experience using AR in their lessons. A validated TPACK questionnaire was contextualised to AR and reviewed by experts. Data were analysed using structural equation modelling to test a seven-factor measurement model and to estimate direct and indirect effects among CK, PK, TK, PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK. Contribution: The study refines the TPACK framework for AR-enhanced chemistry teaching by modelling mediating relationships among the intersection domains. It moves beyond confirmatory use of TPACK and shows which knowledge components actually function as leverage points for strengthening teachers’ TPACK in an immersive-technology context. Findings: The seven-factor TPACK structure demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. CK and PK strongly predicted PCK; CK and TK predicted TCK; and PK predicted TPK. PCK, TCK, and TPK all had significant positive effects on TPACK, with TPK emerging as the strongest direct predictor. Mediation analyses showed that PCK and TPK are the main pathways through which CK and PK influence TPACK, whereas TCK selectively mediated the effect of CK. TK did not exhibit strong direct or indirect effects on TPACK. Recommendations for Practitioners: Professional development should prioritise the design of AR-supported chemistry lessons that explicitly target PCK and TPK-topic-specific pedagogy and pedagogy-technology integration, rather than focusing primarily on tool operation. Teachers need support in orchestrating AR activities, aligning them with curricular goals, and managing cognitive load and classroom interaction. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should continue to model TPACK as a network of interacting components, paying particular attention to intersection domains and mediation effects. Instruments should be further refined for AR-specific contexts and complemented with classroom observations and artefact analyses. Impact on Society: By clarifying how teachers’ knowledge supports meaningful AR integration in chemistry, the study can inform professional development programmes and policy initiatives that seek to improve students’ understanding of complex scientific concepts, especially in systems where resources for laboratory work are limited. Future Research: Future studies should employ longitudinal or intervention designs to track changes in PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK during AR-focused professional development; extend the model to additional variables such as teacher beliefs and institutional support; and compare patterns across subjects, educational systems, and different types of AR applications.
Nguyen et al. (Thu,) studied this question.