Professionalizing in- service teachers’ focus on technologicalpedagogical and content knowledge

Seyum Tekeher Getenet & Kim Beswick &

Rosemary Callingham

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract In Ethiopia, primary school teachers of science and mathematics are encour-aged to integrate Information and Communication Technology (ICT) into their teachingas a means to improve the quality of education. However, there has not been the sameemphasis placed on providing professional learning opportunities for teachers on how touse ICT in their teaching. The present study investigated how a group of practisingprimary school science and mathematics teachers developed the skills needed to inte-grate ICT into their teaching. The study employed a combination of qualitative andquantitative researchmethods within an action research approach. The teachers took partin activities from a Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) basedprofessional learning workshop, including designing lessons, classroom instruction, andreflection activities in teams. A lesson evaluation sheet, questionnaire, observationchecklist, and logbook were used to gather data. The results showed that the teachersacquired an improved competency to integrate available ICT into their teaching throughthe intervention activities.

Keywords Professional development . In-service teachers . Technological pedagogicalcontent knowledge

1 Introduction

Studies have shown that the use of ICT as a learning tool within meaningful learningcontexts can lead to significantly improved educational and pedagogical outcomes inschools, and bring major benefits to both learners and teachers (see for example, Ayub

Educ Inf TechnolDOI 10.1007/s10639-013-9306-4

S. T. Getenet (*) :K. Beswick : R. CallinghamFaculty of Education, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 1307, Launceston, Tasmania 7250, Australiae-mail: Seyum.Getenet@utas.edu.au

K. Beswicke-mail: Kim.Beswick@utas.edu.au

R. Callinghame-mail: Rosemary.Callingham@utas.edu.au

et al. 2010; Voogt 2008). It has been observed, however, that teachers seldom use ICTtools in their teaching (Ruthven 2009). A number of factors have been suggested toexplain this phenomenon. Studies focusing on barriers to integrating technology inlearning suggest that the lack of technological resources is the most frequently citedbarrier (e.g., Agyei and Voogt 2011a; Bingimlas 2009; Hew and Brush (2007),followed by teachers’ lack of technological knowledge. In recent studies, teachers’lack of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) has been iden-tified as a significant hurdle in the effective integration of technology (see, for example,Chai et al. 2011; Donnelly et al. 2011).

TPACK, described in detail in Section 2.1, requires teachers to reflect on the criticalrelationships between content, technology and pedagogy (Koehler and Mishra 2009;Niess et al. 2009), the interplay of which is fundamental to effective teaching withtechnology. The capacity of teachers to identify the relationship between content,pedagogy and technology, however, depends largely on the way they have been taughtto integrate technology into teaching, as well as the way these components areaddressed in professional development (PD) (Crisan et al. 2007; Jimoyiannis 2010;Koehler and Mishra 2009).

This article describes a study that investigated the effect of a multifaceted interven-tion process which consisted of, a professional learning workshop, lesson design, andreflections, in relation to TPACK. The findings indicate that a cyclic form of the PD(planning, acting/trying-out, observing, team revision, and feedback) is a strategy thatmay support practising science and mathematics teachers to integrate available ICTsinto their teaching. In addition, the study suggests that successful PD, together withprofessional coaching of in-service teachers may facilitate teachers gaining the compe-tencies needed to integrate ICT within their professional practice.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 TPACK framework in technology-integrated teaching

Shulman (1986) introduced the idea of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), anintegration of pedagogical and content knowledge, as a basic requirement for effectiveteaching. PCK has since been used as a basis for teachers’ learning required foreffective delivery. However, as ICT has become increasingly prominent in students’learning and lives (ten Brummelhuis and Kuiper 2008), Shulman’s concept of PCK hasbeen extended to encompass the additional concept of technology (Niess 2005), withthe resulting development of TPACK. Niess (2005) describes TPACK as a combinationof three types of knowledge: (a) content knowledge, (b) pedagogical knowledge and (c)technological knowledge. Koehler and Mishra (2009) further describe the notion ofTPACK as an intersection of aspects of technology, pedagogy and content. Theysuggest that effective technology integration for teaching specific subject matter re-quires knowledge, not just of content, technology and pedagogy, but also of therelationships between these elements and their interplay (Koehler and Mishra 2009).

The TPACK framework strives to capture the essential knowledge that teachers requireto integrate technology in their teaching. Mishra and Kohler (2006) stress that rather thanlooking at each of the components in isolation, the elements should be considered in terms

Educ Inf Technol

of the three possible pairings: Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), TechnologicalContent Knowledge (TCK), and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). Theintersection of all three, conceptualised as Technological Pedagogical ContentKnowledge (TPACK), refers to the knowledge needed by teachers to understand thepedagogical approaches that use technologies, in systematic ways, to teach content. Eachof the resulting seven knowledge types that comprise TPACK is explained in Table 1.

2.2 Acquisition of TPACK through PD

According to Koehler et al. (2007), PD that merely emphasises the acquisition oftechnology skills is unlikely to succeed, as it does not address crucial relationshipsbetween content, and technology and pedagogy (see also Schrum 1999). In contrast,effective PD accommodates the interplay between these forms of knowledge and encour-ages authentic collaborative activity, embedded within the school context (Cavin 2008;Harris 2008; Harris et al. 2009; Koehler et al. 2007). Harris (2008) states that TPACK-related PD for experienced teachers should promote both autonomous and collaborativeinstructional decision-making. Consistent with this advice, Cavin (2008) proposes the use

Table 1 Description of TPACK components

Description

TK “Knowledge of operating systems and computer hardware, and the ability to use standard sets ofsoftware tools such as word processors, browsers, and e-mail. Moreover, it includes knowledge ofhow to install and remove peripheral devices, install and remove software programs” (Mishra andKoehler 2006, p. 1027).

PK Knowledge about the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning. It includesknowledge about techniques or methods to be used in the classroom; the nature of studentaudience; and strategies for evaluating student understanding (Koehler and Mishra 2009;Shulman 1986)

CK Knowledge about the actual subject matter that is to be learned or taught including central facts,concepts, theories, and procedures within a given field (Shulman 1986). In this study the relevantcontent developed from the primary school mathematics and science curricula.

PCK “Knowledge includes knowing what teaching approaches fit a specific content, and knowing howelements of the content can be arranged for better teaching. It also includes knowledge of whatthe students bring to the learning situation that might be either facilitative or dysfunctional for theparticular learning task. Knowledge of students includes their strategies, prior conceptions,misconceptions that they are likely to have potential influence on their learning” (Mishra andKoehler 2006, p. 1028).

TCK Understanding that technology and content influence each other on the learning process (Niess et al.2009). It requires teachers to know not only the subject matter they teach but also the manner inwhich the subject matter can be changed by the application of technology (Mishra and Koehler2006; Niess et al. 2009).

TPK Teachers’ understanding of how teaching and learning changes when particular technologies areused. This might include knowing of the existence of a range of technologies for a particular task,the ability to choose a technology based on its fitness for the task and knowledge of pedagogicalstrategies (Mishra and Koehler 2006).

TPACK The basis of effective teaching of a particular content with technology. It requires an understandingof the concepts using technologies, pedagogical approaches that use technologies in systematicways to teach a specific content (Harris et al. 2009; Mishra and Koehler 2006; Su 2008).

Educ Inf Technol

of a “microteaching lesson study” PD strategy to develop technological, pedagogical, andcontent knowledge among mathematics teachers. In the microteaching lesson study,teachers work in small groups, through iterative cycles of teaching, reflecting, andmodifying a group lesson. Such PD is team-centred and can provide teachers withopportunities to experiment, make mistakes, discuss, and negotiate among peers.

This model can be used to provide a situated learning environment for teachers toexperience teaching with technology. Following the implementation of themicroteaching lesson study, Cavin (2008) reported that mathematics teachers developedan awareness of the nuances of teaching with technology in a student-centred learningenvironment. Cavin’s approach was consistent with team-based PD, where teachers trynew ideas, reflect on outcomes, and co-construct knowledge about teaching andlearning in the context of authentic activity, as advocated, for example, by Butleret al. (2004), and Putnam and Borko (1997).

3 Research setting

3.1 General context

The present study was undertaken in an Ethiopian primary school. The Ethiopianeducation system encompasses kindergarten, general, technical-vocational and tertiaryeducation programmes (Transitional Government of Ethiopia [TGE] 1994). Ethiopianschool education reflects an 8+4 structures, consisting of 8 years of primary education(divided into two cycles of 4 years each) and 4 years of secondary education (dividedinto another two cycles each of 2 years duration). Primary schooling comprises Grades1 through to 4 of basic education, followed by Grades 5 through to 8 of general primaryeducation (TGE 1994). Students are taught different subject at different grade levels.Mathematics is offered consistently through the school system. Science, however, istaught as environmental science in basic primary (Grades 1 to 4), and then as integratedscience in Grades 5 and 6, and separately as Biology, Chemistry and Physics thereafter.The language of instruction, starting from Grade 7, is English, and students mustunderstand and use English as the learning medium. Although the education systemin Ethiopia is decentralised, most curriculum materials are prepared centrally, andteachers’ involvement and authority to modify the curriculum is limited.

A survey of Ethiopian schools (Hare 2007) indicated that, at the time of reporting,40 % of schools in Ethiopia had computers; most of those schools, however, werelocated in the capital city Addis Ababa. There is thus some inequality of access todigital technology in Ethiopian schools. A related challenge is that most schools havelimited access to the Internet. The schools that are connected to the internet generallyuse it only for e-mail and administrative purposes. Access to ICT by teachers is limited,especially with regard to computers and the internet. It should be noted, however, thatnon-government organisation (NGO) schools and, private schools in Ethiopia, have amuch higher standard of ICT infrastructure than do government schools in terms ofcomputers, the necessary software, and internet connections. Although the NGO andprivate schools are reported to have better access to technology, and most particularlycomputers, teachers and students in those schools may not be adequately supported touse the technology or to incorporate it in classroom practices.

Educ Inf Technol

Notwithstanding the challenges involved, the Ethiopian Government hasexpressed a strong desire to integrate ICT into the education system throughconsistent application of a wide range of effective student-centred teaching ap-proaches and the use of available technologies that foster both independent andcollaborative learning (Ministry of Education [MOE] 2010). One often-cited initia-tive is the ‘one laptop per child’ program. This program aims to create educationalopportunities for children by providing each child with a laptop, with content andsoftware designed for collaborative, enjoyable, and self- empowered learning(Kocsev et al. 2009). The role of the teacher is essential to the success of thisproject, and it is likely that this role will develop in parallel with the integration ofICT into the normal curriculum.

3.2 Study context

The research study reported in this article was conducted in an NGO Ethiopian primaryschool with a view to supporting Grade 7 and 8 practicing biology, chemistry, physicsand mathematics teachers to integrate ICT into their teaching, through the TPACKframework. The school had a range of ICT tools, and the schools’ teachers wereencouraged to use ICT in their teaching. The teaching staff had attended a PD sessionon how to use ICT in teaching, and the school administration strongly encouraged itsteachers’ to use the available ICTs, located in various resource centres, in their teaching.There were three different ICT resource centres in the school to expedite the teachingand learning process: the computer lab (containing laptops, desktop computers, anddata projectors), the audio-visual centre (with televisions and radios) and the pedagog-ical resources centre (containing motion pictures, models etc.). The capacity forteachers in the school to access digital technology tools through these resource centresmeant that the teachers could, at least potentially, integrate such technology into theirteaching practices.

From a consideration of the general education context in Ethiopia, the specificschool-setting of this study, as well as the relevant literature, a number of issuesarose. First, policy-makers and schools in Ethiopia encourage teachers to integrateICT into their professional practice and second, less emphasis is given tosupporting teachers in learning how to integrate ICTs effectively into their teach-ing. Accordingly the following research question was developed for investigation:how can in-service teachers in Ethiopian primary schools be supported to integrateICT in their teaching?

4 Method

This study employed an action research approach to investigating the impact ofspecified intervention activities on the TPACK competencies of teachers employed inan NGO Ethiopian primary school. The lead author facilitated the intervention activ-ities, by providing support on how to use the TPACK framework in practice, facilitatinggroup discussions and collaboration, and assisting and organising in-service teachers toreflect on the process (Grundy and Kemmis 1982) and was assisted during the processby the school principal and the ICT co-ordinator.

Educ Inf Technol

4.1 Research participants

A group of 11 volunteer teacher participants agreed to take part in the study, togetherwith nine student participants. The teacher participants were all qualified primary schoolteachers, five of whom specialised in teachingmathematics, three were physics teachers,and three biology teachers. This group of teachers took part in the professional learningworkshop intervention, and presented classroom lessons, both before and after theworkshop, for evaluation. The student participants were identified by their teachers ashaving effective communication skills, and were self-selected volunteers for the study.

4.2 Instruments

Several instruments and recording processes were used to collect a mix of quantitativeand qualitative data. The instruments included a questionnaire, an observation check-list, a lesson evaluation sheet, and researcher notebook records of the teachers’reflection activities. The questionnaire was distributed before and after the interventionactivities to investigate the teachers’ knowledge of integrating ICT tools into teaching,and the impact of the intervention activities. The questionnaire was based on theinstrument developed by Schmidt et al. (2010) with additional questions added toincrease its validity and reliability. The questionnaire required responses on a 5-pointscale where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree.

Observation data were collected using the checklist adapted from Agyei and Voogt(2011a) which was based on a 3-point scale where 1=not observed, 2=partly observed,and 3=observed. The observation checklist contained 20 items, and a column in whichto record examples to justify the scale score. Each TPACK component was addressed inat least two questions and at most four. The teachers’ lessons, before and after theintroduction of TPACK framework, were evaluated using a rubric adopted from Agyeiand Voogt (2011b) to investigate the impact of the intervention. The rubric was basedon a 3-point scale where 3=Strong, 2=Minimal, and 1=Not at all.

To provide a degree of triangulation of the data provided by the teacher participants,the author maintained a researchers’ logbook to make notes of activities and events thatoccurred during the intervention process, particularly during the professional learningworkshop and the reflection stage. In addition, interview data were collected from thestudent participants regarding the post-intervention lessons presented by the teachers.

4.3 Procedures used

The study involved the participating teachers engaging in self- reflective spirals of“planning, acting, observing and reflecting, with each of these activities being system-atically and self critically implemented and interrelated” (Grundy and Kemmis 1982,cited in Goodnough 2008, p. 21). The intervention activities centred on an intensive 2-day professional learning workshop on TPACK, although the addition of pre- and post-intervention work required the teachers’ involvement for a period of 1 month.

Professional learning workshop The workshop was facilitated by the lead author andthe ICT coordinator of the school, working both individually with the teacher partic-ipants, as well as on a team basis.

Educ Inf Technol

During the workshop there was discussion of several, different kinds of ICTtools, including cameras, radios, Wikipedia, online games, blogs, televisions, com-puters, MP3 players, e-portfolios, online discussion forums, mobile phones, andvarious software packages. The teacher participants were also introduced to theconcept of TPACK with attention paid to related topics, such as: pedagogicaltechniques that use technologies to teach content; the importance of understandingthe learning context, including the students’ prior knowledge; how technology canbe used to build on existing knowledge; and the potential uses of availabletechnologies.

Lessons design The teachers who took part in the study designed and presented atechnology-integrated lesson before taking part in the TPACK workshop. During thecourse of the workshop activity the teacher participants worked as a group to givefeedback, and to revise the lesson designs in view of their understanding of TPACK.An iterative process of planning, trying out, observation, feedback and revision wasapplied to the teachers’ lesson designs.

Teachers’ and students’ reflections Participants were explicitly required to reflect ontheir learning throughout the research process. In addition, the student participantsundertook a reflection activity on their teacher’s post-intervention technology-integrated lesson approach and their perceptions of its effectiveness.

4.4 Data collection

Data for the study were collected in two main phases. Firstly, prior to the conduct of theprofessional learning workshop, data were collected from the teachers using an eval-uation rubric, an observation checklist and questionnaire. Secondly, following thecompletion of the workshop, the same instruments were employed to assess changesin the participants’ understandings and practice in relation to TPACK. Written reflec-tions were recorded by the teachers at a number of different stages throughout the study.Reflections were also obtained from the student participants on the teachers’ post-intervention lesson presentations. In addition, the lead author, as principal researcher,maintained a researcher’s notebook for the duration of the study.

4.5 Data analysis

Data obtained from the questionnaire, observation checklist and evaluation rubric wereanalysed using descriptive statistics, particularly mean measurements. The TPACKquestionnaire data were subjected to a reliability test, to establish whether there was adifference between the pre and post intervention competencies of the teachers inrelation to TPACK. Due to the small size of the sample, a nonparametric WilcoxinMatched-Pairs test statistic (T), was used (Yount 2006). In addition, the standardiseddifference between the two mean measures and the magnitude of the effect gained asthe result of the intervention activities was tested by using Cohen’s d effect size analysis(Cohen 1988). The qualitative data from both the participant teachers and students weregrouped and categorised into clusters that addressed similar themes and combined withquantitative data to develop meaningful descriptions (Creswell 2008).

Educ Inf Technol

5 Results

5.1 The overall impact of the intervention activities on TPACK competency

5.1.1 Professional learning workshop

During the workshop intervention participants discussed the aspects of science andmathematics concepts that make them difficult or easy to learn, and how technologycan help overcome some of the problems that students face. The teachers whoparticipated in the workshop also considered the importance of understanding thelearning context. The teachers’ indicated that they had gained valuable experiencefrom the professional learning workshop, insofar as it increased their awareness oftechnologies available to assist their teaching, and improved their ability to utilise suchtechnology. They suggested that the workshop provided them with a good startingpoint for integrating technology into their teaching practices. The teachers also felt thatthe experience of working collegially, and sharing the learning experience could assistthem in their future careers.

5.1.2 Lesson design

Prior to undertaking the professional learning workshop, the participant teachers werechallenged to design lessons involving technologies. Particularly challenging wasconsidering the interplay of technology, pedagogy and content for effective teaching.These lessons were redesigned during the course of the workshop, and subsequentlypresented in the authentic context of the school classroom. Table 2 compares theevaluation of the original (pre-intervention) lessons with the average of four otherlessons which were redesigned.

The results indicted in Table 2, from pre- to post-intervention, show an improvementin each component of TPACK. Interestingly the data exhibits a movement fromminimal to strong in respect of integrated technologies that can support transfer ofknowledge (TK). For example, the physics and biology teachers showed a movement

Table 2 Teachers’ mean competencies in designing lessons using ICT from rubric

Category (knowledge) Pre (N=1 for each subject) Post (N=4 for each subject)

Physics Biology Mathematics Physics Biology Mathematics

CK 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

PK 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00

TK 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00

PCK 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.50 3.00 3.00

TCK 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.50

TPK 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00

TPACK 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.50

N.B. Results based on a 3-point scale where 3=Strong, 2=Minimal and 1=Not at all, N referees the number oflessons evaluated in each subject

Educ Inf Technol

of from a minimal to a strong measure scale in selecting the available technology in thelesson redesign process (TK). This change then supported an improvement in TPACKlesson design based on the integration of appropriate technology with content andpedagogy. Some of the lessons designed by the participant teachers are listed in Table 3.

As can be seen from Table 3, following the intervention activity, the teacherparticipants planned to use technology in their lessons. In the case of the biologyteachers, the TPACK framework was used as the basis of their lesson design, in order toenhance their instruction on the topic, and to maximise the active involvement of thestudents. A description of the teacher participants’ consideration of the TPACKcomponents in their lesson design is set out in Table 4.

Having identified the CK, PK and TK elements, and taken into consideration thecontext (including the available technology and background of students), the partici-pants in the workshop discussed how these components work together for effectivetechnology-integrated teaching. The selection of each component was based on theTPACK framework. Teachers selected a constructivist approach that encouraged activeengagement of students through discussion. The technology selected shows the breath-ing system with animation and facilitates students’ discussion in groups.

The conceptual framework provided by the TPACK model supported the teachers’constructivist approach to teaching, because that the framework aims to engage

Table 3 Lessons designed based on TPACK concept

Groups Lesson title Technology used Description

Physics The water cycle Data projector, Encarta Students were enjoying navigating thewater cycle on Encarta

Biology Breathing systems(ventilation)

Data projector, animationon computers

The teacher was showing an animationwhich shows the movement of airthrough the body

Mathematics Positional relationshipbetween a circle anda line

Overhead projector The students were attentively attendingas the lesson was different from usual

Note that all teachers have used group work as a method of teaching

Table 4 Consideration of TPACK framework while designing a lesson

TPACK component Scores in rubricevaluation

Description of teachers effort considering TPACK framework

CK 2.00 The lesson was selected as initial point as it had to be deliveredon the time

PK 3.00 Teachers wished to maximise student involvement andengagement. As a result, they adopted an approach usinggroup discussion

TK 3.00 Teachers considered the available technology, and the degreeto which it supported teaching the breathing system. Theychose to utilise a power point presentation with animation

Educ Inf Technol

students in the learning process. Further, most participants indicated that the frameworksupported them to consider the conduct of the lesson proactively, prior to it beingimplemented in the classroom Lesson presentation.

In terms of lesson presentation, the participant teachers moved from minimalcompetence to strong competence in all TPACK components except content knowl-edge (see Table 5).

These results indicate that the participant teachers gave a clear introduction of thetopic and the learning goal (CK), both before and after the intervention activities.However, they also show a movement in the teacher competencies in relation to eachTPACK component when presenting technology-integrated lessons, from “partly ob-served” to “observed”. The overall TPACK of all groups showed a movement from onescale point to another. This development was particularly marked in the areas that werelow before the intervention activity, such as technology knowledge and its components.

Table 5 Observation checklist results: TPACK components in pre- and post -intervention teaching

Stage Groups TPACK Component

CK PK TK TPK TCK PCK TPACK

Pre (N=1) Physics 2.50 2.00 1.33 1.50 2.00 1.00 2.00

Biology 3.00 2.33 2.00 1.50 2.33 2.50 2.33

Maths 2.75 2.00 1.33 1.50 2.33 1.50 2.00

Post (N=4) Physics 2.75 2.33 3.00 2.50 2.67 2.50 2.67

Biology 2.50 2.00 2.67 3.00 2.67 2.50 3.00

Maths 3.00 2.67 2.67 2.50 2.67 2.50 2.67

N.B. Results based on a 3-point scale where 1=not observed, 2=partly observed, and 3=observed, N refers tothe number of lessons evaluated in each subject

Table 6 The overall competencies of teachers ICT competencies before and after the intervention activities

Category Mean (SD) values N=11 Mean gains Sig. Eff. size (d)

Pre interventions Post interventions

TK 2.96 (0.34) 4.00 (0.37) 1.04 0.001a 0.70

CK 3.94 (0.79) 4.11 (0.28) 0.17 0.236 -

PK 4.03 (0.49) 3.91 (0.28) 0.225 -

TPK 2.95 (0.53) 3.95 (0.37) 1.00 0.000a 0.63

TCK 2.77 (0.47) 4.08 (0.42) 1.30 0.000a 0.63

PCK 3.82 (0.87) 3.94 (0.45) 0.12 0.343 -

TPACK 3.00 (0.50) 4.17 (0.59) 1.17 0.001a 0.60

N.B. Results based on a 5-point scale where 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree,4=Agree and 5=Strongly agreea Refers significant value

Educ Inf Technol

5.1.3 TPACK questionnaire results

The questionnaire administered to the participant teachers at the beginning of the studywas repeated following the professional learning workshop, to investigate the impact ofthe intervention. The average value of Cronbach’s alpha of the questionnaire wasanalysed (α=0.81) before intervention activities and was close to the estimate ofSchmidt et al.’s (2010) (α=0.87) hence acceptable. The overall change in eachcomponent of TPACK was also investigated before and after the intervention activity,based on mean values as shown in Table 6.

The data show that there were changes in the mean values of each components ofTPACK. The changes in Technological Knowledge (TK), Technological PedagogicalKnowledge (TPK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), and TechnologicalPedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) were significant with a substantive effectsize (p=0.005). The areas of PK, CK and PCK did not show significant changes.

5.1.4 Teachers’ and students’ reflections

The participant teachers confirmed that, although they had basic knowledge of peda-gogy and content, they had minimal knowledge of technology before the interventionactivity. As a result, their initial lesson presentations did not take the interplay betweentechnology, pedagogy, and content into account. A teacher explained:

“It has been challenging to select the appropriate technology during try out due tothe fact that we had some gaps in ICT competencies and unaware of theimportance content and pedagogy”.

Teachers further suggested that the intervention experience alerted them to the gapbetween the lesson design process, and using the available ICT equipment in teaching.They also observed that it was challenging to integrate technology, pedagogy and content toform TPACK, and that it was not possible tomaster this skill in a one-off event with limitedtime. Nevertheless, the majority of the teachers reported that they had learned about theintegration of technology, pedagogy and content through the intervention activity andconsidered that the TPACKwas useful in developing their knowledge of different learningapproaches. They also agreed that the intervention activities enhanced their competency indifferent TPACK aspects and helped them to attainmore knowledge, insights and skills thatcould contribute to TPACK. One teacher reflected on the intervention activity in this way:

“We are often challenged to use the appropriate technology with a particularcontent and pedagogy; hence, we prefer to avoid technologies in our teaching.This professional learning workshop gave us a green light to integrate thesecomponents for effective teaching.”

The teachers agreed that the intervention activities were relevant to their efforts tointegrate technology into content and pedagogy.

The findings of students’ reflections are summarised in Table 7. The reflections setout in this table describe the students’ increased engagement with the new approachadopted by the teacher participants. They indicated that they would be very happy andmotivated if ICT-integrated teaching was a common practice of their teachers.

Educ Inf Technol

6 Discussion

6.1 Teachers’ competencies in integrating technology into teaching

The findings of this study indicate that, before the intervention, the teacher participantshad a low standard of competence in the use of technology, and its integration with contentand pedagogy. The teachers themselves reported that they had experienced limitedopportunities to work with technology. In addition, they were not confident about theircompetencies in relation to TPK, and TCK. To that extent, it appears that the teachers’ lackof Technological Knowledge may have adversely affected their TechnologicalPedagogical Knowledge and Technological Content Knowledge. In contrast, the teachershad a higher standard of competence (pre-intervention) in CK, PK, and PCK (see Table 6).Although there were a number of ICT resource centres available to teachers in the school,none of the participants were effective in designing ICT-integrated lessons before theyundertook the TPACK workshop. This situation is consistent with the literature thatsuggests the potential of ICTwill not be realised by the mere presence of ICT infrastruc-ture in schools (Hennessy et al. 2010; Peeraer and Van Petegem 2011; ten Brummelhuisand Kuiper 2008). The teachers who participated in this study were not familiar with the

Table 7 Summary of students’ reflection as collected by the teachers

Lesson Summary of reflection

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3

Physics I am very happy with lessonpresented. I wish if wealways learn in this way inother subjects and lessons.I was motivated to attendthe lessons actively.

It was often boring to learnphysics but this lesson wasinteresting and thoughtprovoking. I hope it will beeasy to tackle the nextexam.

The lesson was interesting. Inaddition, the lesson was nottime consuming. It washelpful for me to easilyunderstand the concepts.

Student 4 Student 5 Student 6

Biology We often learn biology inlecture method, this typeof teaching approachencourage us to learnactively.

The lesson was found to beeffective in a sense that itsaved time, encouraged usto attend the lesson withparticipation. But it wasone directional, we had nothe chance to participate inthe process.

The lesson was attractive;however, we wished thattechnology use shouldallow us to participate inthe learning withtechnology and not only ateacher using technology topresent the concept.

Student 7 Student 8 Student 9

Mathematics Using such technologies wasa good alternative todeliver lessons rather thanusing charts and pictures.The lesson was good due tothe fact that it saved timeand indicted the teachers’preparation of the lesson inadvance. The lesson wasclear.

The lesson was not differentfrom the usual teachingmethod. It could be betterto use technologies whichalso encourages studentsparticipation

Such type of lessons shouldbe the culture of allteachers and should becontinuous in thesubsequent lessons. Thelesson was more interestingthan lessons without usingsuch technologies. Iunderstand the lessoneasily.

Educ Inf Technol

use of computers, projector systems, and software in science and mathematics instruction;accordingly there was a need to support them in acquiring the competencies needed to usethe available technologies in their teaching.

The difficulties faced by the participants in teaching with technology (pre-interven-tion) appear to have resulted from a number of different circumstances, namely: i) theirlack of awareness concerning the uses of different ICT equipment for teaching, ii)inadequate accessibility of the available ICT equipment; iii) their lack of the knowledgeabout how to integrate technology, pedagogy and content in a meaningful way, and iv)the lack of professional development in the school to support and motivate the teachersto acquire the skills necessary for integrated-technology teaching. These factors arehighlighted in the literature as influencing teachers’ integration of technology intoteaching (see, for example, Agyei and Voogt 2011a; Hennessy et al. 2010;Jimoyiannis 2010; Niess 2005). The professional learning workshop appeared to makea contribution to overcoming such challenges.

6.2 Intervention activities that could support teachers to acquire TPACK competencies

The professional learning workshop, supplemented by the other intervention activities(evaluation of lessons, lesson designing and reflection) assisted the teacher participants tointegrate ICT into their teaching (see Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7). A professional learningworkshop about the TPACK framework was central to their developing an understandingof technology integration with pedagogy and content (Cavin 2008). Combined with otheractivities, the professional learning workshop supported the teachers to acquire the skillsneeded to integrate technology into teaching, and to establish the relationship betweencontent, pedagogy and technology (Jimoyiannis 2010; Koehler and Mishra 2009).

During and after the professional learning workshop, the teacher participants under-took lesson design, practical observation and reflection (feedback sessions) activitiescollaboratively. This professional learning supported the teachers’ understanding ofdifferent technologies, allowed them to gain authentic practical experience and sharetheir insights, and facilitated their skills in integrating technology into teaching (Cavin2008; Koehler et al. 2007). The feedback from their colleagues was important in termsof support, generating ideas, and providing positive criticism of the designed lessons(Anseel et al. 2009). Further, the collaboratively based lesson design activity helped theteachers to improve their competencies in integrating technology into teaching. Theredesigning process and reflection activities were important elements in the profession-al learning process. The teachers were engaged in inquiry learning, which affordedthem the opportunity to reflect on the critical relationships between content, technologyand pedagogy (Graham et al. 2009).

The discussions with colleagues, and receipt of feedback following the professionallearning workshop revealed ways in which the teacher participants could improve theirtechnology-integration in lesson design and authentic instruction. The results provideevidence that effective technology-integration can occur when teachers participate inrelevant, well-planned learning activities. The TPACK framework proved to be apositive element in the teachers’ professional learning as it enabled them to frame theirlesson plans appropriately, and acted as a point of discussion. Further, the reflectionsprovided by the students evidenced their increased level of engagement as a result ofthe new teaching approach. This suggests that the use of ICT as a learning tool within

Educ Inf Technol

meaningful contexts may lead to improved educational and pedagogical outcomes inschools and bring major benefits for both learners and teachers (Ayub et al. 2010; Su2008; Voogt 2008).

7 Conclusion

This study examined the capacity of a small group of mathematics and science primaryschool teachers in Ethiopia to integrate technology (ICT) into their teaching practice.These teachers had access to various forms of technology in their school, but hadreceived little PD in relation to how they could use it effectively in teaching.

Before they undertook the professional learning workshop which was the centralintervention of the research project, the teacher participants expressed general confi-dence about teaching with technology, however, the evaluation of their lessons revealedweaknesses in their TPACK understandings. The teachers who participated in thisstudy took part in a 2-day professional learning workshop, which introduced them tothe concept of TPACK, and particularly the integration of technology knowledge withcontent and pedagogy knowledge. The participants then utilised the TPACK frame-work during collaborative, iterative activities involving the redesign of lessons, tryingthem out, observation, giving and receiving feedback, and revision. Following theworkshop the participants delivered integrated-technology lessons in their classrooms.The teachers recorded reflections on their learning during the course of the study, andthe post-intervention lessons were critiqued by a number of their students. The post-intervention lessons were evaluated as considerably stronger in terms of the TPACKframework, and the student comments evidenced greater engagement with the lessons.

This study has raised several important points. Firstly, although teachers’ access totechnology is clearly fundamental if they are to integrate ICT into their teaching, accessalone is not sufficient. Teachers need to learn about the available technology, and how touse it in their teaching. Secondly, TPACK provides a useful conceptual framework tostructure understandings about technology and its interaction with content and pedagog-ical knowledge. Thirdly, authentic, collaborative learning experiences can produce notablelearning improvements. It is appreciated that this study was small-scale and exploratory,and before any generalisations can bemade the research would need to be replicated usinglarger samples and over time. Nonetheless it provides interesting insights into technology-integrated teaching in a developing country where technology assets are in limited supply.

8 Limitation of the study

The study gathered data from student participants to investigate the impact of the newteaching approach by their teachers. The data only includes interview questions.However, it could be more comprehensive if the researcher collected data related tostudents’ examination results.

Acknowledgments We appreciate the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions about how the manuscriptcould be improved.

Educ Inf Technol

References

Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. (2011). ICT use in the teaching of mathematics: Implications for professionaldevelopment of pre-service teachers in Ghana. Education and Information Technologies, 16(4), 423–439.

Agyei, D., & Voogt, J. (2011b). Determining Teachers’ TPACK through observations and self-report data.Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference2011, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. http://www.editlib.org/p/36652

Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Schollaert, E. (2009). Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance afterfeedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 23–35.

Ayub, A., Mokhtar, M., Luan, W., & Tarmizi, R. (2010). A comparison of two different technologies tools intutoring Calculus. Procedia Social and Behavioural Science, 2(2), 481–486.

Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments:A review of the literature. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3),235–245.

Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulationin teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 435–455.

Cavin, R. (2008). Developing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Preservice TeachersThrough Microteaching Lesson Study. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology &Teacher Education International Conference 2008, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.

Chai, C. S., Ling Koh, J. H., Tsai, C.-C., & Lee Wee Tan, L. (2011). Modeling primary school pre-serviceteachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with infor-mation and communication technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57(1), 1184–1193.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches: Sage

Publications, Incorporated.Crisan, C., Lerman, S., & Winbourne, P. (2007). Mathematics and ICT: A framework for conceptualising

secondary school mathematics teachers’ classroom practices. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,16(1), 21–39.

Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2011). A framework for teachers’ integration of ICT into theirclassroom practice. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1469–1483.

Goodnough, K. (2008). Moving science off the “Back Burner”: Meaning making within an action researchcommunity of practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(1), 15–39.

Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK development inscience teaching: Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70–79.

Grundy, S., & Kemmis, S. (1982). Educational action research in Australia: The state of the art (an overview).In S. Kemmis (Ed.), The action research reader (pp. 83–97). Australia: Deakin University.

Hare, H. (2007). ICT in education in Ethiopia: Survey of ICT and education in Africa: Ethiopia CountryReport. Retrieved on February 15, 2012 from www.infodev.org

Harris, J. B. (2008). TPCK in in-service education: Assisting experienced teachers’ “planned improvisations”.In AACTE committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of Technological PedagogicalContent Knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 251–271). New York: Published by Routledge for theAmerican Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge andlearning activity types: curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research onTechnology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.

Hennessy, S., Harrison, D., & Wamakote, L. (2010). Teacher factors influencing classroom use of ICT in Sub-Saharan Africa. Itupale Online Journal of African Studies, 2, 39–54.

Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledgegaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development,55(3), 223–252.

Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledgeframework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259–1269.

Kocsev, M., Hansen, N., Hollow, D., & Pischetola, M. (2009). Innovative learning in Ethiopia. ECBPworking paper.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? ContemporaryIssues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE Journal), 9(1), 60–70.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a designseminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762.

Educ Inf Technol

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacherknowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

MOE (2010). Education Sector Development Program IV (ESDP IV) 2010/2011 – 2014/2015, ProgramAction Plan. Ethiopia, Addis Ababa. Retrieved July 02, 2012 from http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Ethiopia/Ethiopia_ESDP_IV.pdf

Niess, M. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing atechnology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.

Niess, Ronau, R., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston, C., et al. (2009). Mathematics teacherTPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education(CITE Journal), 9(1), 4–24.

Peeraer, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2011). ICT in teacher education in an emerging developing country: Vietnam’sbaseline situation at the start of ‘The Year of ICT. Computers & Education, 56(4), 974–982.

Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T.L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), The international handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 1223–1296).The Netherlands: Dordrecht.

Ruthven, K. (2009). Towards a naturalistic conceptualisation of technology integration in classroom practice:The example of school mathematics. Education & didactique, 3(1), 131–159.

Schmidt, D. A., Evrim, B., Ann, D. T., Punya, M., Matthew, J. K., & Tae, S. S. (2010). TechnologicalPedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrumentfor preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123.

Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 47(4), 83–90.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,15(2), 4.

Su, K.-D. (2008). An integrated science course designed with information communication technologies toenhance university students“ learning performance. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1365–1374.

ten Brummelhuis, A., & Kuiper, E. (2008). Driving forces for ICT in learning. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.),International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 97–111):Springer.

Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE). (1994). Education and training policy. Ethiopia: EMPDA.Voogt, J. (2008). IT and curriculum processes: Dilemmas and challenges. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.),

International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 117–132).New York: Springer.

Yount, R. (2006). Research design and statistical analysis in Christian ministry (4ed). Texas, USA.

Educ Inf Technol