understanding preservice teachers' technology use through tpack framework

Understanding preservice teachers’ technologyuse through TPACK frameworkjcal_447 1..15

S. PamukComputer Education and Instructional Technology Department, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey

Abstract This study discusses preservice teachers’ achievement barriers to technology integration, usingprinciples of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) as an evaluative frame-work. Technology-capable participants each freely chose a content area to comprise project.Data analysis based on interactions among core components of TPACK revealed that partici-pants struggled with developing new knowledge. Lack of pedagogical experience limiteddevelopment of appropriate technology integration approaches. Creating new knowledge basesbased on different teaching components can be difficult for preservice teachers because itrequires a deep understanding of core knowledge and interpretation of the teaching context andits dynamics. Developing pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is an important factor inoverall technology integration; teachers must make it a priority to acquire PCK before integrat-ing technology. In preservice teacher education, PCK development must be supported withactual teaching experience.We believe that the results of the study may provide valuable insight with respect to properfocus on technology integration and recognizing limitations and challenges within TPACKprinciples to both those who teach technology integration and those who design TPACK-basedactivities.

Keywords pedagogy and technology, preservice teacher education, technology integration, TPACK.

Introduction

Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and practices in the class-room are central to all teaching and learning activities(Macleod & Golby 2003; Ertmer 2005; Hammond2006). In a multidimensional teaching structure, teach-ers may consider many factors (i.e. content they teach,student background, classroom activities) to compose apedagogical approach and to optimally organize theiractivities (Shulman 1986, 1999).Also, the emergence ofinformation technologies in the 21st century obligatesteachers to revisit pedagogical beliefs and to re-arrange

teaching activities accordingly. The results of earlyadopters’ use of technology indicate that this is not aneasy task that teachers can accomplish through simplechanges in approach (Bull et al. 2005; Brzycki & Dudt2005; Hew & Brush 2007).

Studies from the project Preparing Tomorrow’sTeachers to Use Technology in the United States inves-tigated different dimensions of technology integrationefforts and confirmed that effective technology integra-tion is a multi-layer process and requires adjustments atdifferent levels (i.e. student, teacher, colleges of educa-tion) (Thompson et al. 2003; Strudler & Wetzel 2005).Some important findings (Chuang et al. 2003; Wetzel &Williams 2004; Brzycki & Dudt 2005; Hall 2006)suggest steps such as moving from a stand-alone tech-nology course to technology-integrated curricula andcontext-specific approaches, modeling of technology

Accepted: 1 August 2011Correspondence: Sonmez Pamuk, Computer Education & Instruc-tional Technology Department, College of Education, Ondokuz MayisUniversity Atakum, Samsun 55200, Turkey. Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00447.x

Original article

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 1

use by college educators, faculty development, and pro-viding opportunities to prospective teachers to use tech-nology. Although scepticism remains about technologyuse in education, there is a broad agreement amongeducators that technology can be effective and supportlearning only if it is meaningfully integrated intoteaching.

Mishra and Koehler (2006) offer a solution in thetechnological pedagogical content knowledge(TPACK) framework that basically emphasizes use ofcontextual pedagogy, content, and technology. TPACKdetail is provided in the theoretical section.

In this study, we aim at using TPACK to evaluateinvestigation of preservice teachers’ technology inte-gration knowledge and abilities, and to identify areas ofdeficiency described within the TPACK theoreticalframework.

Theoretical section

The root of TPACK framework development goes backto Shulman’s pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)principles (Shulman 1986). Shulman (1987) stated thatteachers must develop a new ‘knowledge base’ emerg-ing from the relationship between content and peda-gogy. Effective teaching requires more than isolatedknowledge in content and in pedagogy. Context-freeteaching approaches developed through isolated com-ponents eventually are bound to fail or will not effec-tively provide desired outcomes. Thus, a new PCK baseemerges from the interaction between content andpedagogy in context with its unique properties.Shulman (1987) also stated that PCK ‘represents theblending of content and pedagogy into an understand-ing of how particular topics, problems, or issues areorganized, represented, and adapted to diverse interestsand abilities of learners, and presented for instruction’(p. 8). Moving through this understanding of interac-tions between content and pedagogy and adding a newcomponent to the traditional PCK schema requireeducators to define a new technology-based knowledgebase.

Mishra and Koehler (2006) inserted the technologycomponent into Shulman’s PCK model to describe therelationship between technology and other components.Their model is called TPACK. It defines technologyintegration as a complex multidimensional processrequiring understanding of the reciprocal dynamic rela-

tionships between three knowledge bases pedagogy,content, and technology.

As represented in Fig 1, Koehler et al. (2007) pointedout that ‘at the heart of TPACK is the dynamic transac-tional relationship between content, pedagogy, andtechnology. Good teaching with technology requiresunderstanding the mutually-reinforcing relationshipsbetween all three elements taken together to developappropriate, context-specific strategies and representa-tions’ (p. 741).

Within the TPACK framework, content, technology,and pedagogy are respectively described as subjectmatter, as tools to be used in teaching to represent infor-mation (technology), and methods of teaching andevaluating student learning (pedagogy). Interactionsand relationships among these elements are stressed asfactors teachers must address in the technology integra-tion process.

Angeli and Valanides (2009) reviewed TPACK litera-ture and stressed the importance of the relationshipbetween components: ‘all existing views (on TPACK)are founded on the common principle that effectivetechnology integration presupposes conceptualizationsthat must be necessarily formulated by considering theinteractions among technology, content, and pedagogy’(p. 155). For those relationships, Koehler et al. (2007)mentioned that technology addresses pedagogical

Fig 1 Technological pedagogical content knowledge (retrievedfrom http://tpack.org).

2 S. Pamuk

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

issues by providing teachers alternatives for represent-ing concepts they teach in different and rich forms, bystrengthening prior knowledge, etc. Similarly, Angeliand Valanides (2009) also emphasized the role of tech-nology intended ‘to transform content and pedagogy forlearners’ (p. 156).

Although literature on the TPACK framework pro-vides educators descriptions of conceptual models ontechnology integration, the importance of each compo-nent given in the framework, the nature of the relation-ships, interactions with each knowledge base, andproblems that arise from implementation (Cox 2008;Angeli & Valanides 2009; Archambault & Barnett2010; Graham 2011), we have only limited understand-ing and research on use of the TPACK theoreticalframework as an evaluative tool for understanding pre-service teachers’ technology integration knowledge andabilities and related issues. It is especially important tounderstand the process of development of knowledgebases, interactions among components (T, P, C) and,more importantly, how lack of knowledge in one knowl-edge domain can negatively impact an overall technol-ogy integration effort.

We therefore believe that this research approach isvery important, especially for teacher educators incharge of teaching or modeling effective technologyintegration for those with limited knowledge andexperience in different knowledge domains. UsingTPACK theoretical lenses to understand preserviceteachers’ knowledge, and to provide a strategy forinteraction among different components (T, P, C), andexperiences would provide valuable insight for orga-nizing and teaching preservice teachers, effectivetechnology integration strategies before they proceedinto service.

In this study, the main emphasis was placed on thequestion of understanding how preservice teachers –with limited knowledge in any dimension of the teach-ing task – can integrate technology into teaching, andthereby impact the overall technology integration effort.

Methodology

A basic interpretative qualitative research approach wasselected to enable understanding of preservice teachers’approaches to knowledge base creation processes. Mul-tiple data sources and tools (i.e. open-ended question-naires, teaching products, final project report, formal,

and informal observations) detailed in Table 1 wereused for data collection.

Research context

This study was conducted within a computer educationand instructional technology department at a Turkishuniversity. Because of the institutional structure and4-year curriculum, all participants in this study had vir-tually the same programme of study with both educa-tional (i.e. educational psychology, special teachingmethods) and technology courses (i.e. databasesystems, web programming).

The current study involved 78 juniors in a semester-long course, Principles of Distance Education. Thiscourse included weekly 2-h lectures and a 2-h lab. Thelecture portion of the course was organized aroundteaching principles of distance education, with projectwork performed during lab hours. The data were col-lected from two different sections of the same course.Preservice teachers were required to develop educa-tional materials for teaching subject matter to learnerswho are either distant-located or are using computersindependently.

Participants were allowed to choose the subjectmatter they would like to teach with technology, so therewas variation in content areas and target populations.

Data collection and analysis procedures in this studywere focused on how preservice teachers in eachcontext used their technical and pedagogical back-grounds to create new TPACK knowledge bases.

Participants

The participants in this study consisted of 78 preserviceteachers. All were juniors and took virtually the samecourses. Graduates of this programme would expect toachieve responsible positions as technology teachers,mostly at the middle or high school level, or in positionssuch as web designers, technical support staff, ornetwork support personnel.

Data collection process

Multiple techniques were employed to collect data in atwo-stage process. In the first stage, data (from sources#1 through #5 in Table 1) were used to create categoriesand develop initial findings. These findings were shared

Preservice teachers’ technology use 3


with participants in the second stage to support concep-tualization of their experiences and provide an opportu-nity for reflection. The participants’ reflections andfeedback on the findings provided evidence of thestudy’s validity.

One-semester first-stage data collection began withinformal observations (#1 in Table 1). This was imme-diately followed with informal interviews, conversa-tions, and discussions with participants (#5). In each labsession, there was a one-to-one relationship between the

Table 1. Data collection tools and sources.

Data sources Definition/example

1. Participatory informalobservations

Course instructor (researcher) had opportunity to observe class and lab participantsduring a week for about for 4 h total for each section of the course.

At the beginning, the researcher did not code the data, but did so electronically frommemos immediately after each class.

Example:Code → Pedagogical approach (Beliefs)‘When I asked students how they define their future teaching approach, they mostly

talked about the terms “behavior change”, “positive reinforcement”, “punishment”,etc.’

Code → Technology and content‘Today, students at the lab were mostly worked on preparing presentation of the

content in such forms as PowerPoint.’2. Open-ended questionnaire Based on the analysis of the data from informal observations, interviews, literature

review, and other artefacts, a 14-item open-ended questionnaire was developed andadministered at the end of each semester. Resulting data were specifically used as aconfirmatory source in finalizing conceptual categories.

Example:Do you have any idea on possible teaching approaches that would be effective

teaching this selected topic? What teaching approaches and strategies would yourecommend?

How does technology support your teaching style and at what dynamics of yourteaching were enriched with technology?

3. Project report Outline was prepared and provided by the researcher. Participants turned in reports atsemester end. Sections from project report outlines were ‘pedagogic approach’ and‘role of technology, assessment strategies’.

4. Student teaching materials/artefacts

Participants prepared technology-based teaching material for distance education use(see Fig 2), and wrote a paper defining learning. Projects were evaluated based onsupplied criteria (i.e. appropriateness of the visual design, pedagogic approach,project-learner interaction, content presentation, and assessment strategy). Projectsevaluated and graded at the end of the semester.

Example:Does the project include any instructional activity so that learners interact with the

content?What kind of evaluation strategy was implemented for assessment of students’

learning?5. Unstructured informal

interviewsInformal conversations with participants in class and at lab sessions. Important data

were noted, as were observations.Example:Student: I use multiple-choice test as the assessment tool in my project.Researcher: Why do you want to use multiple-choice tests as the assessment strategy

rather than use of concept map or something else?Researcher: Do you think that there is any difference between book content and

content given on your project.6. Second phase of data

collection and online membercheck

Initial research findings were shared with all participants through an online database-driven website, agreement levels (Agree, Neutral, Disagree), and their reflectionsabout each finding were collected. Forty-nine participants shared their thoughts.

4 S. Pamuk


researcher and participants. Preservice teachers’ ques-tions, ideas, and thoughts about their projects were valu-able data sources, especially for understanding theirpedagogical approaches. Gall et al. (1999) describesuch interactions as informal interviews, and the natureof these interviews made it difficult to record their exactnumber. During the early weeks, the researcher wasmainly interested in general-behaviour data. Duringlater weeks, there was increased focus on items likepedagogical and technological issues, use of technol-ogy, and other issues.

The data collection process was followed by examin-ing documents (#4) collected during the early weeks ofthe semester identifying participants’ views on learningand the role of technology. Towards the end of thesemester, data were mainly related to evaluation of stu-dents’ projects (#4) by the researcher. Once all thesesteps were completed, students were asked to answerthe researcher’s online 14-question questionnaire (#2).Sixty-seven participants responded to this question-naire, and students’ final project reports were collectedand analysed at the end of the semester (#3).

Following the first data collection stage, data wereanalysed and initial findings shared with participants inthe second stage through a database-driven website.Students rated their agreement level with each findingand could also provide their own reflections.

Data analysis

Principles of grounded theory research methodologywere employed throughout this study. A constant-comparison technique was used for data analysis(Glaser & Strauss 1967), as further recommended byGlaser (1978). In this approach, the researcher con-stantly compares incoming data to initial data. Duringthe process, the researcher moves between data andinitial analysis results and can determine needs for addi-tional data, how to collect it, and the best source (Glaser& Strauss 1967; Merriam 2002).

Data analysis is facilitated by three procedures: opencoding, axial coding, and selective coding (Strauss &Corbin 1990; Jones & McEwen 2002). In the codingstage, initial categories are created by breaking downthe data (open coding), followed by comparisons andrelationships among them (axial coding), and, finally,using selective coding to finalize category generationand better understand the overall data. For example,

data could be labelled ‘technology focus’ or‘technology-oriented design’ using open coding, andthen could be grouped as ‘technological ideas’ usingaxial coding. Finally, a selective coding procedure madeit possible to select among general categories and con-cepts to develop an overall description of the preserviceteachers’ TPACK knowledge base experiences.

A triangulation strategy for data from differentsources was used in this study as a means of providingqualitative research reliability and validity. Using thisstrategy, according to Merriam (2002), ‘a researchercollects data through a combination of interviews,observation, and document analysis’ (p. 25). Gall et al.(1999) defines triangulation as ‘the process of usingmultiple data-collection methods, data sources, ana-lysts, or theories to check the (findings)’ (p. 305). Mul-tiple data sources were implemented for this purpose.Observational data, for example, were not used to createa category until it was supported by interviews, ques-tionnaire responses, or project reports.

A second strategy for ensuring validity was memberchecks (Gall et al. 1999). After data were analysed andinitial results and conclusions constructed, internet-based findings were shared with participants (#6 inTable 1). Participants’ reviews of research findingswere also shared. Participants were asked to select oneof three options (Agree, Neutral, Disagree) listed next tothe each statement and to share additional thoughts in atext box. Forty-nine (63%) of 78 participants sharedtheir thoughts. Before finalization of the study, datawere assessed and used to construct the overall results.

Adequate engagement and rich and thick studydescriptions are other strategies listed by Merriam(2002) for achieving reliability and validity of qualita-tive research, and these methods were taken into consid-eration and used in this study.

Results

The structure of the TPACK is hierarchical and beginswith defining the core knowledge basis (P, C, T)required for teaching with technology. In this study, wefirst examined preservice teachers’ core knowledgeadequacy as the foundation of the overall structure, thenmoved on to investigation of the knowledge basisthrough interactions such as technological pedagogicalknowledge (TPK) and PCK. The final step was deter-mining interactions among individual knowledge



domains [TPK, PCK, technological content knowledge(TCK)] to define TPACK. The results of the study willtherefore be presented in three main sections: overallfindings, core knowledge basis, and knowledge basisfrom interactions.

Overall findings

This section summarizes the findings for each TPACKcomponent. We first developed initial findings thatbecame the overall findings from the data analysis(Table 2), and then initiated a second process stage bysharing these findings online with participants. Whilethe majority of the participants (75%) indicated overall

agreement with the findings, 15% were neutral, and10% disagreed with them.

Core knowledge basis

This section provides details about preservice teachers’knowledge and experiences on technology, pedagogy,and content. Participants’ agreement levels with eachstatement related to the core knowledge areas are alsodiscussed (see Appendix A).

Content knowledgeContent knowledge is described as ‘understanding ofthe major facts and concepts in a discipline as well as the

Table 2. Overall findings organized according to TPACK components.

Knowledgebase

Summary of findings

CK • Participants did not mention any problems with chosen subject matter. They reported that they were allcomfortable with their knowledge on the subject matter they chose.

PK • Preservice teachers prefer to see more observable outcomes as learning indicators. Major factor fromclassroom discussions was overall academic culture and courses taken. When students pushed to go intomore detail in their definitions and the learning process, lack of foundation in preservice teachers’knowledge of subject was obvious.

• A clear picture that, although students demonstrated limited pedagogical understandings and knowledge,it was not well grounded in the theoretical definitions.

• Projects revealed that knowledge base in pedagogy or learning theories does not necessarily mean one isable to use technology as planned.

• Academic culture of individual participants had major impact on their views on learning and teaching.TK • Before the study, participants were in a major programme requiring them to take many advanced

technology courses. So, having no major problems with technology was an expected outcome andpreviously planned assumption.

PCK • Participants were knowledgeable in the content area they chose and in general teaching strategies, butthey had difficulties or limitations in effectively combining these two knowledge elements. The majordeficiency revealed was a lack of pedagogical experience in teaching.

TCK • Participants were mostly in favour of using technology to visualize content without any judgment about itseffectiveness.

• Preservice teachers were much more interested in technological than in educational ideas. Some preserviceteachers had not demonstrated any experience or approach for deciding how to most effectively usetechnology to convey or transform content.

TPK • Many participants demonstrated use of technology as a means of linear information conveyance and usedtesting as a major assessment strategy.

• Preservice teachers in this study reported no major problem with technology except for lack of pedagogicalexperience. Therefore, this limitation resulted in limited prior use of technology for transforming,supporting, or enriching pedagogical ideas and, eventually, creating technological pedagogical knowledge.

TPACK • Participants favoured emphasis on technological ideas rather than combining them with educational ideas.• Lack of pedagogical experience and understanding of different teaching strategies were two major issues in

developing the TPACK knowledge base.• Although preservice teachers’ pedagogical knowledge base initially seemed to be the only limitation, its

impact on the creation of the other knowledge bases (i.e. TPK or PCK) and the creation of the TPACKbecame a crucial factor.

CK, content knowledge; PCK, pedagogical content knowledge; PK, pedagogical knowledge; TCK, technological content knowledge;TK, technological knowledge; TPACK, technological pedagogical content knowledge; TPK, technological pedagogical knowledge.

6 S. Pamuk


substantive and syntactic structures of that field’ (Cox2008, p. 7). Participants did not mention any problemsor limitations within their projects with regard to thecontent they chose, and with all reporting comfort withtheir knowledge with respect to chosen subject matter.Participants’ agreement levels in Table A1 (see Appen-dix A) along with conclusions related to the contentknowledge domain in Table 2 also confirm our conclu-sion about students’ comfort level with respect tocontent. While a large majority (90% of 49) of the par-ticipants reported that they agreed with the statement,four of the participants did not, but provided no explana-tion for their disagreement.

Several participants stated in their project reports, Ihave adequate knowledge on the subject matter I chosefor my project. As a specific example, one gave anassessment of adequacy of content knowledge. Shepointed out that, I have used the main concepts of thesubject matter I chose in my project. I believe that I haveadequate knowledge on geometry since I like it andenjoy teaching it. Another student whose projectfocused on teaching English shared similar experiences.She stated, I think that I have enough knowledge at thelevel at which I teach in my project, since I like Englishand have been learning myself.

Questionnaire data provided some insight on partici-pants who felt lacking in content knowledge. One, forexample, stated, I don’t think I have enough knowledgeon punctuations in Turkish. I have always problem withusing punctuations in my writings. But, I’ve learnedduring this project. Another participant indicated in theopen-ended questionnaire discomfort with the subjectmatter because it was outside his or her area of special-ization. Based on those participants’ thoughts and expe-riences, it could be concluded that some of theparticipants initially feel they have subject-matterknowledge but encounter unexpected limitations as theymove forward.

In addition to participants’ knowledge level oradequacy on the content emerged as the major categoryand discussed above, themes such as diversity of thecontent, structure of the content, and some others werealso generated from data.

Pedagogical knowledge (PK)PK is defined as ‘general skills, beliefs, and knowledgerelated to teaching, independent of a particular subjectarea. Knowledge and beliefs about learners, basic prin-

ciples of instruction, classroom management, and theaims and purposes of education are all part of generalpedagogical knowledge’ (Cox 2008, p. 7). Shulman dif-ferentiated general PK from PCK, so the definitiongiven here would be categorized as general PK. Withregard to PK, we established several data categories (i.e.pedagogical approach, pedagogic adequacy, prefer-ences, understanding, and limitations). Among thesecategories, participants’ comfort level with overallteaching and implementation of chosen pedagogicalprinciples into project emerged as critical ones to be dis-cussed in this section. Participants’ overall agreementlevel with regard to findings related to PK in Table 2reveals that most participants (70%) had limited knowl-edge or experience on pedagogical issues, experiencingproblems integrating them into teaching.

Although student responses to the questionnaire (#2)and thoughts expressed in the document (#4) showedthat they felt a certain level of competence in differentteaching approaches and learning theories, their under-standing was not implemented as expressed in theirproject reports. Specific issues like interactions, assess-ment strategies, collaboration, and others were notappropriately implemented in their projects.

For example, one responded as follows:

I preferred to use a cognitive teaching style in my project.Since there are individual differences in learning, Iwanted to reach out to more people (by using cognitiveteaching style). I believe that (by following thisapproach) I accomplished my purpose.

Another noted:

It was impossible for me to use constructivist or behav-iorist teaching approach in my project. Therefore, I useda cognitive teaching approach. To get the attention oflearners, I underlined the more important points in theproject. I used concept maps to transfer the informationto learners. I also use strategies to provide advancedlearning opportunities by allowing learners during analy-sis, implementation, and sentence activities.

In addition to students who expressed their pedagogicstrategies in more theoretical terms, others discussedtheir teaching approaches with technology in suchterms as visualization of the teacher/learner interactionwith content and use of real-life cases in teaching. Dataanalysis within the terms of TPACK, also using Shul-man’s PCK framework, revealed a clear picturethat, while students demonstrated some pedagogical



understanding and knowledge, it was somewhat limitedand ungrounded in the theoretical definitions.

Differences between students’ questionnaireself-reporting and their ability to integrate pedagogicalstrategies into their teaching revealed that having aknowledge base in pedagogy or learning theories doesnot necessarily mean one is able to use technology prop-erly. As Cox (2008) discussed, the issue is moving fromknowing to doing. Creating a TPK base, therefore, wasproblematic for participants in this study. Details areprovided in the TPK section.

Technological knowledge (TK)Technology knowledge is defined as the knowledge ofdifferent information technologies that would be used indaily life. A unique aspect of this research was that par-ticipants had strong backgrounds in software and hard-ware technologies, permitting a strategy focused onstudents’ technology integration ability and determin-ing major factors beyond technology knowledge andskills. Major themes generated from the data were tech-nology selection, software and hardware technologiesknowledge, and technology knowledge level withrespect to adequacy of technology. Because of thevariety of technology selected, confidence with use oftechnology is also discussed in this section. Participantsindicated that they all had general software and technol-ogy knowledge. Sixty-one per cent agreed that they hadno major problem with technology during the develop-ment of their projects. Several, however, indicated bothin questionnaire (#2) and project report paper (#3)responses that they learned new software functionsduring the project design.

A considerable number of participants (25%, Dis-agree) did oppose or were undecided (14%, Neutral) onthe technological adequacy findings. However, in exam-ining their responses in the open-ended sections, wefound that they did not directly reject the statement butrather doubted their level of efficacy in use of technol-ogy. As one participant noted that, I think that this is themain reason [lack of technology knowledge and experi-ence] why we can’t move from theory to implementa-tion. We can’t benefit from all potentials of technologyas much as we need. One of the few neutral or undecidedstudents, on the other hand, stated that, the changes intechnology come to life almost every day, therefore it isimpossible to be knowledgeable on technology and feelconfident about it’

These results, in brief, demonstrate that, althoughstudents in this study generally feel comfortable regard-ing their level of technology knowledge, some do notfeel adequate.

Knowledge basis from interactions

In this section, students’ knowledge and experiences onPCK, TPK, and TCK are described. Participants’ agree-ment levels are given in Table A2 (Appendix A).

PCKShulman’s PCK describes developing a new knowledgebase using two or more separate knowledge bases as theessence of the best teaching and a foundation of theoverall TPACK model, so it is important that preserviceteachers be able to use their pedagogic knowledge andcontent knowledge to develop PCK. The data revealedthat although a majority of preservice teachers inthis study reported no major problems in the contentarea, they were not confident about their teaching/pedagogical experience. Participants’ agreement levelalso supports this conclusion. About 60% of the partici-pants agreed with the statement given in Table 2 andindicated their inadequacy in pedagogical experience toteach the chosen subject matter.

A participant, for example, reported in the projectreport that, I think that I have adequate knowledge onthe subject I chose and ability to teach it in the class-room. Because I know the content well and my teachingapproach seems to me an appropriate one. Althoughthis participant seemed to have confidence enough toteach, another student pointed out his own limitationsin teaching by stating, I think that I know the subjects [Ichose to teach in this project], but I’m skeptical abouthaving enough experience in teaching overall. Beingamong students and presenting to them, I think, will behelpful to me in increasing my self-efficacy of teaching.Students who reported a lack of pedagogical experi-ence stressed the importance of real classroom teachingexperience. One student pointed out that, I think that Iknow about the topic, but I’m not experienced in teach-ing because I have not experienced it yet. Anothershared that, experience is built up through realactivities; I have not experienced such a teachingactivity yet.

A student’s response to our own conclusion about thedata summarizes the response to the issue. She pointed

8 S. Pamuk


out that, As long as we don’t know needs and interests oftarget population [students], I don’t think we can createor develop a pedagogic approach. Therefore, I don’tthink having knowledge in the content area would notwork by alone. This participant not only shared herthoughts but also pointed out the solution. She notedthat, preservice teachers [in our context] need to startteaching practice, going to elementary schools, at thefreshman year [currently they go schools for teachingpracticum at the senior year]. As they move forward intheir classes at the teacher education program, theyalso develop different pedagogical experience fromtheir teaching practice.

As Shulman (1987) discusses in his PCK framework,the need for understanding learners’ interests, needs,difficulties, motivation to learn, and other factors werealso highlighted by students in this study. As discussedin many studies, development of PCK is important issuein our study as well. Some of the data categories gener-ated were: lack of teaching experience, learners’ back-grounds, motivation, ability to teach specific content,and need for materials.

TPKThe TPACK model states that lack of experience orknowledge in one area in the model has resulted infailure or unexpected outcomes. Despite the fact thatstudents in the study had well-grounded technologybackgrounds, lack of pedagogical experiences causedvery limited use of technology, according to the peda-gogical principles they chose. Student projects revealedthat use of technology in projects added no new dimen-sions to their teaching even though they had planned tomodify their teaching approach. Participants plannedand reported some promising ideas and approaches fortechnology use, but implementations were not observ-able in the projects. Shulman (1987) described peda-gogy including many types of activities, like subjectdifficulty, student understanding, questions to ask,assessment approaches, and other components. TPKwould thus be the definition of whether or not technol-ogy supports teachers in integrating their pedagogicideas into teaching.

Many participants in this study demonstrated use oftechnology for conveying to learners in a linear fashionand used testing as a major assessment strategy, with amajority (76%) of the participants agreeing to this spe-cific finding. One student’s response to this conclusion

contributes to understanding of why many agree with it.She pointed out that, I think that the main reason [for theconclusion] originated from the thought that technol-ogy itself would be enough to reach to the result ortarget and push pedagogy aside.

Many projects did not reflect learner/teacher inter-action, checking points of understanding, and otherpedagogic principles described in the overall TPACKmodel. The students were assumed to have good tech-nology skills but to lack pedagogical experience, so weinterpret the data from observation sessions, projectreports, and questionnaire reflections to reflectstudents’ limited use of technology for transforming,supporting, or enriching their pedagogical ideas and forultimately creating a TPK base. About 83% of theparticipants expressed conclusion consistent with thefindings given in Table 2 and interpretations of theirexperiences.

TCKData in this section revealed that students were quitecapable of creating a TCK base whose essence is totransform content into different forms for presentationto learners. Student projects used various approaches torepresent content. For example, some used Flash anima-tion and graphics to teach English words, or used an ani-mated clip to convey the risks of smoking.

In addition to the examples of Fig 2, participantswere also in favour of using technology to visualizecontent (92%). However, these efforts were of question-able effectiveness. One participant, for example, devel-oped Flash animations to show static scenes in hisproject, when he could have effectively conveyed themessage with a very simple picture or text with far lessexpenditure of effort. Therefore, some examples usingsubstantial time and energy to develop different tech-nology products revealed the fact that students in thisstudy were much more focused on technological ratherthan educational ideas. In other words, some studentshad no experience or approach for deciding just whenand how to most effectively use technology to conveycontent. About 73% of the students agreed with thisconclusion. The overall understanding developed fromthe data was that the use of technology to distributecontent actually requires considering all teaching com-ponents together. Without any pedagogical planning,technology cannot be productive or supportive ofcontent transformation. Also, the overall agreement



Fig 2 Projects developed by preservice teachers.

10 S. Pamuk


level in Table A2 (82%, see Appendix A) demonstratesa strong consensus on findings of this study with regardto preservice teachers’ TCK.

In addition to representation and visualization of thecontent using different technologies, appropriateness ofthe technology and content, planning of technology andcontent, and effectiveness of the technology for thechosen content were some of the initial categories gen-erated from the data.

TPACKOverall, the data indicated that students demonstrated alack of understanding of technology integration meth-odology and understanding within the TPACK frame-work. Lack of both pedagogical experience andunderstanding of different teaching strategies was amajor issue in developing the TPACK knowledgebase. Students with technology backgrounds werefound to be limited in using technology to teach subjectmatter of their own choice. Having two core knowledgebases with adequate knowledge (technology andcontent) leaves only one limitation, lack of PK. Severalparticipants reported a lack of PK or experience withteaching and teaching with technology. A recent studyinvestigating preservice teachers’ development ofTPACK has reported similar results in their quantita-tive analysis (Chai et al. 2010). That study reported thatPK had the largest impact on predicting preserviceteachers’ TPACK level. Chai et al. (2010) concludedthat ‘. . . increasing PK is foundational for developingTPACK. As preservice teachers develop a basic levelof PK, they establish a strong knowledge basefrom which effective technology integration ideas canflourish’ (p. 70).

Based on our interpretation of the data, we con-structed three major conclusions (findings) and sharedthem with participants, and Table A2 indicates thatapproximately 74% of the participants reported a strongconsensus with them. One student’s definition ofhis experience with use of technology in educationelegantly summarizes our overall research findings withregard to TPACK. He stresses that, teaching with tech-nology with no pedagogical ideas looks like a fancypresent box with no present in it.

Although initially, preservice teachers’ PK baseseemed to be the only limitation, its impact on otherknowledge base creation and creation of the TPACKbecame major issues. This result supported the TPACK

model’s overall definition and confirmed that deficiencyin one area can result in failure of effective technologyuse.

Understanding the role of technology in teachingand learning, lack of experience in using techno-logy in teaching, pedagogy and technology use, appro-priateness of technology and content, limitation oftechnology, and interaction and technology were someof the categories developed from the data analysisprocedure.

Discussion

Our study shows that, while students demonstrated acertain level of knowledge in technology, pedagogy, andcontent, their ability to use knowledge bases and theirattempts to create new knowledge bases, like TPK, werelimited, principally due to lack of teaching experience.Ozgun-Koca et al. (2010) indicate in their study thatpreservice teachers’ lack of teaching experienceresulted in inability to use technology in teaching.Projects preservice teachers developed in this studywere limited in many cases in terms of both transforma-tion of pedagogy and content. Shulman (1987) notedthat the knowledge, understanding, and skill expertteachers display with ease were demonstrated ‘haltingly,and occasionally masterfully’ in preservice teachers’projects in our study.

Our findings also indicated that, while the teachereducation programme could be effective at conveyingtheoretical, methodological, and technical knowledgeand skills, preservice teachers’ lack of direct teachingexperience limit them in effectively using or integrat-ing technology into teaching (So & Kim 2009; Chaiet al. 2010). Therefore, results suggest that modelingeffective use of technology in teaching throughout theteacher education programme is necessary (Niess et al.2006). Otherwise, as Bandura (1977) pointed out, tech-nology integration would be ‘exceedingly laborious,not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solelyon the effects of their own actions to inform them whatto do’ (p. 22). Therefore, carefully designed casestudies or exercises in teacher education programmescould help preservice teachers gain some teachingexperience before doing actual teaching in the realclassroom.

Creating new knowledge bases based on differentteaching components is difficult for preservice teachers.



It requires a deep understanding of the core knowledgebasis and interpretation of the teaching context and itsdynamics. Developing PCK is an important factor inoverall technology integration; teachers must prioritizethis before integrating technology. In preservice teachereducation, PCK development must be supported withactual teaching experience, so it is necessary to supportpreservice teachers’ ‘pedagogical reasoning’ develop-ment, which refers to the understanding of the processof ‘transforming subject matter into forms that are peda-gogically powerful as well as identifying and selectingstrategies for representing key ideas in the lesson’(Shulman 1987; Angeli 2005).

Because of PCK development difficulty and the factthat TPACK is based on PCK concept, it would not betheoretically incorrect to note that if one’s PCK devel-opment is not fully completed, one would be limited indemonstrating technology use in teaching.

The difference between ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’ wasalso demonstrated in the current study. While ‘knowing’would be described as having knowledge in pedagogy,content, and technology, ‘doing’ would be a processof implementation of knowledge background into agenuine teaching experience. Although preserviceteachers were confident about different knowledgebases, their implementations were limited. Similarly tothe results of the study carried out by So and Kim(2009), knowing about technology or the content didnot produce effective technology use in the givencontext. Although preservice teachers may have tech-nology, pedagogy, and content knowledge, TPACKdevelopment from interactions among these compo-nents was problematic to a certain degree (Marino et al.2009).

The findings of this study indicate that preserviceteachers’ lack of teaching experience plays a signifi-cant role in their ability to use technology in teaching.Preservice teachers should receive guidance in terms ofhow to achieve effective technology integration intotheir teaching. Technology modeling use throughoutthe curriculum by teacher educators should also beconsidered as a possibly effective technique. However,the findings of this study strongly suggest that suchmodeling should not only demonstrate good classroomexamples but should also be expanded to include ‘cog-nitive modeling’ revealing the logic behind the teachereducator’s actions. In addition, instructors could con-sider developing exercises in which preservice teachers

see a model of a technology applied to teaching andthen try the approach for themselves with limited con-cepts rather than having an open choice of content toteach. Through such modeling and exercises, shapedwith principles of TPACK, preservice teachers wouldhave the opportunity to learn both pedagogical prin-ciples (dynamics) and technology selection by anexpert.

With respect to TPACK structure, the results of thisstudy clearly indicate that, although the theoreticalfoundations of TPACK have potential to provideinsights to educators in terms of integration of technol-ogy into teaching and learning activities, this potentialis not visible or clearly represented at certain points inFig 1. The current representation indicates that TPACKknowledge is composed of a combination of differentknowledge bases but lacks the procedural steps (i.e.what comes first, next, and last) that must take place inthe development process of a TPACK knowledge base.This issue makes it difficult for educators to explain allinteractions among knowledge bases. In this study, toovercome this challenge, we followed a process-oriented approach defined with theoretical foundationsas noted earlier. In this approach, we first examinedPCK development, since foundations of TPACK aredeveloped based on the PCK concept, and then move toon other interactions and knowledge bases. In otherwords, our understanding of the theoretical foundationsof TPACK obligates us to follow a hierarchical model(developmental stages by importance) and prioritizePCK development over all other knowledge bases inthe data analysis. In the later stages of interpretation ofthe data, although TPK and TCK were the majorknowledge bases with which preservice teachersmostly demonstrated a certain degree of develop-ment, we could not, for example, find a direct andstrong interaction between TPK and TCK. Theonly interaction between these two knowledge basesfalls in the area of TPACK in the diagram, and it wasdifficult to differentiate its effect on overall TPACKdevelopment.

In brief, based on our interpretations of the data andliterature, we believe that further studies and researchon TPACK should also consider discussing the struc-ture of TPACK and inquire as to whether or not thecurrent TPACK diagram is complete and adequate torepresent the full potential of TPACK foundations.The result of this study clearly pointed out that PCK

12 S. Pamuk


development must be prioritized in TPACK develop-ment, and this should be explicitly represented in theTPACK diagram.

Recommendations

Although the TPACK framework provides educators auseful theoretical landscape to explain how to integratetechnology into teaching, implementation of thoseprinciples is not an easy task. Preservice teachers inour study struggled with development of new knowl-edge bases. Creation of new knowledge bases frominteractions among core components was one of themajor points found to be challenging and complex. Ourconclusion is to suggest further research study, con-tinuing investigation of the process of knowledge basescreation (i.e. TPK, PCK, TPACK) from interactionsamong different components of the overall framework.This would provide useful insights for understandingthe limitations, challenges, and dynamics of the com-ponents and their development, and provide useful

ideas to be implemented in teacher educationprogrammes.

Also, participants in the current study had good tech-nical backgrounds but limited or no pedagogical experi-ence. Therefore, research with different participantbackgrounds (i.e. preservice teachers and teachers withpedagogical experience or limited technical back-ground) in a different context would certainly enlightenus on the creation of new knowledge bases. Furtherresearch with different participant backgrounds wouldprobably provide us some useful insight whether peda-gogical experience remains the major barrier develop-ing TPACK knowledge base, or how participants whoare limited in both technology and pedagogy prioritizetheir limitations.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Dr. Ali Eraslan from Ondokuz MayisUniversity, and the anonymous reviewers and the editorfor their constructive feedback.

Appendix A

Table A1. Participants’ agreement level to findings (content, pedagogy, and technology).

Knowledge base Average number ofresponses for each finding

Number of findings(from Table 2)

Average agreement level

Content knowledge 49 1 Agree: 90% (44)Neutral: 2% (1)Disagree: 8% (4)

Pedagogical knowledge 48 4 Agree: 69% (33)Neutral: 15% (7)Disagree: 16% (8)

Technological knowledge 49 1 Agree: 61% (30)Neutral: 14% (7)Disagree: 25% (12)



Table A2. Participants’ agreement level to findings (PCK, TPK, TCK, and TPACK).

Knowledge base Average number ofresponses for each finding

Number of findings(from Table 2)

Average agreementlevel/# of participants

PCK 48 1 Agree: 86% (44)Neutral: 8% (1)Disagree: 4% (4)

TPK 49 2 Agree: 83% (40)Neutral: 13% (7)Disagree: 4% (2)

TCK 48 2 Agree: 82% (40)Neutral: 9% (5)Disagree: 8% (4)

TPACK 49 3 Agree: 74% (36)Neutral: 21% (10)Disagree: 5% (3)

PCK, pedagogical content knowledge; TCK, technological content knowledge; TPACK, technological pedagogical content knowledge.

References

Angeli C. (2005) Transforming a teacher education methodcourse through technology: effects on preservice teachers’technology competency. Computers & Education 45, 383–398.

Angeli C. & Valanides N. (2009) Epistemological and meth-odological issues for the conceptualization, development,and assessment of ICT-TPACK: advances in technologicalpedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers &Education 52, 154–168.

Archambault L.M. & Barnett J.H. (2010) Revisiting techno-logical pedagogical content knowledge: exploring theTPACK framework. Computers & Education 55, 1656–1662.

Bandura A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Brzycki D. & Dudt K. (2005) Overcoming barriers to technol-ogy use in teacher preparation programs. Journal of Tech-nology and Teacher Education 13, 619–641.

Bull G., Knezek G., Roblyer M.D., Schrum L. & ThompsonA. (2005) A proactive approach to a research agenda foreducational technology. Journal of Research on Technol-ogy in Education 37, 217–220.

Chai C.S., Koh J.H.L. & Tsai C.C. (2010) Facilitating preser-vice teachers’ development of technological, pedagogical,and content knowledge (TPACK). Educational Technology& Society 13, 63–73.

Chuang H., Thompson A. & Schmidt D. (2003) Facultytechnology mentoring programs: major trends in theliterature. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 19,101–106.

Cox S. (2008) A conceptual analysis of technological peda-gogical content knowledge. (Doctoral dissertation,Brigham Young University, 2008). Dissertation AbstractsInternational 69, 198A. (UMI No. AAT 3318618).

Ertmer P.A. (2005) Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final fron-tier in our quest for technology integration? EducationalTechnology Research and Development 53, 25–39.

Gall J.P., Gall M.S.D. & Borg W.R. (1999) Applying Educa-tional Research: A Practical Guide, 4th edition. Longman,NewYork, NY.

Glaser B.G. (1978) Advances in the Methodology ofGrounded Theory: Theoretical Sensitivity. The SociologyPress, Mill Valley, CA.

Glaser B.G. & Strauss A. (1967) The Discovery of GroundedTheory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, NewYork, NY.

Graham C.R. (2011) Theoretical considerations for under-standing technological pedagogical content knowledge(TPACK). Computers & Education 57, 1953–1960.

Hall L. (2006) Modeling technology integration for preserviceteachers: a PT3 case study. Contemporary Issues in Tech-nology and Teacher Education 6, 436–455.

Hammond L.D. (2006) Constructing 21st-century teachereducation. Journal of Teacher Education 57, 300–314.

Hew K.F. & Brush T. (2007) Integrating technology into K-12teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recom-mendations for future research. Educational TechnologyResearch & Development 55, 223–252.

Jones S.R. & McEwen M.K. (2002) A conceptual model formultiple dimensions of identity. In Qualitative Research inPractice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis (ed. S.B.Merriam), pp. 163–177. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

14 S. Pamuk


Koehler M.J., Mishra P. & Yahya K. (2007) Tracing the devel-opment of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: integrat-ing content, pedagogy, & technology. Computers &Education 49, 740–762.

Macleod F. & Golby M. (2003) Theories of learning and peda-gogy: issues for teacher development. Teacher Develop-ment 7, 345–361.

Marino M.T., Sameshima P. & Beecher C.C. (2009) Enhanc-ing TPACK with assistive technology: promoting inclusivepractices in preservice teacher education. ContemporaryIssues in Technology and Teacher Education 9, 186–207.

Merriam S.B. (2002) Qualitative Research in Practice:Examples for Discussion and Analysis. Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco, CA.

Mishra P. & Koehler M.J. (2006) Technological pedagogicalcontent knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge.Teachers College Record 108, 1017–1054.

Niess M.L., Lee K., Suharwoto G. & Sadri P. (2006) Guidinginservice mathematics teachers in developing TPCK. Paperpesented at the American Education Research AssociationAnnual Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Ozgun-Koca S.A., Meagher M. & Edwards M.T. (2010) Pre-service teachers, emerging TPACK in a technology-richmethods class. The Mathematics Educator 19, 10–20.

Shulman L.S. (1986) Those who understand: knowledgegrowth in teaching. Educational Researcher 15, 4–14.

Shulman L.S. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations ofthe new reform. Harvard Educational Review 57, 1–23.

Shulman L.S. (1999) Taking learning seriously. Change 31,10–17.

So H.J. & Kim B. (2009) Learning about problem based learn-ing: student teachers integrating technology, pedagogy andcontent knowledge. Australasian Journal of EducationalTechnology 25, 101–116.

Strauss A. & Corbin J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research:Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publi-cations, Newbury, CA.

Strudler N. & Wetzel K. (2005) The diffusion of electronicportfolios in teacher education: issues of initiation andimplementation. Journal of Research on Technology inEducation 37, 411–433.

Thompson A.D., Schmidt D.A. & Davis N.E. (2003) Technol-ogy collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teachereducation. Educational Technology Research and Develop-ment (ETR&D) 51, 73–89.

Wetzel K. & Williams M.K. (2004) Changing teacher educa-tion: mission possible. Journal of Computing in TeacherEducation 21, 45–49.



understanding preservice teachers' technology use through tpack framework

Documents