Ayla
Cetin-Dindar
*a,
Yezdan
Boz
b,
Demet
Yildiran Sonmez
b and
Nilgun
Demirci Celep
c
aDepartment of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Bartin University, 74100, Bartin, Turkey. E-mail: aylacetin@gmail.com
bDepartment of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical University, 06800, Ankara, Turkey
cTurkish Education Association, 06440, Ankara, Turkey
First published on 23rd October 2017
In this study, a mixed-method design was employed to investigate pre-service chemistry teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) development. For effective technology integration in instruction, knowledge about technology is not enough; teachers should have different knowledge types which are content, pedagogical, and technological. The 17 pre-service chemistry teachers who enrolled in the Instructional Technology and Material Development course participated in the study for one semester. The purpose of this course was to learn how to integrate simulations, animations, instructional games, data-logging, virtual labs and virtual field trips into chemistry instruction considering factors such as chemistry subjects and students’ possible alternative conceptions or their previous chemistry knowledge. A survey and interviews were used to gather data on the pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK framework both before and after the semester. A mixed between-within subjects analysis of variance was conducted to examine the differences in the pre-service teachers’ TPACK at two time periods considering also the gender factor. For the qualitative data, deductive analysis based on existing codes and categories was applied. The quantitative and qualitative findings of this study revealed that the pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK improved partially on some components. In addition, based on these findings, gender was not found to be a significant variable in technology integration. For further development in the TPACK framework, more context related technology applications in a learning and teaching environment are needed.
Science issues, in particular chemistry concepts, generally deal with microscopic levels. Students often have difficulty in understanding and visualizing microscopic concepts such as atoms, molecules, or chemical reactions. Educational technologies such as animations and simulations are quite helpful in visualizing these concepts; chemistry teachers who integrate these educational technologies into the teaching and learning process may support effective learning (Moore et al., 2013; Ryan, 2013). For effective technology integration in instruction, knowledge about technology is not enough; teachers should have different knowledge types which are content, pedagogical, and technological as well as the ability to integrate these knowledge types (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Koehler and Mishra, 2009).
A technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework that explains these knowledge types has been suggested as a requirement for effective technology integration (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). Similarly, in order to graduate pre-service chemistry teachers who use technology effectively in their future instruction, TPACK is essential. Hence, this study will examine an intervention implemented to develop the TPACK of pre-service chemistry teachers in a university. The intention is to provide answers to the following two questions:
(a) What are the pre-service chemistry teachers’ technology integration perceptions based on the TPACK framework both before and after a course related to educational and instructional technologies? What is the effect of gender on these perceptions?
(b) How do the pre-service chemistry teachers’ preferences to integrate technology into chemistry teaching based on the TPACK framework differ both before and after a course related to educational and instructional technologies?
The gender variable is also included in the study since males usually use technology more effectively than females. In order to determine whether the gender variable has an effect on pre-service teachers’ TPACK, this variable is added into the analysis. Therefore, this study will report on these empirical findings by collecting quantitative and qualitative evidence on the pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK framework, and correspondingly evaluate the effectiveness of a course to develop pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK considering gender.
Fig. 1 The components of the TPACK framework. Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 from http://tpack.org. |
Each knowledge type given in Fig. 1 forms one of the components of the framework. In other words, to have TPACK, a teacher must have knowledge about these seven components. TPACK contains the integration of knowledge of content, technology, and pedagogy – e.g., the use of technology to assess students’ understanding in electrochemistry concepts or detecting students’ prior knowledge via simulations of the acids and bases concepts in chemistry (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Koehler and Mishra, 2009). The components of the TPACK framework and their meaning for this framework are given in Table 1.
Components | Description |
---|---|
TK | The knowledge and skills necessary for using technology such as program installations, word processors, spreadsheets, the internet etc. (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). |
CK | The knowledge of a teacher about the concepts and theories related to specific subject-matter; for instance, a chemistry teacher should have adequate chemistry knowledge (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). |
PK | The collection of knowledge about general pedagogy such as classroom management, the way students learn and student assessment that is necessary in any class irrespective of specific subject (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Koehler and Mishra, 2009). |
TCK | The knowledge about the application of technology to teach specific content, such as simulation to teach gases in chemistry or allowing students to figure out the factors affecting chemical reactions via data logging (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). |
TPK | The knowledge about how technology can be used in teaching; e.g., how smart boards or animations can be used in teaching and learning settings (Koehler and Mishra, 2009). |
PCK | The blending of content and pedagogy knowledge. This is related to the application of general pedagogical knowledge within specific content; such as finding the best way to organize the radioactivity concepts in chemistry or applying instructional strategies to teach electrochemistry (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Koehler and Mishra, 2009). |
TPACK | The combination of knowledge of content, technology, and pedagogy, e.g., the use of appropriate technology to assess students’ understanding in electrochemistry or detecting students’ prior knowledge via simulations for effectively teaching acids and bases in chemistry (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Koehler and Mishra, 2009). |
Some other studies have searched for the relationship between TPACK and other variables (such as learning approaches, gender, technology experience and attitudes towards technology) (Erdoğan and Şahin, 2010; Lee and Tsai, 2010; Abbitt, 2011; Horzum, 2013). To give an example, Horzum (2013) conducted a research study on 239 pre-service teachers in order to reveal the effect of pre-service teachers’ learning approaches and gender on their TPACK. The pre-service teachers with deep knowledge of learning approaches were found to also have TPACK, whereas gender had no influence on TPACK. A study by Lee and Tsai (2010), conducted on 558 in-service teachers ranging from elementary to high school, reported a positive correlation among teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about TPACK with respect to the web and their experiences with and attitudes towards using web-related instruction.
Besides these studies, intervention studies on improving teachers’ TPACK have also played an important role in the related literature (e.g., McCrory, 2008; Guzey and Roehrig, 2009; Koh and Divaharan, 2011; Srisawasdi, 2012; Maeng et al., 2013; Mouza et al., 2014). As stated by Chai, Koh and Tsai (2013), these studies aim to develop teachers’ TPACK by assessing the effectiveness of the designed course or finding out factors that may facilitate the development of TPACK. For instance, Koh and Divaharan (2011) conducted a study using 98 Singaporean pre-service teachers. The focus of their study was to investigate the effectiveness of a re-designed educational technology course that aimed to develop pre-service teachers’ TPACK through designing a project that involved interactive white boards. The designed course was based on different instructional strategies as tutor modeling, hands-on investigation of the interactive white board, and group design of a lesson using interactive white boards. The reflections of the pre-service teachers on these instructional strategies revealed that tutor modeling and hands-on investigation were influential in enhancing pre-service teachers’ TK and TPK, while group design of the lesson was effective in promoting their TPACK. Similarly, Maeng et al. (2013), who conducted a study on 27 pre-service teachers in a technology-enriched inquiry instruction of the science teacher preparation program, reported that the pre-service science teachers’ TPACK developed through technology-enhanced inquiry instruction using animations, simulations, digital images, probe ware, and spreadsheets. Moreover, Mouza et al. (2014) investigated the influence of an educational technology course that used the integrated pedagogical approach on pre-service teachers’ TPACK. This integrated pedagogical approach involved linking an educational technology and methods course with field experience in the teacher education program. It was found that the pre-service teachers’ TK, CK, PK, TCK, TPK, PCK and TPACK improved significantly by the end of the course. Guzey and Roehrig (2009) also conducted a study on four in-service secondary science teachers. These teachers were involved in a professional development program on how technology could be implemented to teach inquiry-based science lessons. The technology used was probe ware, c-maps, computer simulations, and videos. The results of the study showed that in-service training helped to improve teachers’ TPACK.
Likewise, in a longitudinal study, Hoffer and Grandgenett (2012) examined the TPACK development of students who already had a bachelor degree in a non-teaching major, such as mathematics, biology etc., during the three-semester teacher education program. The researchers collected the data via a TPACK survey, reflection assignments, lesson plans, and interviews in a variety of courses, including educational technology and content-based teaching methods courses with practicum experiences. Over three semesters, the participants were encouraged to use technology to teach their subject specialism, especially in the educational technology and methods course in the teacher education program. At the end of the teacher preparation program, it was found that the participants’ TPK and TPACK improved significantly, but only a limited improvement was observed in participants’ TCK. In addition, in another study observing pre-service teachers by Hu and Fyfe (2010), an educational technology course was re-designed based on TPACK principles: taking problem-centered design tasks into consideration in order to increase pre-service teachers’ capability to use technology in the classroom. The results of this study indicated that the pre-service teachers’ ability to combine technology, pedagogy and content (TPACK) was significantly enhanced after the course.
Based on the literature review, it could be concluded that the importance of TPACK for effective technology integration is undeniable. It is also certain that pre-service teachers need to know how to integrate technology into their instruction effectively before beginning to teach in a classroom, therefore more research regarding the development of teachers’ TPACK is needed, particularly in chemistry and science teacher education programs.
Thus, this study aimed to evaluate pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK development in a university by a course in which the TPACK framework was applied. The researchers focused on improving pre-service chemistry teachers’ content knowledge about chemistry knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge such as classroom management, the level of the students etc. (PK), pedagogical content knowledge such as knowledge about students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry topics, knowledge about instructional strategies to teach chemistry topics etc. (PCK), knowledge about educational technologies (TK), developing their knowledge about how to use technology to teach chemistry more effectively (TPK), enhancing their awareness of the relation between chemistry and technology (TCK), and increasing their knowledge about constructing lessons that take chemistry, chemistry education, technology and curriculum into account (TPACK). The goal of the study was to make a contribution to the literature by providing detailed insights about the pre-service chemistry teachers’ TK, CK, PK, PCK, TCK, TPK and TPACK by gathering data both quantitatively and qualitatively, and to provide a designed course that could be integrated into other universities’ courses or curriculum in the future. At the end of this course, pre-service chemistry teachers will be able to develop teaching materials, apply instructional technologies in teaching chemistry, choose the most effective material among already developed materials, and integrate teaching materials into chemistry instruction considering students’ level, curriculum, alternative conceptions, etc.
The instrument used in this study holds the integrative perspective of the TPACK framework. Thus, the integrative approach is taken into account when measuring the existence of TPACK by collecting the evidence of knowledge domains (Angeli and Valanides, 2009; Graham, 2011). That is, growth in technology knowledge affects the development of TPACK within the intersecting areas of TK, CK, PK, PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK. The first section of the instrument included some items on demographic information, such as gender, grade level, age, etc. The other sections focused on the following components: TK, CK, PK, PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK. The definitions of these components were as follows – TK: “knowledge about various technologies, ranging from low-tech technologies (transparent technologies) such as pencil and paper to digital technologies (emerging technologies) such as the Internet, digital video, interactive whiteboards, and software programs”; CK: “subject-matter knowledge that a teacher is responsible for teaching”; PK: “teacher knowledge about a variety of instructional practices, strategies and methods to promote students’ learning”; PCK: “an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners and presented for instruction”; TCK: “knowledge of how technology can create new representations for specific content”; TPK: “knowledge of how various technologies can be used in teaching, and understanding that using technology may change the way teachers teach”; and TPACK: “knowledge required by teachers for integrating technology into their teaching in any content area” (Shulman, 1986, p. 8; Schmidt et al., 2009, p. 125; Koehler et al., 2014, p. 102).
In this study with aforementioned adaptations, there were 42 items in the SPTKTT: seven items for the TK, 12 items for the CK (this component is extended according to the chemistry topics in the curriculum: particulate nature of matter, gases, solids and liquids, solutions, chemical reactions, chemical equilibrium, acids and bases, electrochemistry, and chemical bonding), seven items for the PK, three items for the PCK, three items for the TCK, five items for the TPK, and five items for the TPACK (see Table 2 for sample items). The items were rated on a 5-point scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
Component | Sample item |
---|---|
TK | I know how to solve my own technical problems. |
CK | I have sufficient knowledge about particulate nature of matter. |
PK | I am familiar with common student understandings and misconceptions. |
PCK | I know how to select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in the unit of matter. |
TCK | I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing the unit of matter. |
TPK | I can choose technologies that enhance students’ learning for a lesson. |
TPACK | I can teach lessons that appropriately combine chemistry, technologies, and teaching approaches. |
As Taber (2017) points out, Cronbach's alpha provides measures of equivalence. Equivalence means “whether different sets of test items would give the same measurement outcomes” (Taber, 2017, p. 13). Hence Cronbach's alpha measures internal consistency of a test which is composed of items each reflecting the same construct. The different factors (sets of similar items) of this study were adapted from Schmidt et al. (2009). The items in each factor were regarded as a group that reflects the same construct. Therefore, for each set of items Cronbach's alpha coefficient was found. These coefficients were presented in the table below. The reliability scores of the factors ranged from 0.69 to 0.89 considering both pre- and post-administrations (Table 3); these scores are quite acceptable for educational studies (Crocker and Algina, 1986; Fraenkel et al., 2011).
Pre-Cronbach's alpha | Post-Cronbach's alpha | |
---|---|---|
TK (7 items) | 0.85 | 0.79 |
CK (12 items) | 0.87 | 0.89 |
PK (7 items) | 0.80 | 0.76 |
PCK (3 items) | 0.71 | 0.72 |
TCK (3 items) | 0.69 | 0.69 |
TPK (5 items) | 0.84 | 0.77 |
TPACK (5 items) | 0.86 | 0.82 |
In this study, Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the whole test that is an overall score was also found. Presenting this overall score is not for proving the unidimensionality of the test, rather for giving readers a chance to compare each factor's alpha scores with the overall test's alpha score. As Taber (2017) mentions alpha calculated across multiple scales would be higher due to a larger number of items added into the calculation. This might be the case for this study, since the overall reliability scores were 0.91 for the pre- and 0.92 for the post-SPTKTT.
Interviewee | Description |
---|---|
Amy | She is a hardworking student, less interested in technology. She had a negative experience related to technology usage in a high school geography course. An experimental study was conducted in their course. She said that she was in the experimental group and they were in the computer lab during the course. During the class, the geography teacher did not lecture; the students just worked with the computers. Before the study, she completed a pre-test and got 70 out of 100. After the study, she again took the same test and got 70. She said that she learned nothing in the course and would prefer not to use any technology in her future chemistry classes in her pre-interview. |
Bill | He is a less successful student than Amy, interested in technology. Bill is eager to use technology in his everyday life and capable of handling any technological problems he faces. He said in the pre-interview that he would like to use technology in his future chemistry classes. |
The interviews were done at the beginning and at the end of the course after the SPTKTT administration. Interviews took about 30 minutes. Similar questions were asked to the interviewees at both interview sessions (see Appendix 1 for sample interview questions: the second and third interview questions were only asked in the pre-interview and the eighth question was only asked in the post-interview). Additional questions were also asked if the pre-service chemistry teachers’ answers were not satisfying and further details were needed to fully understand the interviewees’ thinking. Some examples of additional directive questions were, “can you be more specific about your explanation?” or “can you give an example please?” All interviews were audiotaped and fully transcribed for data analysis.
In the CASE course, pre-service teachers are given theoretical knowledge about educational technologies such as tutorials, drill and practice, simulations, instructional games, online education, audio, and videos. They also prepared assignments that involve the use of word processors, Microsoft Excel, audio-video editing, and web page design. The next semester, pre-service teachers take the ITMD course. The purpose of this course was to learn how to integrate simulations, animations, instructional games, data-logging, virtual labs and virtual field trips into chemistry instruction considering factors such as chemistry subjects and their students’ possible alternative conceptions or previous chemistry knowledge. This course had two class hour-long theoretical sessions and two class hour-long laboratory sessions each week. While designing the ITMD course, constructivist learning approaches were taken into account in which pre-service chemistry teachers applied their new knowledge of each instructional technology, wrote reflection papers before and after introducing the instructional technology, discussed the importance of alternative conceptions and prerequisite knowledge in chemistry learning, implemented their own materials (such as educational games and posters) to the class, and designed lesson plans considering one of the instructional technologies.
In the theoretical sessions, students were generally given information about the application of technological tools in chemistry instruction, as well as instruction on the advantages and disadvantages of using that particular technology. In the laboratory sessions, conversely, the pre-service chemistry teachers mainly practiced what they had learned in the theoretical course. The pre-service chemistry teachers used various educational technologies in the laboratory sessions. To give an example, after a theoretical session on the use of worksheets in a chemistry class, the pre-service chemistry teachers designed their own worksheets, selecting any chemistry topic in the lab session. The purpose of the worksheet was to give basic information about the specified subject (not only verbal information, may also include concept maps, pictures, graphs, mind maps, graphic organizers, webs, etc.), consider when and how to use the worksheet, and assess the learners on that particular subject. All the pre-service chemistry teachers used a word processing program while designing the worksheet, but they were also free to use any other educational technologies – some of the pre-service teachers used online programs to map out the relationships into concept maps or to create and, add graphic organizers as an assessment activity. The details of the course week-by-week are briefly given in Table 5.
Week | Theoretical session description | Laboratory session description |
---|---|---|
1 | Introduction to the course | No laboratory session for this week. |
2 | The pre-service chemistry teachers were instructed about the role of educational technology in chemistry instruction. (TPACK framework) | No laboratory session for this week. |
3 |
The pre-service chemistry teachers were given theoretical information about the differences between animations and simulations (TK, CK) and their application in chemistry teaching (TCK, TPK). As an assignment, they were asked to find animation/simulation examples related to chemistry topics. Every pre-service teacher picked a different chemistry topic and wrote a reflection paper in which they gave answers to the questions below (TK, CK, PK, PCK, TCK, TPK, TPACK):
(1) What is the main reason for choosing this animation/simulation? (2) Which property/properties of the animation/simulation took your attention? (3) What are the properties of the animation/simulation you liked the most and the least for teaching chemistry? Be specific and explain your ideas. (4) In what ways do you think this animation/simulation could be effective for students’ chemistry learning? (5) How would you like to use the animation/simulation in your lesson? |
The assigned questions in the theoretical session were discussed. During this discussion section, the pre-service chemistry teachers were asked to think about whether the animations or simulations contain any alternative conceptions (CK, TCK, PCK), for which level of students they were appropriate (TPK), what concepts could be explained via those animations or simulations considering the high school chemistry curriculum (TCK), and what method to use and how to teach chemistry concepts using animations and simulations (TPACK). After the laboratory session, the pre-service chemistry teachers wrote a post-reflection paper about whether their ideas about their previous choice and use of the animation/simulation changed. |
4 | The pre-service chemistry teachers learn about various instructional games such as card games, board games, computer simulation and role play simulation games (TK, CK) and their probable use in chemistry instruction (TPK). As an assignment, the pre-service chemistry teachers were asked to design card games, board games, role play, or simulation games by selecting any chemistry topic from the high school chemistry curriculum (PK, TCK, TPK, TPACK). | The pre-service chemistry teachers made their colleagues play those games and discuss their usage in chemistry instruction (TPACK). The focus of this discussion was to introduce educational games, how educational games could be integrated into learning and what points are crucial for designing or choosing games, and also emphasize that learning and teaching chemistry could be enjoyable; while playing games the aim should be both learning and entertainment for students. |
5 | The pre-service chemistry teachers learned about virtual labs and virtual field trips (TK, CK) and were assigned some chemistry problems that could be solved by using virtual labs (CK, PK, TPK, TCK, TPACK). | The assigned chemistry problems were solved via virtual labs and the usage of this technology in chemistry teaching was discussed in terms of how, why, and when virtual labs could be used during chemistry instruction (TPACK). |
6 | The pre-service chemistry teachers were given information about data-logging (TK, CK) and its implementation in chemistry education (TPACK). | The pre-service chemistry teachers conducted experiments using data-loggers (CK, PK, TCK, TPK). The advantages and disadvantages of using this technology in chemistry teaching were discussed (TPACK). |
7 | Midterm week-off | Midterm week-off |
8 | The pre-service chemistry teachers were informed about the effective preparation of worksheets (TK, CK, PCK, TPK). They were asked to develop a worksheet on different chemistry subjects from the high school chemistry curriculum (TPACK). | The pre-service chemistry teachers prepared a worksheet considering a specific chemistry concept via word processing program. While constructing their worksheets they searched for materials (such as chemistry content, appropriate activities, pictures, graphs, or diagrams for their worksheets) on the internet (TPACK, PCK). Later they discussed with their peers how they could integrate those worksheets in an instruction. |
9 | The pre-service chemistry teachers were given information about the use of instructional comics and concept cartoons in chemistry education (TK, CK, PCK, TPK). Their implementation in chemistry teaching was also discussed (TPACK). The pre-service chemistry teachers were assigned to find instructional comics and concept cartoons on different chemistry subjects from high school chemistry curriculum. | The pre-service chemistry teachers brought their findings about instructional comics and concept cartoons. The webpages for designing comics or cartoons were introduced (TK, CK). They discussed their usage considering the chemistry concepts (whether the comics and cartoons were appropriate for student level and content (TCK, TPK)) in an instruction (how and why they would prefer to use or not to use them during the instruction (TPACK)). |
10 | The pre-service chemistry teachers were given information about the use of posters and their implementation in chemistry education (TPK, PCK). They were assigned to design a poster for a chemistry subject from the high school chemistry curriculum (TPACK). | The pre-service chemistry teachers prepared a poster related to a chemistry topic. They were free in designing a poster either with simple materials or via a computer program (TK, CK). They discussed each other's posters in terms of chemistry concepts, design of the poster, and its implementation during the instruction (TPACK). |
11 | The pre-service chemistry teachers were informed about hands-on activities. They were assigned to design a hands-on activity with simple materials for different chemistry subjects from the high school chemistry curriculum (PCK, TPACK). | The pre-service chemistry teachers prepared a hands-on activity that could be used in their chemistry teaching (CK, PK, PCK, TPK). They discussed each other's hands-on activity in terms of chemistry concepts, design of the material and its implementation during the instruction (TPACK). |
12 | The pre-service chemistry teachers were informed about models and their use in chemistry teaching (TK, CK). They were assigned to search for various models that could be used for teaching chemistry concepts. | The pre-service chemistry teachers discussed their models in the session and how and why they would prefer to use the model in instruction for certain concepts (TPACK). |
13 | The pre-service chemistry teachers were informed about e-portfolios, web-quest (TK, CK), and their use in chemistry teaching (TPK). | The pre-service chemistry teachers discussed how they could use this technology in chemistry teaching (CK, PK, TPK). The sample web-quest was given and the discussions were conducted in terms of teaching chemistry concepts (TPACK). |
14 | Evaluation of the course, the pre-service chemistry teachers’ comments for revising the content and implementation of the course. | Evaluation of the lab sessions, the pre-service chemistry teachers’ comments for revising the content and implementation of the lab sessions. |
From the information given on the designed ITMD course, it is clear that the primary focus of this study was to increase pre-service chemistry teachers’ perceptions of integrating the educational technologies into instruction, specifically developing their TK, CK, PK, PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK. Therefore, the desired learning outcomes of the course were to be able to develop teaching materials, apply instructional technologies in teaching chemistry, choose the most effective material among already developed materials, and integrate teaching materials into chemistry instruction considering students’ level, curriculum, alternative conceptions, etc.
Assessment was done by a midterm exam and a final project, in addition to continuous feedback collected from the pre-service chemistry teachers’ observations during the class hours. Moreover, the students were asked to write reflection papers on instructional technologies (four reflections papers were gathered: animations and simulations, instructional games, virtual lab, and data logging). To give an example, in the third week after the theoretical course the pre-service chemistry teachers wrote their initial ideas about animations and simulations and gave examples (see Table 5 for the related questions; in the descriptions, the TPACK components are given in the parentheses, implying that every action in the course was based on the TPACK framework, and the component in the parentheses refer to that specific action). After the laboratory session on the discussion of animations and simulations, the pre-service chemistry teachers wrote a post-reflection paper about whether their ideas about their previous choice and use of an animation/simulation changed. They had three assignments. In the first assignment, they made a lesson plan where they integrated a simulation in this plan in order to teach a chemistry topic. Similarly, the second assignment was about developing a lesson plan where they had to include a worksheet, and concept cartoons/songs/newspapers. In the third assignment, they developed a hands-on activity and presented it in class where we had a discussion about the effective use of the hands-on activity in the chemistry class. As a final project, they developed a poster in order to teach a chemistry topic, they also presented it in class. During the class session, we discussed how that particular poster could be used in chemistry teaching effectively.
The questionnaire and interviews were administered both before and after the course in order to observe the effect of the course. A mixed between-within subjects analysis of variance was conducted to examine the differences in pre-service teachers’ TPACK at two time periods considering also the gender factor. The dependent variables were pre- and post-SPTKTT. The independent variables were time (within-subjects) and gender (between subjects). The assumptions were tested for normality, homogeneity of the variance matrix, and homogeneity of intercorrelations (Box's M statistics was nonsignificant, p = 0.342) and met. Then, to follow up the analysis, separate ANOVAs were conducted. The significance level of alpha was set to 0.05; however during the separate ANOVAs, to reduce the chance of Type I error, a Bonferroni adjustment was applied by dividing the alpha level on the basis of the number of analyses conducted (0.05/7).
To increase the quality and validity of this research, triangulation analyses were done by collecting data both qualitatively and quantitatively. For the qualitative data, deductive analysis based on existing codes and categories was applied (Patton, 2002). Data coding was carried out by three researchers. After coding data independently, they discussed any disagreements until they came to a consensus in order to provide inter-rater reliability (see Table 6 showing the coding schemes of the components of the TPACK). The work of Mouza (2011, p. 11) was also taken into account when constructing some of the statements in the coding scheme of the TPACK framework components in this study. Almost all of the codes were matched.
SPTKTT | Evidence |
---|---|
Technological knowledge (TK) |
• Knowledge about several technological materials
• Operating technological tools like computer, projector, etc. • Using standard software tools like MS Word, PowerPoint, Internet browsers or email (Mouza, 2011, p. 11) • Using appropriate technology terms during interview |
Content knowledge (CK) |
• Knowledge about common topics in chemistry (particulate nature of matter, gases, solids and liquids, solutions, chemical reactions, chemical equilibrium, acids and bases, electrochemistry, and chemical bonding)
• Explain real world applications relating chemistry knowledge • Give examples from real life when explaining chemistry concepts |
Pedagogical knowledge (PK) |
• Aware of various teaching methods
• Select appropriate teaching method according to student characteristics • Addressing how to assess students • Knowing about how to manage students for particular tasks • Addressing about lesson plan development |
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) |
• Select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in particular chemistry concepts
• Ability to develop activities to deal with students’ alternative conceptions • Facilitate content representation |
Technological content knowledge (TCK) |
• Ability to integrate and relate the chemistry content and technology
• Knowing the types of technological tools (such as animations, simulations) that might be used in chemistry topics. • Knowing about the presence of a different technological tools for specific chemistry concepts • Making comparisons among different technologies while choosing a suitable technological tool in order to teach a chemistry topic. |
Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) |
• Ability to integrate and relate pedagogy and technology
• Attracting students’ attention and motivating them by applying technological tools • Ability to differentiate the instructions whether technology was applied or not • Making comments about where to use a specific technology • Assessing student understanding with technological tools • Knowing about the time required to teach a chemistry concept with the selected technological tool |
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) |
• Selecting various technological materials to be used in different parts of the specific chemistry topics that were appropriate to students’ level
• Use of technology to facilitate subject-specific pedagogical methods (e.g., science inquiry, primary sources in social studies, etc.) (Mouza, 2011, p. 11) • Use of technology to facilitate content representation (Mouza, 2011, p. 11) • Use of technology to address learner content understanding (e.g., prior content knowledge, address alternative conceptions, improve content understanding) (Mouza, 2011, p. 11) |
Gender | Mean | Std deviation | N | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Pre-TOTAL | Female | 3.81 | 0.33 | 8 |
Male | 3.65 | 0.26 | 9 | |
Total | 3.73 | 0.30 | 17 | |
Post-TOTAL | Female | 4.07 | 0.32 | 8 |
Male | 3.98 | 0.23 | 9 | |
Total | 4.03 | 0.27 | 17 |
The second step was to analyze the data in terms of components. Further exploration of means by time periods revealed that the pre-service chemistry teachers had higher scores on all components at the second occasion (please see Table 8 for comparative descriptive statistics). In addition, Fig. 2 reveals the progress of the pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK.
Component | Pre- | Post- | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | Standard deviation | Mean | Standard deviation | |
TK | 3.42 | 0.60 | 3.66 | 0.46 |
CK | 3.85 | 0.42 | 4.18 | 0.36 |
PK | 3.42 | 0.46 | 4.03 | 0.31 |
PCK | 3.51 | 0.50 | 3.94 | 0.41 |
TCK | 3.92 | 0.43 | 4.26 | 0.34 |
TPK | 4.01 | 0.40 | 4.02 | 0.40 |
TPACK | 3.95 | 0.54 | 4.09 | 0.31 |
Total score (SPTKTT) | 3.73 | 0.30 | 4.03 | 0.27 |
In the second step, one-way repeated separated ANOVAs were run to measure two different conditions on the same instrument. When follow-up analysis was conducted for all the components separately, only two components reached the statistical significant difference, using a Bonferonni adjusted alpha level of 0.007. There was a significant effect in terms of time for the components PK (F(1,15) = 26.01, p < 0.000, partial eta squared = 0.63) and PCK (F(1,15) = 12.04, p < 0.007, partial eta squared = 0.44). The follow-up results are presented in Table 9.
Source | Component | Wilks’ lambda value | F statistic | Significance | Partial eta squared |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Time | TK | 0.863 | 2.386 | 0.143 | 0.137 |
CK | 0.620 | 9.196 | 0.008 | 0.380 | |
PK | 0.366 | 26.005 | 0.000 | 0.634 | |
PCK | 0.555 | 12.043 | 0.003 | 0.445 | |
TCK | 0.742 | 5.219 | 0.037 | 0.258 | |
TPK | 1.000 | 0.006 | 0.941 | 0.000 | |
TPACK | 0.909 | 1.501 | 0.239 | 0.091 |
Component | Pre-scores | Post-scores | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Amy | Bill | Amy | Bill | |
TK | 2.57 | 4.14 | 4.00 | 3.71 |
CK | 3.58 | 4.00 | 3.92 | 4.00 |
PK | 3.43 | 3.57 | 4.00 | 3.86 |
PCK | 3.33 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 |
TCK | 3.67 | 3.67 | 4.67 | 4.00 |
TPK | 3.80 | 4.00 | 4.80 | 3.60 |
TPACK | 3.40 | 4.60 | 4.00 | 4.40 |
Overall SPTKTT | 3.40 | 4.00 | 4.20 | 3.94 |
In Table 11, a part of the pre-service chemistry teachers’ interview results coding summary considering the Table 6 coding scheme was given. Based on the results the following details were gathered within the TCK, TPK and TPACK technology intersectional components of the TPACK framework.
Category | Student name | Coding examples | |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-interview | Post-interview | ||
TCK | Amy |
I can use technology in terms of drawing molecules in organic chemistry, there is a program, you enter the name of the molecule and it gives the shape of it.
I can use videos to show decay of an apple while teaching physical and chemical changes. In order to teach the chemical equilibrium topic, for example, we put something and then add something, and there is a color change, we can see it. But we cannot see how the reaction occurred there and it is impossible show how the reaction occurs at that point. I think there is no need to show what happens by using technological tools. We can just state what happened. Instead of using technology, we can solve two or more problems related to equilibrium, it is more beneficial. |
I liked simulations the most. It is more efficient and practical to use. It attracts students more and students want to be involved.
I can use simulation while teaching solubility. It has to be something visual. Saturated solutions, unsaturated solutions, when we show the steps, we cannot use instructional games and animation is too limited. I could want students to conduct experiments via virtual labs either in class time or at home, it depends on the time. Virtual labs are more complicated. Students need to have some prior knowledge related to the topic. If I give it at the beginning of the topic, students would have difficulties in understanding the topic and what to do in virtual labs with inadequate knowledge. |
TCK | Bill |
I think simulation is a good thing. There are programs like that which were new. It is entertaining and at least the students would like the unit. I mean I believe this can be more permanent. At least the student would love the unit.
For every chemistry topic, the technological material I would use would change. I cannot think about a place that the technology could not be used. |
I would use technology in my own teaching. Especially if there is a simulation example it would be more rational and simulations help the complex units to be more simple and understandable without any anxiety. Simulations can make students understand concepts better in a short time and without money loss. I would use an animation first and then a simulation. I would make students stimulate an activity to improve their abilities. I would certainly make the students do simulations. For every chemistry topic, the technological material I would use would change. For example, I don’t know how it would be to use simulations in radioactivity but animations seem more suitable. Also, in reaction rate and reaction mechanisms, simulations would be much more effective for students’ understanding or I would use hands-on activities in the pressure unit.
Data logging is a very rational thing. It finishes in a shorter time when compared to experiments. It is a bit different from the simulation but it is also effective. By the help of the graphs, how one thing affects another can be directly seen. In my opinion, instructional games maybe used in the units that need memory like memorizing the atom names, periodic table, metals, what are non-metals and their groups etc.; in this kind of subject playing a game like playing cards by writing on papers could be done. |
TPK | Amy |
I think, traditional instruction sounds better since we usually trained traditionally during our college years. However, after the instruction, we can use technology as a supporting tool.
I think applying technology during teaching is sometimes useful and sometimes it is not. In my high school years, I was involved in a part of a study related to technology usage and I did not gain anything from the instruction. So, maybe I have some prejudice about technology integration into education. I think technology in education has a positive effect on only students’ visual memory. Use of technology sometimes causes waste of time. I would prefer to solve two or more extra problems, it is more beneficial. |
When I look back at my high school years, we were instructed traditionally and therefore my content knowledge is inadequate. However, if animation or simulation were used during the instruction, our knowledge would be more permanent and we would not forget what we learnt.
During my internship in the college, teachers always use smart boards. It is better than black board in terms of properties which makes changing something on screen easy. It has big advantages for teachers and students. So, when I think about the future, I feel like I will use more smart boards. I think that the use of technology is beneficial. Instruction without technology seems like food without taste and salt. |
TPK | Bill |
If a teacher uses an overhead projector instead of writing on the board, he saves time. Writing on the board may take ten minutes but an overhead projector saves time and may decrease the same process to one minute.
For every chemistry topic, the technological material I would use would change. I cannot think about a place that the technology could not be used… Instead, I am thinking about the usage of technology in the exams. |
If we use technology in our instruction, it makes students’ learning permanent since it is more visual and visual things are more permanent. Moreover, when students have opportunities to apply their knowledge, learning that is integrated within technology use is more durable. Technology helps us to explain complex concepts in an intelligible simple way, which decreases students’ anxiety and increases student attitude to the course.
I would choose using technology if I trust myself in a specific chemistry topic. Because, if I am insufficient in a topic, I can confuse students’ minds. So, it doesn’t make sense. |
TPACK | Amy |
After the instruction, we can use technology as a supporting tool. There is a program, you enter the name of the molecule and it gives the shape of it. We can give homework about drawing molecules in order to make students practice the concepts.
The most important thing in a paragraph is the beginning; likewise, the beginning of the lesson is the most important section, to draw students’ attention I can show a video. That would take their attention to the lecture. For example, related to Charles's law, the mechanism of hot air balloons, I can show a video at the beginning of the lesson in order to draw students’ attention. |
I can want students to conduct experiments via virtual labs either in class time or at home, it depends on the time. Virtual labs are more complicated. Students need to have some prior knowledge.
During the practiced teaching in another course, I used a simulation at the beginning of the lesson. I showed a simulation and wanted students to discover by means of that simulation. Instructional technology and material development course was effective for me. I realized that I did not know much until this course. I used to know about animations but I did not know it as a teaching method and technique…. I did not know how to integrate technology into chemistry instruction, whether it is more suitable to integrate at the beginning or end of the lesson, I did not know these. |
TPACK | Bill | Actually technology is a need in every teaching situation, I mean at the beginning of the lecture it is needed directly. For example, I would want students to firstly watch the video of the experiment so that they can learn how to conduct the experiment. After that video, they can themselves do the experiment in the laboratory. |
If the topic is convenient, I would use data logging or a game; a cheerful visual may take more attention. Instructional games could also be used at the end of the topics, like a repetition. For units that need rote learning like memorizing the atom names, periodic table, metals, non-metals and their groups, etc., in this kind of concept, playing a game could be done to repeat what they learnt.
I would use hands-on activities at the beginning of the lecture. For example, to explain the pressure concept, I can use a hands-on activity with real materials, it would increase students’ attention and curiosity to the topic and when the relation is set between the real life and concepts, it would be more attractive. Students can do simulations at the end of the lecture. Because the students must have at least some knowledge about the unit to use a simulation. If we gave at the beginning, the lecture would be unproductive and it would be less apparent when students have no knowledge. But if the student has some knowledge, the students would learn the unit better. |
To conclude, in terms of Amy's interview results the improvement could be seen in TCK, TPK and TPACK intersectional components of technology. Her TPK improved significantly regarding the use of technology in education considering that she was negative about technology's usage in her instruction due to her previous experience at the beginning of the course. She also became more competent in her TCK by giving credit to different technological tools integrated into education. In terms of the TPACK component, she began with a more traditional view of the technology use in her instruction at the beginning of the course, which changed into a more constructivist view at the end of the course. In Bill's interview results, the improvement can also be seen in all three intersectional components. His knowledge about technological materials and relating these materials to the content increased (TCK), specific chemistry topics were chosen along with the technological material to be used (TPK) and the students’ level, and the time to use a technological tool in a specific chemistry topic was taken into consideration (TPACK), much more so when compared to his pre-interview before the course.
Furthermore, designing a course is a time-consuming process that must be meticulously done, because a course designed improperly could lead students to alternative conceptions or memorizing. In this study, the ITMD course designed to improve pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK levels could be accepted as successful since both qualitative and quantitative findings showed that the pre-service chemistry teachers’ TK, CK, PK, PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK scores improved at the end of the course. Specifically, the improvement of the pre-service chemistry teachers’ PK and PCK was significant. In addition, the gender factor was not found to be significant on the pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK.
There was also an increase in the mean scores of the TK, CK TCK and TPACK components, though these were not statistically significant; specifically the F statistics for the CK and TCK components were quite high, implying that the pre-service chemistry teachers’ content knowledge and technological content knowledge improved efficiently. Because the TPACK component is integrated with three knowledge domains, it is challenging to improve pre-service teachers’ TPACK; pre-service chemistry teachers should be able to consider chemistry concepts, pedagogy and technology issues holistically. Effective integration could also be enhanced with practice teaching.
There have been other studies that analyzed the components of TPACK in terms of their contributions to the TPACK framework. For example, Koh and Chai (2014) conducted a cluster analysis on both pre-service and in-service teachers to identify their TPACK perceptions before and after an ICT professional development course. The researchers divided the pre-service teachers into two clusters and conducted the related analysis. Cluster 1 referred to the participants who had more confidence in their TPACK, while cluster 2 participants were less confident of their TPACK. According to the study results, it was found that the first cluster of pre-service teachers considered TPK and TCK to be significant contributors to their TPACK both before and after the course, whereas, for the second cluster of pre-service teachers TCK alone was perceived to be a crucial predictor of TPACK. Mouza et al. (2014) reported that pre-service teachers’ TK, CK, PK, TCK, TPK, PCK and TPACK improved significantly by the end of the course where students had the chance to practice what they learnt in the educational technology and methods courses. Moreover, in the study of Dalal, Archambault and Shelton (2017), descriptive statistics revealed that international teachers’ capabilities regarding CK, PK, TK, TCK, TPK, PCK and TPACK components of the TPACK framework increased by the end of the course. In the present study, we found that PK and PCK significantly improved at the end of the course though descriptive statistics showed an increase in the mean scores of all TPACK components. The reason for this could be that both technology and content connections were considered in the course design; each week a different educational tool was taken into account for qualified chemistry teaching (the pre-service chemistry teachers were aware of animations and simulations but they also improved their content knowledge with the use of data loggers, virtual labs, conceptual cartoons, etc. for a better conceptual understanding in chemistry subjects). As mentioned above, pre-service teachers’ pedagogical knowledge increased significantly by the end of the course. The reason for this may be that in the ITMD course, we discussed about how students learn best, how to provide classroom management in the class/laboratory, and assessment techniques. They also developed two lesson plans in order to teach a chemistry topic. In one of the lesson plans, they had to include a simulation. While developing that lesson plan, they had to think about students’ levels, abilities and some motivational factors and classroom management issues, such as the class time to devote to that particular simulation. As mentioned above, they developed another lesson plan where they used concept cartoons and worksheets. For that lesson plan, they had to design a worksheet and while doing that, they had to think about general assessment and evaluation techniques. Another significant improvement was noticed in pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK levels by the end of the ITMD course. In the ITMD course, we discussed students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry topics and considered these alternative conceptions while choosing instructional technologies. For example, concept cartoons were designed according to students’ alternative conceptions. Another issue was that they had to know how to use a specific instructional strategy, e.g. hands-on activity, simulations, an instructional game etc., to teach a chemistry topic, which was another indicator of PCK. They designed a worksheet regarding a chemistry topic and they had to think about which questions they need to include in order to assess students with respect to a chemistry topic. Therefore, TPACK development is a process of understanding and the findings of this study support this process-based development. As Harris, Mishra and Koehler (2009) stated that integrating technology into teaching is affective with context, in the current study the discussions in the learning environment were continuously on chemistry subjects, which lead to positive impacts on PK and PCK. For further development in the TPACK framework, more technology applications in learning and teaching environments are needed.
Based on the findings of this study, it would be ideal to conduct further both quantitative and qualitative research studies to gather a deeper understanding of pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK. To give an example, follow-up interviews might be conducted after a survey when possible because these interviews help the collected survey results become more meaningful. Interviews with a greater number of participants than were involved in this study and with academic staff could be undertaken in future research. In addition to these, it would be helpful for pre-service teachers to write reflections about their learning at certain intervals to self-evaluate their development in terms of TPACK. So, as this study's results supported, the development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK is essential for teaching and learning chemistry. They must realize the potential of technology in the real-world classroom.
According to the study results, the designed course was found to be effective in improving pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK. Thus, the creation of a similar course training pre-service chemistry teachers or application of this course design in other disciplines (such as biology or physics) should also be tested for effectiveness in future studies. Any researchers or academic staff interested in implementing a similar course in their universities are encouraged to contact the authors of this study.
(2) Have you ever taught via technology? In which course do you think that you have been taught via technology? (only asked in the pre-intervention interview)
(3) You took the 400 course in the previous semester, was this course challenging for you? (only asked in the pre-intervention interview)
(a) How can you self-evaluate your technology knowledge?
(b) When you come across a problem with your computer can you fix it? Or ask for help?
(4) Would you use any technology when you lecture a chemistry course?
(a) For example, would you prefer to use animations or power point? Why? Or why not?
(b) How would you use any of them?
(5) Would you think that it is efficient for a student to learn content with technology? Why?
(6) While teaching in a chemistry course, do you think that technology should be used? In what ways should it be used? Or not used?
(7) Do you think that in different subjects of chemistry, the use of technology materials would be different? Why? Why not?
(8) Which of the technological materials would you prefer to use in your future chemistry classes? Animations? Simulations? Instructional games? Virtual labs? Why? (only asked in the post-intervention interview)
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 |