Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The first principles of instruction: an examination of their impact on preservice teachers’ TPACK

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The flipped approach has been widely adopted in higher education, yet its theoretical framework and use in teacher preparation courses have been limited. To address these gaps, this study examined the impact of the First Principles of Instruction when applied to designing face-to-face and flipped technology integration courses. Participants were 32 preservice teachers enrolled during the 2017 spring and fall semesters. Employing a 3-way mixed factorial research design, we measured participants’ technological, pedagogical, content knowledge (TPACK) outcomes in each group and compared the outcomes between the face-to-face and flipped groups. In both groups, preservice teachers’ self-perceptions and application of TPACK statistically significantly increased. The magnitude of the TPACK application results (F2F p < .001, d = 1.17; Flippeda p < .001, d = 1.97) strongly demonstrates the First Principles’ potential to frame effective course design. Further analyses revealed no statistically significant differences between groups’ TPACK outcomes. These non-significant differences suggest the First Principles of Instruction may be equally effective for designing flipped and face-to-face courses. We conclude the article by discussing implications for course design and detailing considerations for future research on flipped approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • After Moore’s Law: The future of computing. (2016). The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21694528-era-predictable-improvement-computer-hardware-ending-what-comes-next-future

  • Andre, T. (1997). Selected microinstructional methods to facilitate knowledge construction: Implications for instructional design. In R. D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Instructional-design: Internationial perspective: Theory, research, and models (pp. 243–267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Christodoulou, A. (2016). Theoretical considerations of technological pedagogical content knowledge. In M. C. Herring, M. J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (2nd ed., pp. 11–32). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, A., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 88–101). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellini, J. L., & Rumrill, P. D. (1999). Perspectives on scientific inquiry: Validity in rehabilitation research. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 13, 131–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beloit College. (2016). The Beloit College mindset list for the class of 2020. Retrieved September 19, 2016, from https://www.beloit.edu/mindset/2020/

  • Bostancıoğlu, A., & Handley, Z. (2018). Developing and validating a questionnaire for evaluating the EFL ‘Total PACKage’: Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for English as a foreign language (EFL). Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(5–6), 572–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callison, D. (2015). Classic instructional notions applied to flipped learning for inquiry. School Library Monthly, 31(6), 20–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cargile, L. A., & Karkness, S. S. (2015). Flip or flop: Are math teachers using Khan Academy as envisioned by Sal Khan? TechTrends, 59(6), 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). Exploring the factor structure of the constructs of technological, pedagogical, content knowledge (TPACK). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(3), 595–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2016). A review of quatitative measures of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). In M. C. Herring, M. J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators (Second, pp. 87–106). New York: Routledge.

  • Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2015). Applying “First Principles of Instruction ” in a blended learning course. In K. C. Li, T. L. Wong, S. K. Cheung, J. Lam, & K. K. Ng (Eds.), Technology in education:Transforming educational practices with technology (pp. 127–135). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46158-7

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coles, P., Cox, T., Mackey, C., & Richardson, S. (2006). The toxic terabyte: How data-dumping threatens business efficiency. IBM Global Technology Services.

  • Cook, R. D. (1977). Detection of influental observation in linear regression. Technometrics, 42(1), 65–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Education research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry, K., & Cherner, T. (2016). Social studies in the modern era: A case study of effective teachers’ use of literacy and technology. The Social Studies, 107(4), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2016.1146650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, J. A. (2017). Emerging technology: Instructional strategies for nailing Jell-O to a tree. In Y. Li, M. Zhang, C. J. Bonk, & W. Zhang (Eds.), Learning and knowledge analytics in open Education (pp. 89–97). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frick, T. W., Chadha, R., Watson, C., Wang, Y., & Green, P. (2009). College student perceptions of teaching and learning quality. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 705–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9079-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frick, T. W., Chadha, R., Watson, C., & Zlatkovska, E. (2010). Improving course evaluations to improve instruction and complex learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9131-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2014). The app generation: How today’s youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, J., & Belland, B. R. (2012). A conceptual framework for organizing active learning experiences in biology instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4), 465–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A. (2018). Flipping with the first principles of instruction: An examination of preservice teachers’ technology integration development. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(4), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2018.1494520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., & Lei, J. (2020). Conceptualization and application of a model for flipped instruction: A design case within teacher education. Research Issues in Contemporary Education, 5(2), 24–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, T. C., & Manfra, M. M. (2009). Digital history with student-created multimedia. Social Studies Research and Practice, 4(3), 139–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. J. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric. In C. D. Maddux, D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (Eds.), Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education 2010 (pp. 323–331). Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. Retrieved from https://publish.wm.edu/bookchapters/6

  • Hoffman, E. S. (2014). Beyond the flipped classroom: Redesigning a research methods course for e3 instruction. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 7(1), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaikaran-Doe, S., & Doe, P. E. (2015). Assessing technological pedagogical content knowledge of engineering academics in an Australian regional university. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 20(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2015.1133515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaipal, K., & Figg, C. (2010). Unpacking the “Total PACKage ”: Emergent TPACK characteristics from a study of preservice teachers teaching with technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(3), 415–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. (2012). The Effect of Design Teams on Preservice Teachers’ Technology Integration. Syracuse University.

  • Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hal, C. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition. Austin, Texas.

  • Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmons, R. (2015). Examining TPACK’s theoretical future. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(1), 53–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiray, S. A. (2016). Development of a TPACK self-efficacy scale for preservice science teachers. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(2), 527–541.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th ed., Vol. 13, pp. 260–263). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5

  • Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2010). Preparing preservice teachers for self-regulated learning in the context of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurt, G. (2017). Implementing the flipped classroom in teacher education: Evidence from Turkey. Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 211–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Koszalka, T. A. (2016). Course-level implementation of first principles, goal orientations, and cognitive engagement: A multilevel mediation model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17(2), 365–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, C. K. (2018). Grounding the flipped classroom approach in the foundations of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9578-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2017). Using “First Principles of Instruction” to design secondary school mathematics flipped classroom: The findings of two exploratory studies. Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 222–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, C. K., Lie, C. W., & Hew, K. F. (2018). Applying “First Principles of Instruction” as a design theory of the flipped classroom: Findings from a collective study of four secondary school subjects. Computers & Education, 118, 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margulieux, L. E., McCracken, W. M., & Catrambone, R. (2016). A taxonomy to define courses that mix face-to-face and online learning. Educational Research Review, 19, 104–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, B., Toyoma, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2012). First principles of instruction (1st ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, K. R. (2015). Application of Merrill’s first principles of instruction in a museum education context. Journal of Museum Education, 40(3), 304–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, L. M. (1999). Collaborative problem solving. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 241–267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Kimmons, R. (Eds.). (2018). The K-12 educational technology handbook. EdTech Books. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/k12handbook

  • Özgün-Koca, S. A., Meagher, M., & Edwards, M. T. (2011). A teacher’s journey with a new generation handheld: Decisions, struggles, and accomplishments. School Science and Mathematics, 111(5), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00080.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patahuddin, S. M., Lowrie, T., & Dalgarno, B. (2016). Analysing mathematics teachers’ TPACK through observation of practice. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(5–6), 863–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0305-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penn State University. (2018). Lesson 11: Influential points. Retrieved April 26, 2018, from https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat501

  • Rao, C. R. (2016). Multivariate analysis of variance. In R. E. Schumacker (Ed.), Using R with multivariate statistics: A primer (pp. 57–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Instructional theory and technology for the new paradigm of education. The F.M. Duffy Reports, 18(4), 1–21.

  • Rosenthal, J. A. (1996). Qualitative descriptors of strength of association and effect size. Journal of Social Service Research, 21(4), 37–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 161–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Shin, T. S. (2010). Survey of preservice teachers’ knowledge of teaching and technology, 1–8.

  • Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. American Educational Research Association, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Driscoll, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, R. (1998). An introduction to modeling outcomes in the behavioral and social sciences (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Burgess Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiruneh, D. T., Weldeslassie, A. G., Kassa, A., Tefera, Z., De Cock, M., & Elen, J. (2016). Systematic design of a learning environment for domain-specific and domain-general critical thinking skills. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(3), 481–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Touchton, M. (2015). Flipping the classroom and student performance in advanced statistics: Evidence from a quasi-experiment. Journal of Political Science Education, 11(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2014.985105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valtonen, T., Sointu, E., Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Lambert, M. C., & Mäkitalo-Siegl, K. (2017). TPACK updated to measure pre-service teachers’ twenty-first century skills. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 15–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, W., Schmidt-Crawford, D. A., & Jin, Y. (2018). Preservice teachers’ TPACK development: A review of literature. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(4), 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2018.1498039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel, K., & Marshall, S. (2011). TPACK goes to sixth grade: Lessons from a middle school teacher in a high-technology-access classroom. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 73–82.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are deeply grateful to Dr. Jiaming Cheng who supported this study by observing the F2F and Flipped course implementations and by assisting with the analysis of the technology integrated lesson plans. We also thankfully acknowledge the funding provided by the Syracuse University School of Education Research and Creative Grant Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Childhood/Early Childhood Education Department, SUNY Cortland, Education Building, Room 1247, P.O. Box 2000, Cortland, NY, 13045, USA

    Jacob A. Hall

  2. School of Education, Syracuse University, 252 Huntington Hall, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA

    Jing Lei & Qiu Wang

Authors
  1. Jacob A. Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jing Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qiu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob A. Hall.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 6, 7, and 8.

Table 6 Reliability statistics for SPTKTT and TIAR in this study
Full size table
Table 7 Pre- (post-) intervention subscale correlations and variance-covariances
Full size table
Table 8 Descriptive statistics for SPTKTT
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hall, J.A., Lei, J. & Wang, Q. The first principles of instruction: an examination of their impact on preservice teachers’ TPACK. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 3115–3142 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09866-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09866-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation