A study on the technological pedagogical contextual knowledge of science teacher candidates across different years of study

  • Didem Karakaya CiritEmail author
  • Erdal Canpolat


This case study survey investigates the Technological Pedagogical Contextual Knowledge (TPCK) of Science Teacher Candidates (STC) across different years of study in the Topic of Renewable Energy (TRE). In line with the transformative model, the study treats TRE-TPCK as a new knowledge domain emerging from the interaction between content, technology, pedagogy and contextual knowledge. Participants were 36 Science Education students who were in their 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th years of study during the 2014–2015 academic year. Teacher candidates’ TPCK was identified through semi-structured interviews based on (1) Vignettes, (2) Anecdotes from a teacher named Zeynep and the (3) Content Presentation Technique (CPT). The data were analyzed by using the content analysis technique. The findings showed that the TRE-TPCK of teacher candidates across different years of study was at a similar and less-than-ideal level. STCs in different years of study mostly disregarded the macro and meso contexts when teaching the topic of renewable energy and were partially competent in the sub-meso, micro and sub-micro contexts. They particularly lacked technology-integrated evaluation knowledge when teaching TRE.


Contextual knowledge Renewable energy TPCK Teacher candidate Vignette 



Authors of this study thank the anonymous referees and the editor of Education and Information Technologies for their thoughtful comments and suggestions.


  1. Akaishi, A., & Saul, M. (1991). Exploring, learning, sharing: Vignettes from the classroom. The Arithmetic Teacher, 39(3), 12.Google Scholar
  2. Akkoç, H. (2007). Matematik Öğretiminde Bilgisayar Kullanımının Sınıf Pratiğine Entegrasyon Süreci: İntegral Kavramı, EDU7, Yeditepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
  3. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52, 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85(4), 426–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, J. H., & Riel, M. M., (2001). Teacher professional engagement and constructivist compatible computer use, Report no. 7, Teaching, Learning, and Computing Project Online:
  6. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Bozkurt, O., & Kaya, O. N. (2008). Teaching about ozone layer depletion in Turkey: Pedagogical content knowledge of science teachers. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31-51.Google Scholar
  9. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in US public schools: 2009. First Look. NCES 2010-040. National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  15. Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herring, M. C., Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Jeffries, C., & Maeder, D. W. (2011). Comparing vignette instruction and assessment tasks to classroom observations and reflections. The Teacher Educator, 46, 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karahan, E. (2014, Eylül). Fen Öğretmenlerinin Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgilerinin Bağlam Faktörü Açısından İncelenmesi: Amerika Birleşik Devletleri (ABD) Örneği. XI. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi’nde sunulan bildiri, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Adana. TR.Google Scholar
  19. Karasar, N. (1984). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. Ankara: Hacettepe Taş Kitapçılık Ltd. Şti.Google Scholar
  20. Kaya, O. N. (2009). The nature of relationships among the components of pedagogical content knowledge of preservice science teachers: ‘Ozone layer depletion’ as an example. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 961–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaya, O. N. (2010). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisinin ve Sınıf İçi Öğretim Becerilerinin Araştırılması ve Geliştirilmesi. 109K541 nolu TÜBİTAK-SOBAG 1001 Projesi.Google Scholar
  22. Kelly, M. (2007). Culturally sensitive teaching with technology: Implementing TPCK in culturally mixed contexts. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education international conference 2007 (pp. 2199–2202). Chesapeake: AACE Retrieved December Scholar
  23. Kelly, M. A. (2008). Bridging digital and culturel divides TPCK for equity of access to technology. In AACTE (Ed.), The Handbook of Technological Pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 30–60). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Kelly, M. (2010). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (tpack): A content analysis of 2006-2009 print journal articles. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3880–3888). Chesapeake: AACE Retrieved from Scholar
  25. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tay, L. Y. (2014). TPACK-in-action: Unpacking the contextual influences of teachers' construction of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 78, 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kozma, R. (Ed.). (2003). Technology, innovation and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  27. Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  29. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Scholar
  30. Mohapatra, S. (2015). Business school education and technology–a case study. Education and Information Technologies, 20(2), 335–346.Google Scholar
  31. Morine-Dershimer, G., & Kent, T. (1999). The complex nature and sources of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 21–50). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Porras-Hernάndez, L. H., & Salınas-Amescua, B. (2013). Strengthenıng Tpack: A broader notion of context and the use of teacher’s narratives to reveal knowledge constructıon. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rugayah, H., Hashim, H. & Wan, N. M. (2004). Attitudes toward learning about and working with computers of students at unit. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 3(2). 24-35.Google Scholar
  35. Sarkar, S., Mohapatra, S., & Sundarakrishnan, J. (2017). Assessing impact of technology based digital equalizer programme on improving student learning outcomes. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 195-213Google Scholar
  36. Selinger, M. (2001). Learning information and communications technology skills and the subject context of the learning. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(1–2), 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith, M. R. (1994). Professional development of science teaching via distance technology. Paper presented at the Rural and Small Schools Conference. Manhattan, KS.Google Scholar
  40. Suh, Y. (2005). Pedagogıcal Content knowledge Development ın Teaching Science: A Case Study of an Elementrary School Teacher ın an Urban Classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  41. Suharwoto, G. (2006). Secondary mathematics preservice teachers’ development of technology pedagogical content knowledge in subject-specific, technology-ıntegrated teacher preparation program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.Google Scholar
  42. Vazquez-Alonso, A., & Manassero-Mas, M. A. (1999). Response and scoring models for the 'views on science-technology-society' instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Votaw, N. L. (2008). Impact of an informal learning science camp on urban, low socioeconomic status middle school students and participating teacher-leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Louisville.Google Scholar
  44. Wu, Y.-T. (2013). Research trends in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) research: A review of empirical studies published in selected journals from 2002 to 2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), E73–E76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (10.Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  46. Yükseköğretim Kurulu (YÖK) (2009). Eğitim Fakültelerinde Uygulanacak Yeni Programlar Hakkında Açıklama. 20 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde erişildi.
  47. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Çemişgezek Vocational CollegeMunzur UniversityTunceliTurkey
  2. 2.Science and Mathematics DepartmentFırat UniversityElazığTurkey

Personalised recommendations