The role of TPACK in affecting pre-service language teachers’ ICT integration during teaching practices: Indonesian context

  • Akhmad HabibiEmail author
  • Farrah Dina Yusop
  • Rafiza Abdul Razak


This study examined Indonesian pre-service language teachers’ use of information and communication technology (UICT) during teaching practices. We used technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework to predict the UICT. The objective of the study is to determine if the TPACK is a valid model to explain Indonesian pre-service language teachers’ UICT during teaching practices. 287 pre-service language teachers from three Indonesian universities completed a 38-item survey instruments based on the TPACK and UICT. The development of the survey instruments was done mainly through content validity index (CVI) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Findings of the study that were obtained through partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) informed 13 hypotheses. Overall, the TPACK components are interconnected and also reported to be a valid model to help explain Indonesian pre-service language teachers’ UICT during teaching practices.


TPACK Pre-service language teachers UICT Teaching practices 



We thank all respondents for their time and willingness to participate. Financing was fully provided by LPDP Indonesia (No. FR13102018159279).

Compliance with ethical standards

Competing interests

The author declares that there are no competing interests.


  1. Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. (2012). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service mathematics teachers through collaborative design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 547–564. Scholar
  2. 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(1), 154–168. Scholar
  3. Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–1662. Scholar
  4. Arrosagaray, M., González-Peiteado, M., Pino-Juste, M., & Rodríguez-López, B. (2019). A comparative study of Spanish adult students’ attitudes to ICT in classroom, blended and distance language learning modes. Computers & Education, 134, 31–40. Scholar
  5. Aslan, A., & Zhu, C. (2017). Investigating variables predicting Turkish pre-service teachers’ integration of ICT into teaching practices. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 552–570. Scholar
  6. Bernhardt, E. B. (2010). Teaching other languages. Educational Practices Series, 20, 1–29.Google Scholar
  7. Bustamante, C. (2019). TPACK and teachers of Spanish: Development of a theory-based joint display in a mixed methods research case study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 163–178. Scholar
  8. Castro, R. (2012). Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities. Education and Information Technologies, 24(4), 1–24. Scholar
  9. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Ho, J. H. N., & Tsai, C. C. (2012). Examining preservice teachers’ perceived knowledge of TPACK and Cyberwellness through structural equation Modelling. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1000–1019. Scholar
  10. Chen, C. P. (2018). Understanding mobile English-learning gaming adopters in the self-learning market: The uses and gratification expectancy model. Computers & Education, 126, 217–230. Scholar
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Dong, Y., Chai, C. S., Sang, G. Y., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). Exploring the profiles and interplays of pre-service and in-service teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in China. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 158–169.Google Scholar
  13. Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2004). The measurement of interrater agreement. In W. Shewart & S. Wilks (Eds.), Statistical methods for rates and proportions (pp. 598–626). John Hoboken: Wiley & Sons.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105. Scholar
  16. Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953–1960. Scholar
  17. Habibi, A., Mukminin, A., Riyanto, Y., Prasojo, L. D., Sulistiyo, U., Sofwan, M., & Saudagar, F. (2018). Building an online community: Student teachers’ perceptions on the advantages of using social networking services in a teacher education program. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squaress structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). London: Sage publications.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. Scholar
  21. Halek, M., Holle, D., & Bartholomeyczik, S. (2017). Development and evaluation of the content validity, practicability and feasibility of the innovative dementia-oriented assessment system for challenging behaviour in residents with dementia. BMC Health Services Research, 17(1), 554 Scholar
  22. Hayduk, L. A., & Littvay, L. (2012). Should researchers use single indicators, best indicators, or multiple indicators in structural equation models? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1), 159. Scholar
  23. Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48–59.Google Scholar
  24. Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179–187. Scholar
  25. Keane, T., & Keane, W. (2019). A vision of the digital future-government funding as a catalyst for 1 to 1 computing in schools. Education and Information Technologies, 1–17.
  26. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Examining technological pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 563–573. Scholar
  27. Liu, Y., Holden, D., & Zheng, D. (2016). Analyzing students’ language learning experience in an augmented reality mobile game: An exploration of an emergent learning environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228, 369–374. Scholar
  28. Luik, P., Taimalu, M., & Suviste, R. (2018). Perceptions of technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) among pre-service teachers in Estonia. Education and Information Technologies, 23(2), 741–755. Scholar
  29. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mei, B., Brown, G. T., & Teo, T. (2018). Toward an understanding of preservice English as a foreign language teachers’ acceptance of computer-assisted language learning 2.0 in the People’s republic of China. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(1), 74–104. Scholar
  31. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Scholar
  32. (2018). Grafik [Active student graphic based on majors]. Retrieved from
  33. Mumcu, F. K., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). A scale development study of integration of ICT into learning and teaching process according to TPACK. In A. Isman (Ed.), International educational technology conference 2010 (pp. 1419–1423). Turkey: Istanbul.Google Scholar
  34. Niemelä, P., Isomöttönen, V., & Lipponen, L. (2016). Successful design of learning solutions being situation aware. Education and Information Technologies, 21(1), 105–122. Scholar
  35. Özgün-Koca, S. A., Meagher, M., & Edwards, M. T. (2010). Preservice teachers' emerging TPACK in a technology-rich methods class. The Mathematics Educator, 19(2), 10–20.Google Scholar
  36. Pallant, J. (2011). Survival manual. A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. 4th edition, Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  37. Pamuk, S., Ergun, M., Cakir, R., Yilmaz, H. B., & Ayas, C. (2015). Exploring relationships among TPACK components and development of the TPACK instrument. Education and Information Technologies, 20(2), 241–263. Scholar
  38. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2009). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  39. Prasojo, L. D., Habibi, A., Yaakob, M. F. M., Mukminin, A., Haswindy, S., & Sofwan, M. (2019). An explanatory sequential study on Indonesian principals' perceptions on ICT integration barriers. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 17(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  40. Reyes Jr., V. C., Reading, C., Doyle, H., & Gregory, S. (2017). Integrating ICT into teacher education programs from a TPACK perspective: Exploring perceptions of university lecturers. Computers & Education, 115, 1–19. Scholar
  41. Scherer, R., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2017). On the quest for validity: Testing the factor structure and measurement invariance of the technology-dimensions in the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) model. Computers & Education, 112, 1–17. Scholar
  42. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149. Scholar
  43. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Scholar
  44. Tai, S. J. D. (2015). From TPACK-in-action workshops to classrooms: CALL competency developed and integrated. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 139–164.Google Scholar
  45. Taimalu, M., & Luik, P. (2019). The impact of beliefs and knowledge on the integration of technology among teacher educators: A path analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79, 101–110. Scholar
  46. Teo, T., Sang, G., Mei, B., & Hoi, C. K. W. (2018). Investigating pre-service teachers’ acceptance of web 2.0 technologies in their future teaching: A Chinese perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(4), 530–546. Scholar
  47. Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., van Braak, J., Voogt, J., & Prestridge, S. (2017). Preparing beginning teachers for technology integration in education: Ready for take-off? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(2), 157–177. Scholar
  48. Tseng, J. J. (2018). Exploring TPACK-SLA interface: Insights from the computer-enhanced classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(4), 390–412. Scholar
  49. 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).Google Scholar
  50. Valtonen, T., Sointu, E., Kukkonen, J., Mäkitalo, K., Hoang, N., Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Näykki, P., Virtanen, A., Pöntinen, S., Kostiainen, E., & Tondeur, J. (2019). Examining pre-service teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge as evolving knowledge domains: A longitudinal approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1–12. Scholar
  51. Vinzi, V. E., Trinchera, L., & Amato, S. (2010). PLS path modeling: From foundations to recent developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 47–82). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Malaya/ LPDP IndonesiaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.University of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations