Advertisement

Self-reported TPACK of teacher educators across six countries in Asia and Europe

Abstract

The initial technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) model was theorised on seven clearly identified factors. However, many studies have failed to empirically identify these seven factors, and elements influencing TPACK level, such as national context, gender, and age, remain unclear. The study is focused on teacher educators’ TPACK as one of the most important elements in schoolteacher training. The main goals were to test the validity of the initial TPACK seven-factor model in a cross-national analysis context and to identify factors influencing the TPACK perception. The sample was composed of 574 teacher educators coming from a total of eight schools of educational institutions from six countries. A 26-item questionnaire, based on a four-point Likert scale, investigated the seven factors of the TPACK model as independent scales. It was administered online and anonymously. A confirmatory factor analysis using the robust maximum likelihood method and Kruskal–Wallis chi-squared tests were performed. The study showed four major results: 1) a relative stability of the seven-factor model structure across countries; 2) the relative differences of university teachers’ TPACK perceptions across six countries in Europe and Asia; 3) the dependence of age and TPACK factors; and 4) an independence of gender/academic level and TPACK.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.itu.int/net4/ITU-D/idi/2017/index.html#idi2017rank-tab

References

  1. Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–1662.

  2. Baturay, M. H., & Toker, S. (2015). An investigation of the impact of demographics on cyberloafing from an educational setting angle. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 358–366.

  3. Benson, S. N. K., & Ward, C. L. (2013). Teaching with technology: Using TPACK to understand teaching expertise in online higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 153–172.

  4. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.

  5. Benton-Borghi, B. H. (2013). A universally designed for learning (UDL) infused technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) practitioners' model essential for teacher preparation in the 21st century. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 245–265.

  6. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage focus editions, 154, 136–136.

  7. Bueno-Alastuey, M. C., Villarreal, I., & García Esteban, S. (2018). Can telecollaboration contribute to the TPACK development of pre-service teachers? (pp. 1–14). Pedagogy and Education: Technology.

  8. Byker, E. J., Putman, S. M., Polly, D., & Handler, L. (2018). Examining elementary education Tearchers and Preservice Teachers' self-efficacy related to technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). In C. B. Hodges (Ed.), Self-efficacy in instructional technology contexts (pp. 119–140). Statesboro: Springer.

  9. Cangur, S., & Ercan, I. (2015). Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 14(1), 14.

  10. Cengiz, C. (2015). The development of TPACK, technology integrated self-efficacy and instructional technology outcome expectations of pre-service physical education teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(5), 411–422.

  11. Chai, C. S., Ng, E. M., Li, W., Hong, H.-Y., & Koh, J. H. (2013). Validating and modelling technological pedagogical content knowledge framework among Asian preservice teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1).

  12. Chang, Y., Jang, S. J., & Chen, Y. H. (2015). Assessing university students' perceptions of their P hysics instructors' TPACK development in two contexts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1236–1249.

  13. Chen, Y.-H., & Jang, S.-J. (2018). Exploring the Relationship Between Self-Regulation and TPACK of Taiwanese Secondary In-Service Teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 0735633118769442.

  14. Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique : du savoir savant au savoir enseigné. Grenoble La Pensée sauvage.

  15. Cubeles, A., & Riu, D. (2018). The effective integration of ICTs in universities: The role of knowledge and academic experience of professors (pp. 1–11). Pedagogy and Education: Technology.

  16. Griffiths, M. D., Davies, M. N., & Chappell, D. (2004). Demographic factors and playing variables in online computer gaming. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(4), 479–487.

  17. Guo, R. X., Dobson, T., & Petrina, S. (2008). Digital natives, digital immigrants: An analysis of age and ICT competency in teacher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 235–254.

  18. Harris, J. B., & Phillips, M. (2018) If there’s TPACK, is There Technological Pedagogical Reasoning and Action? In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, (pp. 2051–2061): Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

  19. Hofer, M. J., & Harris, J. B. (2010) Differentiating TPACK development: Using learning activity types with inservice and preservice teachers. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, (pp. 3857–3864): Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

  20. Hofer, M. J., & Harris, J. B. (2017) Differentiating TPACK-based learning materials for preservice and inservice teachers. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, (pp. 2357–2366): Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

  21. Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 65–70.

  22. 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.

  23. Karayan, R. (2016). Najat Vallaud-Belkacem: "Le retard français dans l'école numérique a été utile". https://www.lexpress.fr/education/najat-vallaud-belkacem-le-retard-francais-dans-l-ecole-numerique-a-ete-utile_1806654.html. Accessed 25/06/2018 2018.

  24. Khatoon Malik, S., & Tanzeela, U. (2012). Status of teacher education in Pakistan- a problem centered approach. Elixir Leadership Management, 46, 8581–8586.

  25. Khine, M. S., Ali, N., & Afari, E. (2017). Exploring relationships among TPACK constructs and ICT achievement among trainee teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1605–1621.

  26. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102.

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

  28. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2004). With a little help from your students: A new model for faculty development and online course design. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25.

  29. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762.

  30. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Examining the technological pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 563–573.

  31. Krämer, N. C., Karacora, B., Lucas, G., Dehghani, M., Rüther, G., & Gratch, J. (2016). Closing the gender gap in STEM with friendly male instructors? On the effects of rapport behavior and gender of a virtual agent in an instructional interaction. Computers & Education, 99, 1–13.

  32. Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the world wide web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1–21.

  33. Lin, T.-C., Tsai, C.-C., Chai, C. S., & Lee, M.-H. (2013). Identifying science teachers’ perceptions of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). [journal article]. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9396-6.

  34. 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.

  35. Manerikar, V., & Manerikar, S. (2015). Cronbach’s alpha. A Peer review research journal. aWEshkar WeSchool, 19(1), 117–119.

  36. Markauskaite, L. (2006). Gender issues in preservice teachers' training: ICT literacy and online learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 1.

  37. Ministry of Education. (2014). Bhutan education blueprint (2014–2024): Rethinking education. Thimphu: Ministry of Education.

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

  39. Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299–317.

  40. Puentedura, R. (2013). SAMR and TPCK : An introduction. http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2013/03/28/SAMRandTPCK_AnIntroduction.pdf. Accessed 10/07/2019 2019.

  41. Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2017). Gender differences in spatial ability: Implications for STEM education and approaches to reducing the gender gap for parents and educators. In Visual-spatial Ability in STEM Education (pp. 195-224): Springer.

  42. 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.

  43. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.

  44. Schmidt, D. A., & Gurbo, M. (2008). TPCK in K-6 literacy education: It’s not that elementary. Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators, 61-85.

  45. 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.

  46. Sherab, K., Bidha, S., Khorlo, T., Wangchuk, U., & Rinzin, R. (2017). Efficacy of the four-year B. Ed primary Programme at Paro College of Education. Paro: Paro College of Education, Royal University of Bhutan.

  47. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.

  48. Tanaka, J. S., & Huba, G. J. (1985). A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38(2), 197–201.

  49. VanBalkom, W. D., & Sherman, A. (2010). Teacher education in Bhutan: Highlights and challenges for reform. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30(1), 43–55.

  50. Voogt, J., & McKenney, S. (2017). TPACK in teacher education: Are we preparing teachers to use technology for early literacy? Technology Pedagogy and Education, 26(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2016.1174730.

  51. Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119–140.

  52. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8, 84–136.

  53. Yaghi, H. M. (2001). Subject matter as a factor in educational computing by teachers in international settings. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(2), 139–154.

  54. Yoder, J. D., & Kahn, A. S. (2003). Making gender comparisons more meaningful: A call for more attention to social context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27(4), 281–290.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The project ‘Blended Learning Courses for teacher educators between Asia and Europe’ (n°: 574130-EPP-1-2016-1-FR-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP) is supported by the European Commission Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) - Erasmus+ Higher Education – International Capacity Building programme.

Author information

Correspondence to Jérémy Castéra.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Castéra, J., Marre, C.C., Yok, M.C.K. et al. Self-reported TPACK of teacher educators across six countries in Asia and Europe. Educ Inf Technol (2020) doi:10.1007/s10639-020-10106-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • TPACK
  • Cross-national study
  • University teachers
  • CFA