Keywords

1 Introduction

Digital technology and media (DTM) have the potential to expand the field of representation (Hsu et al., 2015) and (inter)active learning (Chi & Wylie, 2014). In science teaching this can promote a deeper understanding of abstract and complex phenomena (Hsu et al., 2015). However, it is important to note that simply implementing DTM in class does not ensure higher learning outcomes as its effectiveness depends on the way it is implemented (Chien et al., 2016). Whether the potential of DTM is realized in biology classrooms is significantly determined by the teacher’s preparedness (Drossel et al., 2019). To achieve a high level of preparation, teacher education programs incorporate digitization-related competences into the curriculum (Ning et al., 2022). The Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) is frequently applied for modeling this complex body of knowledge (Njiku et al., 2020). However, there remains a gap between what pre-service teachers are taught at university and their actual use of DTM in practice (Tondeur et al., 2012). One reason why there is only little knowledge about the practical application of TPACK (Mouza, 2016; Ning et al., 2022) is the scarcity of studies analyzing the enactment of TPACK in the field (Willermark, 2018) and thereby taking contextual conditions into account (Rosenberg & Koehler, 2015).

According to the Transformation Model of Lesson Planning, teachers transfer professional knowledge into practice through reflective planning, implementation, and subsequent reflection of lessons (Stender et al., 2017). In order to contribute to research on the enactment of TPACK, this study aims to obtain insights into the process of TPACK transfer via the planning, implementation, and reflection of biology lessons by collecting and analyzing data on these three steps of secondary school pre-service biology teachers (PSBTs).

2 Research Design and Method

Since the development of TPACK is considered a highly individual process (Niess, 2015; Tondeur et al., 2021), a case study approach was conducted to gather a comprehensive insight including various contextual data. This research approach has been applied in previous studies examining (pre-service) teachers’ ability to link theory and practice (Upmeier zu Belzen & Merkel, 2014) and the TPACK development of in-service science teachers (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015). In the sense of an explorative case study, the role of this study is to generate initial hypotheses and thus to provide requirements for quantitative investigations (Yin, 2012).

2.1 Sample

A cohort of 16 PSBTs was accompanied in the classroom. All PSBTs were in their master’s studies. According to the module handbook of the study program, the PSBTs attended subject didactic courses to the extent of nine credit points as part of their bachelor’s studies. Media didactic topics were also covered, but these were not related to the use of DTM in biology teaching. Using a purposeful sampling method, three heterogeneous cases were selected from the cohort in terms of their TPACK (see Table 22.2). Thus, the cases represent (1) a low, (2) an average, and (3) a high self-reported TPACK level.

2.2 Context

To gain insights into the field, the PSBTs were accompanied during their internship semester of 14 weeks at school at the end of their master’s studies. The TPACK mandatory for a specific use of DTM (student-generated explainer videos in biology) was conveyed via a workshop at the university (Aumann et al., 2023). Following the workshop, the PSBTs were asked to plan, implement, and reflect on a biology lesson in which their students create explainer videos (see Fig. 22.1). The PSBTs were free to choose hardware and software to use in their lessons. To compensate for the different conditions at the various schools, they had the opportunity to borrow equipment from the university. These precautions address the extrinsic first-order barriers regarding the implementation environment according to Ertmer (1999), as the PSBTs had access to technical equipment, support, and training.

Fig. 22.1
A graphical representation has 2 horizontal sections for workshop and transfer. An ascending to descending curve presents content acquisition, content concretization, gaining experience with the D T M, survey, lesson planning, lesson implementation, and lesson reflection, respectively.

Course of the workshop and data collection throughout the internship semester in terms of theory and practice

Full size image

2.3 Instruments

2.3.1 The Survey

The survey was compiled from established scales measuring TPACK (Bernhard & Grassinger, 2022). By including these variables, the PSBTs intrinsic second-order barriers regarding teachers’ professional beliefs are considered (Ertmer, 1999). Items were measured on a 6-point Likert scale. One item was added to record the number of lessons in which the PSBTs had previously integrated DTM. Survey data was analyzed using IBM SPSS version 28.0.

2.3.2 The EnTPACK Rubric

The EnTPACK rubric depicts instructional criteria for biology lessons in which students create explainer videos. The rubric was developed based on a systematic literature review as an instrument for measuring TPACK by comparing lesson plans, lesson observations, and lesson reflections containing the categories Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Technological Content Knowledge (TPK), and TPACK (Aumann et al., 2023) The rubric divides these categories into further subcategories, which in turn have been assigned several criteria. The expression of these criteria is assessed via observable indicators (see example Table 22.1).

Table 22.1 Sample of the EnTPACK rubric
Full size table

2.4 Data Collection and Analysis

Besides a survey conducted between workshop and transfer, data were collected regarding planning, implementation, and reflection of the lesson. Lesson planning was collected via lesson plan documents (1. Subject analysis, 2. instructional and 3. methodological planning, 4. lesson outlines) and lesson materials. Lesson implementation was videographed. PSBT’s lesson reflection was collected via semi-structured video-stimulated recall interviews. Data analysis was conducted using evaluative qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2022) via VERBI MAXQDA version 2020. First, the data sources were reviewed, commented on, and particularly noteworthy sections were marked. Subsequently, the materials were coded deductively on the basis of the EnTPACK rubric (Aumann et al., 2023) and inductively based on the data sets. Afterwards, all data sources were evaluated again, including the inductively derived categories. The coded data sets were then analyzed qualitatively and interpretatively. Contentious issues were validated communicatively between the two authors.

3 Results

Table 22.2 presents the survey results of the three cases in comparison with the total sample. In this regard, case one shows a below-average, case two an average, and case three an above-average self-reported TPACK compared to the sample.

Table 22.2 Survey data of the three cases
Full size table

The following description focuses on those results that show relevant aspects for the specific objectives of the use of DTM and their implementation.

3.1 Case One

Case one is a female PSBT with the lowest self-reported TPACK of the sample. Although considering the use of DTM in class as potentially beneficial, her motivation and intention to use them is limited. This could be related to her low self-reported ability and self-efficacy to use DTM in class, as well as to her lack of experience in this regard. Her lesson utilized the creation of explainer videos to introduce insects’ physique to a sixth grade class.

Content

The Lesson planning is characterized by a focus shift in the transition from instructional to methodological planning. Whereas instructional planning is content-centered, methodological planning is DTM-centered. The methodological planning focuses exclusively on the question of how to create an explainer video. As a result, DTM-related phases in the lesson outline significantly exceed those of content-related phases (lesson plan C1, p. 9ff).

The Lesson implementation is congruent with the methodological planning. The PSBT discusses a variety of design-related criteria for the creation of explainer videos, which are irrelevant to the biological subject. Those criteria build the guideline for both the development and the feedback phase (lesson implementation C1, 2:38–8:55).

Lesson reflection: Case one notices that the students’ lost sight of the content in the lesson: “I don’t think they paid much attention to the content, so the event was more about creating the video actually” (lesson reflection C1, l. 120ff). However, she ultimately attributes this problem to external factors such as the students’ fascination with creating a video and a lack of time in class.

TPACK

The Lesson planning does not consider reasons for using explainer videos to teach the subject content and to reach the learning objectives. Case one rather seems to interpret the creation of an explainer video and the subject content as separate lesson contents: “The lesson focuses on the physique of the different insects and on the creation of an explainer/learning video” (lesson plan C1, p. 7).

Lesson implementation: Congruent with the lesson plan, no systematic relationship between subject content, learning objectives, and the DTM use is evident. For instance, the exemplary explainer video she selected to provide orientation for the students deals exclusively with cutout animations and does not provide any reference to biological subject matter (lesson implementation C1, 9:47–12:22).

Lesson reflection: Case one reports insecurity in the use of DTM: “I found it kind of stressful, because sometimes you don’t really have it under your control” (lesson reflection C1, l. 502ff) and identifies technological challenges as her “main concern” (lesson reflection C1, l. 511). Accordingly, she justifies the choice of the production procedure (One Take) with preparation effort, rather than with instructional considerations: “it was actually the simplest [procedure] that I can explain the quickest” (lesson reflection C1, l. 410ff).

PCK

Lesson planning: While case one writes down subject-related instructional considerations in subject analysis and instructional planning, these are not considered again in the further course of the lesson plan. In the instructional planning, she puts emphasis on the fact that the students use “precise biological terms or technical terms” only sporadically (lesson plan C1, p. 7). Nevertheless, she uses a large number of technical terms in her lesson materials, partly irrelevant in regard to lesson content (e.g. polarized light). The lesson objective is clearly outlined in terms of content, but she misses the opportunity to prepare the students for the content. Despite her own problems with technology, she expects students to simultaneously learn the subject matter by themselves while transferring it into an explainer video.

Lesson implementation: Congruent with the lesson outlines, instructional considerations are not incorporated into teaching and students are left alone with content acquisition while creating the videos.

Lesson reflection: Case one comments on the cognitive overload of the students in content acquisition: “I think if you actually take one hour before roughly introducing insects’ physique, it is clearer to them what you are aiming at later on and they are not that overwhelmed, maybe” (lesson reflection C1, l. 107ff). However, she justifies her approach with time constraints.

3.2 Case Two

Case two is a male PSBT with an average self-reported TPACK within the sample. He perceives DTM as helpful to enrich learning, and is motivated and confident to use it himself. Furthermore, he reports the highest amount of own experience in teaching with DTM. His lesson served to consolidate knowledge about hormone regulation in an eighth grade class.

Content

Lesson planning: Case two emphasizes the consolidation of the subject content as a lesson objective in his entire lesson plan. This focus is reflected in the lesson materials, which are intended to “clarify the content again” (lesson plan C2, p.12) and to support students in “visualizing the subject content” (lesson plan C2, p.13).

The Lesson implementation is congruent with his lesson plan. The ratio content (10 min) to DTM-related input (3 min) shows a clear bias towards subject content. Referring to an example video on a biological content, case two highlights the consolidation of the subject content and classifies design aspects as secondary: “This is now a rather simply produced explainer video. I think today we can’t produce it in a more elaborated way” (lesson implementation C2, 6:37–6:45).

The focus on content is explained in the lesson reflection more deeply: “It is actually supposed to be a biology lesson utilizing this very method” (lesson reflection C2, l. 259f). In addition, he justifies the design of his lesson materials with a focus on content: “I have provided an outline of what is expected in terms of content in the video, just to clarify the task again and to direct the focus on the subject content which you finally want to have as a result” (lesson reflection C2, l. 339ff).

TPACK

Lesson planning: Case two selects the subject content deliberately based on the instructional potential offered by the DTM: “Methodologically, the use of models is particularly suitable for this topic in order to make the complex process of hormone regulation visually tangible for the students. One way to visualize such processes and procedures by means of models is the use of digital media, particularly the use of explainer videos” (lesson plan C2, p. 8). In the following the DTM is characterized as a tool promoting students’ motivation and encouraging “exploratory behavior regarding the subject content” (lesson plan C2, p. 12).

Lesson implementation: In accordance with the lesson plan, DTM is used as a tool to help students visualize the process of the hormonal regulatory cycle. The introduction to the software focuses on basic functions.

Lesson reflection: Case two expresses confidence in DTM usage due to his prior experience: “I have already worked with some digital media from time to time, and that makes it immensely easier, of course” (lesson reflection C2, l. 533ff). He justifies the selection of a specialized video production software (stop-motion studio) with reference to the cognitive load theory, through the “structuring and outlining” (lesson reflection C2, l. 290), which the software enables in comparison to One Take: “You call it cognitive load, that is somehow overlaid too much by the method and the subject content doesn’t get enough space” (lesson reflection C2, l. 276ff). Thus, he “also limits the introduction” to the software to basic functions, which are necessary but “not entirely self-explanatory” (lesson reflection C2, l. 196f).

PCK

Lesson planning: Instructional considerations identified in the instructional planning continue to be addressed and are clearly emphasized throughout the remaining lesson plan. For example, case two deliberately refers to a “phenomenon known to the students (sweating, freezing)” (lesson plan C2, p.8) as an exemplary starting point.

The lesson implementation is consistent with his lesson plan in this regard.

In the lesson reflection, case two repeatedly refers to instructional aspects of his lesson implementation and aligns them with his considerations in the lesson plan. For example, he criticizes a lack of structure in the feedback phase, which he would optimize by means of an “evaluation catalog” (lesson reflection C2, l. 73f) if the lesson was repeated.

3.3 Case Three

Case three is a female PSBT with one of the highest self-reported TPACK levels of the sample. She is convinced of the usefulness of DTM and reports a high attitude towards it. Although she has been able to gain a lot of vicarious experience, she seems to have little experience in using DTM for teaching and an accordingly low level of motivation and self-efficacy in this regard. Her lesson served to present individual strategies for dealing with stress in a ninth grade class.

Content

Lesson planning: Case three describes the biological content in the subject analysis and prepares the content instructionally in the transition to instructional planning. However, in the remaining lesson plan these considerations are not further taken up. The lesson outlines and materials address exclusively the creation and design of an explainer video.

Case three’s lesson implementation accordingly concentrates on creating an explainer video. This is illustrated by a low proportion of content-related phases and her response to students’ content-related questions, where she gives the advice to disregard the biological content (lesson implementation C3, 34:47–34:55).

The PBST articulates a product-oriented focus in her lesson reflection, neglecting content-related criteria. She states as the central concern of the elaboration phase: “that something comes out. What that is, I did not define. Only a product should result” (lesson reflection C3, l. 432f).

TPACK

Lesson planning: Case three does not connect subject content and the use of DTM in her lesson plan. She seems to regard DTM as an additional learning content, identifying technical terms (“tablet, cutout animation, hard- & software” (lesson plan C3, p.8)) next to subject terms. Furthermore, she analyzes the topic explainer videos in detail next to the subject content stress (lesson plan C3, p. 5ff).

Lesson implementation: As in the lesson plan, there is no connection between the subject content and the DTM.

During lesson reflection, it becomes apparent that her considerations were dominated by her uncertainty in dealing with the technology: “So the technology preparation, it was the biggest insecurity. [...] and then I decided for that [procedure] I used the first time, and which I thought was the easiest option [...] because the introduction to another program might have required another hour that I didn’t have available” (lesson reflection C3, l. 483ff).

PCK

Lesson planning: Case three verbalizes fuzzy content-related lesson objectives and criteria for the creation of the explainer videos. Although she mentions the “classification of the biological subject content” (lesson plan C3, p. 6) and the “naming of all organs involved, as well as the two hormones adrenaline and noradrenaline” (lesson plan C3, p. 6) as central requirements in her instructional planning, these considerations are not taken into account in the remaining lesson plan.

Congruent with her lesson outlines and materials, instructional considerations are not included in the lesson implementation. Likewise, the vague criteria for the video design are not specified. Thus, they do not provide any orientation for the students during video production and during the feedback phase (lesson implementation C3, 1:29:10–1:34:04).

Lesson reflection: Case three justifies her problems in lesson implementation with external factors like time constraints or the students’ insufficient level of cognitive development: “Well, this is actually a problem on the students’ side, that they are not able to give feedback. [...] I would just attribute that to their cognitive developmental level probably” (lesson reflection C3, l. 152ff).

4 Discussion

Based on the cases, the following discussion identifies differences in the enactment of TPACK leading to the definition of two types of DTM usage in a biology lesson.

The salient feature of Type one is the separation between the methodological approach and thus the DTM usage and content considerations. Although the latter are addressed in the first chapters of the planning documents, they are not pursued further thereafter. Instead, the focus is on designing the DTM deployment. The methodological planning is then implemented without further disruptions and the reflection is also largely limited to the methodological implementation. If problems occur during the implementation, they are explained with external circumstances or with insufficient skills of the students. Moreover, the reflection hardly refers to the considerations made in lesson planning. Type one can be divided into two subtypes with regard to the handling of subject content:

  • Subtype 1 tends to cognitively overload students. The cognitive overload can be illustrated, for example, by the fact that the students have to work out an unfamiliar content themselves and at the same time transfer it into a form of representation that is also unfamiliar to them (Case one).

  • Subtype 2 differs from subtype one in that neither clear content-related objectives nor criteria for the design of the explainer videos are defined either during the planning or the implementation of the lesson. This results in an insufficient clarity of content-related lesson objectives (Case three).

Type two systematically relates subject content and DTM. The creation of the explainer videos is planned, implemented, and reflected as a useful method for consolidating the biological subject content. In contrast to type one, type two already focuses on the content-related lesson objectives during planning and consequently includes content-related instructional considerations in the lesson outlines and the lesson implementation. In this respect, type two reflects problems in lesson implementation with regard to his lesson plan (Case two).

4.1 TPACK and DTM Usage

The cases with both the highest and the lowest self-reported TPACK levels of the sample are classified as type one, while the case designated as type two has an average self-reported TPACK. Consequently, at least with regard to the selected cases, it is not possible to draw conclusions from the self-reported TPACK to the enacted TPACK.

The two cases assigned to type one report little experience in using DTM for teaching compared to type two. In addition, both cases of type one show a low digital media self-efficacy and report insecurities in the use of DTM in class. As a result, both cases choose the technologically less complex video production procedure (One Take), which does not require specific software. In contrast, type two shows an average digital media self-efficacy and reports confidence in using DTM for teaching, attributing this to his experience. Unlike type one, he chooses a specific software under instructional considerations. Consistent with existing studies, teaching experience with DTM seems to represent a central prerequisite for the PSBTs digital media self-efficacy and TPACK (Valtonen et al., 2015), with self-efficacy playing a mediating role (Wang & Zhao, 2021).

One explanation for the discrepancy between content-related instructional objectives and the DTM usage in type one could be that, due to a lack of teaching experience and a low digital media self-efficacy, the PSBTs concentrate on the methodological use of DTM and thus have no resources for processing the content-related information. This is in line with Ling Koh et al. (2014), who proposed that the more teachers focus on external factors during lesson planning, the less they consider deeper pedagogical aspects and the less the lesson is aligned with TPACK. The fact that case three rates her own TPACK as particularly high despite her low enacted TPACK might be linked to a low ability of self-assessment. According to Max et al. (2022), this phenomenon is particularly evident in PSBTs with low TPACK, especially for increasing task complexity.

5 Limitations and Future Directions

Due to the objectives and associated methodology of the present study, the following limitations must be considered: (1) The results of this study are limited to a specific DTM usage in a selected subject domain. (2) The study exclusively analyzes the teaching offered by the PSBTs. The student level is not included in this regard. (3) Since the present study is a qualitative case analysis with a correspondingly small sample (n = 3), the results do not allow representative statements about the population. (4) Since data was collected in the field, it was not possible to create identical conditions.

Nevertheless, based on the sample, initial connections can be established by including a large number of contextual data. In addition, the data suggest that it may be appropriate not to have all PSBTs plan full lessons right away, from which they may leave frustrated (Type one). Instead, there could be intermediate steps already at the university (e.g. micro-teaching), which could help to reduce difficulties with lesson planning and implementation in the school.

The study also indicates that the consideration of contextual factors and the comprehensive comparison of TPACK at the levels of lesson planning, implementation, and reflection enable the identification and explanation of fractures in PSBTs knowledge enactment. Accordingly, future studies should further concentrate on examining enacted TPACK from a more holistic perspective, considering the unique contextual conditions.