Towards a Web 2.0 TPACK Lesson Design Framework: Applications of a Web 2.0 TPACK Survey of Singapore Preservice Teachers

  • Joyce Hwee Ling KohEmail author
  • Ching Sing Chai
Part of the Education Innovation Series book series (EDIN)


The ability to use Web 2.0 technologies is an essential form of media literacy for twenty-first-century learners. Colleges of education need to train preservice teachers to use Web 2.0 technologies in pedagogically sound ways. This kind of teacher knowledge can be understood as a form technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) or knowledge to integrate technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge to design ICT-integrated lessons. This paper analyzes Singapore preservice teachers’ perceived competencies for the integration of Web 2.0 technologies. A Web 2.0 TPACK survey was administered on 270 graduating preservice teachers, and subsequent factor analysis revealed teachers perceiving five types of TPACK that are needed to support Web 2.0 integration: Web 2.0 Efficacy, Social Networking Efficacy, Efficacy for Teaching without Web 2.0, Efficacy for Teaching with Web 2.0, and Cyberwellness Efficacy. Regression analysis found that all factors except Social Networking Efficacy had positive impact on preservice teachers’ Efficacy for Teaching with Web 2.0. The implications of these results for enhancing preservice teachers’ Web 2.0 TPACK are discussed with respect to a Web 2.0 TPACK Lesson Design Framework developed to scaffold preservice teachers in their consideration of TPACK elements during lesson design.


Web 2.0 TPACK Technological pedagogical content knowledge Pre-service teacher education 


  1. Albion, P. R. (2008). Web 2.0 in teacher education: Two imperatives for action. Computers in the Schools, 25(3–4), 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, B. (2008). Web 2.0 and emergent multiliteracies. Theory Into Practice, 47(2), 150–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education [Electronic version], 64, from
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baird, D. E., & Fisher, M. (2005–2006). Neomillennial user experience design strategies: Utilizing social networking media to support “always on” learning styles. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 5–32.Google Scholar
  7. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bull, G., Thompson, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., et al. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning: Experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 100–107.Google Scholar
  9. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Educational Technology and Society, 13(4), 63–73.Google Scholar
  10. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2011a). Exploring the factor structure of the constructs of technological, pedagogical, content knowledge (TPACK). Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(3), 595–603.Google Scholar
  11. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Tsai, C. C., & Tan, L. W. L. (2011b). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57(1), 1184–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cochrane, T., & Bateman, R. (2010). Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordances of mobile Web 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  13. Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in Practice: Using and elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dede, C. (2008). A seismic shift in epistemology. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(3), 80–81.Google Scholar
  15. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Facebook. (2011). Statistics. Retrieved November 14, 2011, from
  17. Fish, M. C., & Dane, E. (2000). The classroom systems observation scale: Development of an instrument to assess classrooms using a systems perspective. Learning Environments Research, 3(1), 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glud, L. N., Buus, L., Ryberg, T., Georgsen, M., & Davidsen, J. (2010). Contributing to a learning methodology for web 2.0 learning – Identifying central tensions in educational use of Web 2.0 technologies. Paper presented at the networked learning conference, Aalborg.Google Scholar
  19. Graham, R. C., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). Measuring the TPACK confidence of in-service Science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Examining the technology pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 563–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their planning and conduct of computer-mediated classroom lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 807–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Paper presented at the ASCILITE, Singapore.Google Scholar
  25. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). The three P’s of pedagogy for the networked society: Personalization, participation, and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 1, 10–27.Google Scholar
  26. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28–43.Google Scholar
  27. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moore, J. A., & Chae, B. (2007). Beginning teachers’ use of online resources and communities. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(2), 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nelson, J., Christopher, A., & Mims, C. (2009). TPACK and Web 2.0: Transformation of teaching and learning. TechTrends, 53(5), 80–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. NielsonWire. (2009). Twitter’s tweet smell of success. Retrieved November 14, 2011, from
  31. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved November 14, 2011, from
  32. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ravenscroft, A. (2009). Social software, Web 2.0 and learning: Status and implications of an evolving paradigm. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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), 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shulman, L. S. (1999). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. In Learners and pedagogy (pp. 61–77). London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  37. Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  38. Technorati. (2009). Day 3: The how of blogging: SOTB 2009. Retrieved November 14, 2011, from
  39. Teo, Y. H., & Ting, B. H. (2010). Singapore education ICT master plans (1997–2004). In C. S. Chai & Q. Y. Wang (Eds.), ICT for self-directed and collaborative learning (pp. 2–14). Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia Pte Ltd.Google Scholar
  40. Wallace, R. M. (2004). A framework for understanding teaching with the Internet. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 447–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Sciences and Technologies Academic Group, National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations