The Current Status of Science Teachers’ TPACK in Taiwan from Interview Data

  • Tzu-Chiang Lin
  • Ying-Shao HsuEmail author


Teachers’ knowledge about technology-infused instruction has recently attracted much research attention. This chapter focuses on science teachers’ technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in the practical context of teaching, namely, TPACK-Practical (TPACK-P). The proposed framework of TPACK-P includes three major domains—assessments, planning and designing, and teaching practice—that are theoretically transformed from the perspectives of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). To explore science teachers’ TPACK-P, 40 in-service teachers were interviewed, and a coding scheme was developed to analyze the interview responses. The findings indicated that the science teachers generally know how to adopt technologies in teaching within each domain of TPACK-P. A cluster analysis based on the participants’ level of TPACK-P categorized their patterns of knowledge. Three groups of science teachers emerged from these analysis categories: infusive application, transition, and plan and design emphasis. The infusive application group represents science teachers with sophisticated levels of TPACK-P across the three domains; the transition group includes science teachers whose knowledge achieved average levels across the three dimensions. However, the plan and design emphasis group refers to the science teachers who were more knowledgeable about planning and designing technology-infused teaching than about the assessment and teaching practice domains. The overall results indicate that the knowledge of planning and designing may be a more independent part in TPACK-P that supports science teachers’ implementation of technology-infused teaching. The revealed patterns of this science teachers’ TPACK-P may provide the groundwork for developing instruments to evaluate science teachers’ competence in teaching with technologies.


Teacher Education Preservice Teacher Science Teacher Teaching Practice Pedagogical Content Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anastopoulou, S., Sharples, M., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C., O’Malley, C., & Wright, M. (2012). Creating personal meaning through technology-supported science inquiry learning across formal and informal settings. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: An instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 292–302.CrossRefGoogle 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(1), 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archambault, L. M., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching – What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63–73.Google Scholar
  8. ChanLin, L. J. (2008). Technology integration applied to project-based learning in science. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(1), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in higher education – A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers & Education, 55(1), 92–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning‐for‐use: A framework for the design of technology‐supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953–1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 378–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hsu, Y. S., Wu, H. K., & Hwang, F. K. (2007). Factors influencing junior high school teachers’ computer-based instructional practices regarding their instructional evolution stages. Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 118–130.Google Scholar
  18. Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277–302.Google Scholar
  19. Jang, S. J., & Tsai, M. F. (2012). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 59(2), 327–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers’ professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keating, T., & Evans, E. (2001, March). Three computers in the back of the classroom: Pre-service teachers’ conceptions of technology integration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  23. Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2010). Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2010). Preparing preservice teachers for self-regulated learning in the context of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 434–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, S. W. Y., Tsai, C. C., Wu, Y. T., Tsai, M. J., Liu, T. C., Hwang, F. K., et al. (2011). Internet-based science learning: A review of journal publications. International Journal of Science Education, 33(14–15), 1893–1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lorr, M. (1983). Cluster analysis for social scientists: Techniques for analyzing and simplifying complex blocks of data. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  35. Lumpe, A., Czerniak, C., Haney, J., & Svetlana, B. (2012). Beliefs about teaching science: The relationship between elementary teachers’ participation in professional development and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lundeberg, M. A., Bergland, M., Klyczek, K., & Hoffman, D. (2003). Using action research to develop preservice teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and confidence about technology. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(4), 1–16.Google Scholar
  37. Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). Computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning and classroom scripts: Effects on help-seeking processes and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Palmer, D. H. (2002). Factors contributing to attitude exchange amongst preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 86(1), 122–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parkinson, J. (1998). The difficulties in developing information technology competencies with student science teachers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 16(1), 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Serin, O. (2011). The effects of the computer-based instruction on the achievement and problem solving skills of the science and technology students. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 183–201.Google Scholar
  47. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  49. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2008). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38–64.Google Scholar
  52. van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge – A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Web, M., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 13(3), 235–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yeh, Y. F., Hsu, Y. S., Wu, H. K., Hwang, F. K., & Lin, T. C. (2014). Developing and validating technological pedagogical content knowledge – Practical (TPACK-Practical) through the Delphi survey technique. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 707–722. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yung, B. H. W., Zhu, Y., Wong, S. L., Cheng, M. W., & Lo, F. Y. (2013). Teachers’ and students’ conceptions of good science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2435–2461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yurdakul, I. K., Odabasi, H. F., Kilicer, K., Coklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A. (2011). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Computers & Education, 58(3), 964–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and EducationNational Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations