Rubrics of TPACK-P for Teaching Science with ICTs

  • Yi-Fen YehEmail author
  • Sung-Pei Chien
  • Hsin-Kai Wu
  • Ying-Shao Hsu


Advances in information communication technologies (ICTs) have diversified teacher instruction. The appropriateness of representation selections and learning activity designs involving ICTs is determined by teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge-practical (TPACK-P), a knowledge construct transformed and reinforced through different tasks in teaching. This study developed rubrics for evaluating preservice teachers’ TPACK-P, according to the proficiency levels and features identified by in-service teachers. We collected lesson plans and microteaching video clips of seven preservice teachers in order to verify the rubrics and explore how their TPACK-P was demonstrated in lesson plans and microteaching. Results revealed that the preservice teachers’ performances on lesson planning and microteaching were similar, with discrepancies of +/− 1 level on the rubrics. Their performances on teaching with ICTs were comparatively better in curriculum design and enactment than on assessment. It may not be difficult for preservice teachers to implement ICTs, but the real challenges are to use ICTs with considerations of students, content, and pedagogy. Teacher education programs are advised to pay attention to how meaningfully ICTs are used to support instruction, rather than simply counting the number of times ICTs are used.


Preservice Teacher Science Teacher Video Clip Pedagogical Content Knowledge Lesson Plan 
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. Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice teachers as ICT designers: An instructional 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, 55(1), 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, N. (2007). Microteaching: What is it that is going on here? Linguistics and Education, 18, 24–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernhard, J. (2003). Physics learning and microcomputer based laboratory (MBL): Learning effects of using MBL as a technological and as a cognitive tool. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, G. Fassoulopoulos, E. Hatzikraniotis, & M. Kallery (Eds.), Science education research in the knowledge based society (pp. 313–321). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breslyn, W. J., & McGinnis, R. (2011). A comparison of exemplary biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics teachers’ conceptions and enactment of inquiry. Science Education, 96(1), 48–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1993). Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: A year-long assessment. Science Education, 77(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2010 (pp. 3833–3840). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  13. Hatfield, R. C. (1989). Developing a procedural model for the practice of microteaching. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED313340)Google Scholar
  14. Jaipal, K., & Figg, C. (2010). Unpacking the “Total PACKage”: Emergent TPACK characteristics from a study of preservice teachers teaching with technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(3), 415–441.Google Scholar
  15. Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  16. Lee, K., Chai, C. S., & Koh, J. H. L. (2012). Fostering pre-service teachers’ TPACK towards student-centered pedagogy. In P. Resta (Ed.), Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 3915–3921). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  17. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Metcalf, K. (1993). Critical factors in on-campus clinical experiences: Perceptions of preservice teachers. Teaching Education, 5(2), 163–174.Google Scholar
  19. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitchem, K., Wells, D. L., & Wells, J. G. (2003). Effective integration of instructional technological evaluating professional development and instructional change. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(3), 399–416.Google Scholar
  21. Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(3), 40–42.Google Scholar
  22. Mouza, C. (2003). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 272–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mulhall, P., & Gunstone, R. (2008). Views about physics held by physics teachers with differing approaches to teaching physics. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 435–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Niess, M. L. (2012). Teacher knowledge for teaching with technology: A TPACK lens. In R. Ronau, C. Rakes, & M. L. Niess (Eds.), Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and approaches (pp. 1–15). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  26. Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston, C., et al. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4–24.Google Scholar
  27. Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., Kauchak, D. P., Pendergrass, R. A., Keogh, A. J., et al. (1990). Teaching strategies: A guide to better instruction (3rd ed.). Lexington, KY: Heath.Google Scholar
  28. Pauline, R. (1993). Microteaching: An integral part of a science methods class. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4(1), 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., et al. (2006). PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44(18), 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pineau, E. L. (1994). Teaching is performance: Reconceptualizing a problematic metaphor. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Russell, A. L. (1995). Stages in learning new technology: Naïve adult email users. Computers & Education, 25(4), 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  33. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  35. van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yi-Fen Yeh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sung-Pei Chien
    • 2
  • Hsin-Kai Wu
    • 2
  • Ying-Shao Hsu
    • 2
  1. 1.Science Education CenterNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations