Summary of Journal 3

A comparison of pre-service, in-service and formation program for teachers’ perceptions of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in English language teaching (ELT)

By Yıldız Turgut in 2017

A.    Background

One of the milestones in teacher education that changed the standards of qualified teachers is Shulman (1986) perspective. According to these standards, qualified teachers should master not only content and pedagogical knowledge but also the intersection of both: pedagogical content knowledge.

In addition to Shulman (1986) ideas, changes in technology led Mishra and Koehler (2006) to propose that technology also cannot be separated from pedagogical content knowledge (PCK); therefore, they suggested technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework, which  consists  of  technological knowledge (TK),pedagogical knowledge (PK), and         content knowledge (CK). Moreover, the intersections of these knowledge domains are PCK, technological content knowledge (TCK), and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK). PCK addresses the ways of teaching particular content-based material to students. TCK denotes selecting and then using technologies to teach particular content knowledge, while TPK refers to using a particular  technology  when  teachers  are  teaching  a certain  subject  matter.  Finally,  the  intersection  of  the three circles forms a combination of the three knowledge domains, referred to as TPACK (Thompson and Mishra, 2007).

As technology is advancing fast and not all teachers from schools have received the education on integrating technology into the teaching process (Carbová and Betáková, 2013), it is necessary for in-service teachers to receive  technology  integration  training.  The  trainings were provided through nation-wide projects in different countries, such as in Australia „Teaching Teachers for the Future‟ (Parr et al., 2013), in the US Preparing Tomorrow‟s Teachers for Technology (Polly et al., 2010) and in Ethiopia UIN SUSKA (Ansari, 2015).

Similarly, in agreement with the significant educational reforms  being  made  by  the  EU  countries,  Ministry  of National Education (MoNE) in Turkey has emphasized the use of technology as an important instructional tool within schools across the country through Movement of Enhancing   Opportunities   and   Improving   Technology (FATIH) Project (MoNE, 2010). The five components of the project are:

1. Providing equipment and software substructure
2. Providing educational e-content and management of e- content
3. Effective usage of the information and communications technology (ICT) in teaching programs
4. In-service training of the teachers, and
5. Conscious, reliable, manageable and measurable ICT usage (MoNE, 2010).

Through these components the project aimed to improve technology in schools for the efficient usage of ICT tools in   both   teaching   and   learning   processes   through providing            tablets            and            liquid-crystal display (LCD) Interactive Boards as well as in-service trainings for teachers working at preschool, primary and secondary schools. Through projects as schools are equipped with technology much better than  ever  before, researchers have investigated the way they are used in the classes.

This exploratory study aims to explore the TPACK among pre-service teachers from ELT program at education faculty, candidates of  ELT  certificate program  and  in- service EFL teachers at primary and secondary schools in Turkey. With this aim, the following research questions guided the study:

1. Is there any difference among PTs‟, teacher- candidates‟ at a certificate program and in-service EFL teachers‟ self-perceptions of their TPACK?
2. From  participants‟  perspective,  what  does  TPACK integrated ELT mean?

B.    Theories

The theoretical background of this study was TPACK framework (Mishra and Koehler, 2006) since it has been widely used as a theoretical basis for structuring ICT curriculum in teacher education programs (Angeli and Valanides, 2009; Chai et al., 2011; Cetin- Berber and Erdem, 2015). The theory is also used in the journals [https://dnurfakhomah.blogspot.co.id/2018/03/summary-of-journal-1.html]

C.    Methodology

The  study  was  conducted  in  the  ELT  department  of  a  state university located at the southern part of Turkey, in addition to the primary  and  secondary  schools  located  in  the  same  city.  In selecting the participants, convenience sampling technique was employed, which is a common non-probability sampling technique in L2 research where an important criterion of sample selection is the  convenience  to  and  resources  of  the  researcher  (Dörnyei, 2007). PTs  attending  to  senior  level  in  a  four-year  ELT  program  at Education Faculty (N= 53), English language teacher-candidates enrolled in the Teacher Certificate Program (N= 39), and in-service English language teachers working at primary and secondary schools (N=103) participated voluntarily in the study. ELT program and Certification program were offered by the same department.

Attempting to accurately portray the TPACK of the EFL teachers, this mixed-method study investigated their self-perceived performance on the seven TPACK components with a quantitative instrument (Schmidt et al., 2009), and explored their synthesized TPACK by means of open-ended questions at the end of the survey and class observations conducted both in the ELT department and practicum schools.

TPACK  survey,  a  5-point  Likert  confidence  scale,  included multiple items related to each of the seven types of knowledge represented in the TPACK construct.  The qualitative data from the open-ended items that investigated the respondents‟ perceptions of how the TPACK was modelled by schoolteachers, faculty and participants themselves was analysed through Phenomenological Data Analysis (Moustakas, 1994). The first step is Horizonalization in which every quote relevant to the experience  was  listed.  Then,  for  the  Reduction  and  Elimination step, repeated, overlapping and irrelevant statements to the topic were deleted.

To increase credibility, codes and themes emerged from the data were checked by a colleague. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Miles and Huberman (1994) formula and found to be 0.90.

D.   Finding and Discussion

Findings  of  quantitative  data  analysis  revealed  that except  for  TPACK  subdomain,  in  other  components, there was a significant difference among PTs‟ attending to senior level in ELT program, teacher-candidates enrolled in ELT teacher-certificate program, and in- service ELT teachers‟ self-perceptions of TPACK. More specifically,  in  TK,  TPK,  PK,  and  CK  components teacher-candidates and PTs had significantly higher self- efficacy than in-service teachers.

In TK, TPK, and PK teacher-candidates was not significantly different from PTs. In CK- Literacy, also teacher-candidates had significantly higher self-efficacy than PTs and in-service teachers; however, PTs did not significantly differ from in-service teachers. With respect to PCK and TCK, in-service teachers had significantly higher  self-efficacy  than  PTs  and  teacher-candidates.

However, PTs did not significantly differ from teacher- candidates. Similar to previous studies, in-service teachers‟  self-perception of TK (Wu and Wang, 2015) and TPK (Dong et al 2015) was lower than PTs and teacher-candidates.

Additionally, there was a significant difference in Model Faculty and Model TPACK. In Model Faculty, in-service teachers had significantly higher self-efficacy than PTs and teacher candidates.

However, PTs did not significantly differ from teacher-candidates. On the other hand, in Model TPACK, teacher-candidates and PTs had significantly higher self-efficacy than in-service teachers. Even though in-service teachers‟ participated in training sessions  of  nation-wide technology integration project, FATIH, their self-perceptions of TPACK modelling of instructors was lower than PT  and teacher-candidates who haven‟t received such training. It might be due to the structure of the training program, lecturing, as reported by the participants. Therefore, in-service teachers need to further develop their TPACK, especially through directly engaging them in designing technology-integrated lessons (Kurt et al., 2014; Dong et al., 2015).

Contrary to quantitative results, the qualitative data analysis showed that  the  opposite case is  true. Each individual TPACK assessment has its limitations. For example, self-report surveys may be prone to participants under- or over-reporting (Hofer and Grandgenett, 2012); and therefore, may not provide enough detail to examine TPACK. As a result, it is advised that TPACK should be examined in various ways to be truly useful for program refinement (Koehler and Mishra, 2008; Harris et al, 2010; Abbitt, 2011; Kwangsawad, 2016).

Parallel to this, in this present study, the open-ended questions of the survey and classroom observations showed that  PTs‟  TPACK knowledge and  applications were  more  advanced than  teacher-candidates and  in- service  teachers  contrary  to  the  quantitative  findings.

Although teacher-candidates‟ self-perceived TPACK mean scores were the highest, their statements showed that they considered technology as only TK rather than TPACK as a whole, similar to previous studies (Carbová and Betáková, 2013; Aykaç et al, 2015; Liu and Kleinsasser, 2015). That is, based on quantitative results, teacher candidates appeared to think they were ready to teach and use technology in their classrooms; however, qualitative results indicated the situation was contrary in terms of TPACK they possess, similar to Delen et al. (2015). Instead of writing technology integration episodes, teacher-candidates wrote names      of technological devices and applications they were introduced to  and used, especially related to their majors rather than teaching English. In that, knowing how to use technology and using it for individual purposes all the time does not mean that teachers can integrate technology efficiently into  their  instruction to  improve teaching and  learning (Kessler and Plakans, 2008; O‟Bannon,  2011). Also, in line with existing literature, teachers who improve their technology literacy do not necessarily enhance TPK or TCK unless simultaneously revisiting their PK or CK (Doering et al., 2009; Jang, 2010; Benson and Ward, 2013; Liu and Kleinsasser, 2015).

PTs used more integrated approach of TPACK domains compared to teacher-candidates and in-service teachers. Statements of PTs highlighted a more balanced TPACK in the episodes of not only Faculty members‟, but also their own integration of technology into lessons. PTs‟ descriptions included more to the point objectives of technology integrated teaching (Ersanli, 2016) and observations  of lessons showed a well-presented theoretical development of the participants‟  technology integration skills similar to Kwangsawad (2016) study.

Hence, participants were more enabled to combine CK, PK, and TK. On the other hand, the difference between “knowing‟ and „doing‟ was also demonstrated in PTs. Although PTs were confident about different knowledge domains, their implementations were limited. Similarly to the results of the previous study (So and Kim, 2009), knowing about technology or the content did not produce effective technology use in the given context. Although PTs may have TPACK, TPACK development from interactions among these components was problematic to a certain degree (Marino et al., 2009; Sahin, 2011; Tondeur et al., 2012; Cetin-Berber and Erdem, 2015).

E.    Conclusion

This exploratory study illustrates the TPACK of pre- service English language teachers, teacher candidates attending to ELT certificate program  and  in-service English Language teachers who have been working in primary and secondary public schools. The current paper contributes to the field of teacher education and training of TPACK in three major aspects. This study compares PTs of ELT, teacher- candidates attending to teacher certificate program with ELT focus and in-service teachers of ELT through self-perceived TPACK survey and classroom observations. This study suggests changes in teacher education and teacher-training programs. in-service teachers‟ use of technology was mostly for enhancing rather than transforming teaching and learning process.

Integrating technology into classroom instruction means more than teaching basic computer skills and software programs in a separate computer class.The findings provide discerning evidence that teacher-candidates have perceived self-efficacy    as mainly relevant to their TK rather than TPACK  as  a whole.