Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Facilitating Preservice Teachers' Development of Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Educational Technology & Society, 13 (4), 63–73.

63 ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). © International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at kinshuk@ieee.org.

Facilitating Preservice Teachers' Development of Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Ching Sing Chai*, Joyce Hwee Ling Koh and Chin-Chung Tsai1

Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 1Graduate School of Technological and Vocational Education, National Taiwan University of Science and

Technology, #43, Sec.4, Keelung Rd., Taipei, 106, Taiwan Chingsing.chai@nie.edu.sg // Joyce.koh@nie.edu.sg // cctsai@mail.ntust.edu.tw

*Corresponding author ABSTRACT

Preparing preservice teachers for ICT integration in the classrooms is a key focus for many teacher education institutes. This paper examines the perceived development of preservice teachers in terms of their technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge and the synthesis of such knowledge, i.e., the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). A questionnaire adapted from Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Mishra, Koehler, and Shin (2009) was validated using factor analyses and the preservice teachers’ TPACK perceptions before and after their ICT course were examined. The results reveal statistical significant gains with good effect sizes. Regression analysis further reveals that technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge are all significant predictors of preservice teachers’ TPACK, with pedagogical knowledge having the largest impact. Implications for designing the ICT instruction of preservice teachers are discussed.

Keywords

Preservice teacher education, ICT, TPACK Introduction Since the creation of personal computers and the launch of the internet, many educators and governments have advocated education reforms that take advantage of the affordances of information and communication technologies (ICT) (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2006; Fox & Henri, 2005; Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009; Jonassen, Howland, Marra, & Crismond, 2008; National School Boards Association, 2007). These reform efforts promote constructivist and social constructivist teaching approaches that emphasize students as active constructors of knowledge in collaborative settings. Currently, access to computers both in school and at home have improved tremendously in most developed nations (Greenhow et al., 2009; Lim, Chai, & Churchill, 2010). However, student-centered education supported by ICT is still an exception rather than a norm in classrooms. Many research studies indicate that teachers use computers to support teacher transmission of knowledge (Gao, Choy, Wang, & Wu, 2009; Lim & Chai, 2008; Selwyn, 2008). Given that preservice teacher education has good potential to influence teachers’ future use of ICT (Hammond et al., 2009), it is clear that teacher educators have to constantly design, evaluate and redesign preservice education for effective ICT integration (Goktas, Yildrim & Yildrim, 2009). Strong preservice education on the use of ICT is also important because it can help to counter the possibilities of transmission-oriented school practices in the assimilation of beginning teachers. This paper uses the technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) to examine the effects of a preservice teacher education ICT course. It also derived stepwise regression models to describe variables significant for TPACK formation. Other than contributing an example of TPACK-driven ICT course design, it also contributes to the burgeoning interest in measuring teachers’ TPACK. To date, many studies involving small samples have been conducted using the TPACK framework in the USA. Large scale surveys verifying the TPACK framework has not yet been reported in the literature. Moreover, few studies were conducted to enhance teachers’ TPACK in Asian countries. In the following sections, literature pertaining to preservice teachers’ ICT education and the concept of TPACK are reviewed. After that, the implications of the study results for planning of TPACK generating ICT courses in preservice teacher education are discussed.

64

Literature Review Preservice teachers’ ICT education It is obvious that preservice education plays an important role in shaping teacher use of ICT in the classroom (Gao et al., 2009; Lim et al., 2010). Literature to date has reported that preservice teachers who have acquired higher level of technological skills are more willing to use technology in classroom (Hammond et al., 2009; Paraskeva, Bouta, & Papagianna, 2008). It has also been reported that preservice teachers who received ICT training possess a stronger sense of self-efficacy with respect to computer use (Brown & Warschauer, 2006; Lee, Chai, Teo & Chen, 2008). Despite these positive reports, many gaps exist in the design and implementation of preservice ICT integration course (Haydn & Barton, 2007; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Mishra, Koehler, & Kereluik, 2009). Researchers have lamented that many preservice teachers are not adequately prepared to use ICT in classrooms (Kay, 2006; Swain, 2006). Preparing preservice teachers for ICT integration is a complex job given the fast changing nature of ICT and the multiple sources of knowledge which need to be synthesized. The effectiveness of preservice education for ICT is also influenced by a host of contextual factors such as university instructors’ use of ICT, school readiness, mentor teachers’ attitude etc (Lim et al., 2010). One common problem in preparing preservice teachers for ICT integration is that many preservice teachers do not have enough exposure to pedagogical use of ICT (Brown & Warschauer, 2006; Lim et al., 2010). Many teacher education institutes (TEIs) offer only one technology course for teacher preparation (Hsu & Sharma, 2006), which may focus on ICT skills (Mishra, et al., 2009; Steketee, 2005). However, teaching ICT skills alone does not adequately prepare preservice teachers to integrate ICT (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Mishra, et al., 2009). Such recognition has prompted many preservice ICT courses to be designed as integrated courses where content teaching and/or method courses are part of the curriculum (Angeli & Valanides, 2005; Lisowski, Lisowski, & Nicolia, 2006). Meaningful use of ICT in the classroom requires the teachers to integrate technological affordances with pedagogical approaches for the specific subject matter to be taught (Jonassen et al., 2008; Mishra & Khoeler, 2006). This integrated form of contextualized knowledge has been recently referred to as the TPACK (Mishra & Khoeler, 2006; Thompson & Mishra, 2007) or other similar notion such as ICT related TPACK (Angeli & Valanides, 2005; 2009). Mishra and Khoeler (2006) argue that many studies examining preservice teachers’ development of ICT skills lack a clearly articulated theoretical framework. Building on the notion of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK, Shulman, 1986), Mishra and Khoeler developed TPACK as a possible theoretical framework to strengthen the study of teachers’ use of ICT for education. The nature of TPACK Mishra and Koehler (2006) posited that TPACK was derived from three key knowledge sources i.e. technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK) and content knowledge (CK). There are two viewpoints about TPACK’s epistemological nature. Gess-Newsome (1999) described the transformative viewpoint as one where TPACK was a synthesis of TK, PK and CK such that the influences of each cannot be extricated. On the other extreme was the integrative viewpoint where TPACK did not exist as a unique body of knowledge; but was a simple combination of TK, PK, and CK that came about during teaching. There is preliminary support for the transformative viewpoint where TPACK exists as a unique body of knowledge (Angeli & Valanides, 2009). Many qualitative studies have also shown TPACK to be developed through design projects (e.g. Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2005), microteaching activities (e.g. Cavin, 2008), and participation in communities of practice (e.g. Rodrigues, Marks, & Steel, 2003). Modeling teachers’ TPACK formation In recent years, the TPACK framework has been used to re-design teacher preparation programs and teacher development workshops (see Niess, 2005; Niess, 2007; Niess, Suharwoto, Lee, & Sadri, 2006; Shoffner, 2007; Burns, 2007). Special emphasis has been given to incorporating ICT design projects as avenues to help teachers develop connections between TK, PK, and CK (e.g. Niess, 2005; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Qualitative descriptions

65

of student learning behaviours (e.g. Niess et al., 2006) lend considerable insight about their TPACK development in specific programme contexts. However, fewer studies have measured the extent of teachers’ TPACK development through pre-post course evaluations; or examined the relative importance of TK, PK, and CK to teachers’ overall TPACK development. One impediment to robust examination of TPACK through pre-post course evaluations is that numerous TPACK surveys are currently in their early stages of development such as instrument validation. Existing TPACK surveys have generally been examined for internal reliability (e.g. Schmidt et al., 2009; Lee & Tsai, 2010). But, construct validation of several surveys are still in progress (e.g. Archambault & Crippen, 2009; Schmidt et al., 2009), which could be a factor limiting their use for pre-post course evaluation. One of the few studies implemented found significant improvement of teachers’ TPACK after undergoing a professional development programme (Graham et al., 2009). However, the study was limited to a pilot group of 15 teachers. With the increasing use of TPACK to undergird ICT programme development, it is necessary to understand the relationship between TPACK, TK, PK, and CK. Yet, there is a dearth of such studies as much of extant research has been centered on the relevance of technology skills instruction. While some schools of education have proposed that computer skills training be removed from teacher education programs (e.g. Brinkerhoff, Ku, Glazewski, & Brush, 2001), Wang and Chen (2006) argued that some level of proficiency in technological skills was needed for teachers to integrate technology effectively. On the other hand, many studies have also found that teachers with high levels of confidence in their computer skills tend to use more technology in the classroom (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon & Byers, 2002; Littrell, Zagumny & Zagumny, 2005). A high level of TK may be important for developing TPACK. But, the relative influences of PK and CK have not been studied. The relative contribution of TK, PK, and CK to teachers’ TPACK development can be statistically modelled and predicted with techniques such as multiple regression. The derivation of these statistical models can inform the design and evaluation of ICT programs. Nevertheless, the small sample size in existing TPACK survey studies (e.g. Schmidt et al., 2009; Graham et al., 2009) has limited the application of inferential statistics to the data. Therefore, these relationships have not yet been thoroughly examined. In addition, studies of TPACK surveys have generally been reported for US teachers (e.g. Schmidt et al., 2009; Archambault & Crippen, 2009; Graham et al., 2009). The effectiveness of TPACK-driven ICT programmes have not yet been widely reported in an Asian context. Objectives of study This study therefore aims to address the gaps by: 1. Examining the effectiveness of an ICT programme designed to enhance Singapore preservice teachers’ TPACK 2. Predict how TK, PK, and CK contribute to Singapore teachers’ TPACK with stepwise regression Method The TPACK framework and the ICT for Meaningful Learning course Using the postulations of the TPACK framework, a course entitled “ICT for Meaningful Learning” was designed to prepare Singapore preservice teachers for technology integration. The course comprises of 12 two-hour sessions, and its components provided preservice teachers with three TPACK knowledge sources: PK. The first five sessions were targeted at building their theoretical understanding of pedagogical approaches involved in “meaningful learning with ICT” (see Jonassen et al., 2008). These sessions engaged the preservice teachers in experiential learning of various student-centered pedagogical approaches with ICT. For example, they take on collaborative research to understand different pedagogical approaches, which include problem-based learning, project-based learning and inquiry-based learning, and undertake reciprocal teaching for their peers. They also learned about classroom management of ICT lessons through case-based instruction and e-learning.

66

TK. The six other sessions were designed to develop their TK with respect to different technology tools. These were organized as “technology enhanced lessons” (TELs). In each TEL, they learn about a technology tool; its affordances and limitation; and its pedagogical uses (example WIKI, Spreadsheet, modelling). The preservice teachers are organized into tutorial groups by their teaching subjects. Each tutorial group chose two to three TELs most relevant to their teaching subject through joint negotiation with their instructor. Each TEL provided preservice teachers with resources for skill-based practice, and scaffolded them with design activities to generate lesson ideas applicable to the students they expected to teach. For example, in the TEL of concept mapping, Cmap was introduced as one possible technological tool (for details, see http://cmap.ihmc.us/). The preservice teachers are required to explore Cmap by building a concept map of a personally relevant topic of their choice. They then discuss the affordances and limitations of Cmap and brainstorm some lesson ideas on how the tool can be used meaningfully for students’ learning.

TPACK. These lesson ideas, if they are selected by the preservice teachers, were then further developed consolidated into a technology-integrated lesson unit, which constituted their Final Project. This project required them to design a technology-integrated lesson unit for a specific grade-level of students such that it fulfilled the instructional objectives specified in the national educational curriculum. The deliverables for this project were the lesson plan, accompanying teaching materials, and a write-up justifying how the selected technologies and pedagogical approaches supported the instruction of that lesson unit. This project was presented to the class during Week 12, and evaluated with rubrics that measured their application of TK, PK, CK and TPACK. Some examples of the final projects are available online (http://155.69.84.21/wbaml/displaySearchResultg.php).

CK. Content Knowledge was not specifically taught in this ICT course as the preservice teachers for this study have been recruited for the teaching of secondary school students based on their undergraduate subject major, and can be considered as subject matter experts.

Instrument Development

Evaluation of how this course developed the TPACK of Singapore preservice teachers was conducted through a survey of the pre-study and post-study TPACK perceptions. Several survey instruments were reviewed (e.g. Archambault & Crippen, 2009; Graham et al., 2009; Lee & Tsai, 2010; Schmidt et al., 2009). The survey instrument developed by Schmidt et al (2009) was selected as it could be adapted to analyze the CK of Singapore teachers with respect to the variation of their teaching subjects. This survey was developed through content validation by experts in the USA, and was pilot-tested with 124 preservice teachers. High Cronbach alphas of 0.80 were obtained for each TPACK constructs, indicating good internal reliability. In comparison, other instruments were subject-specific (e.g. Graham et al., 2009), and required more substantial modification.

The TPACK survey designed by Schmidt et al. (2009) was therefore used with the following adaptations. Firstly, the 5-point Likert scale was changed to a 7-point scale to increase the reliability of measurement, as recommended by Thorndike (2005). Secondly, CK questions in the original scale that assessed CK for the curriculum areas of Mathematics, Social Studies, Science, and Literacy were changed to incorporate the teaching subjects of Singapore preservice teachers. Singapore preservice teachers recruited to teach secondary schools are assigned to teach two related subjects based on their undergraduate majors, i.e. curriculum study 1(CS1) and curriculum study 2 (CS2). Therefore, a question such as “I know how to select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning mathematics”, was changed to “I know how to select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in my Curriculum Subject 1”. Thirdly, only items for the categories of TK, PK, CK and TPACK are chosen; the items for TPK, TCK, and PCK were left out as these were not part of the course design.

The final instrument therefore comprised 18 questions that were measured on a 7-point Likert scale where: (1) Strongly disagree (2) Disagree (3) Slightly Disagree (4) Neither Agree Nor Disagree (5) Slightly Agree (6) Agree (7) Strongly Agree.

Sampling and study procedure

The cohort of 889 preservice teachers entering the Postgraduate Diploma in Education (Secondary) programme at a Singapore teacher education institution during the August 2009 semester was selected for this study. These teachers were learning to teach secondary school students and they entered the institute with a basic degree in their teaching

67

subject. There was a variation of subject majors in this cohort which included Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Literature, English, Chinese Language and Computer Applications.

These preservice teachers were invited to participate in course evaluations via an e-mail that explicated the purpose of this study. This e-mail also included a link to a web-based version of this survey. The pre-course survey and post-course survey were administered during the first and last weeks of semester respectively. Participation was voluntary. The response rates to the surveys were: Pre-course (n=439, 49.3%), post-course (n=365, 41%).

The mean age of respondents were: Pre-course (M=26.77, SD=5.27), Post-course (M=27.08, SD=5.45). There were slightly more female respondents in both the pre and post course survey: Pre-course (Male: 208, 45.6%; Female: 248, 54.4%), Post-course (Male: 173, 48.6%; Female: 192, 51.4%). In respect of respondent privacy, identifiers were not collected. However, chi-square analysis found no significant association between gender by response to pre-and post-course survey. T-tests also found no significant differences between pre-and post-course survey respondents by age. Therefore, the respondents of the pre-course and post-course survey can be considered as being demographically similar.

Data Analyses

Instrument validation. Both surveys had high Cronbach alphas, indicating adequate internal reliability: Pre-course (α=.93), post-course (α=.95). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was then performed on both sets of data, generally following the procedures recommended by Costello and Osborne (2005). Table 1 below reports the outcome of EFA. The EFA yielded four factors in both cases, each with high Cronbach alphas: Pre-course (TK=0.85, PK=0.91, CK=0.99, TPACK=0.96), Post-course (TK=0.85, PK=0.93, CK=0.89, TPACK=0.94). The 18 items were further analyzed via confirmatory factor analysis using Amos 18.0. This four-factor model reveals satisfactory model-fit for both the pre-course survey (χ2 = 339.47, χ2/df = 2.69, GFI = .920, IFI = .968, TLI = .961, CFI = .968, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = .043) and post-course survey (χ2 = 346.11, χ2/df = 2.75, GFI = .902, IFI = .964, TLI = .956, CFI = .964, RMSEA = .069, SRMR = .047).

Table 1. Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis

Items Factor

1 2 3 4 TPACK1- I can teach lessons that appropriately combine my CS2, technologies and teachingapproaches.

.951

TPACK2- I can teach lessons that appropriately combine my CS1, technologies and teachingapproaches.

.961

TPACK3- I can use strategies that combine content, technologies and teaching approaches that Ilearned about in my coursework in my classroom.

.917

TPACK4- I can select technologies to use in my classroom that enhance what I teach, how I teachand what students learn.

.887

TPACK5- I can provide leadership in helping others to coordinate the use of content, technologiesand teaching approaches at my school.

.809

TK1- I know how to solve my own technical problems. .927 TK2- I can learn technology easily. .860 TK3- I have the technical skills I need to use technology .845 TK4- I am able to use website Editors to create and/or modify web pages. .695 CK 1- I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of my CS2. .908 CK 2- I can think about the subject matter like an expert who specialize in my CS2. .834 CK3- I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of my CS1. .769 CK4- I have sufficient knowledge about my CS 1. .749 PK1- I can adapt my teaching style to different learners .903PK2- I can adapt my teaching based upon what students currently understand or do not understand. .860PK3- I can use a wide range of teaching approaches in a classroom setting (collaborative learning,direct instruction, inquiry learning, problem/project based learning etc.).

.765

PK4- I know how to assess student performance in a classroom. .734PK5- I know how to organize and maintain classroom management. .641

68

Data Analysis. Research question 1 was analyzed using t-tests to determine if there were significant differences between preservice teachers’ TPACK perceptions before and after the course. Cohen’s d was also used to compute effect sizes to assess the practical significance of results. Research question 2 was answered by first studying the correlations between TPACK, TK, PK, and CK. Regression models were built withthe dependent variable as the preservice teachers’ TPACK and the three independent variables as TK, PK, and CK. This was conducted to assess the relative contributions of ICT course components. Two regression models were built using stepwise methods, one for the pre-course survey, and the other for the post-course survey. Results Research question 1 – Preservice teachers’ TPACK development from ICT course Before the ICT course, the preservice teachers’ rated themselves as slightly above average in terms of TK, CK, PK, and TPACK (See Table 2). T-tests found significant gains in each category after the ICT course (t = 8.90, 9.21, 8.62, 9.83 for TK, CK, PK and TPACK respectively, all p<.001). Moderately large effect sizes of at least 0.60 (Cohen, 1969) was derived for all categories.

Table 2. Descriptive Data and Results of Independent Samples t Test

Factors

Pre-test (N=439)

Post-Test (N=365)

t d

M SD M SD TK 4.39 1.09 5.05 1.01 8.90 *** 0.63 CK 4.87 1.04 5.48 0.82 9.21 *** 0.65 PK 4.95 0.90 5.47 0.79 8.62 *** 0.61 TPACK 4.91 1.01 5.54 0.81 9.83 *** 0.69 *** p < .001 The results suggest that the designed course support preservice teachers’ development of TK, PK, CK and TPACK. The approach of teaching about specific technology tools through skill-based practice in each TEL was effective for enhancing their TK. Interestingly, a moderately large effect size of 0.65 was obtained for CK even though this was not specifically taught in the ICT course. The largest effect size of 0.69 was obtained for TPACK, indicating that the course activities had a considerable effect in helping to enhance the preservice teachers’ expertise for technology integration. Research Question 2 – Predicting the contribution of TK, PK, and CK to TPACK TPACK was significantly and positively correlated with TK, PK, and CK for both the pre-course and post-course survey (See Table 3). Only PK was strongly correlated with TPACK in the pre-course survey (r = 0.70, p<.01) as it was above the 0.60 guideline suggested by Fraenkel and Wallen (2003). In the post-course survey, all three variables showed strong correlations with TPACK (r = 0.61, 0.82 and 0.69 for TK, PK and CK respectively, all p<.01). However, the correlation between TPACK and PK remained the strongest in both surveys.

Table 3. Correlation between TPACK constructs TK PK CK

Pre-course survey (N=439) TPACK 0.41** 0.70** 0.56**

Post-course survey (N=365) TPACK 0.61** 0.82** 0.69** ** p<0.01 Stepwise regression analysis found both the pre-course and post-course models to be statistically significant. R2 values indicated that the independent variables (i.e. TK, PK, and CK) explained only of the variance for TPACK

69

54% in the pre-course model (See Table 4). This improved to 74% in the post-course model (See Table 5). These results indicate that the connections between TK, PK, CK and TPACK were very much strengthened after preservice teachers attended the ICT course.

Table 4. Stepwise regression models (Pre-course survey) Model Predictors B Std. Error Beta Significance R2

1 (Constant) 1.05 0.19 ** 0.49 PK 0.78 0.04 0.70 ** 2 (Constant) .58 0.20 ** 0.53 PK .71 0.04 0.64 ** TK .19 0.03 0.20 ** 3 (Constant) .43 0.20 * 0.54 PK .61 0.05 0.55 ** TK .16 0.03 0.18 ** CK .15 0.04 0.15 **

*p<0.05 **p<0.01

Table 5. Stepwise regression models (Post-course survey) Model Predictors B Std. Error Beta Significance R2

1 (Constant) 0.99 0.17 ** 0.67 PK 0.83 0.03 0.82 ** 2 (Constant) 0.63 0.16 ** 0.73 PK 0.69 0.03 0.68 ** TK 0.22 0.03 0.28 ** 3 (Constant) 0.43 .163 ** 0.74 PK 0.60 0.04 0.59 ** TK 0.20 0.03 0.25 ** CK 0.15 0.04 0.16 **

**p<0.01 Tables 4 and 5 show that TK, PK, and CK were all significant predictors of preservice teachers’ TPACK. However, they each had different impact on TPACK. Of the three components, PK was most influential as it accounted for more than half the variance in both the pre-course and post-course model. The percentage of variance explained by PK and TK increased in the post-course model. But, the percentage of variance explained by CK remained fairly consistent. Discussion Characteristics of ICT courses that develop TPACK This study analyzed preservice teachers’ TPACK perceptions before and after attending an ICT course designed according to the components of the TPACK framework. The pre and post course surveys found significant differences between preservice teachers’ TK, PK, CK, and TPACK with moderately large effect sizes. These results are in general agreement with previous research that ICT courses can enhance the teachers’ perception of their competencies in using ICT for teaching and learning (Brown & Warschauer, 2006; Lee et al., 2008; Paraskeva et al., 2008). In addition, these results showed that ICT courses with components that directly instructed the use of technological tools through the TEL approach; and provided preservice teachers with experiential learning of pedagogical approaches were effective for raising their TK and PK respectively. Although CK was not specifically taught in the course, preservice teachers were challenged to make references to the content of their teaching subject through brainstorming lesson ideas in the TELs and their Final Project. Preservice teachers were also attending methods courses concurrently with their ICT course. They may have been challenged to re-process their teaching content to make it more accessible to their students through these multiple avenues, which in turn enhanced their perceptions of content mastery. The largest effect size from t-tests of pre-post course surveys

70

was obtained for TPACK. These results showed that multiple opportunities to develop, reflect, and refine their design ideas through TELs and their Final Project was effective for honing their perceptions of technology integration mastery. This concurred with extant research findings that design projects and reflection was effective for developing TPACK (e.g. Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007). Relative impact of TK, PK, and CK on TPACK Stepwise regression models of the pre and post course survey results found PK to have the largest impact on preservice teachers’ TPACK. This could be because technology integration was a type of pedagogical practice. Niess et al. (2006) found that inexperienced teachers who were weaker in pedagogical skills were less able to connect content, pedagogy, and technology. Pierson (2001) also found that teachers with low levels of PK were not able to make the pedagogy-technology linkage even if they had high TK. Therefore, increasing PK is foundational for developing TPACK. As preservice teachers develop a basic level of PK, they establish a strong knowledge base from which effective technology integration ideas can flourish. The percentage of variance explained by CK was relatively stable in both the pre and post course survey. These results show CK to be a source of foundational knowledge that the preservice teachers draw upon to develop TPACK. While it had a significant impact on TPACK, its relative importance amongst the other factors did not increase as it was not specifically covered in the course. Interestingly, the percentage of variance explained by TK increased in the post-course regression model. This could imply that preservice teachers started to make tighter connections between their technological skills and technology integration practice after attending the ICT course. Pierson (2001) found that experienced teachers with high levels of PK only started to make the pedagogy-technology linkage if they attained a reasonable comfort level with using a technological tool. Therefore, as shown by the regression model, enhancement of TK needs to occur in tandem with raising PK. Analysis of the post-course regression model also showed the contribution of TK becoming more important as preservice teachers make stronger connections between TK, PK, CK, and TPACK. The focus on technological skills can become increasingly important when teachers gain a certain comfort level with their pedagogical skills; which has implications on the professional development of in-service teachers. Future development of the ICT course Although the t-tests provided positive gains in TPACK from the ICT course, there is still a need to examine how it can further raise the preservice teachers TPACK. This is because failure to raise the teachers’ competence during preservice education may result in the preservice teachers quickly forsaking the use of ICT in practice (Gao et al., 2009; Hammond et al., 2009). The regression results of this study indicated that a plausible model for ICT courses should give priority to developing a strong pedagogical foundation before instruction in technological tools. That is, the prerequisite for enhancing TAPCK is the acquisition of solid pedagogical knowledge. The course should also cater for continual engagement in design activities which facilitate preservice teachers to make connections between their CK, PK, and TK (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Model for developing preservice teachers’ TPACK through ICT courses

71

The current design of our ICT course did not incorporate fine distinctions between TPACK and three other knowledge types in the TPACK framework proposed by Mishra and Koehler (2006), i.e., Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), TCK (Technological Content Knowledge), and TPK (Technological Pedagogical Knowledge). It is recognized that some form of PCK, TCK, and TPK could have emerged as preservice teachers engaged in pedagogical instruction, technology skills instruction through TELs and when they worked on their Final Project. Going beyond this initial exploration, future iterations of this course need to consider if the existing course components adequately developed TCK, TPK, and PCK. A conceptual analysis by Cox and Graham (2009) found it difficult to pinpoint TCK, TPK, and PCK in practice. Teachers usually work with concrete instructional objectives for the topics they are teaching. Decisions for technology use, content representation, and pedagogical approach tend to be considered concurrently. Understanding the relationships between TCK, TPK, PCK, and TPACK can help teacher educators assess the practical significance of these theoretical differences, especially if existing course components need to be further broken down to expound these different types of competencies. Or, some integrative efforts can be made for enhancing TPACK. The exploratory factor analysis results of this study indicate that a four-component TPACK model (i.e. TK, PK, CK, and TPACK) was statistically robust. A factor analysis by Lee and Tsai (2010) also showed that relatively inexperienced teachers could not distinguish between the constructs of PK and PCK. Preservice teachers may see using ICT for classroom teaching as an act of integrating TK, PK and CK to form TPACK for a particular lesson. In-service teachers with more pedagogical experience may better benefit from professional development making fine-grained differences between constructs such as TPACK, TCK, and TPK, which could possibly hone their technology integration expertise. This is an area that needs to be further studied through longitudinal studies of how preservice teachers’ technology integration expertise develops as they become full-fledged teachers. Research on the illuminative evaluation of process and the development of TPACK in longitudinal studies is necessary, and the initiation of collaborative discussion between teachers and researchers would be useful research lines. Hewitt (2008) commented on the lack of critical discourse among the researchers who have contributed to the Handbook of TPACK (AACTE, 2008). As of now, teacher educators may still need to debate about what constitutes a good ICT program and to develop instruments that can provide reliable and valid prediction of the preservice teachers’ TPACK (Lim et al., 2010). A better understanding of the relationships between TPACK constructs can inform the design of ICT programs for both preservice and in-service teachers. References AACTE (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. New York: Routledge.

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

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.

Archambault, L., & 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. Retrieved on 1st July 2010 from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article2.cfm

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the Knowledge Age. In P. A. Alexander, and P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (2nd ed.). (pp. 695-713). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brinkerhoff, J., Ku, H. Y., Glazewski, K., & Brush, T. (2001). An assessment of technology skills and classroom technology integration experience in preservice and practicing teachers. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 2, 1866-1871.

Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom: Students' experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 599-621.

Burns, K. (2007). Technology, content and pedagogy: United in pre-service teacher instruction. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 18(4), 2177.

72

Cavin, R. (2008). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teachers through microteaching lesson study. Technology and Teacher Education Annual. 19(8), 5214.

Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practice in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.

Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPCK in Practice: Using and elaborated model of the TPCK framework to analye and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60-69.

Fox, R., & Henri, J. (2005). Understanding Teacher Mindsets: IT and Change in Hong Kong Schools. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (2), 161-169.

Fraenkel, J.R., & Wallen, N.E (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Gao, P., Choy, D., Wong, A. F. L., & Wu, J. (2009). Developing a better understanding of technology-based pedagogy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 714-730.

Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N.G. (eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 3-17). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Goktas, Y., Yildirim, S. & Yildirim, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible enablers of ICT integration into preservice teacher education programs. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 193-204.

Graham, R. C., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). Measuring the TPCK confidence of inservice Science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70-79.

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researchers, 38(4), 246-259.

Hammond, M., Fragkouli, E., Suandi, I., Crosson, S., Ingram, J., Johnston-Wilder. P., Johnston-Wilder, S.,

Kingston, Y., Pope, M., & Wray, D. (2009). What happens as student teachers who made very good use of ICT during pre-service training enter their first year of teaching? Teacher Development, 13(2), 93-106.

Haydn, T. A., & Barton, R. (2007). Common needs and different agendas: How trainee make progress in their ability to use ICT in subject teaching. Some lessons from the UK. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1018–1036.

Hewitt, J. (2008). Reviewing the Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 8(4), 355-360.

Hsu, P.-S., & Sharma, P. (2006). A systemic plan of technology integration. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (4), 173-184.

Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 383-408.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94-102.

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.

Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.

Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., Teo, T., & Chen, D. (2008). Preparing pre-service teachers’ for the integration of ICT based student-centred learning (SCL) curriculum. Journal of Education, 13, 15-28.

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.

Littrell, A. B., Zagumny, M. J., & Zagumny, L. L. (2005). Contextual and psychological predictors of instructional technology use in rural classrooms. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(2), 37-47.

Lisowski, L., Lisowski, J. A., & Nicolia, S. (2006). Infusing technology into teacher education: Doing more with less. Computers in the schools, 23(3), 71-92.

73

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.

Lim, C. P., Chai, C. S., & Churchill, D. (2010). Leading ICT in education practices: A capacity building toolkit for teacher education institutions in the Asia-Pacific. Singapore: Microsoft.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking back to the future of educational technology. Techtrends, 53(5), 48-53.

National School Boards Association. (August, 2007). Creating & connecting: Research and guidelines on online social – and educational – networking. Retrieved on 18th Feb 2010 from http://files.nsba.org/creatingandconnecting.pdf

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.

Niess, M. L. (2007). Developing Teacher's TPCK for Teaching Mathematics With Spreadsheets. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 18(4), 2238-2245.

Niess, M. L., Suharwoto, G., Lee, K., & Sadri, P. (2006). Guiding inservice mathematics teachers in developing TPCK. Paper presentation for the American Education Research Association Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Paraskeva, F., Bouta, H., & Papagianna, A. (2008). Individual characteristics and computer self-efficacy in secondary education teachers to integrate technology in educational practice. Computers & Education, 50(3), 1084-1091.

Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413-430.

Rodrigues, S., Marks, A., & Steel, P. (2003). Developing science and ICT pedagogical content knowledge: a model of continuing professional development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(4), 386-394.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 27.

Selwyn, N. (2008). From state-of-the-art to state-of-the-actual? Introduction to a special issue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(2), 83-87.

Shoffner, M. (2007). The PT3 crossroads project: Searching for technology-PCK and results. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Chesapeake, VA.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Steketee, C. (2005). Integrating ICT as an integral teaching and learning tool into pre-service teacher training courses. Issues in Educational Research, 15. Retrieved on 26th March 2008 from http://www.iier.org.au/iier15/steketee.html

Swain, C. (2006). Preservice teachers’ self-assessment using technology: Determining what is worthwhile and looking for changes in daily teaching and learning practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 29-59.

Thompson, A., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking News: TPCK Becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38-64.

Thorndike, R. M. (2005). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Wang, Y. M., & Chen, V. D. T. (2006). Untangling the confounding perceptions regarding the stand alone IT course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(2), 133-150.

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.