demographic factors, tpack constructs, and teachers ... · teachers’ perceptions of...

12

Click here to load reader

Upload: trinhtuong

Post on 21-Jan-2019

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Demographic Factors, TPACK Constructs, and Teachers ... · teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2010) found strong correlations between the

Koh, J. H. L., Chai1, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Demographic Factors, TPACK Constructs, and Teachers’ Perceptions of Constructivist-Oriented TPACK. Educational Technology & Society, 17 (1), 185–196.

Demographic Factors, TPACK Constructs, and Teachers’ Perceptions of Constructivist-Oriented TPACK

Joyce Hwee Ling Koh1*, Ching Sing Chai1 and Ching-Chung Tsai2

1Learning Sciences and Technologies Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore // 2Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of

Science and Technology, Taiwan // [email protected] // [email protected] // [email protected] *Corresponding author

(Submitted August 7, 2012; Revised March 12, 2013; Accepted April 03, 2013) ABSTRACT

Teachers’ knowledge for implementing constructivist instruction with technology is termed as their constructivist-oriented technological pedagogical content knowledge. There are currently no available surveys for understanding teachers’ perceptions in this aspect. Therefore, teachers’ perceived knowledge gaps in terms of constructivist-oriented technology integration are not well understood. Using the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Meaningful Learning Survey, this study examines the constructivist-oriented technological pedagogical content knowledge perceptions of 354 practicing teachers. The survey was first validated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Regression analysis found that teachers’ perceptions of technological pedagogical knowledge, technological content knowledge, and technological knowledge had the largest positive relationships with their constructivist-oriented technological pedagogical content knowledge. It was not related to teachers’ age and gender but primary school teachers and those with more teaching experience tend to be less confident of their constructivist-oriented technological pedagogical content knowledge. These results show that when teachers develop intermediate forms of technological pedagogical content knowledge, it contributes to their confidence for constructivist-oriented technology integration. The specific challenges faced by experienced teachers and primary school teachers need to be better understood and considered when designing teacher technology professional development.

Keywords

Constructivism, Educational technology, Teacher education, Technological pedagogical content knowledge

Introduction UNESCO’s ICT competency standards for teachers (UNESCO, 2008) emphasize that teachers need knowledge to use ICT for supporting constructivist learning which involves knowledge construction and problem-solving activities within authentic contexts (Airasian & Walsh, 1997; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). This can be understood as a kind of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), which is a term used by Mishra and Koehler (2006) to describe teachers’ knowledge about information and communciations technology (ICT) integration. Empirical studies show that practicing teachers do not fully exploit the affordances of ICT tools for constructivist teaching (Lim & Chai, 2008; Starkey, 2010; Webb & Cox, 2004); indicating that constructivist-oriented TPACK could be an area of particular challenge for them. Teachers’ efficacy perceptions had significant positive influence on their adoption of ICT (Wozney, Venkatesh, & Abrami, 2006). Insights for teacher professional development in ICT can be derived through a better understanding of their constructivist-oriented TPACK perceptions and the factors that can influence it. Nevertheless, their perceived knowledge gaps in this area are not well understood as published studies have only examined teachers’ TPACK perceptions with respect to science education, e-learning facilitation, social studies, and mathematics (e.g., Archambault & Barnett, 2010; Graham et al., 2009; Lee & Tsai, 2010; Schmidt et al., 2009). While some studies show that teachers’ TPACK perceptions were affected by their age, technological knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge (Koh, Chai, & Tsai, 2010; Lee & Tsai, 2010; Pierson, 2001), the relationship between these factors and teachers’ constructivist-oriented TPACK perceptions have yet to be examined. This study describes the constructivist-oriented TPACK perceptions of 354 practicing teachers in Singapore as assessed through the TPACK for Meaningful Learning Survey. Using regression analysis, it examines if demographic variables such as gender, age, teaching experience and teaching level impact practicing teachers’ constructivist-oriented TPACK. The regression model also juxtaposes the influence of demographic variables against the influences of the TPACK constructs of technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge,

185 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 [email protected].

Page 2: Demographic Factors, TPACK Constructs, and Teachers ... · teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2010) found strong correlations between the

pedagogical content knowledge, technological pedagogical knowledge, and technological content knowledge. The implications for teacher professional development in constructivist-oriented ICT integration will be discussed. Theoretical background Constructivism, supported by ICT Jean Piaget first suggested the term “constructivism” when he observed that children learned by formulating ways to cope with and master their environment (Driscoll, 2000). Constructivism conveyed the notion that reality is in the mind of the learner (Jonassen, 1991) where learning involved meaning construction as learners perceived and interpreted their experiences. Proponents of the social-cultural dimension of constructivism purport that learning occurred as learners interacted with the people and tools of the environment, and deepened their enculturation with the practices of the community (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Pedagogical approaches such as problem-based learning and inquiry-based learning were developed from these conceptions of constructivism. ICT-supported constructivist learning was first described in Hannafin, Land and Oliver’s (1999) Open Learning Environments which used ICT tools to support information manipulation, problem visualization, and metacognition as students worked with authentic problem contexts. Educational researchers indicated a good interplay between the usage of ICT and the instructional practice of constructivism (Mikropoulos & Natsis, 2011; Tsai, 2001, 2004). The principles underlying ICT-supported constructivist learning were carefully developed by Jonassen, Howland, Marra, and Crismond (2008). Their dimensions of Meaningful Learning stated that constructivist learning with ICT was firstly active, with students manipulating objects in the learning environment and observing its results. Secondly, it was constructive, with teachers engaging students to reflect and articulate their personal understanding of their observations. Thirdly, it involved students in authentic tasks that were based on real-world problems. Next, students were intentional about their own learning as they set their learning goals and plan their problem-solving processes. Finally, it was described as a social process that involved collaborative problem-solving within a classroom community. It was proposed that ICT tools supported these five dimensions as “engagers and facilitators of thinking” (Jonassen, et al., 2008, p. 7). These five dimensions can therefore be used to understand teachers’ constructivist-oriented TPACK. Constructivist-oriented TPACK in existing TPACK surveys Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) seven-construct TPACK framework has been used as a theoretical basis for developing surveys to understand teachers’ TPACK perceptions. It comprises of three basic knowledge sources and four others derived from the interaction among these three basic sources. Their definitions are as follows: 1. Technological Knowledge (TK) – knowledge of technology tools. 2. Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) – knowledge of teaching methods. 3. Content Knowledge (CK) – knowledge of subject matter. 4. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) – knowledge of using technology to implement teaching methods. 5. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) – knowledge of subject matter representation with technology. 6. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) – knowledge of teaching methods with respect to subject matter content. 7. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) - knowledge of using technology to implement

constructivist teaching methods for different types of subject matter content.

Some aspects of constructivist-oriented TPACK have been addressed in existing TPACK surveys. In Schmidt et al’s (2009) Survey of Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Technology, constructivist approaches were incorporated as a general question on teaching pedagogies, i.e., “I know when it is appropriate to use a variety of teaching approaches in a classroom setting (collaborative learning, direct instruction, inquiry learning, problem/project-based learning, etc.)”. Graham et al.’s (2009) TPACK in Science survey addressed the active and constructive dimensions of Meaningful Learning through items related to the use of ICT to visualize abstract concepts, e.g., “Help students use digital technologies that allow them to create and/or manipulate models of scientific phenomenon.” Archambault and Crippen’s (2009) survey of teachers’ TPACK for e-learning facilitation also contained items for these two dimensions, e.g., “My ability to create an online environment which allows students to build new knowledge and skills.”; and also the dimension of collaboration, e.g., “My ability to encourage

186

Page 3: Demographic Factors, TPACK Constructs, and Teachers ... · teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2010) found strong correlations between the

online interactivity among students.” These three published TPACK surveys do not address the dimensions of authentic tasks and intentionality. On the other hand, Lee and Tsai’s (2010) survey assessed teachers’ self-efficacy for integrating web-based resources and did not examine specific pedagogies. Chai, Koh, Tsai, and Tan (2011) first designed constructivist-oriented TPACK items by replacing the PK items in Schmidt et al.’s survey with Pedagogical Knowledge for Meaningful Learning (PKML) items constructed with respect to the five dimensions described by Jonassen et al. (2008). For example, the dimension of constructive learning was operationalized as, “I am able to help my students to reflect on their learning strategies.” Its items for TK, CK, PKML, TPK, and TPACK were validated with exploratory factor analysis when administered on 834 Singapore pre-service teachers. The cross-loadings of the TCK and PCK items were attributed to the common reference to content knowledge. A stem, “Without using technology…” was subsequently incorporated into the PCK items so that the applications of content knowledge within and outside a technological context could be better differentiated. Constructivist-oriented pedagogies were also incorporated into the TPK items. An item for the Constructive dimension was stated as, “I am able to facilitate my students to use technology to construct different forms of knowledge representation.” Following these revisions, the survey was again administered on 214 Singapore pre-service teachers (Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2011) and 455 practicing teachers (Koh, Chai, & Tsai, 2012). The seven TPACK constructs were further validated with adequate model fit. The validation of these survey items paved the way for statistical modeling to examine the factors affecting teachers’ constructivist-oriented TPACK. Factors affecting practicing teachers’ constructivist-oriented TPACK Firstly, the inter-relationships among TPACK constructs could impact or were found to be related to practicing teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2010) found strong correlations between the TK, PK, CK and TPACK perceptions of Singapore pre-service teachers’ when a general TPACK survey was administered. Similar patterns were observed with respect to teachers’ constructivist-oriented TPACK because Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2011) found that among TPACK constructs, C-PK and C-TPK had the strongest effects on TPACK. These studies have been conducted with pre-service teachers. Practicing teachers, by virtue of their teaching experience, may manifest different types of perceptions which need to be further studied. Demographic factors, especially age, teaching experience, and gender, may also be related to practicing teachers’ constructivist-oriented TPACK. Case studies of practicing teachers found some relationship between their age and confidence for implementing student-centered ICT-integrated activities (Pierson, 2001). Experienced teachers were also less confident about their TPACK for integrating web-based learning (Lee & Tsai, 2010). Gender has traditionally influenced teachers’ attitudes towards computer use where male teachers tend to be more confident (Teo, 2008). This corresponded with Koh et al. (2010) who found that male pre-service teachers in Singapore perceived higher levels of TK, CK, and Knowledge of Teaching with Technology. Similar gender patterns may apply to practicing teachers. In Singapore, secondary school teachers are recruited to teach the content specialization of their undergraduate major whereas primary school teachers are generalists. This may result in different TPACK perceptions by teaching level which has yet to be examined. Research questions Given the above review, a better understanding of practicing teachers’ constructivist-oriented TPACK perceptions is needed. This will be addressed through two research questions: 1. What are Singapore practicing teachers’ constructivist-oriented TPACK perceptions? 2. How do teacher demographics (age, gender, teaching experience, and teaching level) and TPACK constructs (C-

TK, C-PK, CK, C-PCK, TCK, and C-TPK) predict practicing teachers’ constructivist-oriented TPACK (C-TPACK)?

187

Page 4: Demographic Factors, TPACK Constructs, and Teachers ... · teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2010) found strong correlations between the

Methodology Study participants The study participants were 450 practicising teachers in Singapore who were attending an ICT professional development programme organized by a teacher education agency. These teachers were nominated by their respective schools to be trained as mentors for the implementation of ICT course design in their schools. The selection criteria given to schools for course nomination were that the course participants should be strong in content knowledge and teaching, but not necessarily in the use of ICT. The survey was administered through a web-based URL that was sent to these teachers by the course administrators to seek their voluntary participation. A total of 354 teachers responded to the survey, constituting a response rate of 78.67%. The survey respondents were largely female teachers (n = 231, 65.25%). The mean age of the study participants were 34.93 years (SD = 6.61). These teachers were fairly experienced as they had an average of 8.83 years of teaching experience (SD = 6.01). About 54% of the teachers (n = 192) were teaching in primary schools while the rest taught in secondary schools or junior colleges. The TPACK for meaningful learning survey The TPACK for Meaningful Learning Survey used for this study was constructed from Chai, Koh, and Tsai’s (2011) survey. Jonassen et al.’s dimensions were incorporated more comprehensively to constitute the survey used in this study. Chai et al.’s (2011) TPACK items were revised with Jonassen’s dimensions to improve the assessment of teachers’ constructivist-oriented TPACK. For example, a Constructivist TPACK (C-TPACK) item for the constructive dimension was, “I can structure activities to help students to construct different representations of content knowledge using appropriate ICT tools (e.g., Webspiration, Mindmeister, Wordle)”. Referencing to Shulman’s (1986) conceptualization of PCK, the Constructivist Pedagogical Content Knowledge (C-PCK) items focused on teachers’ facilitation of students’ thinking by addressing their difficulties with content knowledge, for example, “Without using technology, I can address the common misconceptions my students have for my first teaching subject.” Questions about seven types of ICT tools that support knowledge construction (e.g., online sticky notes, mindmapping tools and online visualization tools) replaced the TK items to constitute Constructivist-TK (C-TK) items for better alignment with constructivist teaching. No changes were made to the CK and TCK items because these did not contain pedagogical elements. The TPK items were named more accurately as C-TPK items. The final survey comprised of 32 items. The study participants rated each item on a seven-point Likert-type scale where 1 - Strongly Disagree, 2 - Disagree, 3 - Slightly Disagree, 4 – Neither agree nor disagree, 5 - Slightly Agree, 6 - Agree, 7 - Strongly Agree. The internal reliability of the survey instrument was high, with an overall Cronbach alpha of 0.96. Internal reliability of the seven TPACK constructs was also established as each had high Cronbach alphas that were larger than 0.90: C-TK (α = 0.94), C-PK (α = 0.94), CK (α = 0.95), C-PCK (α = 0.93), C-TPK (α = 0.95), TCK (α = 0.92), and C-TPACK (α = 0.96). As there were at least ten participants per survey item (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2010), the number of study participants was considered adequate for exploratory factor analysis which explained a total variance of 83.13%. The factors loaded according to the pre-defined structure for all the seven TPACK constructs with loadings that were larger than 0.50 as recommended by Fish and Dane (2000) (See Table 1). This factor structure was further validated through confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS 19 with satisfactory model fit (χ2 = 1,139.60, χ2/df = 2.58, p < .0001, TLI = .94, CFI = .95, RMSEA= 0.067, SRMR = .036). The exploratory and confirmatory analyses for this study could not be analyzed with the split-sample approach as there were insufficient survey respondents. Nevertheless, the factor structure of this TPACK survey has previously been progressively validated with Singapore pre-service and in-service teachers (Koh et al., 2012). These results further confirm the validity of the factor structure obtained. Data analysis The first research question was examined by analyzing the descriptive statistics of teachers’ TPACK ratings. The second research question was answered by first examining if there were significant Pearson’s correlations between the TPACK constructs, age, and teaching experience. The relationship between demographic variables (gender and

188

Page 5: Demographic Factors, TPACK Constructs, and Teachers ... · teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2010) found strong correlations between the

teaching level) and TPACK constructs were examined through independent sample t-tests. The categorical variables of gender and teaching level were then coded as dummy variables. Following this, a stepwise regression model was set-up with C-TPACK as the dependent variable and the remaining TPACK constructs and demographic factors as independent variables.

Table 1. Factor loadings from exploratory factor analysis Factor

loadings Factor 1 – Constructivist Technological Knowledge (C-TK) TK1 - I am able to create web pages. .66 TK2 - I am able to use social media (e.g., Blog, Wiki, Facebook). .72 TK3 - I am able to use collaboration tools (e.g., Google Sites, CoveritLive). .84 TK4 - I am able to use communication tools (e.g., VoiceThread, Podcast). .83 TK5 - I am able to use online sticky notes (e.g., Diigo, Wallwisher). .87 TK6 - I am able to use mind tools (e.g., Webspiration, Mindmeister). .86 TK7 - I am able to use visualization tools (e.g., Wordle, Quizlet). .80 Factor 2 – Constructivist Pedagogical Knowledge (C-PK) C-PK1 - I am able to stretch my students’ thinking by creating challenging tasks for them. .77 C-PK2 - I am able to guide my students to adopt appropriate learning strategies. .80 C-PK3 - I am able to help my students to monitor their own learning. .80 C-PK4 - I am able to help my students to reflect on their learning strategies. .83 C-PK5- I am able to plan group activities for my students. .82 C-PK6 - I am able to guide my students to discuss effectively during group work. .82 Factor 3 – Content Knowledge (CK) CK1 - I have sufficient knowledge about my first teaching subject (CS1) .77 CK2 - I can think about the content of my first teaching subject (CS1) like a subject matter expert. .84 CK3 - I am able to develop deeper understanding about the content of my first teaching subject (CS1). .80 Factor 4 – Constructivist Pedagogical Content Knowledge (C-PCK) C-PCK1 - Without using technology, I can address the common misconceptions my students have for my first teaching subject (CS1).

.89

C-PCK2 - Without using technology, I know how to select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in my first teaching subject (CS1).

.93

C-PCK3 - Without using technology, I can help my students to understand the content knowledge of my first teaching subject (CS1) through various ways.

.91

Factor 5 – Constructivist Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (C-TPK) C-TPK1 - I am able to use technology to introduce my students to real world scenarios. .64 C-TPK2 - I am able to facilitate my students to use technology to find more information on their own. .68 C-TPK3 - I am able to facilitate my students to use technology to plan and monitor their own learning. .74 C-TPK4 - I am able to facilitate my students to use technology to construct different forms of knowledge representation.

.70

C-TPK5 - I am able to facilitate my students to collaborate with each other using technology. .63 Factor 6 – Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) TCK1 - I can use the software that are created specifically for my first teaching subject (CS1). (E.g., e-dictionary/corpus for language; Geometric sketchpad for Maths; Data loggers for Science)

.74

TCK2 - I know about the technologies that I have to use for the research of content of first teaching subject (CS1)

.65

TCK3 - I can use appropriate technologies (e.g., multimedia resources, simulation) to represent the content of my first teaching subject (CS1).

.61

Factor 7 – Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (C-TPACK) C-TPACK1 - I can formulate in-depth discussion topics about the content knowledge and facilitate students’ online collaboration with appropriate tools. (e.g., Google Sites, CoveritLive)

.65

C-TPACK2 – I can design authentic problems about the content knowledge and represent them through computers to engage my students.

.73

C-TPACK3 - I can structure activities to help students to construct different representations of content knowledge using appropriate ICT tools (e.g., Webspiration, Mindmeister, Wordle).

.73

C-TPACK4 - I can create self-directed learning activities of the content knowledge with appropriate .73

189

Page 6: Demographic Factors, TPACK Constructs, and Teachers ... · teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2010) found strong correlations between the

ICT tools (e.g., Blog, Webquest). C-TPACK5 – I can design inquiry activities to guide students to make sense of the content knowledge with appropriate ICT tools (e.g., simulations, web-based materials).

.75

Findings Research question 1: What are Singapore practicing teachers’ constructivist-oriented TPACK perceptions? The teachers studied rated themselves as being above average for all the TPACK categories. They were highly confident of their CK (M = 5.84, SD = 0.93) and their ability to facilitate constructivist instruction, that is, C-PK (M = 5.56, SD = 0.77). Correspondingly, their C-PCK was also high (M = 5.43, SD = 1.05). However, their ratings for constructs involving technology were above mid points, but only close to a rating of five out of the seven-point scale: C-TK (M = 5.17, SD = 0.98), TCK (M = 5.20, SD = 1.09), and C-TPK (M = 5.17, SD = 0.98). Their rating for C-TPACK was less than five points and the lowest among the TPACK constructs (M = 4.86, SD = 1.13). Research question 2: How do teacher demographics (age, gender, teaching experience, and teaching level) and TPACK constructs (C-TK, C-PK, CK, C-PCK, TCK, and C-TPK) predict practicing teachers’ constructivist-oriented TPACK (C-TPACK)? Inferential statistics Table 2 shows that age and teaching experience were not strongly related to TPACK constructs. There was significant small negative correlation between teaching experience and the constructs involving technological knowledge (C-TK, C-TPK, TCK, and C-TPACK). Age was similarly related to these constructs except for TCK where no significant correlation was reported. Age and teaching experience had small positive correlations with C-PCK but were not related to C-PK. The correlations among TPACK constructs had stronger significant positive correlation. Among these, C-TK, C-TPK and TCK had large positive correlations with C-TPACK that were above 0.60.

Table 2. Correlation table

Age Teaching

experience CK C-PK C-PCK C-TK C-TPK TCK C-TPACK Age 1 .78** .10 .10 .11* -.26** -.13* -.091 -.21** Teaching experience 1 .15** .09 .11* -.22** -.16** -.11* -.25** CK 1 .64** .45** .33** .36** .53** .29** C-PK 1 .31** .37** .62** .51** .50** C-PCK 1 .12* .15** .27** .14** C-TK 1 .69** .68** .74** C-TPK 1 .67** .80** TCK 1 .71** C-TPACK 1

Note. n = 354. ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 Independent sample t-tests found significant gender differences only for the constructs that were related to technology, i.e., C-TK, TCK, and C-TPACK (See Table 3). Male teachers rated themselves higher than female teachers for these constructs but the effect sizes were small. Differences by teaching level were only significant for C-TPACK where the primary teachers scored lower ratings than the Secondary and junior college teachers. The effect size was also small.

Table 3. TPACK ratings by gender and teaching level

Construct Mean SD t p (two-tailed) D Gender (n: Male = 123, Female = 231) C-TK Male: 5.41

Female: 5.03 Male: 1.11 Female: 1.11

t(352) = 3.06 0.020* 0.34

190

Page 7: Demographic Factors, TPACK Constructs, and Teachers ... · teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2010) found strong correlations between the

TCK Male: 5.41 Female: 5.08

Male: 1.15 Female: 1.04

t(352) = 2.78 0.006** 0.30

C- TPACK Male: 5.10 Female: 4.73

Male: 1.07 Female: 1.14

t(352) = 2.95 0.003** 0.33

Teaching Level (N: Primary=192, Secondary & JC=162) C-TPACK Primary: 4.74

Secondary & JC: 5.00 Primary: 1.15 Secondary & JC: 1.09

t(352) = -2.18 0.03* 0.23

Note. ** p < 0.01 *p < 0.05. JC: junior college Regression model As aforementioned, stepwise regression analyses were conducted by using C-TPACK as the dependent variable and the remaining TPACK constructs and demographic factors as independent variables. Stepwise regression of the models was statistically significant with an adjusted R2 of 0.75. From Table 4, it can be seen that the technology-related TPACK constructs of C-TK, C-TPK, and TCK were the key predictors of C-TPACK as these explained 72% of the total variance in Model 3. The addition of teaching level and CK into the model increased the variance explained by 2% (See Model 5). C-PK and teaching experience did not result in a substantial increase of the variance explained by the Models 6 and 7. Analysis of the beta values showed that all the variables had positive prediction on C-TPACK except for CK and teaching experience. The regression models also showed that the predictive power of the demographic variables of teaching level and teaching experience were less than that of TPACK constructs.

Table 4. Stepwise regression models Model B Std. Error Beta Sig. R2

1 (Constant) .10 .19 n.s. 0.64 C-TPK .92 .04 .80 ***

2 (Constant) -.28 .18 n.s. 0.70 C-TPK .64 .05 .56 *** C-TK .36 .04 .35 ***

3 (Constant) -.48 .18 *** 0.72 C-TPK .54 .05 .47 *** C-TK .27 .04 .27 *** TCK .22 .04 .21 ***

4 (Constant) -.60 .18 *** 0.73 C-TPK .56 .05 .48 *** C-TK .26 .04 .26 *** TCK .22 .04 .21 *** Teaching level .25 .06 .11 ***

5 (Constant) -.12 .22 n.s. 0.74 C-TPK .56 .05 .49 *** C-TK .25 .04 .25 *** TCK .28 .05 .27 *** Teaching level .26 .06 .11 *** CK -.14 .04 -.11 ***

6 (Constant) -.36 .24 n.s. 0.75 C-TPK .50 .05 .43 *** C-TK .27 .04 .26 *** TCK .28 .05 .27 *** Teaching level .27 .06 .12 *** CK -.20 .05 -.16 *** C-PK .147 .06 .10 *

7 (Constant) -.26 .24 n.s. 0.75 C-TPK .49 .05 .42 *** C-TK .25 .04 .25 *** TCK .28 .04 .27 *** Teaching level .25 .06 .11 ***

191

Page 8: Demographic Factors, TPACK Constructs, and Teachers ... · teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2010) found strong correlations between the

CK -.18 .05 -.15 *** C-PK .16 .06 .11 ** Teaching experience

-.01 .01 -.07 *

Note. n.s. = not significant. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 Discussion This study adds to the work of Lee and Tsai (2010), Archambault and Crippen (2009) and Graham et al. (2009) in developing instruments for measuring teachers’ TPACK perceptions for specific pedagogical contexts, which is an important area of development identified for the TPACK framework (Cox & Graham, 2009). It contributes a survey instrument for assessing Singapore teachers’ C-TPACK perceptions. Such kinds of assessment are important for understanding how teachers could develop confidence for implementing pedagogical skills that support 21st century learning (P21, 2007). The following insights about Singapore teachers’ C-TPACK perceptions have been gained from the administration of this instrument: Gap in confidence for ICT-supported constructivist instruction The seven TPACK constructs are comprehensive because it recognizes the interplay between content, pedagogy, and technology during ICT integration. Several implementation issues with constructivist-oriented instruction appear to be pedagogical. Gordon (2009) suggests that constructivist teaching can be easily misapplied by teachers who do not fully understand it. Windschitl (2002) further found that the constructivist epistemology tends to confront teachers with conceptual dilemmas against a more objectivist epistemology. This study, however, found that practicing teachers were fairly confident of implementing constructivist pedagogies without ICT (C-PCK). The lower mean scores of technologically-related TPACK constructs (i.e., C-TK, C-TPK, TCK, and TPACK) show that their particular struggles to be in the area of ICT-driven constructivist-oriented instruction. Yet, when considering C-TPACK, the regression model 3 shows that C-TPK, C-TK, and TCK accounted for 72% of the variance explained. This survey instrument therefore allows the specific gaps in teachers’ TPACK perceptions to be pinpointed. For these teachers, it is important to address ICT use in a constructivist context rather than constructivist instruction in general. Importance of C-TPK In this study, regression model 1 shows that C-TPK accounts for 64% of the variance explained whereas regression model 3 shows that the addition of TCK adds another 2% to the total variance explained by the model. These findings suggest that the teachers gave more prominence to the relationship between C-TPK and C-TPACK. In contrast, when Sahin (2011) examined teachers’ perceptions of general TPACK, they found TCK to have larger positive correlation with TPACK as compared to TPK, These findings show that teachers’ perceptions of general TPACK and pedagogy-specific TPACK are different. Their general TPACK perceptions could be more closely related to their daily teaching practices where ICT is found to be used predominantly to support information transmission activities (Gao, Choy, Wong, & Wu, 2009; Lim & Chai, 2008; Webb & Cox, 2004). Therefore, as Greenhow, Dexter, and Hughes (2008) reports, teachers tend to make ICT integration decisions by focusing on how they might represent content with technology. Windschitl (2002) emphasizes that the implementation of constructivist pedagogical practices requires new forms of expertise such as the facilitatation of student learning through complex problem-based tasks and the management of knowledge constructing classroom discourse. When examining teachers’ perceptions of TPACK for e-learning faciltiation, Archambault and Crippen (2009) also found TPK to be more strongly related to TPACK than TCK. Therefore, the survey results reveal that when considering pedagogy-specific TPACK, the linkages between technology and pedagogy need to be pinpionted clearly to teachers.

192

Page 9: Demographic Factors, TPACK Constructs, and Teachers ... · teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2010) found strong correlations between the

Need to further analyze the role of C-PCK C-PCK was the only TPACK construct that did not predict C-TPACK. In comparison, both Sahin (2011) and Archambault and Crippen (2009) found moderate to strong positive correlations. One reason could be the item design. The stem “without using technology” may have resulted in a dissociation of these items from C-TPACK. Furthermore, Shulman’s (1986) conception of PCK, which was used to guide the development of these items, may not have been comprehensive enough to address C-PCK. In retrospect, items C-PCK1 and C-PCK2 assessed how teachers could support student thinking, which more closely describes the Constructive dimension of Jonassen et al.’s (2008) framework. More items may be needed to fully explicate the other dimensions. Therefore, these items need to be reconsidered and futher validated in future studies. Influences of demographic variables on C-TPACK are not strong The regression analysis in this study examined several demographic variables and found that teaching level and teaching experience had significant influence on C-TPACK whereas age and gender did not. Lee and Tsai’s (2010) survey of in-service teachers with respect to TPACK for using web-based resources did not study gender effects. However, they found that older teachers with more teaching experience to be less confident of their web-based TPACK. This study found similar relationships in terms of teaching experience whereas the effects of age were not significant. These findings show that with pedagogy-specific TPACK, the influence of teaching experience needs to be carefully considered. Interestingly, the more experienced teachers perceived lower C-TPACK in this study. One explanation could be that the pedagogical practices of experienced teachers may be more strongly shaped by the school system which is still exam-driven, focusing on the dissemination of knowledge and facts (Hogan & Gopinathan, 2008). These teachers may be more established in their routine expertise, or expertise to execute fixed routines (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986) in their content area. Therefore, they may perceive greater barriers in transitioning between pedagogical approaches within the school system. This could explain the effects of teaching experience on teachers’ C-TPACK perceptions. Lee and Tsai’s study did not compare teaching level whereas this study found that Secondary and junior college teachers to be more confident about their C-TPACK. This could be because Secondary and junior college teachers need only focus on a specific area of ICT use as they are subject specialists. On the other hands, the primary school teachers approached C-TPACK across several subjects which could explain their lower level of confidence. As there is a dearth of studies in this area, there is a need to analyze the impact of teaching levels more deeply to understand why it affects or relates to C-TPACK. Implications for teacher professional development Based on these findings, three implications for teacher professional development are derived: Firstly, teacher ICT professional development programs need to help practicing teachers develop the intermediate forms of TPACK, especially C-TPK, which was perceived to have the strongest power in explaining their C-TPACK. This can be done by anchoring upon their already established C-PK to model specific pedagogical uses of ICT tools which was reflected as a gap in their TPACK perceptions. The study results also point to the need for conscious efforts to build teachers’ knowledge of ICT tools that support constructivism (C-TK) as these were also perceived to positively predict C-TPACK. On the other hand, teachers’ TCK to make constructivist use of content-based ICT tools needs to be strengthened as this will enlarge the effects of content-based tools on teachers’ C-TPACK. This, in turn may address the negative relationship between CK and C-TPACK. It is a strategy that can also strengthen the TCK of primary school teachers with respect to different subject areas, which may address the impact of teaching level on C-TPACK. Secondly, teacher ICT professional development programs need to address the learning needs of experienced teachers. For these teachers, familiarity with teacher-directed school practices may be barriers against their confidence for C-PK and C-TPACK. These teachers need to be developed first in both C-PK and C-TK. They can then be provided with design experiences which have been proven effective for TPACK development (Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007).

193

Page 10: Demographic Factors, TPACK Constructs, and Teachers ... · teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2010) found strong correlations between the

Teachers are more willing to integrate ICT if it helps them to achieve their instructional goals (Zhao & Cziko, 2001). It appears that teachers in this study have yet to make this connection as no significant relationships are perceived between C-PCK and C-TPACK. Besides considering the design of C-PCK items, a third area of teacher ICT professional development could also be to facilitate teachers’ reflection on how constructivist ICT lessons can be integrated to enhance their routine pedagogies, better student performance, and fit the broader curriculum goals they need to achieve. A viable approach could be drawing upon teachers’ C-PCK by providing them with the opportunity to articulate students’ learning difficulties and misconceptions and subsequently introducing TCK that could help mediate such learning challenges, as described by Akkoc (2011). Future directions Several areas of future research can be considered to better understand the constructivist-oriented TPACK perceptions of practicing teachers. Firstly, this study needs to be replicated with more practicing teachers, both within and outside Singapore. The current sample of teachers is not representative of practicing teachers and validation of the instrument is still needed as split-sample analysis was not carried out in this study. The collection of qualitative data was outside the scope of this study. Besides further evaluation of C-PCK items in future studies, interviews and lesson observations can also be used to enhance understanding of teachers’ C-TPACK perceptions. Secondly, since teaching experience and teaching levels was found to be correlated with teachers’ confidence for constructivist-oriented TPACK, more detailed studies could be made of teachers in different stages of their teaching career. Comparisons of structural equation or prediction models between these different categories of teachers could help us derive a better understanding of how the institutional context influences the adoption of constructivist-oriented TPACK. This can allow teacher professional development efforts to be better targeted at the development needs of teachers in different stages of their career, and those teaching different levels. Besides comparisons by teaching experience and teaching levels, comparisons of teachers in different subject specializations can also be made. Such studies can allow deeper insights on how constructivist-oriented TPACK can be modeled and developed in different subject areas. Finally, the survey used in this study could be validated with more practicing teachers outside Singapore. This can contribute towards the development of assessment instruments that can be used to support the evaluation of teacher development programs in ICT. Acknowledgements

This paper refers to data from the research project “Understanding And Profiling Teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Development Patterns” (OER12/10/KHL), funded by the Education Research Funding Programme, National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. The views expressed in this paper are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent the views of NIE. References Airasian, P., & Walsh, M. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 444-449.

Akkoc, H. (2011). Investigating the development of prospective mathematics teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge. Research in Mathematics Education, 13(1), 75-76.

Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–1662. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.009

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). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article2.cfm

Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 32-42.

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.

194

Page 11: Demographic Factors, TPACK Constructs, and Teachers ... · teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2010) found strong correlations between the

Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Exploring the factor structure of the constructs of technological, pedagogical, content knowledge (TPACK). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(3), 595-603.

Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Tsai, C. C., & Tan, L. W. L. (2011). 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. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.007

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

Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. .

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, NY: Macmillan.

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.

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.

Gordon, M. (2009). The misuses and effective uses of constructivist teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 15(6), 737-746.

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

Greenhow, C., Dexter, S., & Hughes, J. E. (2008). Teacher knowledge about technology integration: An examination of inservice preservice teachers instructional decision-making. Science Education International, 19(1), 9-25.

Hair, J. F., Jr. , Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). SEM: An introduction. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.) (pp. 629-686). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.) (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. A. H. Stevenson & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York, NY: Freeman.

Hogan, D., & Gopinathan, S. (2008). Knowledge management, sustainable innovation, and pre-service teacher education in Singapore. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 14(4), 369-384.

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

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.

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.

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.

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2012). Examining practicing teachers’ perceptions of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) pathways: A structural equation modeling approach. Instructional Science. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9249-y

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Legitimate peripheral participation Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (pp. 28-43 ). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.

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.

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.

Mikropoulos, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999-2009). Computers & Education, 56, 769-780.

195

Page 12: Demographic Factors, TPACK Constructs, and Teachers ... · teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2010) found strong correlations between the

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

P21. (2007). Maximizing the impact: The pivotal role of technology in a 21st century education system. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/p21setdaistepaper.pdf

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

Sahin, I. (2011). Development of survey of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1). Retrieved from http://tojet.net/articles/10110.pdf

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.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. doi: 10.3102/0013189x015002004

Starkey, L. (2010). Teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and action in the digital age. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 16(2), 233-244.

Teo, T. (2008). Pre-service teachers' attitudes towards computer use: A Singapore survey. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 413-424.

Tsai, C.-C. (2001). The interpretation construction design model for teaching science and its applications to Internet-based instruction in Taiwan. International Journal of Educational Development, 21, 401-415.

Tsai, C.-C. (2004). Beyond cognitive and metacognitive tools: The use of the Internet as an “epistemological” tool for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 525-536.

UNESCO. (2008). Competency standards modules. ICT competency standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://cst.unesco-ci.org/sites/projects/cst/The%20Standards/ICT-CST-Competency%20Standards%20Modules.pdf

Webb, M., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 13(3), 235-284.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.

Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173-207.

Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G. A. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual control theory perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 5-30.

196