Ozean Journal of Applied Sciences 7(3), 2014
Ozean Journal of Applied Sciences 7(3), 2014
ISSN 1943-2429
© 2014 Ozean Publication
STUDYING THE TPACK LEVELS OF PRIMARY TEACHERS ACCORDING TO
VARIOUS VARIABLES: AN EXAMPLE FROM VAN PROVINCE
ISMAIL KENAR* & ALI RIZA SEKERCI
SUMEYYE BAYTURE**
*Faculty of Education, Department of Science Education, Dumlupinar University, Kutahya, Turkey
**Institute of Education, Department of Elementary Education, Dumlupinar University, Kutahya, Turkey
*E-mail address for correspondence: [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Being able to carry out education in an effective and accurate manner depends on many factors, and
one of the most important of those factors is the teacher. It is inevitable for teachers to use technology in
education in our era, which is also called the age of technology. In integrating technology to education, we come
across the subject of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). In this study, the TPACK levels
of primary teachers were studied. In addition, the study also examined whether the TPACK levels of primary
teachers differ according to various variables (gender, seniority, age, faculty of graduation, having received inservice training on the use of technology, whether they consider their level of technology utilization sufficient
and access to technology). Survey method was used in the study. The study sampling consisted of 155 primary
teachers working in a province (Van province) in Eastern Turkey. The data was obtained by using the
“Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale”, which was originally developed by Schmidt, Baran,
Thompson, Mishra, Koehler & Shin (2009) and which was adapted to Turkish language by Ozturk & Horzum
(2011), and by using the “Demographic Data Form” developed by the authors. Descriptive statistical analysis,
Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis H test were used for the analysis of the data. According to the study
results, the TPACK levels of primary teachers were high. It was found that there was no statistically significant
difference in the TPACK levels of primary teachers according to gender, seniority, age, faculty of graduation,
having received in-service training on the use of technology, and access to technology. However, there was a
statistically significant difference in the TPACK levels of primary teachers according to whether they consider
their level of technology utilization sufficient.
Key words: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
levels, primary teachers.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
103
Ozean Journal of Applied Sciences 7(3), 2014
INTRODUCTION
Technology and technological developments are progressing at an extraordinary pace in every place where
humans exist. This progress in technology manifests in areas such as engineering, medicine, law, education etc.
The technological developments in the field of education are very important for the development of both the
teachers and students.
At the present time, there is need for teachers who can guide students in line with the constructivist approach.
From the constructivist approach, it is necessary for teachers to have not only the content, pedagogical, and
general culture knowledge but also Pedagogical Content Knowledge, which is as important as those three
domains of knowledge, as asserted by Shulman (1986, 1987). In addition to that, the teachers must have
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), which is proposed by Mishra & Koehler (2006) and
which is united with technology. TPACK framework was consist of seven knowledge domains by Mishra and
Koehler (2006). This seven knowledge domains is technology knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK),
content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK),
technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). TPACK
framework is indicated in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
framework. Adapted/adopted from (Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007, p.
742)
Chai, Koh, & Tsai (2013) state that many studies have been made on TPACK in Europe, Asia Pacific and
particularly in the USA over the last decade focusing on the TPACK development of teachers or pre-service
teachers (Akkoc, 2011; Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Archambault, Wetzel, Foulger, & Williams, 2010; Chai, Koh,
& Tsai, 2011; Doering, Veletsianos, Scharber, & Miller, 2009; Graham, Burgoyne, Cantrell, Smith, Clair, &
Harris, 2009; Hammond & Manfra, 2009; Jang & Chen, 2010; Harris & Hofer, 2011; Graham, Borup, & Smith,
2012; Khan, 2011; Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007; Koh, Chai, & Tsai, 2010; Ozmantar, Akkoc, Bingolbali,
Demir, & Ergene, 2010; So & Kim, 2009; Tee & Lee, 2011). Although the importance of TPACK increases
every day, there are a few studies in literature on the demographics of teachers or pre-service teachers in terms of
their TPACK (Bal & Karademir, 2013; Chuang & Ho, 2011; Karal & Kokoc, 2012; Kaya, Ozdemir, Emre, &
Kaya, 2011; Koh, Chai, & Tsai, 2010; Konokman Yavuz, Yelken Yanpar, & Tokmak Sancar, 2013; Ozturk,
2013).
This study aims at identifying the TPACK levels of primary teachers working in a province in Eastern Turkey
and examining their TPACK levels according to various variables, namely gender, seniority, age, faculty of
graduation, having received in-service training on the use of technology, whether they consider their level of
technology utilization sufficient, and access to technology. In line with this aim, answers were sought to the
following questions:
1. What are the TPACK levels of primary teachers?
104
105
2. Do the TPACK levels of primary teachers show a statistically significant difference according to gender?
3. Do the TPACK levels of primary teachers show a statistically significant difference according to age?
4. Do the TPACK levels of primary teachers show a statistically significant difference according to seniority?
5. Do the TPACK levels of primary teachers show a statistically significant difference according to their access
to technology?
6. Do the TPACK levels of primary teachers show a statistically significant difference according to whether
they consider their level of technology utilization sufficient?
7. Do the TPACK levels of primary teachers show a statistically significant difference according to having
received in-service training on the use of technology?
METHODOLOGY
Study Model
Survey method was used in the study. This method is used to identify the attitudes, beliefs, views, and
knowledge of people on a certain topic. Survey method aims at describing an existing situation (Karasar, 2000).
In addition, survey method is used frequently in education because it is multidirectional, efficient and it can be
generalized (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003; McMillan & Schumacher, 2010; Yıldırım & Simsek, 2011).
Universe and Sampling
The study universe consisted of primary teachers working in Van and its districts in Eastern Turkey. The study
aimed at reaching the whole universe. However, since the data was obtained on a voluntary basis in the study,
the study group consisted of 155 primary teachers working in this province in 2012-2013 school year. The study
group was determined through the convenience (ease of access) sampling method, which is one of the nonrandom sampling techniques.
Data Collection Tool
The data collection tools of the study were the “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale”, which
was originally developed by Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Mishra, Koehler & Shin (2009) and which was adapted
to Turkish language by Ozturk & Horzum (2011), and the “Demographic Data Form” developed by the authors.
The scale that was adapted to Turkish by Ozturk & Horzum (2011) contains 47 items and 7 factors. This scale is
a 5-point Likert scale, which covers the following options: Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Undecided (3),
Agree (4), Strongly Agree (5).
The factors of the scale contained “Technology Knowledge (TK)” regarding knowledge on the use of technology
(7 items); “Content Knowledge (CK)” regarding knowledge of mathematics, social sciences, science and literacy
(12 items); “Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)” regarding knowledge on class management, assessment, plan
development, teaching process and methods (7 items); “Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)” regarding
content knowledge used in managing the teaching process (4 items); “Technological Content Knowledge
(TCK)” regarding how to use the technology in understanding and applying of concepts in special content areas
by students (4 items); “Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)” regarding how to use and which
technologies to use with different teaching methods(5 items). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPCK) covers 8 items regarding the integration of technology to teaching by teachers. Cronbach’s alpha, which
is the coefficient of internal consistency regarding the reliability of the scale, was .82 for TK, .75 for CK, .84 for
105
Ozean Journal of Applied Sciences 7(3), 2014
PK, .85 for PCK, .80 for TCK, .86 for TPK and .92 for the whole scale. Moreover, “Demographic Data Form”
developed by the researchers was added to the scale in order to examine the TPACK levels of primary teachers
according to various variables, namely gender, seniority, faculty of graduation, having received in-service
training on the use of technology, whether they consider their level of technology utilization sufficient, and
access to technology. Two researchers (first and second authors) checked the demographic data form in terms of
the conformity of the defined variables to the scale, and the scale was applied after receiving specialist opinions.
Data Analysis
The study first examined whether the obtained data had a normal distribution. If the value obtained by dividing
the coefficient of skewness into the standard error of skewness is between -1.96 and 1.96, then we can accept the
distribution is normal (Buyukozturk, 2012; Buyukozturk, Cokluk Bokeoglu & Koklu, 2012; Can, 2013; Field,
2009). By using the SPSS analysis results, the coefficient of skewness was calculated as -1.929, and the standard
error of skewness was calculated as .195. Based on those values, we can say that the distribution was not normal.
Moreover, the coefficient of skewness between the values of -1, +1 can be accepted as the measure of normal
distribution (Leech, Barret, & Morgan, 2005, p. 21; Morgan, Leech, Gloeckner, & Barret, 2004, p. 49).
According to the coefficient of skewness calculated in this study, we can say that the distribution was not
normal. Furthermore, according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the data did not show a normal distribution,
D(155) = .164, p< .05.
Median and standard deviation values were examined in determining the TPACK levels of primary teachers. The
data obtained from the demographic data form was presented as frequency and percentage tables.
Mann Whitney U Test was used with the aim of identifying whether the TPACK levels of primary teachers
indicated a significant difference according to the variables of gender, faculty of graduation, having received inservice training on the use of technology, whether they consider their level of technology utilization sufficient,
and access to technology. Kruskal Wallis H test was applied in order to determine whether the TPACK levels
indicated a significant difference according to the variables of age and seniority. In addition, Mann Whitney U
Test was also used to examine whether there was a significant difference according to gender in terms of the
scores received by the primary teachers in the domains of TK, CK, PK, PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPCK of the
scale. The significance level was taken as .05 in the study. IBM SPSS 21 package program was used in
analyzing the study data.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
The following results were obtained in the light of the data from the study, and those results were discussed in
the light of literature.
The frequency and percentage values regarding the variables analyzed in the study are given in Table 1.
106
107
Table 1: Demographics of primary teachers
Number of Teachers Percentage(%)
Gender
Female
Male
Total
Seniority
Between 1-3 years
Between 4-6 years
Between 7-9 years
Between 10-12 years
Total
Age
Between 20-25 years
Between 26-30 years
Between 31-35 years
Toplam
99
56
155
63.9%
36.1%
100%
130
19
5
1
155
52.4%
34.3%
3.2%
.6%
100%
78
71
6
155
50.3%
45.8%
3.9 %
100%
Graduated from the Department of
Departments of Education Faculty
Departments of Other Faculties
Total
146
9
155
94.2%
5.8%
100%
Access to Technology
Yes
No
Total
30
125
155
19.4%
80.6%
100%
In-Service Training On the use Of Technology
Yes
No
Total
15
140
155
9.7%
90.3%
100%
Level of Technology Utilization Sufficient
Sufficient
Insufficient
Total
125
30
155
80.6%
19.4%
100%
According to Table 1, which indicates the demographics of primary teachers, 99 of them were female (63.9%),
and 56 of them were male (36.1%). 52.4% of primary teachers had an experience of 1-3 years; 34.3% had an
experience of 4-6 years; 3.2% had an experience of 7-9 years, and 1 teacher had an experience of 10-12 years. In
addition, half of the teachers (50.3%) were in the age range of 20-25; 45.8% (71 people) were in the age range of
26-30. Almost all teachers (146 people) were graduated from the faculty of education, and a small part of them
were graduated from other faculties. Majority of the teachers stated that they could not access technology
(80.6%) and that they did not receive any in-service training on the use of technology (90.3%). 80.6% of primary
teachers stated that their level of technology utilization was sufficient.
Table 2 indicates the minimum, maximum, and median values of the scale and domains in order to identify the
TPACK level of primary teachers in the study.
Table 2: Scores received by primary teachers from TPACKS and domains
TPACK Dimensions
n
MinimumMaximumMedian
TPACK
82.0
220.0
185.0
TK
7.0
35.0
26.0
20.0
57.0
47.0
9.0
35.0
30.0
CK
PK
155
PCK
7.0
20.0
15.0
TCK
7.0
20.0
16.0
TPK
6.0
25.0
20.0
TPCK
13.0
40.0
32.0
107
Ozean Journal of Applied Sciences 7(3), 2014
According to Table 2, the median score received by primary teachers in the TPACK scale was 185.0 and the
lowest score was 82.0, and the highest score was 220. The median score obtained from the TPACK scale was
above the mean score value of the whole scale, which was 141. This indicated that the TPACK levels of primary
teachers were high. The median scores received from the domains of the scale were as follows: 26.0 for TK, 47.0
for CK, 30.0 for PK, 15.0 for PCK, 16.0 for TCK, 20.0 for TPK, and 32.0 for TPCK. It seems that the median
scores received in the domains of the scale were higher than the mean score values that could be received in the
domains. Based on those results, it can be said that the TPACK levels of the primary teachers were high. Kaya,
Ozdemir, Emre & Kaya (2011), in the study they conducted on a web-based environment, concluded that the
pre-service teachers of information technologies generally had high TPACK self-sufficiency. The study by
Konokman Yavuz, Yelken Yanpar & Tokmak Sancar (2013) examined the perceptions of the pre-service
primary teachers regarding their TPACK sufficiency by using the TPACK scale developed by Schmidt, Baran,
Thomson, Mishra, Koehler & Shin (2009), and found that the pre-service primary teachers had high perception
scores regarding their TPACK sufficiency. Canbazoglu Bilici (2012) studied the TPACK and TPACK selfsufficiency levels of the pre-service science teachers within the scope of lecture ‘Special Teaching Methods-II’.
In that study, 27 pre-service science teachers were applied a TPACK self-sufficiency scale consisting of 52 items
as pre-test and post-test, and it was found that there was a statistically significant difference between the scores
obtained from the whole scale and the scores pertaining to TK, PCK, TPK. The results in the literature are in
parallel with the results of the current study.
Table 3 indicates the results of the Mann Whitney U test, which was conducted with the aim of finding whether
the TPACK levels of primary teachers indicated a statistically significant difference in the study according to
gender.
Table 3: Results of Mann Whitney U test of scores from TPACKS and domains according to gender
Group
Male
Mean Rank Rank Sum
TPACK
78.80
4413.00
TK
80.24
4493.50
CK
82.33
4610.50
PK
77.46
4337.50
PCK
75.79
4244.00
TCK
78.65
4404.50
TPK
76.13
4263.00
TPCK
81.48
4563.00
n
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
Female
Mean Rank Mean Sum
77.55
7677.00
76.73
7596.50
75.55
7479.50
78.31
7752.00
79.25
7846.00
77.63
7685.50
79.06
7827.00
76.03
7527.00
n
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
U
2727.00
1646.50
2529.50
2741.50
2648.00
2735.50
2667.00
2577.00
Z
-.168
-.469
-.905
-.114
-.466
-.137
-.394
-.730
According to Table 3, there was no statistically significant difference in TPACK levels of primary teachers in
terms of gender (U= 2727.00, p> .05). At the same time, the domains of the TPACK scale did not indicate a
statistically significant difference according to gender. Based on this finding, we can conclude that gender was
not a variable that affected TPACK levels. Konokman Yavuz, Yelken Yanpar & Tokmak Sancar (2013)
conducted a study on the perceptions of the pre-service teachers, who were in 4th grade of at Mersin University
in the department of Primary Education Primary Teaching, regarding their TPACK sufficiency. In this study,
they found that gender was not a variable that affected the perceptions regarding TPACK sufficiency. In their
study, Kaya, Ozdemir, Emre & Kaya (2011) applied the Web-TPACK scale, which was developed by Lee &
Tsai (2010), to 177 pre-service teachers, who were in the 3rd and 4th grades at Fırat University in the Department
of Electronic and Computer Teaching of Technical Education Faculty and in the Department of Computer and
Teaching Technologies Education of Education Faculty. At the end of this study, they found no significant
difference between the Web-TPACK self-sufficiency perceptions of pre-service teachers of different genders.
Those results in literature are consistent with the results of the current study.
Table 4 indicates the results of the Kruskal Wallis H test, which was conducted with the aim of finding whether
the TPACK levels of primary teachers indicated a statistically significant difference in the study according to
seniority.
108
109
Table 4: Results of Kruskal Wallis H test of TPACKS and domains according to seniority
Seniority
Between 1-3 years
Between 4-6 years
TK
Between 7-9 years
Between 10-12 years
Between 1-3 years
Between 4-6 years
CK
Between 7-9 years
Between 10-12 years
Between 1-3 years
Between 4-6 years
PK
Between 7-9 years
Between 10-12 years
Between 1-3 years
Between 4-6 years
PCK
Between 7-9 years
Between 10-12 years
Between 1-3 years
Between 4-6 years
TCK
Between 7-9 years
Between 10-12 years
Between 1-3 years
Between 4-6 years
TPK
Between 7-9 years
Between 10-12 years
Between 1-3 years
Between 4-6 years
TPCK
Between 7-9 years
Between 10-12 years
Between 1-3 years
Between 4-6 years
TPACK
Between 7-9 years
Between 10-12 years
n
130
19
5
1
130
19
5
1
130
19
5
1
130
19
5
1
130
19
5
1
130
19
5
1
130
19
5
1
130
19
5
1
Mean Rank df
77.67
79.97
92.10
12.50
80.73
55.37
100.30
42.00
78.28
73.95
71.20
152.50
79.12
67.03
81.40
124.00
81.26
52.55
87.90
88.00
79.77
71.34
64.30
42.50
80.12
69.45
64.00
35.50
80.13
64.29
82.30
40.50
X2
p
Difference
3 2.680 .444
-
3 7.215 .065
-
3 3.075 .380
-
3 2.339 .505
-
3 7.190 .066
-
3 1.738 .629
-
3 2.388 .496
-
3 2.811 .422
-
According to Table 4, there was no statistically significant difference in TPACK level scores of primary teachers
in terms of seniority (X2(3) = 2.811, p > .05). Moreover, the domain scores of the TPACK scale did not indicate a
statistically significant difference according to seniority. In other words, there was no significant difference
between the TPACK level scores of the primary teachers with different seniorities. This result can indicate that
seniority, as a variable, did not affect TPACK levels. Chuang & Ho (2011) found that there was a significant
difference in TPACK levels according to seniority in the domains of TK, PK, CK, and PCK. Karal & Kokoc
(2012) found that there was a significant difference in the TPACK self-sufficiency levels of primary teachers
according to seniority. Those results in literature are not consistent with the results of the current study.
Table 5 indicates the results of the Kruskal Wallis H test, which was conducted with the aim of finding whether
the TPACK levels of primary teachers indicated a statistically significant difference in the study according to
age.
109
Ozean Journal of Applied Sciences 7(3), 2014
Table 5: Results of Kruskal Wallis H test of TPACKS and domains according to age
Age
Between 20-25 years
TK
Between 26-30 years
Between 31-35 years
Between 20-25 years
CK
Between 26-30 years
Between 31-35 years
Between 20-25 years
PK
Between 26-30 years
Between 31-35 years
Between 20-25 years
PCK
Between 26-30 years
Between 31-35 years
Between 20-25 years
TCK
Between 26-30 years
Between 31-35 years
Between 20-25 years
TPK
Between 26-30 years
Between 31-35 years
Between 20-25 years
TPCK Between 26-30 years
Between 31-35 years
Between 20-25 years
TPACK Between 26-30 years
Between 31-35 years
n Mean Rank
78
83.30
71
72.50
6
74.17
78
81.75
71
75.68
6
56.67
78
78.98
71
75.68
6
92.75
78
79.08
71
76.02
6
87.42
78
82.57
71
73.64
6
70.17
78
83.99
71
71.26
6
79.83
78
86.07
71
70.49
6
61.92
78
84.19
71
73.04
6
56.25
df
X2
p
Difference
2 2.209 .331
-
2 2.097 .350
-
2
.889 .641
-
2
.456 .796
-
2 1.685 .431
-
2 3.047 .218
-
2 5.337 .069
-
2 3.765 .152
-
According to Table 5, there was no statistically significant difference in TPACK level scores of primary teachers
in terms of age (X2(2) = 3.765, p> .05). In addition, the scores of the domains, namely TK, CK, PK, PCK, TCK,
TPK and TPCK, did not indicate a statistically significant difference according to age. In other words, there was
no significant difference between the TPACK level scores of the primary teachers with different ages. Chuang &
Ho (2011) conducted a study to identify the TPACK levels of 335 preschool teachers working in five provinces
in southern Taiwan. In that study, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used, and a significant
difference was found in the domains of TK and PK according to age. In the TK domain, there was a significant
difference between the preschool teachers in the age group of 20-30 and the preschool teachers in the age group
of 31-40, and between the preschool teachers in the age group of 20-30 and the preschool teachers above the age
of 40. In addition, the mean scores of the preschool teachers in the age group of 20-30 were higher than the mean
scores of the preschool teachers in the age group of 31-40 and +40. In the PK domain, they found a significant
difference between the preschool teachers in the age group of 31-40 and the preschool teachers in the age group
of 20-30. Those results are consistent with the results of the current study.
Table 6 indicates the results of the Mann Whitney U test, which was conducted with the aim of finding whether
the TPACK levels of primary teachers indicated a statistically significant difference in the study according to
access to technology.
Table 6: Results of Mann Whitney U test of TPACKS and domains according to access to technology
Group
Yes
Mean Rank Rank Sum
TK
84.32
2529.50
CK
71.95
2158.50
PK
76.60
1985.50
PCK
66.18
2257.00
TCK
79.61
2300.50
TPK
77.48
2187.50
TPCK
78.59
2115.00
TPACK
79.38
2321.00
n
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
No
Mean Rank Mean Sum
48.83
9560.50
79.45
9931.50
100.72
10104.50
80.84
9833.00
51.94
9789.50
86.44
9902.50
68.44
9975.00
55.61
9769.00
110
n
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
U
Z
1685.50 -.861
1693.50 -.824
1520.50 -1.618
1792.00 -.380
1835.50 -.180
1722.50 -.696
1650.00 -1.025
1856.00 -.931
111
According to Table 6, there was no statistically significant difference in TPACK levels of primary teachers in
terms of access to technology (U= 1856.00, p > .05). Moreover, the domains, namely TK, CK, PK, PCK, TCK,
TPK and TPCK, did not indicate a statistically significant difference according to access to technology (U=
1685.50, p > .05, U= 1693.50, p > .05, U= 1520.50, p > .05, U= 1792.00, p > .05, U= 1835.50, p > .05, U=
1722.50, p > .05, U= 1650.00 ). However, when we look at the mean ranks of the TPACK scale, and TK, TCK,
TPCK above, we see that the mean rank scores of the teachers with access to technology were higher than the
ones without access to technology, and in the domains of CK, PK, PCK and TPK, the mean rank scores of the
teachers without access to technology were higher than the ones with access to technology. This result can
indicate that access to technology, as a variable, did not affect TPACK levels. Konokman Yavuz, Yelken Yanpar
& Tokmak Sancar (2013) found that there was a statistically significant difference in the TPACK perceptions of
pre-service primary teachers according to their levels of access to technology.
Table 7 indicates the results of the Mann Whitney U test, which was conducted with the aim of finding whether
the TPACK levels of primary teachers indicated a statistically significant difference in the study according to
having received in-service training on the use of technology.
Table 7: Results of Mann Whitney U test of TPACKS and domains according to having received in-service
training on the use of technology
Group
Yes
Mean Rank Rank Sum
TK
106.43
1596.50
CK
87.43
1311.50
PK
75.00
1125.00
PCK
87.57
1313.50
TCK
99.60
1494.00
TPK
84.07
1261.00
TPCK
94.83
1422.50
TPACK
94.37
1415.50
n
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Mean Rank
74.95
76.99
78.32
76.98
75.69
77.35
76.20
76.25
No
Mean Sum
9560.50
10778.50
10965.00
10776.50
10596.00
10829.00
10667.50
10674.50
n
U
140 623.50
140 908.50
140 1005.00
140 906.50
140 726.00
140 959.00
140 797.50
140 804.50
Z
-2.588
-.858
-.274
-.877
-1.975
-.555
-1.537
-1.486
According to Table 7, there was no statistically significant difference in TPACK levels of primary teachers in
terms of having received in-service training on the use of technology (U= 804.50, p> .05). Moreover, the
domains of the TPACK scale do not indicate a statistically significant difference according to having received
in-service training on the use of technology. However when we look at the mean ranks for TPACK scale and
domains, we see that, in general, the mean rank scores of the teachers, who received in-service training on the
use of technology, are higher than the ones who did not receive in-service training. Karal & Kokoc (2012) found
that there was a significant difference in the TPACK self-sufficiency level scores of primary teachers according
to having received in-service training on the use of technology. This finding in literature is not parallel to the
finding of the current study.
Table 8 indicates the results of the Mann Whitney U test, which was conducted with the aim of finding whether
the TPACK levels of primary teachers indicated a statistically significant difference in the study according to
their level of technology utilization.
Table 8: Results of Mann Whitney U test of TPACKS and domains according to their level of technology
utilization
Group
Sufficient
Mean Rank Rank Sum
TK
83.66
10457.00
CK
84.70
10587.00
PK
80.44
10055.50
PCK
81.19
10149.00
TCK
84.28
10534.50
TPK
80.83
10103.50
TPCK
81.10
10138.00
TPACK
84.29
10536.00
n
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
Insufficient
Mean Rank Rank Sum
54.43
1633.00
50.10
1503.00
67.82
2034.50
64.70
1941.00
51.85
1555.50
66.22
1986.50
65.07
1952.00
51.80
1554.00
111
n
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
U
1168.00
1038.00
1569.50
1476.00
1090.50
1521.50
1487.00
1089.00
Z
-3.210*
-3.798*
-1.394
-1.824
-3.579*
-1.613
-1.767
-3.561*
Ozean Journal of Applied Sciences 7(3), 2014
According to Table 8, there was a statistically significant difference in TPACK levels of primary teachers in
terms of their level of technology utilization (U= 1089.00 p < .05). In addition, the domains of TK (U = 1168.00,
p < .05), CK (U = 1038.00, p < .05) and TCK (U = 1090.50, p < .05) indicated a statistically significant
difference according to technology utilization. In other words, it seems that the TPACK levels of the teachers,
who consider their level of technology utilization sufficient, were higher than the teachers, who consider their
level of technology utilization insufficient. Konokman Yavuz, Yelken Yanpar & Tokmak Sancar (2013) found
that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the pre-service primary teachers
regarding their TPACK levels according to their levels of technology utilization.
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
It is inevitable for teachers to use technology in education in our era, which is also called the age of technology.
In integrating technology to education, we come across the subject of TPACK (Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge). In this study, 155 primary teachers working in Van Province were applied the
“Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale”, which was originally developed by Schmidt, Baran,
Thompson, Mishra, Koehler & Shin (2009) and which was adapted to Turkish language by Ozturk & Horzum
(2011). The study examined the TPACK levels of primary teachers and whether their TPACK levels differed
according to various variables (gender, seniority, age, faculty of graduation, having received in-service training
on the use of technology, whether they consider their level of technology utilization sufficient, and access to
technology).
The following suggestions can be made in the light of those results: The study found no significant difference in
TPACK levels according to gender, age, seniority, faculty of graduation, having received in-service training on
the use of technology, and access to technology. The cause/s of this situation can be examined in depth by using
different methods and data collection tools. The TPACK levels of the primary teachers, who considered their
level of technology utilization sufficient were higher than those who considered their level of technology
utilization insufficient. In this context, in-service trainings can be provided to develop their levels of technology
utilization. Classes can be equipped with technology that can develop their TPACK levels, and thus their access
to technology can be ensured. The participants of the current study were the primary teachers working in a
province in Eastern Turkey. In the future, studies can be conducted by increasing the sampling sizes for
identifying the TPACK levels of the primary teachers working in all provinces of Eastern Turkey.
REFERENCES
Akkoc, H. (2011). Investigating the development of prospective mathematics teachers' technological pedagogical
content
knowledge.
Research
in
Mathematics
Education,
13(1),
75-76.
doi:10.1080/14794802.2011.550729
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. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
Archambault, L., Wetzel, K., Foulger, T. S., & Williams, M. (2010). Professional development 2.0:
Transforming teachereducation pedagogy with 21st century tools. Journal of Digital Learning in
Teacher Education, 27(1), 4-11.
Bal, M., & Karademir, N. (2013). Hazırlama: Sosyal Bilgiler Ogretmenlerinin Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi
(TPAB) Konusunda Oz-Degerlendirme Seviyelerinin Belirlenmesi [Determining Social Science
Teachers’ Self-Assessment Levels With Regard To Their Technological Pedagogical Content
112
113
Knowledge (TPCK)].
doi: 10.9779/PUJE468
Pamukkale
Universitesi
Egitim
Fakultesi
Dergisi,
34,
15-32.
Buyukozturk, S. (2012). Sosyal bilimler icin veri analiz el kitabı[Data Analysis Manual for Social Sciences] (16.
Baskı). Ankara: PegemA Akademi.
Buyukozturk, S. Cokluk Bokeoglu, O., & Koklu, N. (2012). Sosyal bilimler icin istatistik[Statistics for the social
sciences] (11. Baskı). Ankara: PegemA Akademi.
Can, A. (2013). SPSS ile bilimsel arastırma surecinde nicel veri analizi[Quantitative data analysis with SPSS in
the process of scientific research] (1. Baskı). Ankara: PegemA Akademi.
Canbazoglu Bilici, S. (2012). Fen bilgisi ogretmen adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi ve oz yeterlikleri
[The pre-service science teachers? technological pedagogical content knowledge and their selfefficacy]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gazi Universitesi Egitim Bilimleri Enstitusu, Ankara.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A Review of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge.
Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31-51.
Chai, C., Koh, J., Tsai, C., & Tan, 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.
Chuang, H. H, & Ho, C. J. (2011). An Investigation of Early Childhood Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK) in Taiwan. Ahi Evran Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi 12(2), 99117.
Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using technological pedagogical content
knowledge framework to design online environments and professional development. Journal of
Educational Computing, 41(3), 319-346. doi: 10.2190/EC.41.3.d
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (Third Edition). London: SAGE Publications.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E., 2003. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education,(5th Edtion).
London, UK.
Graham, C. R., Borup, J., & Smith, N. B. (2012). Using TPACK as a framework to understand teacher
candidates' technology integration decisions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 530-546.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365 2729.2011.00472.x
Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK development in
science teaching: Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends: Linking
Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 53(5), 70-79. doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0328-0
Hammond, T. C., & Manfra, M. (2009b). Giving, prompting, making: Aligning technology and pedagogy within
TPACK for social studies instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education
(CITE Journal), 9(2), 160-185.
Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A
descriptive study of secondary teachers' curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211-229.
Jang, S. J., & Chen, K. C. (2010). From PCK to TPACK: Developing a transformative model for pre-service
science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 553-564. doi:0.1007/s10956010-9222-y
113
Ozean Journal of Applied Sciences 7(3), 2014
Karal, H., & Kokoc, M. (2012). Sınıf Ogretmenlerinin Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi Oz yeterlik
Duzeylerinin Cesitli Degiskenlere Gore İncelenmesi[Grade Level of Teachers of Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge Self-sufficiency by Various Variable Investigation]. In Y. H. Celkan
(Chair), 6th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium. Symposium conducted
at the meeting of Gaziantep University Gaziantep Education Faculty Department of Computer &
Instructional, Gaziantep, Turkey.
Kaya, Z., Ozdemir, T. Y., Emre, İ., & Kaya, O. N. (2011,September). Bilisim Teknolojileri Ogretmen
Adaylarının Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi Oz Yeterlik Seviyelerinin Belirlenmesi[Determination
Of Preservice Information Technology Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Levels In Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge]. 5th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium, Fırat
University, Elazıg- Turkey.
Khan, S. (2011). New pedagogies on teaching science with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education
& Technology,20(3), 215-232. doi:10.1007/s10956-010-9247-2
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. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Examining the technological pedagogical content knowledge of
Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26,
563–573. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2729.2010.00372.x
Konokman Yavuz, G., Yelken Yanpar, T., & Tokmak Sancar, H. (2013). Sınıf ogretmeni adaylarının TPAB
yeterliklerine iliskin algılarının cesitli degiskenlere gore incelenmesi: Mersin Universitesi Ornegi [An
Investigation of Mersin University Early Childhood Pre-Service Teachers’ Self-Confidence about Their
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)]. Kastamonu Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi
Dergisi, 21(2), 665-684.
Lee, H., M., & 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: An
International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 38(1), 1-21. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9075-4
Leech, N. L, Barret, K. C, & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for ıntermediate statistics: use and ınterpretation
(Second Edition). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry, (7th ed.). New
York: Pearson Publishing
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher
knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Morgan, G. A, Leech, N. L, Gloeckner, G. W., & Barret, K. C (2004). SPSS for ıntroductory statistics: use and
ınterpretation (Second Edition). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ozmantar, M., Akkoc, H., Bingolbali, E., Demir, S., & Ergene, B. (2010). Pre-service mathematics teachers' use
of multiple representations in technology-rich environments. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science
& Technology Education, 6(1), 19-36.
Ozturk, E. (2013). Sınıf Ogretmeni Adaylarının Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgilerinin Bazı Degiskenler
Acısından Degerlendirilmesi [Prospective Classroom Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge Assessment in Terms of Some Variables (TPCK)]. Usak Univeristesi Sosyal Bilimler
Dergisi,13, 223-238. doi:10.12780/UUSBD163
Ozturk, E., & Horzum, M. B. (2011). Teknolojik Pedagojik İcerik Bilgisi Olcegi’nin Turkceye Uyarlaması
[Adaptation of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale to Turkish]. Ahi Evran
Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi,12(3), 255-278.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand:Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 414.
114
115
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching:Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,
57(1), 1-22.
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.
So, H., & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: Student teachers integrating technology,
pedagogy and content knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 101-116.
Tee, M., & Lee, S. (2011). From socialisation to internalisation: Cultivating technological pedagogical content
knowledge throughproblem-based learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 89104.
Yıldırım, A. ve Simsek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastırma yontemleri [Qualitative research methods
in the social sciences] (8. Baskı). Ankara: Seckin.
115