European Journal of Education Studies
ISSN: 2501 - 1111
ISSN-L: 2501 - 1111
Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu
10.5281/zenodo.165850
Volume 2│Issue 9│2016
INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE
SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR TECHNOLOGICAL
PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
Ferhat Karakaya1i, Sakine Serap Avgin2
1,2
Department of Mathematics and Science Education,
Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Turkey
Abstract:
The aim of this study is to determine about the Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK) self confidence level of physics, chemistry, biology and science
teachers and to analyze if the level of self–confidence changes according to gender,
joining to a technological education before, branch, education level, worked institution
and service period. Scanning method is used for the research. Working group of this
research consists of 87 teachers from different institutions and branches. For data
collection,
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Self–Confidence Scale
(TPACKSC), which is adapted to Turkish from original scale by Graham, Burgoyne,
Cantrell, Smith & Harris (2009) and tested for validity and reliability by Timur & Tasar
, is preferred. “s a result of the study, it is stated that teachers TP“CK level is
very high. On the other hand, it is seen that self-confidence level of teachers joined to
research does not have a statically logical (p>0.05) difference according to their sex,
worked institution, joining to a technological education before and they have a
statistical logical (p<0.05) difference related with the branch, service period and
education level.
Keywords: technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), science teacher,
technology and pedagogy, self–confidence
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved
Published by Open Access Publishing Group ©2015.
1
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
Introduction
Drastically improvements on technology during 21st century became the reason for
various innovations for Turkey or for other countries on education and training areas.
This situation made the profiles of teacher training institutions, school administrators,
teachers, students and parents change. When the innovations of technology are
analyzed, it is seen that they are on the areas of pedagogy, human and performance
(Fording, 2006). It is stated that positive results that technology will bring to education
are not only enough with technological changes (Koehler & Mishra, 2005), but also this
situation of teachers using technology has the potential to change the education Carr,
Jonassen, Litzinger & Marra, 1998). Quality, experience and efficiency of instructors on
planning and applying in-class teaching activities have a huge importance (Demir &
”ozkurt,
. “ccording to Shulman
teacher efficiencies should have information
headings like field information, pedagogic information, pedagogic field information, curriculum
information, teacher quality information, educational context information, educational prints,
aims, values, philosophical and historical bases.
Koehler and Mishra
by
incorporating the concept of technological competence of the teachers have formed the
framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. According to the
description by Mishra and Koehler (2006), TPACK is a kind of information that is more
than the blend of technology, pedagogy and field; is an improving information type.
With a wider description, TP“CK is A pack of information about showing concepts with
technology; using technology positively in order to teach information with pedagogical
techniques; what makes concepts easy or hard and what kind of technology will help to students
for solving the problems that they encounter; learners’ pre information and information theories;
how can technology be used in order to improve new information theories with depending on
existing information or strengthen old information
Mishra & Koehler,
Koehler &
Mishra, 2009). TPACK concept puts the concepts that teacher information should
include in order to create an effective integration of technology and education (Ovez &
Akyüz, 2013).
TPACK; is created with three main knowledge; Technological Knowledge (TK),
Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), Content Knowledge (CK) and relationship components
of these knowledge.
TK is knowledge about various Technologies from the most basic lesson
materials to mostly improved digital technologies (Pamuk, Ülken & Dilek, 2012). PK is
the knowledge that includes how to teach a knowledge domain to a student, lesson
plan, class management and teaching strategies (Wetzel, Foulger & Williams, 20082009). CK is the knowledge about what is the teacher going to teach about the subject
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
2
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
domain to learners (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Wetzel & et al., 2008-2009; Baran, Chuang
& Thompson, 2011).
PCK is the knowledge about strong similarities; drawings, examples,
explanations and visuals that teacher uses during teaching subject field (Shulman,
1986). TCK is the knowledge that enables teachers to transmit the subject into
technological platform by using technological tools (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Kereluik,
Mishra & Koehler, 2011; Pamuk et al., 2012). TPACK frame that explains the
relationship between TPACK and its dimensions is given as Figure 1 (Koehler &
Mishra, 2005).
Figure 1: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK Model)
It is seen that during recent years in Turkey, many investments are performed to
technological infrastructure of schools in order to integrate technological developments
with the field of education. Yet, as a result of performed researches, it is stated that
education technologies are not integrated into education process efficiently (Çiftçi,
Taşkaya & “lemdar,
Kayaduman, Sırakaya & Seferoğlu,
. For the solution of
this problem, the importance of application and research studies come forward for
teacher candidates on teacher education programs and working instructors to integrate
technology to their branches efficiently (Baran & Canbazoglu Bilici, 2015).
”ecause of the contributions to teacher qualifications on TP“CK s integration to
education; when the field literature is analyzed, its seen that researches are mostly
about teacher candidates Canbazoğlu ”ilici,
Ozgen, Narlı & “lkan,
Tokmak, Konakman & Yelken, 2013; Ovez & “ky(z,
Meriç,
“çıkg(l &
Aslaner, 2015). On the other hand, it is clear that there are also studies on scale
improvement for TPACK (Doğan,
Sahin, 2011; Canbazoglu Bilici & Yamak, Kavak
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
3
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
& Guzey, 2013; Pamuk & et al., 2013) and scale adaptation (Timur & Tasar, 2011; Altun,
2013; Bal & Kandemir, 2013; Oztürk & Horzum, 2011). Also, it is noticed that researches
about individuals that work as a teacher actively are missing. It is defined that analysis
is done mostly according to the variables of sex and class level.
Starting from this point, the TPACK self-confidence level of physics teachers,
chemistry teachers, biology teachers and science teachers is analyzed.
Aim of the study
On this research, it is aimed to determine the teachers technological and pedagogical
self-confidence level and with which variables is this level related. For the frame of this
aim, answers are tried to be found to the questions below.
Does the TPACK self-confidence of teachers show difference according to the
gender?
Does the TPACK self-confidence of teachers show difference according to the
teachers according to the teachers participation in technological courses?
Does the TPACK self-confidence of teachers show difference according to the
education level?
branch?
service period?
Does the TPACK self-confidence of teachers show difference according to the
Does the TPACK self-confidence of teachers show difference according to the
Does the TPACK self-confidence of teachers show difference according to the
worked institution?
Method
Scanning Design, which is one of the quantitative methods, is used for this research.
Scanning Design is to describe the environment s attitude, tendency or opinions
through the analysis on samples that are chosen from the environment of the research
(Bursal, 2014, 155).
Working group
Environment of the research consists physics teachers, chemistry teachers, biology
teachers and science teachers that has been working at Kahramanmaras. Samples of the
research are 87 teachers that are chosen through suitable sample method. Suitable
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
4
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
sample method is the one that stops the loss of factors like time, work force and money
(Buyukozturk, et al., 2015). Distribution of teachers that attended to research according
to their demographic characteristics is given on Table 1.
Table 1: Demographic characteristics of teacher
Gender
Branch
Education Level
Having Technological Training
Working Period
N
%
Famele
40
54.0
Male
47
46.0
Science teacher
33
37.9
Physics teacher
17
19.5
Chemistry teacher
14
16.1
Biology Teacher
23
26.4
Graduate
70
80.5
P. Graduate
17
19.5
Yes
43
49.4
No
44
50.6
0- yıl
24
27.6
14
16.1
14
16.1
35
40.2
Govern
70
80.5
Private Coll.
10
11.5
Private Ins.
7
8.0
611>
Worked Institution
yıl
yıl
yıl
When data on table 1 is analyzed, it can be seen that the sample of research include
37.9% (n=33) science teachers, 19.5% (n=17) physics teachers, 26.4% (n=23) biology
teachers and 16.1% (n=14) chemistry teachers. 46% (n=40) of these teachers are females
and 54% (n=47) of these teachers are males.
Data collection tool
Scientific research, which can be described as the process of gathering scientific
knowledge, is a systematic period that is consisted of steps or activities following each
other (Buyukozturk, 2009, 6). On this research, it is aimed to determine the
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge self-confidence. As data collection tool,
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Self–Confidence Scale (TPACKSC),
which is adapted to Turkish from original scale by Graham, Burgoyne, Cantrell, Smith
& Harris (2009) and tested for validity and reliability by Timur & Tasar (2011), is
preferred. Scale includes 31 items totally. While Timur et al. found reliability coefficient
as 0.92, the reliability coefficient of scale is determined as 0.95 on this study. The scale
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
5
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
that is 6-point Likert scale originally is adapted as 5-point Likert scale by Timur & Tasar
. On the scale, = I don t trust at all, = I trust a little, = I trust on an average level,
= I trust greatly = I trust completely, = I don t know these Technologies only for
items 16th , 17th , 18th , 19th and 20th ) are the numbered levels. Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge Self–Confidence Scale (TPACKSC) is consisted of four (4) factors as
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), Technological Content
Knowledge (TCK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) and Technological
Knowledge (TK). Reliability Coefficient value (Cranach alpha) of these factors is given
on table 2.
Table 2: Technological Pedagogical Field Information Self-Confidence Scale Sub-Dimensions
Reliability Coefficient Values
Test Sub-Dimensions
Reliability Coefficient Values
TPACK
.906
TCK
.900
TPK
.917
TK
.933
TPACKSCS
.950
When the data on table 2 is analyzed, it s seen that reliability coefficient values of
TPACKSCS (.950), and four factors TPACK (.906), TCK (.900), TPK (.971) and TK (.933)
are high.
Analysis of data
Information that are gathered from teachers that form the sample of the research is
analyzed by the help of IBM SPSS-21 statistic programme. While evaluating the
gathered data, individual-t test, one-way variance analysis (Anova) test is performed.
On the situation that there is no homogeneity during data evaluation, Mann-Whitney
test is used. On the other hand, data on the research is evaluated with 0.05 relevance
and percent, frequency, average and standard deviation values are also given.
In order to explain the comparison of the points about TPACKSCS and subdimensions TP“CK, TCK, TPK, TK that create the scale, each scale s total points are
divided to item number and changed into 6-point rating. For the explanation of these
points, self-confidence level according to point ranges is given on table 3.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
6
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
Table 3: TPACKSCS and sub-dimensions, point ranges used for explaining the points
Point Range
Trust Level
0-0.85
I don t trust at all
0.86-1.68
I trust a little
1.69-2.51
I trust on an average level
2.52-3.34
I trust greatly
3.35-4.17
I trust pretty much
4.18-5.00
I trust completely
Findings
On this section, findings that are gathered by analyzing the science teachers, physics
teachers and biology teachers technological, pedagogical content knowledge are
presented. The minimum, maximum, average and standard deviation value and trust
for the used scale and sub dimensions is presented at table 4.
Table 4: Descriptive statistics and confidence level values related with TPACKSCS and
sub dimensions
Test Sub Dimensions
N
TPACK
TCK
87
TPK
TK
TPACKSCS
87
Min
Max
SS
Self Con. Level
1.88
5.00
3.38
0.74
I trust greatly
1.86
5.00
3.45
0.76
I trust greatly
0.00
5.00
3.09
1.24
I trust pretty much
1.36
5.00
3.22
0.90
I trust pretty much
1.71
5.00
3.29
0.71
I trust pretty much
When data on table 4 is analyzed, it is seen that the highest point average for the
teachers is the frequency TCK. When the trust levels are examined, while teachers are
self-confident greatly on dimensions TPACK and TCK, they are self-confident pretty
much on dimensions TPK and TK.
On this study, the effect of gender, branch, education level, period of service,
quality of the worked institution, the situation that attending to a technological
education is analyzed for technological pedagogical content knowledge self confidence
level. Firstly, an answer for the question
Does the technological pedagogical content
knowledge self-confidence level of teachers that attended to this research change according to
their gender? is searched and the results of levee homogeneity and Mann-Whitney U
test is given at table five.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
7
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
Table 5: Mann-Whitney U test analysis results according to gender
Levene
TPACK
0.01
TCK
0.04
TPK
0.389
TK
0.01
TPACKSCS
0.02
Gender
N
Line Av.
Male
47
46.77
Female
40
40.75
Male
47
46.02
Female
40
41.63
Male
47
44.80
Female
40
43.06
Male
47
44.34
Female
40
43.60
Male
47
45.79
Female
40
41.90
U
p
810.0
.267
845.0
.418
902.5
.749
924.0
.891
856.0
.474
*p<0.05
When the Mann-Whitney U test results that are given on table t is analyzed, it became
clear that the points from technological pedagogical content knowledge self-confidence
scale (U=856.0; p>0.05) and other frequencies that create the scale does not show a
logical difference according to the gender. Yet, when the line average is examined, it is
seen that male teachers points are on a higher level.
On the research, an answer for the question Does the technological pedagogical
content knowledge self-confidence level of teachers that attended to this research show a logical
change according to the situation that teachers attended to a previous technology course? is
searched and results gathered from individual t-test are presented on table 6.
Table 6: T test results according to the situation that teachers attended to a
technology course before
Test Sub
Course
N
Yes
43
3.40
No
44
3.37
Yes
43
3.47
No
44
3.43
Yes
43
3.25
No
44
2.93
Yes
43
3.33
No
44
3.11
Event
43
3.37
Hayır
44
3.22
sd
t
p
85
.217
0.829
85
.262
0.794
85
1.213
0.229
85
1.106
0.272
85
.960
0.340
Dimensions
TPACK
TCK
TPK
TK
TPACKSCS
*p<0.05
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
8
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
When the independent t-test results are analyzed, it is seen that there is no logical
change on points of teachers technological pedagogical content knowledge selfconfidence scale (t (85) = .960; p>0.05) and other dimensions that create the scale
according to the situation that teachers attended to a technological course before.
On the research, an answer for the question Does the technological pedagogical
content knowledge self-confidence level of teachers that attended to this research change
according to their education level? is searched and the results of Levene homogeneity and
Mann-Whitney U test is given at table 7.
Table 7: Mann-Whitney U test analysis results which is performed according to education level
Levene
TPACK
.109
TCK
0.264
TPK
0.948
TK
0.003
TPACKSCS
0.01
Education Level
N
Line Av.
Graduate
70
40.26
P. Grad.
17
59.38
Graduate
70
40.34
P. Grad.
17
59.09
Graduate
70
44.14
P. Grad.
17
43.41
Graduate
70
39.33
P. Grad.
17
63.24
Graduate
70
39.94
P. Grad.
17
60.74
U
p
333.5
.005*
338.5
.006*
585.0
.914
268.0
.000*
310.5
.002*
*p<0.05
When the results of Mann- Whitney U test results on table 7 are analyzed, it is seen that
there is a statistical relevance on the level of 0.05 for the benefit of post graduate
teachers from the technological pedagogical content knowledge self-confidence scale
(U=310.5; p<0.05) and dimensions TPACK (U=333.5; p<0.05), TCK (U=338.5; p<0.05) and
TK (U=268.0; p<0.05).
On the research, an answer for the question Does the technological pedagogical
content knowledge self confidence level of teachers that attended to this research show a logical
change according to their branches? is searched and gathered frequency, average point,
standard deviation and one direction variance analysis (Anova) test results are shown
at tables 8 and 9.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
9
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
Table 8: Frequency, average point and standard deviation values according to branch
TPACK
Branch
N
TCK
TPK
SS
TK
SS
TPACKSCS
SS
SS
SS
Science(1)
33
3.37
0.72
3.58
0.77
2.82
1.29
3.34
0.96
3.32
0.68
Physics (2)
17
3.41
0.86
3.42
0.82
3.51
1.03
3.33
1.01
3.40
0.89
Biology (3)
23
3.65
0.69
3.59
0.69
3.32
1.37
3.36
0.72
3.48
0.57
Chem. (4)
14
3.94
0.52
2.94
0.60
2.82
1.04
2.59
0.66
2.80
0.59
All
87
3.38
0.74
3.45
0.76
3.09
1.24
3.22
0.90
3.29
0.71
Table 9: One direction variance analysis (Anova) results according to branch
Test Sub
Sum of
Dimensions
Squares
Between groups
TPACK
4.424
3
In-Group
43.309
83
All
47.732
86
4.617
3
In-Group
45.759
83
All
50.376
86
7.631
3
In-Group
126.593
83
All
134.224
86
6.738
3
In-Group
63.656
83
All
70.394
86
4.475
3
In-Group
39.381
83
All
43.856
86
Between groups
TCK
Between groups
TPK
Between groups
TK
Between groups
TPACKSCS
sd
Average of
Squares
Relevance
F
p
2.826
.044*
3-4
2.791
.045*
1-4
1.668
.180
-
2.929
.038*
1-4
3.144
.029*
3-4
(Tukey)
1.475
.522
1.539
.551
2.544
1.525
2.246
.767
1.492
.474
*p<0.05
When the one direction variance analysis (Anova) test results are analyzed, it is seen
that there is a statistical relevance of .
for teachers technological pedagogical content
knowledge self-confidence scale [F (3,83) =3.144; p<0.05] and sub - dimensions TPACK
[F (3,83) =2.826; p<0.05], TCK [F (3,83) =2.791; p<0.05] and TK [F (3,83) =2.929; p<0.05]
that create the scale itself. On the result of Tukey Relevance Analysis, which is
performed in order to reveal from which branches does this relevance is created, it is
seen that the points of biology teachers on the general scale (TPACKSCS) and
dimension TPACK, and science teachers on the TCK and TK dimensions are more
relevant than the points of chemistry teachers.
On the research, an answer for the question Does the technological pedagogical
content knowledge self-confidence level of teachers that attended to this research change
according to the worked institution?
is searched and gathered results from the test
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
10
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
(Anova) in terms of frequency, average points, standard deviation and one direction
variation are presented on tables 10 and 11.
Table 10: Frequency, average point and standard variation values according to worked
institution
TPACK
Worked Institution
N
TCK
SS
TPK
SS
TK
SS
TPACKSCS
SS
SS
Govern.(1)
70
3.32
0.74
3.37
0.76
3.08
1.16
3.19
0.91
3.24
0.71
Private Coll.(2)
10
3.77
0.83
3.94
0.73
2.52
1.67
3.48
1.06
3.50
0.86
Private Ins.(3)
7
3.50
0.48
3.48
0.65
4.02
0.94
3.20
0.57
3.47
0.48
All
87
3.38
0.74
3.45
0.76
3.09
1.24
3.22
0.90
3.29
0.71
Table 11: One direction variance analysis (Anova) results according to worked institution
Test Sub- Dimensions
Sum of
sd
Average of Squares
1.879
2
.940
In-Group
45.853
84
All
47.732
86
2.786
2
In-Group
47.590
84
All
50.376
86
9.422
2
In-Group
124.802
84
All
134.224
86
0.743
2
In-Group
69.651
84
All
70.394
86
0.827
2
In-Group
43.028
84
All
43.856
86
Squares
Between groups
TPACK
Between groups
TCK
Between groups
TPK
Between groups
TK
Between groups
TPACKSCS
.546
Relevance
F
p
1.721
.185
-
2.459
.092
-
3.171
.047*
3-2
.448
.640
-
.808
.449
-
(Tukey)
1.393
.567
4.711
1.486
.371
.829
.414
.512
*p<0.05
When the one direction variance analysis (Anova) test results are analyzed from the
table 11, it is seen that there is a statistical relevance of .
pedagogical
field
information
self-confidence
scale s
for teachers technological
sub-dimension
TPK
[F
(3,83)=3.171; p<0.05]
On the research, an answer for the question
Does the technological pedagogical
content knowledge self confidence level of teachers that attended to this research change
according to the working period? is searched and gathered results from the test Anova)
in terms of frequency, average points, standard deviation and one direction variation
are presented on tables 12 and 13.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
11
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
Table 12: Frequency, average point and standard variation values according to working period
TPACK
Working Period
N
TCK
SS
TPK
SS
TK
SS
TPACKSCS
SS
SS
1-5 years(1)
24
3.52
0.71
3.64
0.65
3.19
1.50
3.65
0.68
3.54
0.53
6-10 years (2)
14
3.61
0.74
3.84
0.78
3.31
1.32
3.49
0.95
3.57
0.71
11-15 years (3)
14
3.36
0.47
3.58
0.50
3.04
0.99
3.20
0.77
3.30
0.59
16 and more years(4)
35
3.21
0.83
3.11
0.79
2.95
1.15
2.83
0.92
3.01
0.77
All
87
3.38
0.74
3.45
0.76
3.09
1.24
3.22
0.90
3.29
0.71
Table 13: One- direction variance analysis (Anova) results according to working period
Test Sub-Dimensions
TPACK
TCK
TPK
TK
TPACKSCS
Sum of
Squares
sd
2.248
3
In-Group
45.484
83
All
47.732
86
7.437
3
In-Group
42.939
83
All
50.376
86
1.628
3
In-Group
132.597
83
All
134.224
86
Between groups
10.669
3
In-Group
59.725
83
All
70.394
86
5.348
3
In-Group
38.508
83
All
43.856
86
Between groups
Between groups
Between groups
Between groups
Average of
Squares
Relevance
F
p
1.368
.258
4.792
.004*
.340
.797
-
4.942
.003*
1-4
3.842
.013
1-4
(Tukey)
.749
.548
2.479
.517
-
1-4
2-4
.543
1.598
3.556
.720
1.783
.464
*p<0.05
When the one direction variance analysis (Anova) test results are analyzed from table
13, its seen that there is a statistical relevance on the level of 0.05 for the dimension TCK
[F(3,83)=4.792; p<0.05] and TK [F(3,83)=4.942; p<0.05] that creates technological
pedagogical content knowledge self-confidence scale and also for TPACKSCS
[F(3,83)=3.842; p<0.05]. Tukey relevance is performed for this research in order to
determine from which working periods this relevance occurs. According to this, the
points of teachers with 1-5 years of working period are found relevant from the teachers
with 16 years or more on the general of the scale (TPACKSCS) and TCK and TK
dimensions. On the other hand, points gathered by teachers with working period of 610 years are found more relevant than teachers with 16 years or more on the TCK
dimension.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
12
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
Discussion and Results
On this study, it is aimed to determine the self-confidence perception of Physics
teachers,
Chemistry
teachers,
Biology
teachers
and
Science
teachers
from
Kahramanmaras about technological pedagogical content knowledge and these
perceptions change according to gender, previous technological courses, branch,
education level, quality level of worked institution and working period.
For data collection,
Technological Pedagogic Content Knowledge Self–
Confidence Scale (TPACKSC), which is adapted to Turkish from original scale by
Graham, Burgoyne, Cantrell, Smith & Harris (2009) and tested for validity and
reliability by Timur & Tasar
, is preferred and
Personal Knowledge Form
created by researchers and supported by experts remarks is used. Gathered results
percentage, frequency, average, standard variation values are calculated. On the other
hand, the effects of independent variables (gender, previous technological courses,
branch, education level, quality level of worked institution and working period) to their
technological pedagogical field information self confidence level is analyzed statistically
through independent t-test, one direction variance analysis, Kruskal- Wallis H test and
Mann-Whitney U.
When the research results are analyzed, the averages of TPACKSCS ( =3.29) and
dimensions TPACK ( =3.38), TCK ( =3.45), TPK ( =3.09), TK ( =3.22) are gathered.
When the self confidence levels of teachers attended to research it is seen that they trust
themselves greatly on dimensions TPACK and TCK; they trust themselves pretty much
on dimensions TPK, TK and general on scale (TPACKSCS).
As a result of the study by Acikgul & et al. (2015), Sancar Tokmak & et al. (2013),
Ozgen et al. (2013) with teacher candidates, they mentioned that TPACK self confidence is high. This result shows difference with the findings of this research.
On the study, it is understood that there is no statistical logical (p>0.05)
difference between male and female physics, chemistry, biology and science teachers
TPACKSCS and sub dimensions (TPACK, TCK,TPK,TK). According to these results, it
can be said that gender is not a factor that affects teachers self-confidence about
TPACK. This result overlaps with the results of researches by Acıkg(l & et al.
Kula (2015); Meriç (2014); Sancar Tokmak & et al. (2013); Kaya, Ozdemir, Emre and
Kaya (2011); Oztürk (2013); Koh and Chai (2011); North and Noyes (2002). According to
North & Noyes (2002), the reason for this situation is the fact that computer usage is
becoming common in schools and equal opportunities are given to individuals to use
technology. Yet, Koh and Tsai (2010) saw on their research that gender creates
difference on the situation.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
13
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
On the study, it is understood that there is no statistical logical (p>0.05) difference for
physics, chemistry, biology and science teachers TP“CKSCS and sub dimensions
(TPACK, TCK, TPK, TK) according to the situation of being attended to a technological
course before. According to these results, it can be said that the situation of being
attended to a technological course before is not a factor that affects teachers selfconfidence about TPACK.
Yet, when the point average of teachers is evaluated, it is seen that instructors
attended to technology course before got a higher point average than the ones that did
not attend to a technology course before. This situation shows that attending to courses
about technology has a positive impact on TPACK self-confidence. That result overlaps
with Ozturk s (2013) research about class teacher candidates.
On the study, it is understood that according to education levels, there is a
statistical logical (p>0.05) difference for physics, chemistry, biology and science
teachers points of TP“CKSCS and sub dimensions (TPACK, TCK, TK). It is analyzed
that when the teachers education levels increase to post graduate from graduate, the
self-confidence shows an increase.
This situation can be evaluated as the idea that physics, chemistry, biology and
science teachers having a post graduate education can have a support on their selfconfidence. This result showed difference with the research of Kho and Chai (2011).
On the study, it is understood that according to branches (physics, chemistry,
biology and science) there is no statistical logical (p>0.05) difference for teachers
TPACKSCS and sub dimensions (TPACK, TCK, TK). According to Tukey results that
are given on table 9, on the general TPACKSCS and, the points of biology teachers on
TPACK dimension and the points of science teachers on TCK and TK dimensions are
more logical than chemistry teachers. This situation is because of the biology and
science teachers usage of technological materials during their teaching process. Ozgen
& et al.
, Niess
s results support this research.
On the study, it is understood that according to worked place (government,
private college, institution) there is no statistical logical (p>0.05) difference between
male and female physics, chemistry, biology and science teachers TP“CKSCS and sub
dimensions (TPACK, TCK, TK) according to the working period, but there is a
statistical logical (p>0.05) difference on the dimension TPK. According to Tukey results
presented on table 11, it is seen that points of teachers working at institutions are more
logical than the ones working at private colleges.
On the study, it is understood that there is no statistical logical (p>0.05)
difference between male and female physics, chemistry, biology and science teachers
TPACKSCS and sub dimensions (TCK, TK) according to the working period. According
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
14
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
to the Tukey results presented on table 13, points of teachers with 1-5 years of working
period points are more logical than the points of the ones with 16 years or more on the
general of scale (TPACKSCS) and TCK and TK dimensions. On the other hand, on TCK
dimension, points of teachers with working period 6-10 years are more logical than the
ones with 16 years or working period.
Conclusion
This study with physics teachers, chemistry teachers, biology teachers and science
teachers show that results of the study supports the increase on self-confidence about
TP“CK with teachers technology usage. ”ecause of this, while planning the teaching
techniques for teaching process, there should be an integration of technology to
education and this will have a benefit for increasing teachers TP“CK self-confidence
levels.
Acknowledgements
In this research, (31 May-3 June 2016, Mugla) the 3rd International Eurasian educational
research has been described as oral presentations at the congress.
About the authors
Ferhat KARAKAYA: Research Assist. Ferhat KARAKAYA is currently working
at Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University. He received his master degree in
Department of Biology Education at the Gazi University, Turkey. His contact
information is as follows: KSU Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and
Science Education, Avsar Campus, Kahramanmaraş,
Turkey, Ofis. E-mail:
ferhatk26@gmail.com
Sakine Serap AVGIN: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sakine Serap AVGIN is currently
Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Faculty of Education, Department of
Mathematics and Science Education. Her contact information is as follows: KSU Faculty
of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Avsar Campus,
Kahramanmaraş,
Turkey, Ofis. E-mail: serapavgin@hotmail.com
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
15
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
References
1. Acikgul, K., & Aslaner, R. (2015). Investigation of TPACK confidence perception
of
prospective
elementary
mathematics
teachers. Journal
of
Education
Faculty, 17(1), 118-152.
2. “ltun, T.
. Examination of classroom teachers technological pedagogical
and content knowledge on the basis of their demographic profiles. Croatian
Journal of Education, 15(2), 365-397.
3. Bal, M. S., & Karademir, N. (2013). Revealing the self-confidence levels of social
science teachers about Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK).
Pamukkale University Education Faculty Magazine, 34(11), 15-32.
4. ”aran, E., & Canbazoğlu ”ilici, S.
. “ Review of the Research on
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Case of Turkey. H. U.
Journal of Education, 30(1), 15-32.
5. Baran, E., Chuang, H. H., & Thompson, A. (2011). Tpack: An emerging research
and development tool for teacher educators. Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 10(4), 370-377.
6. Bursal, M. (2014). Quantitative methods. Selçuk Beşir Demir Ed. Qualitative,
Quantitive and Mixed Method Approaches. (s: 155-
. “nkara Eğiten Publishing.
7. ”uyukozturk, Ş. Çakmak, E., “kg(n, 5., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F., (2015)
Scientific Research Techniques.. Improved 19th publishing., Pegem Akademi
Bookstore.
8. ”uyukozturk, Ş.
. Data analysis handbook for social sciences. (10th
Edition). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
9. Canbazoğlu ”ilici, S., Yamak, H., Kavak, N., S., & Guzey, S.
Technological
pedagogical content knowledge self-efficacy scale (TPACK-SeS) for preservice
science teachers: Construction, validation and reliability. Eurasian Journal of
Education Research, 52, 37–60.
10. Canbazoğlu ”ilici, S.
. The pre-service science teachers? technological
pedagogical content knowledge and their self-efficacy. Published PhD Thesis,
Gazi University Educational Sciences Institute, Ankara.
11. Carr, A. A., Jonassen, D. H., Litzinger, M. E., & Marra, R. M. (1998). Good ideas
to foment educational revolution: The role of systematic change in advancing
situated learning, constructivism, and feminist pedagogy. Educational Technology,
38(1), 5-14
12. Ciftci, S., Taskaya, S. M. ve “lemdar, M.
. Class teachers points of views
about FATIH project. Primary -online. 12(1), 227-240.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
16
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
13. Demir, S. ve Bozkurt, A. (201 . Primary Maths Teachers points of views about
teacher sufficiency on technology integration. Primary Online, 10(3), 850-860.
14. Doğan, M.
. Primary trainee teachers attitudes to and use of computer and
technology in mathematics: The case of Turkey. Educational Research and Review,
5(11), 690-702.
15. Ferdig, R. E. (2006). Assessing technologies for teaching and learning:
understanding
the
importance
of
technological
pedagogical
content
knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 749–760.
16. 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, Special Issue on TPACK, 53(5),
70-79.
17. Kaya, Z., Özdemir, T. Y., Emre, İ & Kaya, O. N.
. Exploring preservice
information technology teachers perception of self-efficacy in web-technological
pedagogical
content
knowledge.
6th
International
Advanced
Technologies
Symposium IATS’11 , Elazığ.
18. Kayaduman, H., Sırakaya M. ve Seferoğlu S.
, February . “nalyzing Fatih
Project on Education in terms of Teacher Sufficiency “cademic Science II-XIII.
Academic Science Conference Announcements, Inonu University, Malatya.
19. Kereluik, K.; Mishra, P.; Koehler, Matthew. J., (2011), On learning to subvert
signs: Literacy, Technology And The TPACK Framework, California Reader,
44(2), 12-18.
20. Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design
educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content
knowledge. J. Educational Computing Research, 32(2) 131-152.
21. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content
knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
22. Koh, J.H.L.; Chai, C.S. & Tsai, C.C. (2010). Examining the technological
pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a largescale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 26(6), 563–573.
23. Koh, J.H.L., & Chai, C.S. (2011). Modeling pre-service teachers. Technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) perceptions: The influence of
demographic factors and TPACK constructs. IN
24. Kula, A. (2015) Analysis of teacher candidates
sufficiency in terms of
Technological Pedagogical Field Information (TPFI ”artın University Example.
The Journal of Academic Social Science, 3(12), 395-412.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
17
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
25. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge
a new framework for teacher knowledge , Teachers college record, 108(6), 10171054.
26. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with
technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 21, 509–523.
27. North, A. S., & Noyes, J. M. (2002). Gender influences on children's computer
attitudes and cognitions. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(2), 135-150.
28. Ovez, F. T. D., & “kyuz, G.
. Primary maths teacher candidates
technological pedagogical content knowledge modelling. Education and Science,
38(170).
29. Ozgen, K., Narlı, S., & “lkan, H.
. Maths teacher candidates technological
and pedagogical content knowledge and analysis of perception of the frequency
of using technology. Electronical Social Sciences Magazine, 44(44).
30. Ozturk, E. (2013). Class teacher candidates technological pedagogical content
knowledge evaluation according to some variables. Usak University Social Sciences
Magazine, 13, 223-238.
31. Ozturk, E., & Horzum, M. B. (2011). Technological pedagogical context
information scale s adaptation to Turkish. Ahi Evran University Education Faculty
Magazine, 12(3), 255-278.
32. Pamuk, S. Ülken, A., & Dilek, N. Ş.
. Teacher candidates technology usage
sufficiency s evaluation from the frame of Technological Pedagogical Context
Information Theoretical Perspective. Mustafa Kemal University Social Sciences
Institute Magazinei, 9(17), 415-438.
33. Pamuk, S., Ergun, M. Cakir, R., Yilmaz, H. B., & Ayas, C. (2013). Exploring
relationships among TPACK components and development of the TPACK
instrument.
Education
and
Information
Technologies.
Advance
online
publication. doi: 10.1007/s10639-013-9278-410.1007/s10639-013-9278-4.
34. Sancar Tokmak, H., Konokman, G. Y., & Yelken, T. Y. (2013). Analysis of Mersin
University pre-school teacher candidates technological pedagogical content
knowledge (tpack) self-confidence. Ahi Evran University Kirsehir Education Faculty
Magazine, 14(1).
35. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in
teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(4), 4-14.
36. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new
reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
18
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
37. Sahin, I. (2011). Development of survey of technological pedagogical and content
knowledge (TPACK). Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 97105.
38. Timur, B., & Tasar, M. F. (2011). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Self-Confidence Scale s TP“CKSCS) Adaptation to Turkish. Gaziantep University
Social Sciences Magazine, 10(2), 839-856.
39. Wetzel, K., Foulger, T. S., & Williams, M.K. (Winter 2008-2009). The evolution of
the required educational technology course. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 25 (2) 67-71.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
19
Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER SCIENCE DISCIPLINE SELF-CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
Creative Commons licensing terms
Author(s) will retain the copyright of their published articles agreeing that a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) terms
will be applied to their work. Under the terms of this license, no permission is required from the author(s) or publisher for members of the community
to copy, distribute, transmit or adapt the article content, providing a proper, prominent and unambiguous attribution to the authors in a manner that
makes clear that the materials are being reused under permission of a Creative Commons License. Views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this
research article are views, opinions and conclusions of the author(s). Open Access Publishing Group and European Journal of Education Studies shall
not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability caused in relation to/arising out of conflicts of interest, copyright violations and
inappropriate or inaccurate use of any kind content related or integrated into the research work. All the published works are meeting the Open Access
Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 9 │ 2016
20