TPACK levels of physics and science teacher candidates: Problems and possible solutions

Together with the development of information technologies, many transformation processes in the education and instruction field have also begun. Information technologies not only provide many opportunities for learners but also lead to a significant change in the methods and beliefs used by teachers. However, there are complicated problems in the integration of technology with education and instruction, despite such change and effectiveness in these fields. Therefore, we should understand the reasons underlying the incentives which enable teachers to integrate technology in their own fields. Digital technology leads to a significant change in terms of instruction in the education field, as in all fields in which human beings work (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009; Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007). However, it is believed by many scholars that education cannot change its vision along with technology because there are some problems in relation to how technology should be inter-used with education and instruction (Schmidt, Baran Sahin, Thompson, & Seymour, 2008). Studies which were conducted on the integration of technology have highlighted that technological knowledge should be considered alongside content knowledge and pedagogy knowledge. The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) theory was presented in line with this purpose.

Figure 1. Scheme showing TPACK structure

TPACK is a theory which presents the relationships between the technological, pedagogical, and content (field) knowledge of teachers and students. Mishra & Kohler (2006) define TPACK theory as the interaction and communication among these three types of knowledge. The draft which is used for describing TPACK theory is illustrated in Figure 1. In this draft, there are three interconnected components: technological, pedagogical, and content (field) knowledge. Explanations regarding these are given respectively, as follows.

Technological knowledge (TK) refers to the knowledge about standard technologies and upper class technologies which are used for education and instruction purposes (Koehler et al., 2007). This knowledge of teachers is seen as the knowledge of understanding the technological knowledge, using appropriate technology, defining practical technologies, and constantly adapting the changes in technology to the education and instruction environment (Margerum-Leys & Marx, 2002).

Pedagogical knowledge (PK) refers to the knowledge about the methods and applications in relation to learning and teaching (Koehler et al., 2007). This knowledge includes developing instruction strategies, class management, lesson plans, and situations such as student assessment and nature of target mass (Kanuka, 2006).

Content knowledge (CK) includes the knowledge regarding the subject to be taught or learnt (Koehler et al., 2007). This knowledge involves the structures within the related field which connect the cases and events, concepts, theories, processes, and thoughts and opinions with regard to the field with each other, and organise them.

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is the knowledge with regard to the instruction approaches eligible for content and how the elements regarding the content should be arranged for better instruction. PCK emphasises the knowledge of teachers in relation to the learning environment and students’ learning (Harris et al., 2009).

Technological content knowledge (TCK) is interested in the attitude in relation to how technology and content influence and restrict each other. The use of different technologies influences different learning by students (Margerum-Leys & Marx, 2002).

Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) covers the skill to integrate different and varied technologies into education and instruction methods and use them in an effective way. It is a knowledge which requires associating the knowledge of how to teach with appropriate technologies. It also concerns obtaining knowledge about what kind of changes such association will lead to in education and instruction (Margerum-Leys & Marx, 2002).

Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) requires understanding the representation and formulation of concepts using technologies, pedagogical techniques that utilise technologies in constructive ways to teach content, and knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn. TPACK also requires the use of technology to help address these issues, knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology, and an understanding of how technologies can be utilised to build on existing knowledge and to develop new or strengthen old epistemologies (Koehler et al., 2007).

General theoretical knowledge for TPACK is as given above. However, TPACK shows very little development in theoretical terms. In their research, Cox & Graham (2009) determined that the central structure of the model (TPACK) had different definitions. It is stated that this was because TPACK theory and its subdimensions could not be sufficiently understood and its theoretical structure could not be totally created. Therefore, many studies on TPACK concentrate on TPK, PCK, and TCK in the subdimensions of TPACK. Research conducted shows that teacher training programmes were developed in the PCK dimension and therefore technology could not complete its integration within programmes (Koehler et al., 2007). This bespeaks that the TPACK levels of the teacher candidates who will graduate from teacher training institutions will remain insufficient.

In physics and science instruction, the aim is to teach research and observation approaches through laboratory applications, develop problem solving skills, and help students develop a positive attitude towards these studies (Hanif, Sneddon, Al-Ahmadi, & Reid, 2009). Therefore, the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the teachers who will be preparing rich stimulant teaching environments for physics and science instruction in relation to the application laboratories with regard to the field should be up to the mark (Lunetta & Tamir, 1978). Researchers and programmers who prepare syllabi for physics and science courses state that the teaching models that should contain experiments within their content are of great importance in students’ easier learning of the knowledge, better understanding of the nature of knowledge and science, and development of application skills such as measurement and research, which require proficiency (Gott & Duggan, 1996; Hodson, 1996; Millar, Le Mare´Chal, & Tiberghien, 1999). Therefore, the key laboratory skills which are expected to be gained by teacher candidates are quite important, not only in their pre-service instruction processes but also in their future teaching lives. Students gain key skills which will help them in meaningful learning and developing a positive attitude towards physics in the laboratory environment (Boud, Dunn, & Hegarty-Hazel, 1986). Laboratory purposes and approaches should be understood well by teacher candidates so that physics education can achieve its goals (Jang & Chen, 2010). Therefore, TPACK theory is of great importance for physics and science teacher candidates.

Recent researches show that computer based laboratory applications, computer supported instruction, and interactive computer simulations in physics and science instruction are quite effective on the students’ achievements (Chang, Chen, Lin, & Sung, 2008; Foti & Ring, 2008; Geban, Askar, & Ozkan, 1992; Lee, 1999; Lin & Lehman, 1999; Zacharia, 2003). However, the studies which were carried out on teachers’ competencies show that laboratories are not used in an effective way and teachers do not use technology sufficiently but continue with traditional methods, even if they have technological knowledge (Lunetta & Tamir, 1978; McCrory-Wallace, 2004). This is considered to have resulted from the fact that teachers do not make sufficient applications with regard to the teaching profession in teacher training institutions, and that they do not gain experience with regard to computer simulations and computer supported laboratory uses. Therefore, there are opinions and applications on giving in-service training courses to teacher candidates after their graduation. However, it is thought that removal of this by the institutions from which teacher candidates graduated will be more effective in solving problems regarding the matter. This research was conducted for the purpose of presenting the TPACK levels of physics and science teacher candidates, determining problems, and offering solutions for them. This research is conducted on physics and science teacher candidates since students learn physics by science teachers in secondary school and by physics teachers in high school. Science teacher candidates take physics courses quite a lot, but not as much as physics teacher candidates do.

The purpose of this research is to investigate whether the TPACK levels of physics and science teacher candidates are sufficient or not. For this purpose, the following questions were asked in the quantitative dimension of the research:

• Are the TPACK levels of the physics and science teacher candidates sufficient, based on Provus’ assessment model?

• Is there a significant difference between the TPACK levels of physics and science teacher candidates?

• Do the levels of the physics and science teacher candidates regarding TPACK and its subdimensions significantly affect their academic achievement scores?

• Is there a significant relationship between the levels of the physics and science teacher candidates regarding TPACK and its subdimensions and their academic achievement scores?

• If there is a difference in terms of academic achievement scores between physics and science teacher candidates, do TPACK scores have an effect on this difference?

In the qualitative dimension of the research, in-depth interviews were carried out with teacher candidates.