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

Median values of the scores and required standard score values of the teacher candidates received from the subdimensions of the TPACK survey based on their departments are shown in Table 2. As evident from the table, the median values regarding TPACK and its subdimensions are below the expected standard value. Only the physics teacher candidates were seen in the sufficient level in the TPK dimension.

Table 2. TPACK competence of departments based on Provus’ assessment model

Subscale	Department	N	Performance Median	Standard
TK	Physics	66	58	≥60
TK	Science	57	51	≥60
CK	Physics	66	20	≥24
CK	Science	57	19	≥24
PK	Physics	66	21	≥24
PK	Science	57	20	≥24
PCK	Physics	66	25	≥28
PCK	Science	57	24	≥28
TPK	Physics	66	16*	≥16
TPK	Science	57	14	≥16
TCK	Physics	66	14.5	≥16
TCK	Science	57	12	≥16
TPACK	Physics	66	18	≥20
TPACK	Science	57	17	≥20

Table 3 presents the independent t-test and the comparison of the scores regarding TPACK and its subdimensions with GPA scores of the physics and science teacher candidates. As shown from the results of the analysis, physics teacher candidates are more successful when compared to science teacher candidates in terms of their TK, CK, TPK, TCK, TPACK, and GPA scores ( P<0.05). No significant difference could be found between the physics and science teacher candidates in terms of PK and PCK scores (P>0.05).

Table 3. Physics and science teacher candidates’ TPACK and GPA scores according to department

Subscale	Department	N	Mean	Performance Median	Std. Deviation	t	p
TK	Physics	66	58.6212	58	6.90098	6.966	.000
TK	Science	57	49.2105	51	8.08380	6.966	.000
CK	Physics	66	20.4394	20	3.09903	3.689	.000
CK	Science	57	18.1053	19	3.91282	3.689	.000
PK	Physics	66	20.6061	21	3.56858	0.957	.341
PK	Science	57	19.9298	20	4.27142	0.957	.341
PCK	Physics	66	24.3485	25	4.86587	0.596	.552
PCK	Science	57	23.8246	24	4.85917	0.596	.552
TPK	Physics	66	15.4545	16	2.59693	4.660	.000
TPK	Science	57	13.0526	14	3.11919	4.660	.000
TCK	Physics	66	14.2576	14.5	2.74737	4.276	.000
TCK	Science	57	12.0175	12	3.06181	4.276	.000
TPACK	Physics	66	17.5455	18	3.65506	2.017	.046
TPACK	Science	57	16.2456	17	3.45523	2.017	.046
GPA Scores	Physics	66	2.9285	2.97	0.48370	5.672	.000
GPA Scores	Science	57	2.4693	2.49	0.40190	5.672	.000

As demonstrated in Table 4, TPACK scores of the teacher candidates influence their academic achievements in a positive way. As a result of regression analysis, it was found that TPACK and its subdimensions influenced teachers’ achievement scores in a positive way at the rate of 18% (R2=0.178). The more the TPACK scores of the teacher candidates increase, the more their academic achievements increase (F=3.547, P<0.002).

Table 4. Prediction of physics and science teacher candidates’ GPA scores by their TPACK constructs

Model		Sum of Squares	df	MeanSquare	F	Sig.
1	Regression	5.452	7	0.779	3.547	.002(a)
	Residual	25.250	115	0.220
	Total	30.702	122
a)Predictors: TPACK, TK, CK, PK, TCK, TPK, PCK; b)Dependent Variable: GPA scores

In Table 5, a positive and linear but a weak relationship is illustrated between the GPA scores and TPACK, TCK, TPK, TK, and CK scores of the teacher candidates (P<0.01). No relationship was found between the GPA scores and PK and PCK scores (P>0.05). It is obvious that there is a significant, linear, and high relationship between the TPACK scores and all subdimensions of TPACK (P<0.01).

Table 5. Correlations between physics and science teacher candidates’ GPA and TPACK scores

	TK	CK	PK	PCK	TPK	TCK	TPACK	GPA_scores
TK	1
CK	.576(**)	1
PK	.344(**)	.657(**)	1
PCK	.307(**)	.603(**)	.780(**)	1
TPK	.619(**)	.649(**)	.579(**)	.658(**)	1
TCK	.612(**)	.649(**)	.588(**)	.687(**)	.790(**)	1
TPACK	.390(**)	.603(**)	.738(**)	.834(**)	.716(**)	.709(**)	1
GPA_scores	.302(**)	.328(**)	.162	.137	.335(**)	.278(**)	.253(**)	1
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

In Table 6, the results of the covariance analysis which shows whether the difference between the GPA scores of the teacher candidates arose from their TPACK scores based on their departments are presented. As shown in the table, the TPACK score is also effective in the generation of the difference between the GPA scores of the physics and science teacher candidates (F=5.481, P<0.05). The GPA scores of the groups which were corrected as a result of a covariance (Ancova) analysis are shown in Table 7.

Table 6. Covariance analysis which shows whether the difference between the GPA scores of the teacher candidates arose from their TPACK scores

Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	Partial Eta Squared
Corrected Model	7.730(a)	3	2.577	13.348	.000	.252
Intercept	26.170	1	26.170	135.568	.000	.533
Department	1.150	1	1.150	5.958	.016	.048
TPACK	1.058	1	1.058	5.481	.021	.044
Department * TPACK	.363	1	.363	1.879	.173	.016
Error	22.972	119	.193
Total	937.825	123
Corrected Total	30.702	122
R Squared = .252 (Adjusted R Squared = .233)

Table 7. Physics and science teacher candidates’ estimated marginal GPA scores

Dependent Variable: GPA scores
Department	Scores	Recovered Scores	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval
Physics	2.928	2.922(a)	.055	2.813 - 3.030
Science	2.469	2.499(a)	.059	2.381 - 2.616

(a) Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following value: TPACK = 16.9431.

Accordingly, students will be more successful if they have strong TPACK. In the literature, the relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement is indicated as significant (Bandura, 1993; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994), and self-efficacy is associated with semester and final grades (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990).