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

As a result of the assessment which was made based on Provus’ assessment model, the median scores of the physics and science teacher candidates who participated in the research, which were received from the TPACK and its subdimensions, remained below the standard scores. Only the physics teacher candidates were found in the sufficient level in the TPK dimension.

On the other hand, based on the result of the independent t-test, significant differences were found in favour of physics teacher candidates between the GPA scores and TPACK scores of the physics and science teacher candidates. Also, significant differences were found in favour of physics teacher candidates in TK, CK, TPK, and TCK steps, which are the subdimensions of TPACK.

As a result of the Ancova analysis, it was found that the physics and science teacher candidates had a significant effect on the difference between the GPA scores of the groups. Moreover, as a result of the correlation analysis, it was discovered that there was a positive and linear relationship between the GPA scores and TPACK, TCK, TPK, TK, and CK scores of the teacher candidates. This result shows that the attitudes regarding TPACK and its subdimensions affected academic achievement in a positive way. In the study by Erdogan & Sahin (2010) on the teacher candidates who study in the department of mathematics, the students with higher TPACK levels were found to be more successful.

Even though the findings of the research show significant results in favour of physics teacher candidates, it was determined that the TPACK levels of the teacher candidates in both departments were insufficient, based on Provus’ assessment model. In order to determine how the differences between the two groups arose and from what this insufficiency in the TPACK levels of the teacher candidates resulted, in-depth interviews were conducted with five persons from both the physics and science teacher candidates, respectively, who participated in the research.

None of the teacher candidates fully answered the first question (What is TPACK in your opinion?) which was directed to them in the in-depth interviews. Teacher candidates generally considered technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge independent from each other when replying to this question. Teacher candidates listed the computer programs which should be known and technological tools which should be used by teachers in terms of technological knowledge. They discussed the lesson names with regard to pedagogy that they received as pedagogic knowledge during education and instruction, and teaching methods which can be used by the teacher while teaching the lesson. As content knowledge, physics teacher candidates tried to list the units and titles in the high school physics syllabus, while science teacher candidates tried to list the units and titles in the science syllabus.

Secondly, the teacher candidates were asked whether they found themselves sufficient, based on the TPACK theory they described. Teacher candidates considered TPACK structure as knowledge independent from each other, as in the first question, while they were evaluating their TPACK sufficiency levels. Based on the evaluations they made, teacher candidates answered in line with their self-confidences. Accordingly, while five teacher candidates (PH-1, PH-2, PH-5, SC-2, SC-3) said that they were at a sufficient level in terms of their content knowledge, other teacher candidates emphasised that they had some deficiencies in terms of content knowledge but they could overcome them by studying. None of the teachers emphasised the relationship between technology and content with pedagogy. Furthermore, the studies which were made with regard to the instructional applications of education technologies by K-12 teachers show that the applications made by teachers are deficient in pedagogical terms, limited in terms of breadth, diversity, and depth, and could not perform integration with programme-based teaching and learning well (Earle, 2002; Kiray & Kaptan, 2012; McCrory-Wallace, 2004; Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002).

Seven teacher candidates (PH-1, PH-2, PH-3, PH-5, SC-2, SC-3, SC-4) said that they found themselves sufficient in terms of pedagogical knowledge. However, all of the teacher candidates stated that their teaching experiences were not sufficient and this experience could only be gained after starting teaching. Another situation which was stated by the teacher candidates in this respect was that the applied courses which are made for teaching experience were not sufficiently applied. They asserted that teachers did not show sufficient interest in them and usually took the attendance and let them go in applied courses at the schools which they went to as interns. Teacher candidates stated that the public personnel selection examination, which is made in Turkey and required for becoming a teacher, contained questions evaluating pedagogical knowledge, therefore they memorised pedagogical knowledge. Two teacher candidates (PH-2, PH-5) said that pedagogical knowledge is related to the content knowledge to be taught but they could not reflect this in lessons because the instructors, who come from other departments, do not have knowledge in relation to the content. Two teacher candidates (PH-3, SC-1) emphasised that teachers needed to have the skills and talents to determine the previous knowledge of students and which intelligence type they had, within their pedagogical knowledge. As it can be understood from the above-mentioned opinions, they consider pedagogical knowledge only as a theoretical knowledge which must be learned. Most of all, it is understood that they cannot comprehend what PCK knowledge is. With PCK knowledge, teachers should be able to determine the learning requirements of the students and their understanding styles, and select and apply an effective teaching method which can transfer the required content knowledge (Chauvot, 2008; Dawkins, Dickerson, McKinney, & Butler, 2008; Piccolo, 2008).

Teacher candidates considered TPACK theory as knowledge independent from each other and defended that technological knowledge is a further knowledge, stating that technological knowledge can be provided through the person’s own efforts. They considered this knowledge to be related to the person’s interest in technology. In his study, Vacirca (2008) emphasised that the interest in technology is important in the development of technological knowledge. In particular, the female students who participated in the interview (PH-2, PH-5, SC-1, SC-3) stated that they had difficulty in using computers and other technological tools which can be used by the teacher in the classroom (Vacirca, 2008). All teacher candidates stated that the availability of personal computers and the internet could substantially contribute to the development of technological knowledge. Male teacher candidates had more self-confidence in this regard. They stated that they understood computers well and they usually made the settings of the technological tools which are used in the classroom activities themselves. However, as it can be understood from the interviews, teacher candidates were asked about their knowledge and experiences in reaching and accessing materials such as simulation, animation, and video, which they can use in the web environment. Physics teacher candidates were seen to be more interested in these issues. The elective courses regarding computer supported instruction in physics instruction are considered to be effective in this. Teacher candidates, except for SC-2 among physics teacher candidates, stated that they did not perform sufficient researches or projects in relation to simulation, animation, or educative computer programs. The researches which have been performed in the last ten years indicate that computer simulations are of great importance in physics education and instruction and that they provide important advantages. Besides these researches, the investigations regarding teacher competences show that some teachers were afraid of change and continued using traditional teaching methods although they were familiar with technology. This is because of the teachers’ deficiencies in technological knowledge and their practices regarding the use of technology (Kent, 2006; Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005). Although the integration of technology with education and training is emphasised, the studies show that teacher training programmes are unable to prepare the teacher candidates in an appropriate manner in terms of the integration of technology, and that many teachers used technology unwillingly in their lessons (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999; Willis & Mehlinger, 1996; Zhao et al., 2002). They also show that even though lessons with technological content offer opportunities with regard to introducing teacher candidates to different technological tools and how to use them, teacher candidates are unable to sufficiently employ them in application lessons and make successful presentations (Hew & Brush, 2007; Vannatta & Beyerbach, 2000).

Following the above questions, the teacher candidates were given a brief explanation about what TPACK knowledge is. After this explanation, the teacher candidates were asked the third question which is “Do you think your TPACK knowledge is sufficient?” After the explanation, all of the teacher candidates who previously considered themselves sufficient or deficient stated that TPACK knowledge was a more complicated knowledge and that they felt themselves insufficient. As the interview continued, the teacher candidates started to concentrate on how to develop TPACK knowledge rather than questioning their TPACK knowledge. Two physics teacher candidates (PH-3, PH-5) stated that they had courses with regard to technological knowledge and pedagogical knowledge in their departments, but they did not have any courses which provided TPACK knowledge in detail. Physics teacher candidates stated that elective courses included courses and projects close to the discourses in relation to TPACK, but that was not sufficient. Two science teacher candidates (SC-2, SC-4) stated that they had pedagogical courses as well as courses in which technological and content knowledge were considered together but they did not have any applied courses in which the three of them were considered simultaneously. Furthermore, science teacher candidates complained about the insignificance of the technological dimension of the courses. They stated that they were not usually taught as web focused or experimental in their courses, and they had classroom activities and demonstration experiments but those were simple and unattractive. Five teacher candidates (PH-1, PH-5, SC-1, SC-2, SC-3) emphasised that instructors also had to perform sample applications in their courses so that TPACK knowledge could be gained. The same teacher candidates supposed that the TPACK knowledge of most of the instructors is insufficient based on the definition of TPACK knowledge given. Seven teacher candidates (PH-1, PH-2, PH-5, SC-2, SC-3, SC-4, SC-5) suppose that it should be added within the syllabus as a new course so that this knowledge can be acquired. They believe that TPACK knowledge itself should mainly be a course to be given, and this course should be taught by the educators who are good at physics or science subjects. Two science teacher candidates (SC-1, SC-4) recommended that guiding books should be written so that TPACK knowledge can be improved. They stated that a crammer, which is in a suggestive level to teachers and teacher candidates, should be prepared, although not for all subjects in the syllabus. Two teacher candidates (PH-4, SC-5) stated that instructors only educated through presentation in their courses and these courses were prepared and taught by the teacher candidates themselves. They stated that the courses which were given in this way were usually memorised and that they were evaluated in the form of test or in written form. The same teacher candidates suppose that TPACK knowledge can be gained by being supported by projects and active applications following the related education and instruction.

It was understood from the interviews which were conducted with the teacher candidates that physics teacher candidates had more elective courses with regard to physics education. Upon the examination of the syllabus, it was found that physics teacher candidates had more elective courses and that these courses were rich in technological knowledge. This may indicate why physics teacher candidates were more successful in the dimensions other than PK and PCK (TK, TPK, TCK, TPACK) when compared to science teacher candidates.