Teachers’ Knowledge of Using ICT in Instruction – Adaption of the TPACK Model and Classification of Teacher Types in Germany
Author(s):
Manuela Endberg (presenting / submitting) Ramona Lorenz Wilfried Bos
Conference:
ECER 2017
Format:
Paper

Session Information

16 SES 10 B, Teachers and ICT

Paper Session

Time:
2017-08-24
15:30-17:00
Room:
W4.21
Chair:
Philippe Gabriel

Contribution

In Germany empirical studies addressing both teachers’ professional knowledge as well as their knowledge of successfully integrating ICT in their teaching are scarce, even though media literacy and media education of (pre-service) teachers are considerably well-theorized domains in the German education research (e.g. Tiede, Grafe, & Hobbs, 2015). Unfortunately, the aspect of knowing how to use ICT in instruction to support students’ learning has not yet been integrated into well-established models of teachers’ professional knowledge which are mostly based on Shulman’s (1986) concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK).  

Originally developed for the US-school and teacher education system, Shulman’s approach of pedagogical content knowledge was adapted and extended to the context of teaching with ICT by incorporating technological knowledge as a unique knowledge domain. The new model was abbreviated as TPCK (technological pedagogical content knowledge, Mishra, & Koehler, 2006) but is nowadays mostly stylized as TPACK (Herring, Koehler, & Mishra, 2016). The TPACK-model rapidly gained international popularity and is deemed to be an influential concept for teacher training and professional development programs (ibid.).

The TPACK-model, usually depicted as a Venn-diagram with overlapping circles (Mishra, & Koehler, 2006), consists of seven knowledge domains – the three basic knowledge domains content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and technological knowledge (TK) as well as the four combinations of these domains. 

TPACK as the combined knowledge of all overlaps serves as the knowledge basis for good teaching with technology while addressing the complex, multifaceted and situated nature of teacher knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and can be considered an advanced understanding of teachers’ professional knowledge (Voogt et al., 2013).

In order to assess the TPACK of pre-service teachers Schmidt et al. (2009) developed a self-assessment survey instrument which served as basis for several studies investigating teachers’ TPACK (e.g. Alayyar, Fisser, & Voogt, 2012; Koh, Chai, & Tsai, 2014). However, as these studies had divergent samples, designs, purposes and degrees of modification from the original instrument, results are not unconditionally comparable. Nevertheless, consistent findings of ICT-related and TPACK-based studies indicate that male teachers rate their TPACK-knowledge higher regarding the knowledge domains involving technology (Koh et al., 2014) and younger teachers report higher self-assessed ICT-competencies (Fraillon et al., 2014) as well as TPACK-knowledge (Lee, & Tsai, 2010).

Despite the huge popularity of the TPACK framework which in recent years also significantly increased in Europe this approach is neither well-established in Germany nor has it been empirically applied in a German context. However, since media literacy has become essential in recent years, there is a clear necessity to analyze teachers’ TPACK in Germany in order to ensure adequate media education. Therefore, the goal of our presented study was to implement TPACK as part of a representative survey of secondary school teachers in Germany for the very first time in order to assess teachers’ self-proclaimed professional knowledge in terms of TPACK. For this purpose the TPACK survey instrument by Schmidt et al. (2009) was translated and adapted to be part of the representative teacher survey “Schule digital – der Länderindikator” conducted in Germany in 2016 (Bos et al., 2016). Keeping the aforementioned findings in mind, the aim of the study at hand is to analyze, whether teachers in Germany differ in terms of their self-assessed TPACK knowledge in such a way to be classified as different teacher types.

The research questions considered in this paper are

1)      How do teachers in Germany assess their TPACK according to selected knowledge domains?

2)      Can different types of teachers be identified based on their self-assessed TPACK?

Method

Data was gathered from a representative sample of 1210 secondary school teachers in Germany using computer-assisted personal interviews. Distributions of gender, age, and type of school are consistent with the overall distribution of these factors in the population of secondary school teachers in Germany. The self-assessed knowledge for each knowledge domain considered in our survey (TK, PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK) is first analyzed for the whole sample of teachers (RQ1) by reporting means and standard deviations by use of the statistical software SPSS 24. To identify different teacher types according to their answer patterns to the indicators of the considered TPACK domains (RQ 2), a Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was conducted by using the statistical software Mplus 7. Overall 21 indicators have been included in the LCA coded by a 5-point-Likert scale (0 - disagreement, 1 - slight disagreement, 2 - neither agreement nor disagreement, 3 - slight agreement and 4 - agreement). The number of latent classes was decided by considerations of different methods. As the information criteria (AIC and BIC) did not decisively indicate the number of classes fitting best with the data (Hagenaars, & McCutcheon, 2002), different tests of the data were undertaken to find the best-fitting as well as the best-interpretable solution. Ultimately, both the bootstrap-likelihood-ratio-difference-test and the Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin-likelihood-ratio-test (Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2012) as well as the interpretability of the differentiated latent classes (Bacher, & Vermund, 2010) pointed to four classes to be the appropriate solution. Post-hoc application of the split-half reliability test (ibid.) was undertaken resulting in the replication of the found solution for both randomly-split halves of the overall sample. Thus, four types of teachers with clearly differentiable patterns of self-assessment with regard to the five considered knowledge domains of the TPACK-model could be identified.

Expected Outcomes

Concerning the first research question findings show that teachers in Germany assess their knowledge differently according to the knowledge domains considered. PCK and TCK are overall rated the highest whereas teachers feel slightly less confident regarding their TK, TPK, and TPACK. High standard deviations can be found for almost all indicators which point out huge differences in teachers’ self-assessment of TPACK. LCA results provide four types of teachers which clearly differ in terms of their self-assessed knowledge of linking content, pedagogy, and technology in instruction. The four teacher types (TT) can be described according to their decreasing levels of self-assessed knowledge: (TT1) very high knowledge (25.0%), (TT2) rather high knowledge (44.2%), (TT3) medium level of knowledge (23.0%), (TT4) little knowledge (7.8%). Further analyses involving teachers’ gender and age reveal results consistent with the current state of research. TT1 is predominantly constituted of male teachers and teachers of younger age (up to 39 years), whereas TT4 is comprised of a considerably larger number of female and older (50 years or above) teachers. These findings provide more in-depth information based on a representative teacher sample and are crucial to further media education research and policy decisions. What should be the purpose of further research is to find out whether these teacher types actually differ in teaching style and teaching quality. Concerning media education it would be of interest to analyze if teachers with higher self-assessed TPACK use ICT more frequently in instruction and foster students’ computer and information literacy. As TPACK is currently gaining popularity in Europe, results of teachers’ self-assessment from other European countries would be helpful to validate and interpret these findings in a European educational context, with a special focus on teacher education standards.

References

Alayyar, G. M., Fisser, P. & Voogt, J. (2012). Developing technological pedagocal content knowledge in pre-service science teachers: Support from blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (8), 1298–1316. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2012). Using Mplus TECH11 and TECH14 to test the number of latent classes. Mplus Web Notes, 14. Bacher, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2010). Analyse latenter Klassen. In C. Wolf, & H. Best (Eds.). Handbuch der sozialwissenschaftlichen Datenanalyse (pp. 553–574). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Bos, W., Lorenz, R., Endberg, M., Eickelmann, B., Kammerl, R., & Welling, S. (Eds.). (2016). Schule digital – der Länderindikator 2016. Kompetenzen von Lehrpersonen der Sekundarstufe I im Umgang mit digitalen Medien im Bundesländervergleich. Münster: Waxmann. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (Eds.). (2014). Preparing for Life in a Digital Age. The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study. International Report. Hagenaars, J., & McCutcheon, A. (2002). Applied latent class analysis models. New York: Cambridge University Press. Herring, M., Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (Eds.) (2016). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (2nd edition). New York: Routledge. Koh, J. H.-L., Chai, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Demographic Factors, TPACK Constructs, and Teachers’ Perceptions of Constructivist-Oriented TPACK. Educational Technology & Society, 17 (1), 185–196. Lee, M.-H., & 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, 38 (1), 1–21. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017–1054. 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 if an Assessment Instrument for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42 (2), 123–149. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4–14. Tiede, J., Grafe, S. & Hobbs, R. (2015). Pedagogical media competencies of pre-service teachers in Germany and the United States: a comparative analysis of theory and practice. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(4), 533-545. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge - a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29 (2), 109–121.

Author Information

Manuela Endberg (presenting / submitting)
TU Dortmund University
Center for Research on Education and School Development
Dortmund
TU Dortmund University, Germany
TU Dortmund University, Germany

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.