The use of technological tools in the classrooms has increased significantly in recent years; however, the frequent use of technological tools does not necessarily mean that the integration of technology is successful (Farjon et al., 2019). Learning how to teach with technological tools in an effective way is a complex task for teachers; it requires not only knowing technological tools but also how to use these tools to design powerful learning activities (Valanides, 2018). Even though several models have been proposed in the last few decades to explore technology integration into education, most of them were generally focused on the technological skills of teachers, ignoring the pedagogical aspects of teaching with technology (Jimoyiannis, 2008). For this reason, the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework, introduced by Mishra and Koehler (2006) to propose a conceptual framework for effective teaching with technology considering the interactions between technology knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge, has been widely accepted and studied all around the world since its introduction.

TPACK framework suggests that there is no single best way for technology integration into education, but integration efforts should be designed creatively according to the subject matter to be taught and specific classroom contexts (Koehler et al., 2013). In this framework, knowledge of content, pedagogy, and technology are not isolated bodies of knowledge; they are all interrelated and form teachers’ main knowledge. Teachers have a key role in the technology integration process because the integration of technology into teaching is not just a different way of presenting information; technology, pedagogy, and content should be combined in such a way that students become active learners engaged in appropriate learning activities. Teachers need to know how to use technology as a tool for improving the learning process, not a tool to carry out direct instruction with reading materials presented via technological tools (Jimoyiannis, 2010). The quality and effectiveness of technology integration into education highly depend on the teacher.

Considering the possible improvements technology can bring into science education, integration of technology into classroom practices is one of the most important areas to be investigated to be able to improve the quality of education. Technology has a significant potential to improve science instruction, and the level and the quality of its integration highly depends on science teachers and, accordingly, on science teacher education programs. However, the results of the studies investigating science teachers’ TPACK generally revealed that science teachers do not possess adequate technological knowledge and do not know how to integrate technology into science instruction. Based on the previous studies conducted to improve science teachers’ TPACK, it can be said that science teachers need professional help, continuous feedback and support, guidance, active involvement, and authentic learning experiences to be able to integrate technology into instruction effectively (Jang & Chen, 2009; Jimoyiannis, 2010).

For this reason, in this research, an instructional course design was created to help science teachers’ (1) develop an informed understanding of the TPACK framework and its implications for science education; (2) gain required knowledge and skills to combine technology and pedagogy effectively for teaching science content; (3) experience the technology integration process while preparing lesson plans for teaching science. The influence of the course design was evaluated with the help of surveys assessing science teachers’ self-efficacy and perceived competencies of TPACK. The specific research question guided the study was:

• Is there a change in graduate science education students’ perceived competencies and self-efficacy of TPACK after attending Teaching Science with Technology course based on Theory – Application – Practice (T-A-P) course design?

The present study has followed a design-based research (DBR) methodology since it is aimed to find a solution to a real teaching and learning problem –science teachers do not possess required skills for meaningful technology integration– and “increase the relevance of research for educational policy and practice” (van der Akker et al., 2006, p.2). Typical design-based research includes two or more iterative cycles. The present study was conducted for two semesters with a total of 12 science teachers. As Gravemeijer and Cobb (2006) explained, there are three phases of a design-based research: The first phase is preparing for the experiment. In the present study, the first phase included reviewing the relevant literature, determining the common characteristics of effective programs for developing science teachers’ level of TPACK, and preparing a course design to be implemented in Teaching Science with Technology graduate course. The T-A-P course design, composed of three stages named as Theory, Application, and Practice, mainly focused on increasing technological knowledge and helping participants gain the required knowledge and skills to combine technology and pedagogy effectively for teaching science content. The second phase of DBR is experimenting in the classroom. In the present study, the T-A-P course design had been implemented for two semesters. During these semesters, science teachers were asked to write weekly feedback about each class meeting. The researchers had analyzed this feedback weekly to improve the design continuously. In addition, in order to investigate the change in participants’ self-efficacy and perceived competencies of TPACK, data were collected during this stage by means of TPACK surveys. The last phase of DBR is the retrospective analysis, where the entire data set is collected, implementation is finalized, and the researchers analyzed data for the development of the instructional design. In the present study, data were collected by means of pre- and post-administration of two TPACK surveys. The scales were converted into google forms, and participants filled them online. •Participants’ perceived competencies of TPACK were measured by the TPACK-Deep scale developed by Kabakçı-Yurdakul et al. (2012). It is a 33-item 5-point Likert-type scale composed of four subscales. •Participants’ self-efficacy of TPACK was measured by the TPACK-SeS scale developed by Canbazoğlu-Bilici et al. (2013). It is a 52-item 100-point rating scale ranging from 0 to 100 divided into 10 unit intervals composed of eight subscales.

Descriptive statistics revealed that participants’ mean scores on all of the subscales and total scale of TPACK-Deep increased after taking Teaching Science with Technology course. In order to investigate whether the increase in mean scores was statistically significant, Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was performed. The results showed that the increase in design subscale (z = -2.75, p < .05, r = .56); exertion subscale (z = -2.58, p < .05, r = .53); ethics subscale (z = -2.85, p < .05, r = .58); proficiency subscale (z = -2.82, p < .05, r = .58) and the total scale (z = -2.67, p < .05, r = .54) was statistically significant with large effect sizes. Similarly, descriptive statistics showed that participants’ mean scores on all of the subscales and total scale of TPACK-SeS increased after taking Teaching Science with Technology course. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test revealed that the increase was statistically significant in participants’ overall self-efficacy of TPACK, z = -2.75, p < .05, with a large effect size (r = .56). When the change in mean scores of subscales were examined, the magnitude of difference, measured by effect size, was large in pedagogical knowledge (r = .53), technological content knowledge (r = .55), technological pedagogical knowledge (r = .58), technological pedagogical content knowledge (r = .60) and context knowledge (r = .57). The magnitude of change in content knowledge (r = .46), pedagogical content knowledge (r = .44) and technological knowledge (r = .45) was medium. As it was evident from descriptive and inferential analysis, participants’ self-efficacy of TPACK and perceived competencies of TPACK had significantly improved after attending Teaching Science with Technology course based on T-A-P course design.

Canbazoğlu-Bilici, S., Yamak, H., Kavak, N., & Guzey, S. S. (2013). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Self-Efficacy Scale (TPACK-SeS) for pre-service science teachers: Construction, validation, and reliability. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 37-60. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/159880/ Farjon, D., Smits, A., & Voogt, J. (2019). Technology integration of pre-service teachers explained by attitudes and beliefs, competency, access, and experience. Computers & Education, 130, 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.010 Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J. van der Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational Design Research (pp. 17-51). Routledge. Jang, S. J., & Chen, K. C. (2010). From PCK to TPACK: Developing a transformative model for pre-service science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 553-564. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/76320/ Jimoyiannis, A. (2008). Factors determining teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of ICT in education. In A. Cartelli, & M. Palma (Eds.), Encyclopedia of information communication technology (pp. 321–334). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-845-1 Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259-1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.022 Kabakci Yurdakul, I., Odabasi, H. F., Kilicer, K., Coklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A. (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Computers & Education, 58(3), 964-977. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/66817/ Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002205741319300303 Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/99246/ Valanides, N. (2018). Technological tools: From technical affordances to educational affordances. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 76(2), 116-120. http://oaji.net/articles/2017/457-1524597237.pdf van der Akker, J. Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S. & Nieveen, N. (2006) Introducing educational research design. In J. van der Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen, (Eds.), Educational Design Research (pp. 1-8). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203088364