University Teachers' Competence in Domains of Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge An Analysis
Ho 1 There is no significant gender difference in the technological knowledge domain in terms of male and female competence
Table 2 displays a gender-wise comparison between male and female competence and domains of TPACK. It demonstrates a significant difference between male and female respondents in the technological knowledge domain (.02), indicating that males were more competent than female respondents. At the same time, there was not a significant difference found between the rest of the TPACK domains.
7373
Table 2 Gender Wise Comparison based on University Teachers' Competence in Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge Domain (N= 350)
Variables Gender N Mean SD t df Sig
TK Male 124 30.32 3.300 2.204 348 .02
Female 226 29.46 3.607
PK Male 124 26.50 2.721 .927 348 .35
Female 226 26.19 3.190
CK Male 124 21.96 2.424 -.34 348 .97
Female 226 21.97 2.506
PCK Male 124 17.64 2.014 .27 348 .78
Female 226 17.58 1.995
TCK Male 124 17.55 2.120 .90 348 .36
Female 226 17.33 2.156
TPK Male 124 29.54 3.809 -.46 348 .64
Female 226 29.73 3.724
6. Conclusion
It is expected that due to current social change where females are given the freedom to use technology (Mobile phones, social media, etc.), future female teachers may have good competence in the technology domain. It was concluded that university teachers have competence in technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge.
However, concerning gender differences, a significant difference was found in male and female competence.
The present research findings revealed that female teachers were less competent than male teachers in integrating technology in teaching. Therefore, it is recommended that universities and management introduce special training programs for female teachers regarding technology integration. In the present research, the contextual aspect of the TPACK model could not be explored due to certain constraints. Then the current research used only a close-ended items questionnaire as a data collection tool and did not include any interviews or observations. This study was confined to only public sector universities, and private universities were not included. Therefore, in the future, the same research can be replicated in private sector universities, and a comparison of both public and private sector universities can be carried out. The research can be carried out to determine differences in results using questionnaires, interviews, and observational tools and to conduct triangular analysis. Further, it can be investigated to the extent to which Pakistani university teachers are aware and using OERs (Open Educational Resources) to develop their knowledge repertoire.
Technology has become an integral part of our social and professional lives. Of course, in such an environment, teachers, especially university teachers, have become users of technology in their personal and professional lives.
The results indicated that teachers had competence in technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) domains. Results depicted that most teachers were found aware of the basics of computer components, they thought about multiple ways of teaching content and kept on developing their knowledge repertoire in their subject area, made questions on their own to assess students' understanding of the subject and selected practical teaching approaches to guide students' learning in their subject, they developed their lesson plans and made lessons more accessible for the students, they knew about the technologies that they can use for enhancing understanding of their subject and also used technologies to develop learning activity and chose technologies that enhanced the teaching approaches for a lesson. They reflected critically on how to use technology in their classroom. The results indicated that teachers had competence in technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. This competence can change teachers' attitudes, which can help them move towards blended learning and create a digital environment in the class. These results were also supported by numerous studies (Chai, Hong, & Teo, 2008;
Kennewell & Morgan, 2003; Yusuf & Balogun, 2011; Doe, 2016; Mahdum, 2015). It is observed that there is an increased requirement regarding the incorporation of technology in the field of education (Abbitt & Klett, 2007;
Lin, Tsai, Chai & Lee 2013; Usluel, Mumcu, & Demiraslan, 2007; Erdem, 2007; Chai, Hung & Toe, 2008;) we needed technology integration to check teachers' competence (Chai, Hung & Lee, 2008; Keser, 2015). The findings of this research are also consistent with Saltan & Arsalan (2017). The present researched observed significant gender differences between male and female competence and TPACK domains which specified that male teachers were more competent in using technology than female teachers. The findings of the present research were consistent with Erdogan and Sahin (2010); Canbolat (2011); Unal (2013); Karatas's (2014); Keser (2015);
74 74
Table 2 Gender Wise Comparison based on University Teachers' Competence in Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge Domain (N= 350)
Variables Gender N Mean SD t df Sig
TK Male 124 30.32 3.300 2.204 348 .02
Female 226 29.46 3.607
PK Male 124 26.50 2.721 .927 348 .35
Female 226 26.19 3.190
CK Male 124 21.96 2.424 -.34 348 .97
Female 226 21.97 2.506
PCK Male 124 17.64 2.014 .27 348 .78
Female 226 17.58 1.995
TCK Male 124 17.55 2.120 .90 348 .36
Female 226 17.33 2.156
TPK Male 124 29.54 3.809 -.46 348 .64
Female 226 29.73 3.724
6. Conclusion
It is expected that due to current social change where females are given the freedom to use technology (Mobile phones, social media, etc.), future female teachers may have good competence in the technology domain. It was concluded that university teachers have competence in technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge.
However, concerning gender differences, a significant difference was found in male and female competence.
The present research findings revealed that female teachers were less competent than male teachers in integrating technology in teaching. Therefore, it is recommended that universities and management introduce special training programs for female teachers regarding technology integration. In the present research, the contextual aspect of the TPACK model could not be explored due to certain constraints. Then the current research used only a close-ended items questionnaire as a data collection tool and did not include any interviews or observations. This study was confined to only public sector universities, and private universities were not included. Therefore, in the future, the same research can be replicated in private sector universities, and a comparison of both public and private sector universities can be carried out. The research can be carried out to determine differences in results using questionnaires, interviews, and observational tools and to conduct triangular analysis. Further, it can be investigated to the extent to which Pakistani university teachers are aware and using OERs (Open Educational Resources) to develop their knowledge repertoire.
Technology has become an integral part of our social and professional lives. Of course, in such an environment, teachers, especially university teachers, have become users of technology in their personal and professional lives.
The results indicated that teachers had competence in technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) domains. Results depicted that most teachers were found aware of the basics of computer components, they thought about multiple ways of teaching content and kept on developing their knowledge repertoire in their subject area, made questions on their own to assess students' understanding of the subject and selected practical teaching approaches to guide students' learning in their subject, they developed their lesson plans and made lessons more accessible for the students, they knew about the technologies that they can use for enhancing understanding of their subject and also used technologies to develop learning activity and chose technologies that enhanced the teaching approaches for a lesson. They reflected critically on how to use technology in their classroom. The results indicated that teachers had competence in technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. This competence can change teachers' attitudes, which can help them move towards blended learning and create a digital environment in the class. These results were also supported by numerous studies (Chai, Hong, & Teo, 2008;
Kennewell & Morgan, 2003; Yusuf & Balogun, 2011; Doe, 2016; Mahdum, 2015). It is observed that there is an increased requirement regarding the incorporation of technology in the field of education (Abbitt & Klett, 2007;
Lin, Tsai, Chai & Lee 2013; Usluel, Mumcu, & Demiraslan, 2007; Erdem, 2007; Chai, Hung & Toe, 2008;) we needed technology integration to check teachers' competence (Chai, Hung & Lee, 2008; Keser, 2015). The findings of this research are also consistent with Saltan & Arsalan (2017). The present researched observed significant gender differences between male and female competence and TPACK domains which specified that male teachers were more competent in using technology than female teachers. The findings of the present research were consistent with Erdogan and Sahin (2010); Canbolat (2011); Unal (2013); Karatas's (2014); Keser (2015);
74
Bas & Senturk (2018). This gender difference technological domain where males were found better than female university teachers may be due to cultural differences. In Pakistani society, males are privileged class and get maximum exposure to use technology compared to females (Bas & Senturk, 2018; Ozudogru & Ozudogru, 2019).
Therefore, it is expected that with time, our social values concerning females become flexible in some practices, like using technology.
Acknowledgment
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The researchers acknowledge the participation of respondents who provided an answer to the questionnaire. The researchers also appreciate the National University of Modern Languages (NUML) Pakistan for the supportive environment to complete this research. Finally yet importantly, the researchers are thankful to BLTeae (Blended learning courses for teacher educators between Asia and Europe) project as BLTeae inspired them to create this research.
References
Abbitt, J. T., & Klett, M. D. (2007). Identifying influences on attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs towards technology integration among pre-service educators. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 6.
Aguinaldo, B. (2016). Developing and Applying TPACK for a Blended Learning Environment: A Rural Higher Education Experience in the Philippines.Countryside Development Research Journal,4(01), 27-35.
Bas, G., & Senturk, C. (2018). An Evaluation of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) of In-Service Teachers: A Study in Turkish Public Schools. International Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 46-58.
Canbolat, N. (2011). Research on the interaction between technological pedagogical content knowledge and thinking styles of mathematics teacher candidates. Unpublished Master's thesis, Institute of Educational Sciences, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Konya.
Chai, C. S., Hung, H., & Teo, T. (2008). Singaporean and Taiwanese pre-service teachers' beliefs and their attitude towards ICT: A comparative study. Paper presented at the 16th International Conference on Computers in Education.
Jaikaran-Doe, S. (2016).Teachers’ confidence with technology: perceptions of the impact of a student laptop computer program in Trinidad and Tobago(Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania).
Erdem, E. (2007). Teacher efficacy beliefs. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 35(5), 573–
Erdogan, A., & Şahin, I. (2010). Relationship between math teacher candidates' technological pedagogical and 586.
content knowledge (TPACK) and achievement levels. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2707-2711.
Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M.J. (2011). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Action: A Descriptive Study of Secondary Teachers' Curriculum-Based, Technology-Related Instructional Planning JRTE, 43,3, 211–
Karataş, A. (2014). 229. Investigation of high school teachers' pedagogical content knowledge competence in implementing the FATIH Project: Example of Adıyamanprovince.Unpublished Master's Thesis, Institute of Educational Sciences, Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sakarya.
Kennewell, S., & Morgan, A. (2003, July). Student teachers' experiences and attitudes towards using interactive whiteboards in the teaching and learning of young children. Presented at the IFIP Working Groups 3.5 Conference: Young Children and Learning Technologies.UWS Parramatta.
Keser, H., Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Yilmaz, R. (2015). TPACK Competencies and Technology Integration Self-Efficacy Perceptions of Pre-Service Teachers.Online Submission,14(4), 1193-1207.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. InHandbook of research on educational communications and technology(pp. 101-111). Springer, New York, NY.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.shorturl.at/osEU2
Larson, L, J, E. (2012). Teacher and Student Perspectives on a Blended Learning Intensive English Program Writing Course.
Lin, T. C., Tsai, C. C., Chai, C. S., & Lee, M. H. (2013). Identifying science teachers' perceptions of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 325-336.
7575
Mahdum, M. (2015). Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) of English teachers in Pekanbaru, Riau, Indonesia.Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences,6(5), 168-168.Mazman, S. G., &
Usluel, Y. K. (2011). ICT integration into the learning-teaching process: Models and indicators. Education Technology Theory and Practice.1(1), 62-79.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Using the TPACK framework: You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too.Learning & Leading with Technology,36(7), 15-18.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054 on 14-07-18.
Ozudogru, M., & Ozudogru, F. (2019). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Mathematics Teachers and the Effect of Demographic Variables. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2019, 10(1), 1-24 https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.512515.
Peklaj, C. (2015). Teacher Competencies through the Prism of Educational Research. C E P S Journal,5, 3.
Qasem, A. A. A. (2016). Blended Learning Approach to Develop the Teachers' TPACK. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2016, 7(3), 264-276.
Saltan, F., & Arsalan, K. (2017). A comparison of in-service and pre-service teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge self-confidence. Information & Communications Technology in Education.
Shulman, L. S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective.
In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3, 3-36).New York: McMillan Publishing.
Shulman, L. S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Şimşek, N., & Boz, N. (2016). Analysis of pedagogical content knowledge studies in the context of mathematics education in Turkey: A meta-synthesis study.Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice,16(3).
Teo, T., Chai, C.S., Hong, D. & Lee, C.B. (2008). Beliefs about teaching and uses of technology among pre-service teachers.Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 165-176.
Turner, T. N., Clabough, J., & Cole, W. (2014). Getting at the Core of the Common Core with Social Studies, 226.
Unal, E. (2013). Examining the relationship between pre-service teachers' perceptions of technology integration self-efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge competencies. Master's Thesis, Ankara University.
Usluel, Y. K., Mumcu, F. K., & Demiraslan, Y. (2007). ICT in the learning-teaching process: Teachers' views on the integration and obstacles. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 32(32).
Yusuf, M. O., & Balogun, M. R. (2011). Student-teachers' competence and attitude towards Information and communication technology: A case study in a Nigerian University.Contemporary educational technology,2(1), 18-36.
76 76
Mahdum, M. (2015). Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) of English teachers in Pekanbaru, Riau, Indonesia.Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences,6(5), 168-168.Mazman, S. G., &
Usluel, Y. K. (2011). ICT integration into the learning-teaching process: Models and indicators. Education Technology Theory and Practice.1(1), 62-79.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Using the TPACK framework: You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too.Learning & Leading with Technology,36(7), 15-18.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054 on 14-07-18.
Ozudogru, M., & Ozudogru, F. (2019). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Mathematics Teachers and the Effect of Demographic Variables. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2019, 10(1), 1-24 https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.512515.
Peklaj, C. (2015). Teacher Competencies through the Prism of Educational Research. C E P S Journal,5, 3.
Qasem, A. A. A. (2016). Blended Learning Approach to Develop the Teachers' TPACK. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2016, 7(3), 264-276.
Saltan, F., & Arsalan, K. (2017). A comparison of in-service and pre-service teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge self-confidence. Information & Communications Technology in Education.
Shulman, L. S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective.
In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3, 3-36).New York: McMillan Publishing.
Shulman, L. S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Şimşek, N., & Boz, N. (2016). Analysis of pedagogical content knowledge studies in the context of mathematics education in Turkey: A meta-synthesis study.Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice,16(3).
Teo, T., Chai, C.S., Hong, D. & Lee, C.B. (2008). Beliefs about teaching and uses of technology among pre-service teachers.Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 165-176.
Turner, T. N., Clabough, J., & Cole, W. (2014). Getting at the Core of the Common Core with Social Studies, 226.
Unal, E. (2013). Examining the relationship between pre-service teachers' perceptions of technology integration self-efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge competencies. Master's Thesis, Ankara University.
Usluel, Y. K., Mumcu, F. K., & Demiraslan, Y. (2007). ICT in the learning-teaching process: Teachers' views on the integration and obstacles. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 32(32).
Yusuf, M. O., & Balogun, M. R. (2011). Student-teachers' competence and attitude towards Information and communication technology: A case study in a Nigerian University.Contemporary educational technology,2(1), 18-36.
76