Symposium at the 24th Annual International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, 27 March 2013. This symposium discusses several ways in which (pre-service) teachers‟ TPACK can be measured. The first two studies unravel the TPACK survey (Schmidt et al., 2009), a self-report instrument to determine TPACK, and try to revalidate the survey in two different pre-service teacher education contexts: The US and the Netherlands. The third study triangulates findings from the TPACK survey with other instruments to better understand teachers‟ development of TPACK that resulted from teachers‟ collaborative design of technology integrated lessons. The last contribution focuses on measuring transfer of TPACK, as it studies how beginning teachers, who had TPACK training during their pre-service education, demonstrated TPACK in their practice. Similarities and differences in the ways TPACK were measured and its implications will be discussed.

1. MEASURING TPACK
International symposium on TPACK
Joke Voogt, Petra Fisser, Ayoub Kafyulilo, Douglas Agyei (University of Twente)
Johan van Braak, Jo Tondeur, Natalie Pareja Roblin (Ghent University)
Denise Schmidt-Crawford, Dale Niederhauser, Wei Wang (Iowa State University)
SITE 2013, 27 March 2013, New Orleans

2. Invited international symposium on TPACK
 2010
Strategies for teacher professional development on TPACK
 2011
Teachers‟ assessment of TPACK: Where are we and what is
needed?
 2012
Developing TPACK around the world: Probing the framework even
as we apply it
 2013: Measuring TPACK

3. Conceptualizing
TPACK
Strategies to
acquire TPACK
Measuring
effects

4. The Netherlands
Belgium
Iowa State
Ghana Tanzania

5. Part 1
 Introduction to the symposium – Joke Voogt
 Measuring TPACK: Further Validation of the Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge Survey for Preservice
(TPACK) Teachers - Denise Schmidt-Crawford, Wei Wang, Dale
Niederhauser, Iowa State University
 Unraveling the TPACK model: finding TPACK-Core –
Petra Fisser & Joke Voogt, University of Twente, The Netherlands,
Johan van Braak & Jo Tondeur, Ghent University, Belgium
 Discussion with the Audience

6. MEASURING TPACK:
Further Validation of the
TPACK Survey
for Preservice Teachers
Denise A. Schmidt-Crawford
Dale Niederhauser
Wei Wang
Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching
School of Education
Iowa State University

7. Validation of TPACK Survey
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P.,
Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009-10). Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The
Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument for
Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 42, 123-149.
Characteristics:
• 47 likert-item survey
• Seven constructs
• Preservice teachers (elementary & early childhood education)

8. Sampling of Requests…

9. Sampling of Requests…

10. The Problem
• Other researchers using the survey were finding
different patterns of results:
• Factors were not stable
• Items were loading on different factors
• Factors were not aligning with the
conceptual model

11. Further Analysis
• Research Context:
• 3-credit, introduction to technology course (15 weeks)
• Required for elementary education and early childhood education majors
• Attend two, 1-hour lectures and one, 2-hour laboratory session every
week
• Participants:
• 534 preservice teachers
• 82% elementary education majors, 16% early childhood education
majors, 2% other
• 88% female; 12% male
• 23% freshmen, 40% sophomores, 30% juniors, 7% seniors
• 72% had not yet completed a practicum experience
• Research Procedures:
• Online survey administered at the end of the course (15-25 minutes to
complete)

12. Data Analysis
• Principle components
factor analysis
(Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization)
• Internal consistency
(Cronbach‟s alpha)

13. TPACK as an Exploded Abstraction
T
P C

14. Results
1. TK, PK, TPK, TCK factors remained the same.
TPACK Total Eigen
Construct Items Values
TK 6 .877
PK 7 .921
TPK 9 .902
TCK 5 .879

15. Results
2. CK is messy!
TPACK Total Combined Eigen
Construct Items Items Value
CK 12 3 .854
Comment:
I can use a ____________ way of thinking.
I have various ways and strategies for developing my understanding of __________.
I have sufficient knowledge about _____________.

16. Results
3. PCK – Math item dropped out.
TPACK Total Eigen
Construct Items Value
PCK 3 .865
Comment:
Indicated the participants were not answering “math” question in ways that
aligned with the other content areas.

17. Results
4. TPACK – Two factors emerged (content, general).
TPACK Total Eigen
Construct Items Values
Content 4 .885
General 4 .917

18. Measuring TPACK
• Collecting information about preservice teachers‟ perception of what
they know
• Direct measure of self perception
• Indirect measure of knowledge
• Start using direct measures for some TPACK constructs
• e.g., CK – Content specific measures, PK – Praxis test
• Program evaluation – Provides metrics of key places in teacher
education program
• What is working? What is not? (Interventions)
• Start looking at TPACK as a dynamic model – What kinds of
experiences can we provide to build “overlap?”

19. Returning to the Problem
• Using survey with „other‟ populations (i.e.,
inservice teachers)
• Using survey with a focus on a specific
content area (i.e., math, science)
• Using survey in different countries
• Validity & reliability are effected by
population and content area

20. QUESTIONS?
Denise A. Schmidt-Crawford
dschmidt@iastate.edu
Dale Niederhauser
dsn@iastate.edu
Wei Wang
weiyui72@iastate.edu
Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching
School of Education
Iowa State University

21. Unraveling the TPACK model: finding TPACK-Core
Joke Voogt, Petra Fisser
University of Twente
Johan van Braak, Jo Tondeur
Ghent University, Belgium
SITE, New Orleans, 27 March 2013

22. Aim of the study: Empirical exploration of the TPACK model
 Can we reproduce the distinguished
constructs of the TPACK conceptual
framework as represented in the Venn
diagram with our data?
 If not:
 can we unravel the model?
 can we find new constructs?
 can we develop a new instrument that
measures the self-perception of
(pre-service) teachers?

23. Why this study?
 We became fascinated by
 the attractiveness of the model
 the acceptance of the model by teachers
 but also by the complexity of the model (and what‟s behind it)
 We worked on
 Survey for pre-service teachers
 Professional development for
in-service teachers
 Literature review (JCAL, 2012)
 Discussions/debates/presentations

24. We all know the TPACK model:
“At the heart of good teaching with technology
are three core components:
content, pedagogy, and technology,
plus the relationships
among and between them.”
(Koehler & Mishra, 2006)

25. The context of the study
The Netherlands Flanders, Belgium
Pre-service teachers Teacher educators
Use of technology in the science Use of technology in different
domain domains
Sample: Sample:
- 287 pre-service teachers - 146 teacher educators
- age 16-24 - age 26-61
- 24% male, 76% female - 29% male, 71% female
- distributed over 4 years of - 1-38 years experience as
study teacher educator
Instrument: TPACK Survey Instrument: TPACK Survey
(Schmidt et al., 2009), all items (Schmidt et al., 2009), T-related
items

26. Results (NL), reliability
 Reliability all TPACK-items together: Cronbach‟s α = 0.92
 Reliability for all categories within
Domain Cronbach’s α
the TPACK Survey:
TK .90
PK .75
CK .74
PCK .63
TCK .85
TPK .72
TPCK .83
Models .73

27. Results (NL), factor analysis
 Factor analysis
 Can we measure TPACK by asking questions for each of the
7 TPACK domains?
 Are we measuring the 7 TPACK domains?
 Exploratory factor analysis (PC, Varimax) revealed 11 factors,
68% of variance explained
 Further analysis of the factors lead to forcing to 7 factors, 58% of
variance explained.
 But… are these 7 factors the same as the 7 TPACK-domains??

28. Results (NL), factor analysis
factor Items in factor Name factor Reliability
Cronbach’s α
1 TK1 TK2 TK3 TK4 TK5 TK6 TK7 Technological .90
Knowledge
2 PK1 PK2 PK3 PK4 PK5 PK6 PK7 Pedagogical Knowledge .75
3 CK1 CK2 CK3 PCK1 PCK2 Pedagogical Science .80
Content Knowledge
4 TCK1 TCK2 TCK3 TCK4 TCK5 TCK6 Technological & .88
TPK1 TPK2 Pedagogical enhanced
TPCK2 TPCK3 TPCK4 TPCK6 Science Content
Knowledge
5 TPK3 TPK4 TPK5 Critically applying .73
TPCK1 TPCK5 learned TPACK
6 Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Role models of TPACK .73
7 TPCK7 TPCK8 TPCK9 TPCK10 TPACK Leadership .89

29. Results (NL), first findings
 Yes: TK and PK (and “role models”)
 No: CK, PCK, TCK, TPK and TPCK
 CK and PCK are combined
 TCK is combined with some of the TPK and some of the TPCK
items and form a “Core TPACK” dimension
 The other TPK and TPCK items are combined and form a scale
“critically thinking about what you learned in your study before
applying it”
 Except for 4 TPCK items that form a “TPACK Leadership” scale

30. Results (NL), focusing on the T-related items
factor Items in factor Name factor Reliability
Cronbach’s α
1 TK1 TK2 TK3 TK4 TK5 TK6 TK7 Technological .90
Knowledge
2 PK1 PK2 PK3 PK4 PK5 PK6 PK7 Pedagogical Knowledge .75
3 CK1 CK2 CK3 PCK1 PCK2 Pedagogical Science .80
Content Knowledge
4 TCK1 TCK2 TCK3 TCK4 TCK5 TCK6 Technological & .88
TPK1 TPK2 Pedagogical enhanced
TPCK2 TPCK3 TPCK4 TPCK6 Science Content
Knowledge
5 TPK3 TPK4 TPK5 Critically applying .73
TPCK1 TPCK5 learned TPACK
6 Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Role models of TPACK .73
7 TPCK7 TPCK8 TPCK9 TPCK10 TPACK Leadership .89

31. Using the NL-results in the Flanders study
 Survey for teacher educators
 Only the T-related items from the TPACK Survey
 Specific science-related items were left out, all items were transformed
to “your content area”
 Reliability all TPACK-items together: Cronbach‟s α = 0.97
 Reliability for all categories within Domain Cronbach’s α
the TPACK Survey:
TK .95
TCK .92
TPK .83
TPCK .96

32. Results (FL)
 Goal: Confirmatory Factor Analysis on the NL-data
 First: doing the Factor analysis again on the NL-data with only the
TPACK Survey items that were included in the FL-survey:
factor Items in factor Name factor Reliability
Cronbach’s α
1 TK1 TK2 TK3 TK4 TK5 TK6 TK7 TK .90
2 TCK1 TCK2 TCK3 TCK4 TCK & TPK .85
TPK1 TPK2
(TPCK1)
3 TPCK1 TPCK2 TPCK3 TPCK4 TPCK .77
TPCK5 TPCK6
(TPCK1)

33. Results (FL)
 Next, the Confirmatory
Factor Analysis:
 Yes, there is a good fit:
 But:
 the correlations
between the factors
are also very high,
 a 1- or 2-factor
solution might be
possible*

34. Unraveling the TPACK model
 When it comes to technology integration…
 Factors:
 TK, TPK/TCK, & TPCK
 or… TK & TPK/TCK/TPCK?
 or… TK/TPK/TCK/TPCK?
 The integration of the domains as described by Koehler & Mishra go
beyond the 3 circles and the overlapping areas!
 But what does that mean?

35. TK, TPK/TCK, & TPCK
 TK items are very general:
“I know how to solve my own technical problems”, “I can learn
technology easily”, “I keep up with important new technologies”
 TPK and TCK items are much more related to (the preparation of)
lessons:
“I can choose technologies that enhance the teaching approaches for
a lesson” and “I can choose technologies that enhance the content for
a lesson”
 TPCK items are related to lessons and activities in the classroom:
“I can teach lessons that appropriately combine science, technologies,
and teaching approaches”, “I can select technologies to use in my
classroom that enhance what I teach, how I teach, and what students
learn”

36. Getting closer to TPACK Core
 Propositions:
1. TK is conditional for TCK, TPK and TPCK
(Voogt, Fisser, Gibson, Knezek & Tondeur, 2012)
(& recent regression analysis)
2. The combination of TPK, TCK and TPCK is the heart (or the core)
of the model (TPACK Core)
And if you take a close look..
It has been there the whole time!

“At the heart of good teaching with technology
are three core components:
content, pedagogy, and technology,
plus the relationships
among and between them.”
(Koehler & Mishra, 2006)

37. What does this mean for measuring TPACK?
 Can we keep the survey items for TK, TCK, TPK and TPCK?
 Or do we need to develop a new set of items that measures TPACK
Core?
 We don‟t have the answer (yet)..

38. What does this mean for measuring TPACK?
 What we do know:
 Developing an instrument that is suitable for every situation is
impossible
 It is the specific context that matters most, and T, P and C are
always context-dependent!
 Measuring TPACK by a self-reporting survey is not enough
 More measurement moments are needed
 More instruments (observation, lesson plan rubric, etc) are
needed

40. More information?
 Ideas about (measuring) TPACK Core? Please contact us!
 Petra Fisser: p.h.g.fisser@utwente.nl
And for the Dutch & Flemish people  htpp://www.tpack.nl 

41. Part 2
 Welcome back!
 TPACK development in teacher design teams: assessing
teachers’ perceived and observed knowledge - Ayoub Kafyulilo,
Dar es salaam University College of Education, Tanzania; Petra
Fisser & Joke Voogt, University of Twente, The Netherlands
 Long term impact of TPACK: From pre-service teacher learning
to professional and teaching practices - Douglas Agyei,
University of Cape Coast, Ghana; Joke Voogt, University of Twente,
The Netherlands
 Discussant: Natalie Pareja Roblin – University of Ghent, Belgium
 Discussion with Audience

42. TPACK development in teacher design teams:
Assessing the teachers’ perceived and observed
knowledge
Ayoub Kafyulilo,
Dar es salaam University College of Education
Petra Fisser and Joke Voogt,
University of Twente

43. Introduction
 This study was conducted with the in-service science teachers in
Tanzania.
 It adopted design teams as professional development arrangement
to develop teachers‟ technology integration knowledge and skills.
 TPACK was used as a framework for describing the teachers‟
knowledge requirements for integrating technology in science
teaching

44. The Intervention
 The study comprised of four intervention activities
 The workshop
 Lesson design in design teams
 Lesson implementation in the classroom
 Mostly a projector and a laptop were used in teaching
 Reflection with peers (peer appraisal)

45. Lesson design in design teams

46. An example of a classroom set up with a projector, laptop
and a projection screen

47. Research questions
 What is the in-service science teachers‟ perceived TPACK before and
after intervention?
 What are the observed in-service science teachers‟ TPACK before and
after intervention?

48. Participants
 The study adopted a case study design
 Design teams were study cases
 Individual teachers were the units of analysis.
 12 in-service science teachers participated in the study.
 The 12 teachers formed three design teams (each with 4 teachers)

49. Instrument
 Six data collection instrument were used in this study to collect self-
reported and observed data.
 Self reported data were collected through;
 TPACK survey,
 Reflection survey,
 Focus group discussion and
 Interview
 Observation data were collected through;
 Classroom observation checklist,
 Researcher‟s logbook

50. TPACK Survey (pre and post-intervention)
 The TPACK survey was used before and after the intervention
 The instrument was adopted from Schmidt et al (2009) and Graham et al
(2009) and used a 5 point Likert scale
 The reliability was 0.93 Cronbach‟s alpha

51. Observation checklist
 The observation checklist was administered before and during the
intervention
 The items had a 3 point Likert scale: “No” = absence, “No/Yes” = partial
existence, and “Yes” = presence of the behavior
 Two people rated the observation checklist and the inter-rater reliability
was 0.87 Cohen Kappa.

52. The reflection survey
 The reflection survey was administered at the end of the intervention to
assess the teachers‟ opinions about learning technology in design teams
 The overall reliability for items related to TPACK was 0.68 Cronbach‟s
alpha.

53. Researcher’s logbook
 The researchers‟ logbook was used to maintain a record of activities and
events occurring during the intervention process.
 The researcher‟s logbook was used during peer appraisal, TPACK
training and lesson design.
 Data collected through the researchers logbook were important in
describing the interventions processes.

54. Teachers’ interview
 The interview was administered at the end of the intervention to asses the
effectiveness of design teams in teachers‟ development of TPACK
 An example of the interview question was:
 What technology integration knowledge and skills did you develop
from design teams?
 Four randomly selected interviews out of12 interviewees were coded by a
second person.
 The inter-coder reliability was 0.83 Cohen Kappa.

55. Focus group discussion
 A focus group discussion was administered at the end of the intervention
 An example of the question asked in FGD was:
 How do you evaluate the results of your discussion in design teams; in
terms of the products you made, decisions in the team, new ideas and
innovations
 Two randomly selected FGD were coded by a second person.
 The inter-coder reliability was 0.92 Cohen Kappa.

56. Results: Teachers’ perceived TPACK before and after the
intervention
 Before intervention, teachers perceived their CK, PK and PCK as high,
and TK, TCK, TPK and TPCK were low.
 After intervention, all TPACK components were perceived high.
 A Wilcoxon signed ranks test for two related samples showed that TK,
PK, TCK, TPK and TPACK were significant at p ≤ 0.01 whereas CK and
PCK were significant at p ≤ 0.05
 Results from the reflection survey showed that teachers‟ developed
TPACK through their participation in design teams.

57. Results (Teachers’ observed TPACK)
 Findings from teachers observation showed a significant difference
between pre- and post-intervention results.
 Pre-intervention results showed a low teachers‟ TK, TCK, TPK, and
TPACK (M < 1.5, SD ≤ 0.17) in a three points Likert scale
 However, in the post-intervention results, all TPACK components were
high (P ≤ 0.05).

58. Conclusions
 The triangulation of the findings from self-reported and observed data
showed;
 A limited teachers‟ TK, TPK, TCK and TPACK before intervention,
 After intervention all the TPACK components were high
 In this study, self-reported data comply with the observed data
 This differs from the findings of Alayyar (2011) and Kafyulilo et al (2011)
which showed a difference between the observed and perceived TPACK

59. Conclusions
 Probably this has something to do with
 The instrument,
 The culture and
 The level of the teachers.
 Findings from both observed and self-reported data indicate that
teachers‟ PK, CK and PCK were high before and after intervention.
 This may suggest that in the context of Tanzania, technology integration
efforts need to focus more on technology related components of TPACK
rather than the whole TPACK.

60. Thanks for your attention
kafyulilo@duce.ac.tz

61. Long term impact of TPACK: From pre-service teacher
learning to professional and teaching practices
Douglas Agyei
&
Joke Voogt
61

62. Motivation
 Poor student achievements (in mathematics)
High failure rate (More than 86% of failures to enter Tertiary levels)
TIMSS 2003 & 2007 (43rd out of 44 & 46th out of 48)
Poor attitudes
 Mathematics Teaching
Teacher-centred approach (Hardly any hands-on activities,Whole class teaching
Lots of notes being copied )
Low cognitive learning (Concept formation at a more abstract level, Heavy
emphasis on assessment)

63. Intervention studies in the 2009 – 2011
 A Longitudinal study to integrate technology in teaching
mathematics (Ghana)
 Two case studies of Professional Development (PD) in 2009 and 2010
 Integration of the PD arrangement into a regular mathematics–specific IT course
(2011)
 TPACK Framework
 ICT (spreadsheet) to promote in-depth maths concept formation
 Activity-Based Learning (ABL) to make lesson less teacher-centred

64. TPACK Conceptualization (Intervention Studies 2)
1. Make use of existing ICT tools TPACK Frame work - Interconnection
(Spreadsheet-specific) of content pedagogy & technology
(Mishra & Koehler,2006)
2. Active involvement of learners
(Activity Based Learning-ABL)
3. Explore connection between
spreadsheet, ABL pedagogy and
mathematical concept

65. Outcome of the Intervention Studies
 Developed TPACK of Participants
 Self- assessment TPACK
 Lesson artefacts
 Lesson Observations
 Three years into project :
 Mathematics teachers pursuing carriers in different institutions
 Various Senior High Schools/Junior High Schools in Ghana

66. Challenge and Data Collection
Measure the impact of the Intervention Studies
 Explore whether and how the beginning teachers integrate
ICT (demonstrate TPACK) in their teaching practices
 Gain insight into factors promoting (or hindering) the
teachers’ ICT integration (TPACK demonstration)
− Questionnaire (100)
− Interview ( 20)
− Observation (8)
− Researchers’ logbook

67. Results (1)- Self Report
Table 1: Mean score of factors that influence teachers TPACK use (N=100).
Conditions Mean Std Dev
Skills and knowledge 4.57 .355
Dissatisfaction with status quo 4.48 .283
Commitment 4.21 .287
Availability of Time 3.75 .562
Rewards and Incentives 3.17 .237
Participation (Decision making 3.02 .503
involvement)
School Culture 2.05 .292
Resources ( ICT facilities) 1.71 .311

68. Results 2 : Lesson Observation
Table 2: Teacher lesson implementation (n=8)
Teachers Subject ICT Availability Strategy
Taught
Two (2) Mathematics Personal Laptop and Spreadsheet techniques
projector (interactive demonstration)
Two (2) ICT Personal Laptop and Resources from Internet
projector (interactive demonstration)
Two (2) Mathematics Personal laptop (Rotating Spreadsheet techniques
groups of students ) /Resources from Internet
Two (2) Mathematics No ICT Facility Worksheet to support
teamwork

70. Snapshot of a lesson on Linear Equations
Linear functions in the slope intercept form
TPCKmaths
TKss

71. Snapshot of a lesson on Enlargement
Consider the diagrams below.
eye
water
Image of coin
coin

72. Snapshot of a lesson on Enlargement (2)
Image of the boy A boy
Pin-hole camera

73. Snapshot of a lesson on Introduction to computer
networks (1)

74. Snapshot of a lesson on Introduction to computer
networks (2)

75. Summary of Results & Conclusions
 Developed and strong positive views about TPACK in the long term (result of the pre-
service preparation intervention studies)
 Specific focus on ABL “P” and spreadsheets “T” in Mathematics “C” helped to
develop deep connections between their subject matter, instructional strategy and the
ICT application, fostering TPACK in the long term (closer to the original conception of
Schulman’s (1986) ideas of Pedagogical Content Knowledge)
 Develop TPACK in similar initiatives using other ICT applications and/or different
subject matter.
 Develop and extend pedagogical reasoning to support students learning
 Using multiple data sources is a good way to assess TPACK in the long run
 Teachers’ “knowledge and skill” acquired and “dissatisfaction with the status quo”
are key in promoting long term TPACK
 Lack of access to ICT infrastructure and unenthusiastic school cultures hinder TPACK
in the long run

76. Thank you
 Douglas D. Agyei
Email: ddagyei@yahoo.com
 Joke M. Voogt
Email: j.m.voogt@utwente.nl

77. Symposium: Measuring TPACK
SITE Conference, New Orleans, 2013
Natalie Pareja Roblin
discussant

78. TPACK: A growing concept

79. Main themes in these studies
Review of studies about TPACK published between 2005-2011
(n=55)
(Voogt et al., 2012)
• Development of the TPACK concept (14 studies)
• Measuring (student-)teachers’ TPACK (14 studies)
• Development of TPACK in specific subject domains (7
studies)
• Strategies to support the development of (student-)
teachers’ TPACK (36 studies)
• TPACK and teacher beliefs (6 studies)

80. This symposium: Measuring TPACK
Integrative views
C P
Transformative views
T
Pre-service teachers In-service teachers
Student teachers Teacher trainers

81. Towards a comprehensive approach for
measuring TPACK

82. Integrating multiple instruments to
measure TPACK
1. Perceived TPACK
• Self-assessment survey (from integrative to transformative
views on TPACK)
• Interviews
• Teacher reflections
• ....
2. Enacted TPACK
• Observation checklist
• Lesson plans
• Researcher logbook
• .....

83. TPACK as a complex and “fuzzy”
concept
• How can TPACK (and its constituting knowledge domains) be
operationalized? Is it possible (and desirable) to pull apart the
knowledge domains that constitute TPACK?
• If TPACK is considered as a “sliding framework”, as suggested by
Cox and Graham (2009), is it possible to develop standardized
instruments to measure it?
• How does qualitative data contribute to the understanding of
(pre-service) teachers’ TPACK development? What does it add
to survey data?
• How to best combine self-reported and observed TPACK
measurements?

84. Examining the development of TPACK
across time
In-service teachers
Beginning teachers
Pre-service teachers

85. TPACK development as a dynamic and
context-bound process
• How does TPACK develop as student teachers step into the
teaching profession and become experienced teachers?
• What factors (personal, institutional, systemic) facilitate and/or
hinder TPACK development?
• How does the context (school characteristics, learner
characteristics, access to technology, ICT policies, etc.) influence
the ways in which teachers integrate technology (i.e., how
TPACK is put into action)?

86. Towards a comprehensive approach for
measuring TPACK: Moving forward...

87. Integrating multiple instruments: Recent
initiatives
Assessing teachers’ pedagogical ICT competences
(The Netherlands)

88. Assessing teachers’ pedagogical ICT
competences
Self-perceived + Observed

89. Format of the video vignette
- Subject
- Goal
Introduction - Nature of ICT use
(+/- 2 minutes) - Perceived advantages/contributions of ICT
- ICT applications
- Goals of ICT use
Practice - Attractive/efficient/effective uses
- Pedagogical use of ICT (TPACK)
(+/- 4 to 8 minutes)
- Teacher role
- Student role
- Why this lesson?
- Why this combination of T, P and C?
Reflection - Would this lesson be different without ICT?
(+/- 2 minutes) - How do you know your (ICT) goals have
been accomplished?

90. Examining TPACK development across
time and contexts: Recent initiatives
From pre-service to practice: Understanding beginning
teachers’ uses of technology
(Belgium, Flanders)

91. Understanding beginning teachers’ uses
of technology
Longitudinal qualitative study in Flanders
Focus on (institutional) factors supporting TPACK development

92. Study 1: Approaches to support TPACK
development
Moving from stand-alone technology courses to integrated
approaches that aim to support TPACK development
TE1: From TK to... TE2: From TK to TPK TE3: From TK to TCK
Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., van Braak, J., Fisser, P., Voogt, J. (2012). Technological
pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education: in search of a new curriculum.
Educational Studies, DOI:10.1080/03055698.2012.713548

93. Study 2: Technology integration by BT
Pre-service education influences how BT integrqte technology in
their teaching practice. It contributes to:
- Developing TK
“The basic skills we did learn them”
- Getting to know various technology tools that could be used
with educational purposes
“[To learn about things] such as Klascement or Hot Potatoes was useful”
“If I had not learned it in my pre-service education, I think I would have
never used it here”
- Learning how to teach with technology (!) little opportunities
“[We should learn] not only the application itself, but [also] how to use it
and how to integrate it [in your teaching]”

94. Study 2: Technology integration by BT
However, (the extent of) this influence depends on school
characteristics:
- Access to technology
“It is not possible to sit behind 1 computer with 19 children”
- Clear ICT policies
“Everybody has one hour in the computer room. It is not compulsory, but the
school principal has strongly recommended it to us”
- Workload
“Making and trying out new things is difficult, especially at the start [of your
career] because you are busy with preparing your lessons”
- Support and mentoring systems

95. Measuring TPACK: Mission impossible?
How can TPACK (and its
constituting knowledge domains)
Integrative views be operationalized? Transformative
on TPACK views on TPACK
Is it possible to develop
standardized instruments to
Generic measure TPACK? Context & content
instruments specific instruments
How does the context influence
the ways in which teachers
integrate technology?
How to best combine self-
reported and observed TPACK
measurements?
Self-perceived Observed TPACK
TPACK measures measures

96. Thank you!
natalie.parejaroblin@ugent.be