Chapter 1: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in Physics Education
-
Published:2023
Mehmet Fatih Taşar, Duygu Yılmaz Ergül, "Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in Physics Education", The International Handbook of Physics Education Research: Teaching Physics, Mehmet Fatih Taşar, Paula R. L. Heron
Download citation file:
Taşar, M. F. and Yılmaz Ergül, D. “Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in physics education,” in The International Handbook of Physics Education Research: Teaching Physics, edited by M. F. Taşar and P. R. L. Heron (AIP Publishing, Melville, New York, 2023), pp. 1-1–1-30.
In this review of the literature, we first delineated what technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) is and then laid out its origins and development in physics education. By providing detailed information on what teachers/instructors need to know and what they can do to incorporate technology into their teaching experiences, we summarized the main issues in the TPACK framework literature and technology integration in teaching. We delineated the rationale of the TPACK theoretical framework and its main assumptions; explained existing different TPACK models developed through its short history and the impact of this framework on teacher development and initial teacher training; explained the place of TPACK in mandates and standards and its impact on student achievement. Lastly, we reviewed the research that dealt with TPACK in physics education and provided an analysis of the gaps in the literature and implications for further research.
1.1 Introduction—The Origins
In the TPACK framework, “Technology knowledge refers to the knowledge about various technologies, ranging from low-tech technologies such as pencil and paper to digital technologies such as the Internet, digital video, interactive whiteboards, and software programs” (Schmidt et al., 2009). In this sense, in physics education, technologies have been used from very early times. In fact, as an instructional subject, physics is very suitable for utilizing all sorts of technologies, and it has been the case that other than paper-pencil and chalkboard, for in-class demonstrations, simulations, and experiments, physicists always needed tools (also referred to as experimental apparatus, instruments, devices, or equipment). As the digital technologies advanced, particularly in the second half of the 20th century, physicists were quick to adopt them into their instruction. That gave rise to integration of computers and associated technologies into teaching and learning. With the turn of the 21st-century, Internet based online/remote instructional technologies boomed. Today, while the importance of technology is undeniable and under the circumstances (with the worldwide hindrance of the covid-19 pandemic), unavoidable for education, its implementation in and outside the classroom for instructional benefits is full of difficulties and sometimes creates unbearable burdens on the teachers' part.
To reveal how educational research focused on technology in the past 50 years, we searched the Web of Science database with the keyword “technology” as “Title” in the category of “Education Educational Research” and limited the search to “published articles” in the “Document Type.” Figure 1.1 shows the number of publications accessed in five-year periods. We noted that the year of the earliest publications in the Web of Science is 1974.
Number of journal articles retrieved from the Web of science in 5-year periods with “technology” in the title.
Number of journal articles retrieved from the Web of science in 5-year periods with “technology” in the title.
There may exist other publications in the literature that are not accessed in this way and not all accessed might be totally relevant for our case. However, it is still indicative of how technology has been emphasized in educational research. The Web of Science data shows that there is a significant jump in the number of published articles from tens to several thousands since 2005. This exponential increase notably parallels with the initial publications on TPCK (and later TPACK) that were published in 2001.
Personal computers have become very popular in education besides other sectors. A much greater potential of computers in education, than it was originally imagined at the time, was realized in the early era with the prospect that it could enable teachers to spend a more productive and interactive time with their students, especially in crowded classrooms (Lunetta and Dyrli, 1970). While radios, whiteboards, televisions, and handheld calculators began to be used in the 1970s, many classroom activities began to change faster than ever with personal computers becoming a presence in classrooms in the 1980s (Lunetta, 1982). In the 1990s, students conducted experiments in physics labs equipped with microcomputers and sensors that allowed simultaneous data gathering, recording, and graphing (Carlsson et al., 1998).
Since it is not possible for a teacher to individually tutor and track progress of each and every student's learning, computers posed a possibility of self-paced learning progression according to one's knowledge and skills (Lunetta and Dyrli, 1970). For teaching and learning a subject, such as physics, that requires a lot of computations, emerging computer technologies, as a perfectly suited tool, brought about a novel opportunity “for enhancing students' grasp of physics topics and problem-solving abilities when combined with proper instructional strategies” (Omasta and Lunetta, 1988). The possibility of replacing real experiments with computer-generated simulations was also realized quickly with strong evidence suggesting that simulation experiments are a powerful and efficient tool for creating conceptual change (Zietsman and Hewson, 1986). The next chapter in this section, entitled “The Role and Impact of Virtual Laboratories in Physics Teaching and Learning: A Synthesis of Literature,” is written by an eminent physics education researcher, Dimitris Psillos. Much detail of the virtual laboratories and their utilization for teaching and learning physics can be found there.
Back in 1986, Kracjik et al. (1986) evaluated and criticized studies related to computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and provided invaluable insights about what qualities the related software should possess and how scholarship in the field should develop in order to fulfill the promise of these then newly emerging technologies. Nowadays, teachers and their students frequently use enhanced tools such as smartboards, tablets, digital cameras, and sensors (the subsequent chapters in this section have reviewed the respective literature). Children of today are frequently referred to as the “digital natives” since they are born into these highly advanced technologies, which were once impossible even to dream of but are now a daily encounter. Therefore, it is not surprising to see that the number of studies related to technologies has increased significantly in the last two decades.
Educators are closely seeking new technologies and looking for ways to incorporate these technologies to improve teaching practices and their students' learning. Our Web of Science search of “technology integration” in the “Title” in the category of “Education Educational Research” and “Document Type” being “article” yielded 570 items starting with 1982 and ending in 2021. Figure 1.2 shows the number of articles published over five-year periods. We again see a highly increased interest starting with 2005.
Number of articles by year for the keyword “technology integration.”
When it comes to technology in physics education, among the first that comes to mind are simulations with the potential to replace hands-on experimentation. While laboratory activities in many scientific disciplines seek to engage students one-on-one with materials, simulations may offer inquiry-based representations when actual materials are unavailable (Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004). Although animation and simulations increase students' conceptual understanding and success in physics, they also positively influence their interest and motivation (Tambade and Wagh, 2011).
With the inclusion of technologies in the classroom environment, many studies have been conducted on how they should be integrated into the lessons. Simmons and Lunetta (1987), pioneers of these studies, used the CATLAB software with the learning cycle teaching approach to teach the concepts of genetics and motivate high school students. Later, the same software was also utilized with prospective secondary science teachers with an inquiry-based approach (Cakir, 2004). These studies resemble outstanding technology integration in classrooms. It is possible to diversify these examples.
The issue of how teachers should use various technologies in teaching has been the focus of recent studies. There are different perspectives on the integration of technology into classrooms. In the early years, approaches using a stepwise model were put forward within the framework of integrating information and communication technologies (ICT) into schools (Rogers, 1983; and Russell, 1996). A common aspect of these models is that they are technology-oriented and have phased the use of technologies by individuals. In other words, they created rating groups about what individuals can do with new technologies and how they can use them. Therefore, although these models provide a general understanding for teachers, they do not present the critical points of integrating technology into the teaching process. ASSURE (Heinich et al., 2001) and Technology Integration Planning (Robyler and Doering, 2014) models, which analyze students' learning needs as a starting point, offer a new understanding of technology integration. These models propose a design process for preparing the classroom environment with technology integration.
The theoretical framework of TPACK, which will be delineated below, describes the body of knowledge teachers should know for integrating technology into their teaching successfully. The difference between the TPACK framework and the models mentioned above is that TPACK aims to provide an understanding to enhance students' knowledge of a topic. Shulman (1986) suggested that Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) lessens the complexities of teacher understanding and transmission of content knowledge. This knowledge includes both components of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Shulman (1986) defined PCK as “the most useful forms of representation of that idea, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations-in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others.” Shulman (1986) did not explicitly mention that technology affects content and pedagogy. However, technology can be an educational tool for using multiple representations such as illustrations, examples, and demonstrations. Nowadays, technology has developed, and its usage has become more widespread, especially in education. For this reason, it has been inevitable for PCK to evolve into TPACK.
Pierson (2001) and Keating and Evans (2001) first proposed a conceptual framework to combine technology with PCK. In these models, the term “technological pedagogical content knowledge” was used for the first time with the addition of technology knowledge to the PCK model. Pierson (2001) expressed effective technology integration with knowledge formed by the intersection of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. However, long before this framework was introduced, a notion of using technology and appropriate pedagogy to teach a subject was conceptualized (Simmons and Lunetta, 1987). It is apparent that Simmons and Lunetta aimed to create a TPACK by determining an appropriate pedagogical method in a classroom where technology was used for a specific topic. Therefore, it is noteworthy that TPACK frameworks did not emerge suddenly out of nowhere in the early 2000s and that there is much background work conducted by others in the previous decades. TPACK is an inclusive and still developing theoretical framework, which has been influenced by different studies that can establish the relationship between teacher, student, and content in technology integration over the years.
Margerum-Leys and Marx (2002) determined what instructors should know about technology integration using Shulman's PCK model. They proposed the term “Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Technology” to refer to this new body of knowledge. Early research realized that instructors had the necessary pedagogical skills to facilitate student learning while using technology in the classroom. Many scholars have developed their own frameworks with the help of these models (e.g., Angeli and Valanides, 2005; Koehler and Mishra, 2005; and Niess, 2005).
Niess (2005) suggested a TPCK framework based on Shulman’s (1987) and Grossman's (1990) PCK model components comprised four elements: “(a) an overarching conception of teaching science/mathematics with technology, (b) instructional strategies and representations of teaching with technologies, (c) students' understandings, thinking, and learning in a subject with technology, and (d) curriculum and curricular materials.” Angeli and Valanides (2005) also suggested an ICT-related PCK as a distinct body of knowledge around the same period. ICT-related PCK is a kind of knowledge that focuses on how ICT may be used to teach specific subjects to specific students under specific circumstances (Angeli and Valanides, 2005). In 2007, in order to emphasize the three kinds of knowledge and their integrity, Thompson and Mishra (2007) announced the change of the acronym from TPCK to TPACK.
Koehler and Mishra (2005) are the two leading scholars in the field of TPACK. Their TPCK “framework emphasizes the connections, interactions, affordances, and constraints between and among content, pedagogy, and technology.” In this model, knowledge about the content (C), pedagogy (P), and technology (T) and their intersections are necessary for developing teaching. Koehler and Mishra (2009) formed the TPCK framework as seven knowledge domains, (a) content knowledge (CK), which is knowledge about the subject matter to be learned or taught (b) pedagogical knowledge (PK), which is knowledge about the processes and methods of teaching and learning, (c) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which is knowledge about appropriately teaching a specific topic, (d) technology knowledge (TK), which is knowledge about performing a variety of different tasks using information technology and open-ended interaction with technology, (e) Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), which is knowledge about specific technologies are best suited for addressing subject-matter, (f) technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), which is knowledge of how teaching and learning can change when particular technologies are used in particular ways, and (g) technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK), which
“is the basis of effective teaching with technology, requiring an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students' prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones.” (p. 66)
1.1.1 The rationale of TPACK
Koehler and Mishra (2008, p. 10) defined teaching with technology as a “wicked problem.” There is no single way to stop wicked problems, so there is no single solution to these problems. The wicked problem usually occurs in social contexts. Teachers and students involved in the technology integration process have different beliefs, goals, and objectives. Considering all these factors, it is clear that the use of technology in classrooms has a multidimensional structure. The TPACK framework, which allows bringing together different dimensions, describes the complex situation in the social system and is a notable guide for teachers (Kelly, 2008, p. 55).
Technology integration in education cannot be accomplished just by an abundance of technological tools. Kelly (2008, p. 52) vividly described a relevant situation by comparing two hypothetical classes. In one of these classes, all students have computers with broadband Internet connection and in the other there are only two. Kelly explains that in the former one student achievement is not automatically guaranteed and a skilled teacher can even attain superior results without using such technologies. This can be compared to accessing a simulation by each student from their laptops (or smartphones) or as a whole class from a single computer and projector. An increased number of equipment may not guarantee an improved conceptual understanding for each student.
On the other hand, a teacher equipped with various skills can reach many more students and enhance their learning with just a smartboard. So what should teachers do? How can they effectively integrate technology into their lessons, which technology and to what degree? To what they should pay attention? The TPACK theoretical framework answers these questions because it is “a framework for thinking about the knowledge teachers need for making instructional decisions for integrating digital technologies as learning tools” (Niess, 2011). In fact, this theoretical framework assists instructors in making the best decisions in technology-enhanced classrooms.
There are several points that teachers should consider in the decision-making process. The TPACK theoretical framework clearly emphasizes these points. “TPACK is viewed as a dynamic framework describing the knowledge teachers must rely on to design and implement curriculum and instruction while guiding their students' thinking and learning with digital technologies in various subjects” (Niess, 2011). As a result, TPACK is a framework that can be used by any teacher or educator who wants to incorporate technology into their classes.
TPACK focuses on a particular topic in a specific domain and a specific technology (McCrory, 2008, p. 203). That is, it cannot give a single route to all instructors for all instances of teaching. However, it provides thinking skills for incorporating technology into the classroom. TPACK combines a teacher's content, student, pedagogy, and technology knowledge. “Quality teaching requires developing a nuanced understanding of the complex relationships [among] technology, content, and pedagogy, and using this understanding to develop appropriate, context-specific strategies and representations” (Mishra and Koehler, 2006, p. 1029).
Niess (2011) defined TPACK as “knowledge growth in teaching with technology” and stated that the task of providing a suitable environment for knowledge increase in environments where technology is used belongs to this type of knowledge. Therefore, TPACK is information that can guide teachers in taking advantage of technology as useful teaching materials.
1.1.2 Assumptions of TPACK
Technology integration is not a new concept in education. Numerous integration models are described in the literature. However, it should not be expected that there is only one way to use technology in classrooms, which is a highly complex social environment. For a single topic in physics education, several approaches may be used. TPACK does not argue that there is only one way to teach a subject using technology. It emphasizes that the context and student characteristics are also factors in the technology integration process. “TPACK is always applied in the context of a specific, idiosyncratic teaching-learning situation, and its effectiveness is highly dependent on the extent to which teachers are able to pedagogically accommodate context” (Kelly, 2008, p. 51). TPACK is a subject-specific teaching know-how, since each subject has its unique character. Therefore, it is reasonable that the appropriate technology and teaching method would differ by the subject.
“Given the reality of relatively well-equipped classrooms with rarely or inefficient use of educational technology, it is evident that TPACK concentrated on the ‘T’ and ignored content, pedagogy, and the corresponding ‘essential tension’ among these components” (AACTE, 2008, p. 292). Teachers should integrate their subject knowledge expertise with pedagogical and technological skills for successful teaching and meaningful learning in a particular context. As for increasing students' understanding of different subjects, it will be beneficial to conduct training programs focusing on educators' TPACK development rather than just training on technology.
Students can be much more skilled than the elderly in learning and adapting to new technologies. Young people are native technology users, while older ones are digital immigrants (Prensky, 2001). However, there may be students who cannot access the technology for various reasons (socio-economic and/or cultural factors, etc.). Educators who want to assist students with limited or no access to technology in overcoming the potential negative academic and social consequences must be equipped with pedagogical knowledge that allows them to promote culturally responsive technology-mediated education in response to restricted access (Kelly, 2008, p. 31). The TPACK theoretical framework provides the potential for teachers to effectively meet students' diverse learning needs. (AACTE, 2008, p. 291).
It is the main assumption that teachers with TPACK knowledge can create an effective learning environment with technology. The TPACK framework defines the information a teacher should have to ensure effective teaching in the classroom. Pre-service and in-service teachers may utilize TPACK as a conceptual framework to completely integrate educational technology into their teaching (AACTE, 2008, p. 291).
1.2 Models of TPACK
Many studies and two handbooks defined TPACK and integrated it into teacher education and professional development. The main discussions revolve around (a) TPACK frameworks, (b) the integrative and transformative nature of TPACK as a body of knowledge, and (c) domain-general and domain-specific TPACK (Angeli et al., 2016, p. 12).
We created a timeline diagram of the basic frameworks of TPACK (see Fig. 1.3) and identified two different epistemological views of the TPACK frameworks: (i) The integrative approach: TPACK is “an integration of separate bodies of knowledge and their connections that occur spontaneously during teaching.” (ii) The transformative approach: “TPACK is a distinct or unique body of knowledge developed by the contributions of several other bodies of knowledge” (Voogt et al., 2013; and Angeli et al., 2016, p. 21).
The TPACK models that can be characterized as integrative (i.e., Koehler and Mishra, 2005; Jimoyiannis, 2010; Lee and Tsai, 2010; Benton-Borghi, 2013; Hsu et al., 2013; Koh et al., 2014; and Koh et al., 2015) argue that an improvement in a different knowledge domain (TK, TC, TPK, etc.) is reflected on the TPACK knowledge domain.
On the other hand, Benton-Borghi (2013) and Koh et al. (2015) redefined TPACK according to 21st-century learning characteristics and suggested two different models while still carrying an integrative model characteristic. Both reinterpreted the TPACK model of Mishra and Koehler (2006). Benton-Borghi (2013) proposed a new model for teachers to effectively teach all learners, including students with special needs, by blending the universal design for learning with the TPACK framework. She put forward the TPACK-UDL framework for the needs of all learners. This model aims to enable teachers to remove barriers to learning (i.e., “racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, aptitude, disability”) for specific student groups. Competencies described as 21st-century skills also include using technologies effectively and adapting to the digital world. Combining this with the TPACK theoretical framework, Koh et al. (2015) proposed a new model. Theirs was based on the design thinking process and the teachers' design of their lessons. They expressed the dimensions of 21st-century learning (21CL) as “Cognitive, metacognitive, sociocultural, productivity, and technological.” In this design thinking model, they identified the main duties of teachers as “(1) analyze opportunities and constraints, (2) analyze learners, and (3) analyze ICT tools.”
The boundaries in the definitions of associative models are unclear, and TPACK is expressed in very general terms. Therefore, some researchers (Cox and Graham, 2009; and Angeli and Valanides, 2009, p. 157) criticized this issue. Angeli and Valanides (2009) suggested that TPACK is a distinct body of knowledge that can be improved and examined. The second perspective is that the TPACK framework is transformative. Angeli and Valanides (2009) defined their ICT-TPACK framework as “the ways in which knowledge about technological tools and their affordances, pedagogy, content, learners, and context are synthesized into an understanding of how difficult-to-understand or difficult to represent topics can be transformed and taught more effectively.” Another assertion is that TPACK is a unique body of knowledge and needs to be taught explicitly (Angeli et al., 2016, p. 26). ICT-TPACK is closely related to teachers' beliefs and practical experiences and is also a student-centered approach (Angeli and Valanides, 2009).
Just like ICT-TPACK, various other models have been suggested that consider TPACK as transformative: Niess's (2005) TPACK, Porras-Hernández and Salinas-Amescua's (2013) TPACK-ICT, and Yeh et al. (2014) TPACK-Practical model was built on Magnusson et al. (1999) model of PCK and “formed by the transformation of knowledge types such as technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge.” Porras-Hernández and Salinas-Amescua (2013) enriched the Angeli and Valanides (2005) ICT-TPCK model. They suggested that the context knowledge domain is more than just lesson planning or curriculum. In fact, they asserted that context knowledge has two dimensions: “(a) scope (micro, mezzo, and macro-level), and (b) actor (teacher and student).” TPACK-XL is an elaborate model of ICT-TPCK (Saad et al., 2012). The TPACK-XL model identifies a total of thirty-one knowledge domains, which include technology (knowledge of ICT), content, pedagogy, learner knowledge, and their subsections. This model emphasizes interdisciplinary knowledge and is thus easily adaptable to many fields. This model is both an enhanced version of TPACK-ICT and a guide for educating preservice teachers in the classroom use of ICT technology.
The TPACK-Practical model has eight knowledge dimensions (“using ICT-integrated teaching strategies, using ICT representations, planning an ICT-infused curriculum, using ICT to understand the content, using ICT to understand students, using ICT to assess students, infusing ICT into teaching context, applying ICT to instructional management”) in five pedagogical areas (“subject content, curriculum design, practical teaching, assessments, learners”) (Yeh et al., 2014). This model has benefited from the knowledge and experience of experienced teachers from different disciplines (chemistry, earth science, biology, physics). With the Delphi technique, indicators reflecting the teachers' TPACK knowledge in practice were determined for each knowledge dimension. Integrative TPACK research indicated challenges in effectively assessing TPACK development, whereas transformative TPACK research produced a more accurate empirical evidence of TPACK development (Graham, 2011).
The TPACK framework is that it does not allow teachers' attitudes, ideas, teaching philosophy, or paradigms to be taken into consideration systematically (Stoilescu, 2015). The TPACK-in-Action model (Koh et al., 2014) visualized the interaction between contextual factors (“physical/technological, cultural/institutional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal”) that affect actions in the design of technology-enhanced lessons. This framework emphasizes that teachers' beliefs, school, technology, and peers are the primary contexts that affect TPACK. It allows teachers to be aware of the factors that affect integrating technology into their lessons and plan their teaching by considering these situations.
Many studies find beliefs as a barrier to technology integration (Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer, 2005; and Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). While the integrative models do not mention beliefs or orientations, Niess's (2005) transformational TPACK model does. Its first component is expressed as “an overarching conception about the purposes for incorporating technology in teaching subject matter topics.” This component means “what teachers know and believe about the nature of the subject, what is important for students to learn and how the technology supports learning to provide the basis for their instructional decisions” (Niess, 2013). As a result, TPACK becomes a body of knowledge consisting of beliefs. Since technology integration is an individual process (Tondeur et al., 2017), studies need to examine teachers' technology integration orientations in-depth (Voogt et al., 2013). Unfortunately, only a few studies examined science teaching orientations in classrooms where teachers use educational technologies. One of them is studying the effects of technology-enhanced tools on teachers' orientations using the headings proposed by Friedrichsen et al. (2011) for orientations (Campbell et al., 2013). Moreover, there are studies investigating teachers' beliefs using the term “pedagogical orientations” (e.g., Looi et al., 2014; Prestridge, 2017; and Burke et al., 2018).
More recently introduced models are trying to eliminate the lack of affective components in the existing TPACK models. In a review of the literature, Chai et al. (2013) identified four contextual factors: “(a) interpersonal, (b) intrapersonal, (c) cultural/Institutional, and (d) physical/technological.” They replaced TPACK with a technical learning content knowledge (TLCK) framework. In addition to instructors' extensive comprehension of TPACK, students' awareness of TLCK-related structures is required for effective ICT adoption in education. Learning about students' perspectives would help instructors and programmers develop better classes and applications.
In their research with physics teachers, Ramma et al. (2018) highlight the student-centered structure of TPACK. This model was named the Pedagogical Technological Integrated Medium (PTIM) framework. PTIM situates learning at the crossroads of content/contextual knowledge, pedagogy, and technology without undermining the value of technological pedagogical content knowledge. PTIM is one of the few studies in the field of physics that contribute to the theoretical framework of TPACK.
Thohir et al. (2022) proposed a new model named 4D-TPACK for pre-service teachers in technology integration competencies using the Delphi survey technique. This model includes knowledge, skill, character, and meta-learning. In addition to the seven knowledge domains in Koehler and Mishra's (2005) TPCK framework, different competence areas such as the teacher's personality, habits, beliefs, information communication, and reflection skills were defined. This model can be shown as a response to the criticism that TPACK does not include teacher beliefs and other contextual factors.
TPACK, by definition, requires subject-specific pedagogies and technologies (Voogt et al., 2013). Therefore, this type of knowledge differs from science and mathematics education. Various studies have emphasized that TPACK is subject-specific (Cox and Graham, 2009). This feature of TPACK has also paved the way for suggesting different models for different subject areas (Jimoyiannis, 2010; Lee and Tsai, 2010; and Hsu et al., 2013). For example, Jimoyiannis (2010) introduced the Technological Pedagogical Science Knowledge (TPASK) model specific to science teachers. He explained each component in the model with science-specific indicators. The TPASK model has explained what science teachers should know for technology integration. Hsu et al. (2013) created the TPACK-G framework by blending TPAB with game knowledge. Similarly, Lee and Tsai (2010) asserted in their TPACK-Web model that teachers need to know how to integrate Web-related tools into their pedagogical practices.
1.3 Teacher Development in TPACK
Research on developing TPACKs for teachers and pre-service teachers has been ongoing since the framework was announced. Researchers examined how to form a TPACK for in-service and pre-service teachers. There is no consensus on the most effective TPACK development approach (Hofer and Grandgenett, 2012). Therefore, we included the basic TPACK development models in Fig. 1.3. The models proposed for in-service and pre-service teachers' TPACK development can be summarized as follows:
1.3.1 Pre-service teachers' TPACK development
Some studies develop TPACK in pre-service teachers with different approaches in subject-specific courses. For example, Angeli and Valanides (2009) proposed technology mapping to guide teachers in designing technology-enhanced practices. Likewise, Graham et al. (2012) gave pre-service teachers design tasks in which they asked them to define how they would teach certain subjects with technology. Design tasks are cognitively challenging, particularly for pre-service teachers (Kramarski and Michalsky, 2010). The learning by design approach creates an environment where participants can collaborate in order to develop their technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (Koehler et al., 2007). Angeli and Valanides (2005) argued that the subject of Instructional Systems Design (ISD) could benefit better training of future teachers in the design of technology-enhanced learning environments. According to Voogt et al. (2013), student-teachers can gain expertise in designing technology-enhanced programs, but they may still have deficiencies in using this knowledge in teaching practices.
Design-based learning has also been used in developing secondary school pre-service teachers (Jang and Chen, 2010). They developed TPACK-COPR, an online transformative model for enhancing TPACK with four main activities (“comprehension, observation, practice, and reflection”). Comprehension is the first activity in which participants collaborate with e-learning groups and learn about content. During the observation part, participants observe the teaching of experienced mentor teachers. During the third activity, practice, participants design lesson plans with appropriate technology in topic-specific pedagogy. The latest is the reflection in which participants reflected on their teaching performance. Findings showed that this model impacts the development of pre-service teachers' TPACKs. Leveraging the model of Jang and Chen (2010), Lee and Kim (2014) developed the TPACK-based instructional design model. This model comprises six main stages “(1) introduce, (2) demonstrate, (3) develop, (4) implement, (5) reflect, and (6) revise.” The last four steps form the basis of learning by design activities. This model did not meet the author's expectations about developing TPACK knowledge of teacher candidates who did not have much pedagogical experience. Lee and Kim (2017) revised their previous model with “Version III of the TPACK-based ID model.” To enhance the technology integration of pre-service science teachers, Chang et al. (2012) created the MAGDEIRE model through learning through design activities. This model consists of 4 phases and has increased its technology competency levels. Even though its connection to TPACK is not entirely clear, this model helps develop TPACK's conceptual frameworks.
The case-based approach showed that participants can foster practical wisdom by reflecting on their own practices (Mouza and Karchmer-Klein 2013). Tondeur et al. (2012) created the SQD (Synthesize Qualitative Data) model for preparing pre-service teachers to incorporate technology into their teaching. This model declared that providing pre-service teachers with authentic experiences also helps them improve their technology integration skills.
Another preferred way for pre-service teachers to develop TPACK is through teacher education programs. Niess (2005) investigated TPACK development among pre-service teachers with a one-year graduate-level program. Hofer and Grandgenett (2012) determined that the TPACK and TPK of the participants improved after the three-semester secondary program. Mouza et al. (2014) examined pre-service teachers' TPACK development within the whole teacher education program. Findings indicated that participants improved their TPACK at the end of the program.
Offering an educational technology course is one of the approaches used for many years in the TPACK development of pre-service science teachers (An et al., 2011; and Chai et al., 2011). Koh and Divaharan (2011) suggested that the TPACK-Developing Instructional Model increases pre-service teachers' confidence in using an unfamiliar ICT tool for pedagogical purposes. This model offers three steps for improving teachers' TPACKs throughout ICT training: “(i) fostering teachers' acceptance and technical proficiency; (ii) pedagogical modeling; (iii) and pedagogical application.” However, it should be noted that introducing technological tools is not sufficient for developing TPACK into teaching practices (Mouza, 2016, p. 176).
Studies focusing on improving the affective domain structure of TPACK are very few in the literature. Kramarski and Michalsky (2015, p. 89) proposed the IMPROVE Self-Questioning Method model for integrating SRL (self-regulated learning) into TPACK. TPACK comprehension and design activities were performed throughout the seminars. In addition, the participants assessed seven video vignettes depicting classroom practices. The findings showed that pre-service teachers' pedagogical conceptions favored student-centered learning more than those of the TPCK group following exposure to the TPCK-SRL training model.
The majority of studies focused on enhancing pre-service teachers' perceived TPACK knowledge. It is also interesting to see how TPACK is enacted in the teaching environment and how students perceive their teachers' TPACKs. Future research can explore how pre-service teachers' TPACK changes with the help of authentic experience and peer evaluation processes. Our literature analysis yielded that the majority of TPACK development models created for pre-service teachers do not deal with discipline-specific knowledge domains.
1.3.2 In-service teachers TPACK development
Collaborative instructional design models for developing teachers' TPACKs have been utilized for a long time. The learning by design approach consists of design teams where teachers discuss the instructional issues of technology integration (Koehler and Mishra, 2005; and Koehler et al., 2007). Koh et al. (2017) suggested TPACK-21CL as a teachers' TPACK development model. This model has five levels consisting of design activities and reflection practices. Teachers who took this professional development program completed these five levels throughout the year. Koh et al. (2017) discovered that the TPACK-21CL professional development process was typically helpful in increasing teachers' TPACK-21CL confidence and their confidence in designing lessons and activities for their students. Moreover, Koh (2019) discovered that design scaffolds increased teachers' TPACK confidence and enhanced pedagogical change in their lesson designs.
Harris and Hofer (2009) provided learning activity types for curriculum-based TPACK development. They claimed that planning a specific learning environment may be the conclusion of three major instructional decisions. First, pedagogical decisions are made on the learning objectives and subjects. Then, the activity types are selected and sorted. Finally, the most efficient tools and resources are chosen to assess and enhance student learning. The learning activities that Harris and Hofer explain are tools that can be used for different activities and help the development of TPACK authentically.
There are reflective strategies for teachers' TPACK development. For example, Jang (2010) developed an IWB-based peer-coaching model for in-service teachers. Peer-coaching significantly enhanced science teachers' TPACK knowledge of using interactive whiteboards with different technologies such as e-books, animation, and the internet. In addition, Niess and Gillow-Wiles (2019) asserted that discourse and critical reflection of online education contributed significantly to teacher experiences with technology.
Effective teacher education strategies should also focus on changing teachers' beliefs (Smith et al., 2016). Teachers are stereotyped and find it hard to change beliefs about teaching. As a result, adults acquire knowledge about new subjects or situations in a manner distinct from that of children. Transformative learning, one of the adult learning theories, was used to develop teachers' TPACKs. Niess and Gillow-Wiles (2019) found that experiences, discourse, and critical reflection impacted teachers' TPACKs.
1.4 TPACK Leaders
The TPACK pioneers have mostly done their Ph.D.'s in “Educational Technology” or “Educational Psychology.” Matthew J. Koehler and Punya Mishra, who made an outstanding contribution to the theoretical framework of TPACK, are both experts in “Educational Psychology.” Mishra and Koehler's famous 2006 publication has received remarkable 13 000 citations in the first half of 2022. Ronald W. Marx, who used the first definition of the theoretical framework in Margerum-Leys and Marx (2002), has a Ph.D. in “Educational Psychology.” Besides being the co-author of this publication, Jon Margerum-Leys has expertise in “Curriculum and instruction.”
Another significant contribution came from Angeli and Valanides. Their 2009 article has been cited more than 1750 times. Charoula Angeli, one of the authors of this article, has a Ph.D. in “Instructional Systems Technology.” Nicos Valanides is a chemist and chemistry education researchers. Similarly, Joseph Krajcik has a Ph.D. in science (chemistry) education and now he is focusing his efforts on STEM education. Doering and Veletsianos (2008), one of the first outstanding articles to approach TPACK from a domain-specific perspective, has a background in social sciences. Aaron Doering and George Veletsianos have Ph.D.'s in “Learning Technologies.”
Niess (2005) authored one of the first frameworks of TPACK, and she has a Ph.D. in “Mathematics Education.” While Ann D. Thompson (Thompson and Mishra, 2007) is an educational expert.
We see that the leaders of the TPACK theoretical framework have diverse backgrounds. These scholars primarily have expertise in teacher training, educational psychology, and educational technology.
1.5 Student Benefits
The primary purpose of the TPACK framework is to enable teachers to create effective classroom environments with technology for enhancing student understanding. Therefore, studies on TPACK have primarily focused on teacher competencies and self-development. There exist hardly any studies examining students' academic success due to TPACK-integrated courses (Chai et al., 2013). In this review, we found that the theoretical framework of TPACK has studies on the ability to provide student-centered instruction and evaluate student learning.
TPACK, by its nature, puts the students at the center of education. Harris and Hofer (2011) revealed that teachers prepare more student-centered lesson planning when using types of learning activities. Lee and Kim (2017) also observed that the strategies they integrated into the TPACK model deepened the student-centered TPACK practice of the participants. Those that utilize ICT extensively in their assessment, planning, and teaching methods (TPACK-P) demonstrate student-centered teaching practice (Yeh et al., 2015). In addition, teachers' student-centered beliefs and technology values were substantially associated with their TPACK (Lai and Lin, 2018).
TPACK also positively affects student engagement (Şen, 2022). For example, when pre-service teachers used the spreadsheet as a teaching tool, students developed more profound mathematical concepts and learned more interactively (Agyei and Voogt, 2016). Moreover, Stoilescu (2015) noticed that teachers used technology to “(a) present mathematical ideas, (b) inspire students to learn mathematics, (c) allow students to experiment with mathematics, (d) assess student work and provide feedback, and (e) help children express mathematical ideas.”
There are studies investigating students' increased motivation, interest, and success in science in classroom environments where technology is used. Computer simulations seem to be the most successful in incorporating computers into physics instruction (Tambade and Wagh, 2011). Teachers who guide students should also use technology effectively in their lessons. This process is interdependent. The teacher, who sees that the student is successful, has a positive belief in using technology, so s/he makes an effort to use technology in the classroom (Yeh et al., 2015). It was also found that teachers with higher levels of TPACK proficiency have a stronger belief in the importance of using technology to facilitate deep thinking and learning, as well as greater confidence in their ability to use technology to encourage and enable deeper thinking and learning across curriculum areas (Saubern et al., 2020). As expected, teachers with lower proficiency levels had weaker belief in the value of using technology to facilitate deep thinking and learning. This finding indicates that teachers' TPACK proficiency levels are related to their beliefs. Helping educators to understand how technology-enriched student-centered practices improve students' learning outcomes may be a method to influence beliefs (Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
A positive attitude, competence, and skill predict students' ICT usage (Courtney et al., 2022). It is also emphasized that it would be beneficial for both parents and teachers to help students use educational technologies effectively and to develop strategies to refrain from harmful effects in order to positively affect students' academic success. Considering that TPACK aims to enable teachers to use educational technologies in the classroom in the most effective way, this framework is also important in terms of increasing the academic success of students.
1.6 TPACK in Mandates and Teacher Competency Documents
Institutions in Europe and the USA have created several documents on teacher competency. It has been determined that some teacher competencies are compatible with the TPACK theoretical framework in these documents.
“The European Framework for Educators' Digital Competence” report explained the technology competencies that educators should have (Punie and Redecker, 2017). When this report is examined, it is seen that the knowledge and skills required from teachers overlap with the TPACK theoretical framework. It emphasizes the selection of the appropriate digital material and the necessity of using the selected digital material with the students in accordance with the their knowledge and skills for personal and educational purposes. The theoretical framework of the TPACK focuses on using technology to meet students' needs and levels, indicating how it aligns with these competency statements.
General Competencies for Teaching Profession of Turkiye emphasizes that teachers should use technology effectively with the following words: “S/he makes use of the information and communication technologies effectively in the teaching and learning process” (Ministry of National Education Republic of Turkiye, 2017). In addition, the Ministry of Education and Higher Education of Quebec "Reference Framework for Professional Competencies" emphasized that technology is frequently used among new century learners and that the educators who train them should also use technologies: “The scope of this competency goes beyond the technical skills needed to use digital tools for pedagogical purposes in the classroom” (Quebec, 2021).
The American College for Teacher Education Association (AACTE) is an institution that impacts the preparation of teachers in the United States. More than 800 post-secondary institutions are represented by the AACTE, which promotes programs for training teachers grounded in research and designed to ensure that teachers are prepared to work with students of all abilities. In addition, members of AACTE are dedicated to developing high-quality teacher candidates using educational technology that prepares future educators (AACTE, 2022).
Under the “work with knowledge, technology and information” title, which is determined as the key competence of the teachers in the Common European Principles for Teacher Competences and Qualifications, the possible required technology competencies of the teachers are stated as follows: “Their education and professional development should equip them to access, analyze, validate, reflect on and transmit knowledge, making effective use of technology where this is appropriate. Their pedagogic skills should allow them to build and manage learning environments and retain the intellectual freedom to make choices over the delivery of education. Their confidence in the use of ICT should allow them to integrate it effectively into learning and teaching. They should be able to guide and support learners in the networks in which information can be found and built” (European Commission, 2010). TPACK focused on a theoretical framework for teachers and pre-service teachers to use technology effectively in their classrooms. Successful integration of ICT into classrooms will rely on teachers' abilities to restructure the learning environment, integrate new technology with new pedagogies and create socially engaged classrooms that promote cooperative contact, collaborative learning, and group work [The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2011]. Changes in teachers' practices include knowing when and where to use technology in the classroom and when and where not to use technology (UNESCO, 2011). Teachers also need to learn more subject-matter and pedagogical knowledge for their professional development in using technology with their students.
1.7 TPACK in Standards and Curricula
The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) emphasized technology's role in education (NRC, 1996). The standards highlighted that science teaching cannot be considered separate from technology. Teachers allow students to use materials, equipment, and media to develop their scientific understanding. The importance of technology in education is in these standards.
Our societies are continually becoming digitalized. In such an environment, the need for improving teacher abilities has been recognized by The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, 2008). ISTE created a set of National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T). NETS-T defined teachers' skills to use technology effectively in their classrooms with their students. These standards can be listed as follows (ISTE, 2008):
Facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity,
Design and develop digital-age learning experiences and assessments,
Model digital-age work and learning,
Promote and model digital citizenship and responsibility, and
Engage in professional growth and leadership.
Sub-competences for all standards also explain the effective use of technology in the classroom. These competence definitions are closely related to TPACK frameworks' aims.
In 2017, ISTE revised its standards and renamed them ISTE Standards for Educators (ISTE, 2017). These standards serve as a guide for assisting students in becoming more informed learners. Some of the items in these standards emphasize that educators should use technologies in accordance with the interests and needs of students and in a way that provides access to each:
- 2.3.b.
Advocate for equitable access to educational technology, digital content and learning opportunities to meet the diverse needs of all students.
- 2.5.a.
Use technology to create, adapt and personalize learning experiences that foster independent learning and accommodate learner differences and needs.
These items in the ISTE Standards for Educators are compatible with the TPACK theoretical framework. TPACK emphasizes that teachers can only integrate effective technology when they keep their interests and needs in mind. Another item included in these standards is consistent with the component of “An overarching conception of teaching science/mathematics with technology” in the framework of Niess' TPACK:
- 2.1.a.
Set professional learning goals to explore and apply pedagogical approaches made possible by technology and reflect on their effectiveness.
Numerous frameworks for Science Education include various technologies that students need to know. With the following comments, the framework for K-12 Science Education underlines the significance of technology education to comprehend a world molded by human impacts:
Engineering and technology are featured alongside these disciplines for two critical reasons: to reflect the importance of understanding the human-built world and to recognize the value of better integrating the teaching and learning of science, engineering, and technology (NRC, 2011, p. 5).
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Project 2061 stated the role of computers in science education as follows:
Computers have become invaluable in science, mathematics, and technology because they speed up and extend people's ability to collect, store, compile, and analyze data; prepare research reports; and share data and ideas with investigators all over the world. 1C/M6* (AAAS, 2022).
The role of technology in the lives of students and instructors has become increasingly essential. As a result, it is unavoidable that it finds a home in standards. Furthermore, teachers can effectively integrate technology into teaching by having a TPACK because designing and assessing teacher knowledge focused on enhancing student learning in various content areas with different technologies is the main focus of the TPACK framework (AACTE, 2008).
1.8 TPACK in Physics Education
We searched the ERIC, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases using “technological pedagogical content knowledge” and physics. Therefore, the number of publications reached in these databases up to 2021 is shown in Fig. 1.4. We also searched Physical Review Physics Education Research, American Journal of Physics, and Physics Education to make sure that no studies in the content of physics were left out. It should be noted that we could not find any TPACK-related studies in these journals. Therefore, we decided to review in the “Journal of Physics: Conference Series.” Our selection criteria were related to both physics and the TPACK framework. Moreover, we did not include studies that were not adequately related to the TPACK theoretical framework.
These studies were examined considering that they were in the content of physics. A total of 21 articles and 15 proceedings, including the subject of physics and TPACK, were examined in more detail. In particular, we selected studies that explain how and why they use the TPACK theoretical framework. In addition, we conducted a content analysis with selected publications regarding the purpose, participants, methods, data collection methods, methodologies, and contribution.
The earliest study was published in 2012. With a seven-year delay, TPACK studies started in physics education. When we examined the aims of the studies, we grouped them as describing the case(s), developing TPACK knowledge, proposing a new model/framework, developing materials using the TPACK framework, and transmission of TPACK (see Table 1.1). Most studies on the content of physics education aim to either describe the participants' (physics teachers) TPACK knowledge or use this framework to develop teaching materials. TPACK is the knowledge the teacher should have to integrate technology into teaching effectively. Therefore, the use of this framework in the process of developing teaching materials is an exciting result. Furthermore, some of the studies supported the development of the TPACK literature by suggesting new models. Finally, a few publications explored how TPACK was transmitted in instruction and lesson plans.
Objectives of TPACK studies in physics education.
Descriptive case studies . | Developing TPACK knowledge . | Proposing a new framework/survey . | Developing materials using the TPACK framework . | Transmission of TPACK . |
---|---|---|---|---|
Self-confidence; Uçar et al., 2014;a Süzük and Akinci, 2021 b | Pre-service physics teacher; Srisawasdi, 2012;a Danday, 2019b; Karabuz and Ogan-Bekiroglu, 2020;b Purwaningsih et al.,2019 a | Framework; Jimoyiannis, 2010;b Thohir et al., 2022;b Ramma et al., 2018;b Yeh et al., 2014 b | Instructional materials; Rufaida and Nurfadilah 2021a;a Thohir et al., 2018;b Bakri et al., 2021a;a Bakri et al., 2021b;a Nikmah et al., 2019;a Rufaida and Nurfadilah, 2021b b | Lesson Plan; Schmid et al., 2021 b |
TPACK Knowledge; Bunyamin and Phang 2012;b Efwinda and Mannan, 2021;a Bozkurt, 2014;b Akuma and Callaghan, 2020;a Muliyati et al., 2020;a Putri et al., 2021 a | In-service science (chemistry, physics, etc.) teacher; Yeh et al., 2017;b Yeh et al., 2015b | Survey; Yeh et al., 2017b | Course design; Rosenblatt and Zich, 2020 a | Instruction; Thohir et al., 2022;b Silva et al., 2020 b |
TPACK Perception; Jang and Chang, 2016;b Masrifah et al., 2018 a | Lecturers in teaching physics: Kriek and Coetzee, 2016 b | Observation tool; Zhang et al., 2022 b | ||
Using digital technology; Walan, 2020;b Mayer and Girwidz, 2019 b | Physics instructors; Chang et al., 2015 b | |||
Differences between countries; Chang et al., 2015;a Girwidz et al., 2019 b | Pre-service science (chemistry, physics, etc.) teachers Maeng et al., 2013 b |
Descriptive case studies . | Developing TPACK knowledge . | Proposing a new framework/survey . | Developing materials using the TPACK framework . | Transmission of TPACK . |
---|---|---|---|---|
Self-confidence; Uçar et al., 2014;a Süzük and Akinci, 2021 b | Pre-service physics teacher; Srisawasdi, 2012;a Danday, 2019b; Karabuz and Ogan-Bekiroglu, 2020;b Purwaningsih et al.,2019 a | Framework; Jimoyiannis, 2010;b Thohir et al., 2022;b Ramma et al., 2018;b Yeh et al., 2014 b | Instructional materials; Rufaida and Nurfadilah 2021a;a Thohir et al., 2018;b Bakri et al., 2021a;a Bakri et al., 2021b;a Nikmah et al., 2019;a Rufaida and Nurfadilah, 2021b b | Lesson Plan; Schmid et al., 2021 b |
TPACK Knowledge; Bunyamin and Phang 2012;b Efwinda and Mannan, 2021;a Bozkurt, 2014;b Akuma and Callaghan, 2020;a Muliyati et al., 2020;a Putri et al., 2021 a | In-service science (chemistry, physics, etc.) teacher; Yeh et al., 2017;b Yeh et al., 2015b | Survey; Yeh et al., 2017b | Course design; Rosenblatt and Zich, 2020 a | Instruction; Thohir et al., 2022;b Silva et al., 2020 b |
TPACK Perception; Jang and Chang, 2016;b Masrifah et al., 2018 a | Lecturers in teaching physics: Kriek and Coetzee, 2016 b | Observation tool; Zhang et al., 2022 b | ||
Using digital technology; Walan, 2020;b Mayer and Girwidz, 2019 b | Physics instructors; Chang et al., 2015 b | |||
Differences between countries; Chang et al., 2015;a Girwidz et al., 2019 b | Pre-service science (chemistry, physics, etc.) teachers Maeng et al., 2013 b |
Proceeding.
Article.
There are only 16 studies with participants being pre-service and/or in-service physics teachers. In addition, there are 14 other studies with mixed participants that included pre-service/in-service teachers of physics, chemistry, biology, and earth science. Examining TPACK from a variety of disciplines may provide researchers with new perspectives. Aspects of TPACK can be both domain-generic and domain-specific (Angeli et al., 2016, p. 25). However, few studies have reported the content-specific nature of TPACK (Mouza, 2016, p. 185). Hence, how TPACK is developed and evaluated for a specific discipline needs to be further investigated.
The methods used in the studies are shown in Fig. 1.5. Some studies stated their methodology more precisely, such as case-study or surveys, while others mentioned simply qualitative or quantitative methods. Although some studies did not clearly state which method they used, studies that used questionnaires were defined as quantitative methods. The most preferred method was case-study (Chang et al. 2015; Mayer and Girwidz, 2019; Walan, 2020; and Süzük and Akinci, 2021, etc.). The method part has an interesting result about the research methodologies in which TPACK was utilized to create diverse instructional materials. Some studies have included only a description of the material development process in their methodology (Rufaida and Nurfadilah 2021a, 2021b). However, others have used more precise terms such as the Dic and Carey Approach (Bakri et al., 2021a, 2021b) and the ADDIE development model (Nikmah et al., 2019). In TPACK research, including physics education, among the methods employed content analysis, Delphi-method, experimental design, and mixed-methods are just a few. For example, Thohir et al. (2022) proposed a model offering a complexity of technology integration in competencies using the Delphi method with science experts. Only one study used the mixed-methods (Yeh et al., 2015).
The data collection tools implemented in the studies are shown in Fig. 1.6. Qualitative studies generally used more than one data collection instrument. Interviews were preferred in most of the studies in order to reveal participants' TPACKs. Moreover, they have significantly benefited from surveys and questionnaires. Over the last decade, surveys have been the most commonly utilized quantitative method for investigating TPACK (Chai et al., 2016, p. 89). In addition, many researchers use lesson plans as a data source. Some researchers have also preferred reflective journals for data triangulation (Maeng et al., 2013; Danday, 2019; and Karabuz and Ogan-Bekiroglu, 2020).
Some data sources were rarely used. For example, Srisawasdi (2012) asked the participants to design tasks related to using ICT tools. Akuma and Callaghan (2020) benefited from field notes and artifacts in their study with physics and chemistry teachers. In fact, similar data sources were also used in initial TPACK studies (e.g., Koehler et al., 2007). They focused on the participants' “design talk” conversations to integrate technology using a design process. In this study, the participants' notes/artifacts were gathered to understand the complex relationships between content, technology, and pedagogy.
TPACK is an implicit type of knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary to triangulate different data sources and tools in order to reveal the complex interplay of events taking place in each situation. Chang et al. (2015) suggest using qualitative and quantitative data to determine science instructors' TPACKs. Yeh et al. (2017) developed a questionnaire to elicit teachers' TPACK knowledge. They used video-embedded questionnaires for the four science subjects (i.e., biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics). This instrument is suitable for revealing discipline focus TPACK knowledge. In addition, Thohir et al. (2018) used S-TPACK peer assessment to evaluate the TPACK component of pre-service teachers. Bunyamin and Phang (2012) used open-ended questions to determine participants' conceptual understanding of the content. Since TPACK is a domain-specific type of knowledge, this tool was used to measure the content knowledge.
Girwidz et al. (2019) examined the physics education studies in different countries and determined that smartphone technologies have a rising trend in education. The most striking example of this trend is seen in Germany, which outperforms other countries by a very high percentage. We have also frequently come across studies in which various technologies were used in physics education. However, we discovered that the TPACK framework is only partially represented in physics.
The perceived TPACK knowledge of physics teachers was examined in studies conducted in science disciplines. Pre-service physics instructors who had previously received technology education training showed a more positive self-perception of TPACK (Efwinda and Mannan 2021). Similarly, Uçar et al. (2014) determined that physics and science teachers had high self-confidence in integrating technology in the classroom. However, unlike these studies, TPACK knowledge of biology teachers had significantly higher ratings than physics teachers (Yeh et al., 2014). Masrifah et al. (2018) determined that TPACK perception of senior high school in-service physics teachers was low.
The instruction may not always reflect self-confidence and perceived knowledge of TPACK. Putri et al. (2021) determined that pre-service teachers' technological pedagogical skills were insufficient. Various factors can play a role in the transfer of knowledge into practice. One of these factors, teacher beliefs, plays a critical role in designing their lessons (Kriek and Coetzee, 2016). In another physics education study, Purwaningsih et al. (2019) emphasized that pre-service teachers did not want to use technology in their teaching practice. Although pre-service teachers know how to use technologies, they may need support to use them in the process of knowledge construction (Karabuz and Ogan-Bekiroglu, 2020). On the other hand, Silva et al. (2020) observed that physics teachers increased the use of technology in their instruction. In addition, their students had an increased interest in new teaching and learning experiences.
Studies with participants in physics have also contributed to the theoretical framework of TPACK by developing models (Jimoyiannis, 2010; Yeh et al., 2014; Ramma et al., 2018; and Thohir et al., 2022). We examined them in more detail under the “Models of TPACK” title. These studies have significantly impacted the conceptualization of the TPACK framework.
Ramma et al. (2018) considered the connection between TPACK knowledge bases as dynamic and flexible. Therefore, various interventions can change the TPACKs of in-service and pre-service teachers. Maeng et al. (2013) explored TPACK developments of pre-service science teachers (two of them in the Physics content area) in a two-year master's program with technology-enhanced inquiry instructions. Pre-service teachers' TPACKs and student-centered teaching comprehension have developed at the end of the intervention. Srisawasdi (2012) observed that the design-based tasks positively impacted the development of pre-service physics teachers' TPACKs.
Studies aiming to adapt technology to the subject area of physics have used the TPACK framework to guide the development process of these tools. For example, the TPACK framework was integrated into android-based comic media based on Newton's Gravity (Nikmah et al., 2019), a physics textbook, to allow students to practice problem-solving skills with Newton's laws of motion (Bakri et al., 2021b), and augmented reality-based media in the kinematics (Bakri et al., 2021a). In addition, Rufaida and Nurfadilah (2021a, 2021b) demonstrated that TPACK in hyper-content modules is valid, practicable, and successful for use in electronics courses by demonstrating an increase in student learning outcomes and creativity.
1.9 Conclusions—Gaps in the Literature
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a general understanding of the research domain of TPACK and to examine how they have been represented in physics education. We describe the theoretical frameworks of TPACK from 2005 to the present and the models for developing teachers' TPACKs. We also presented studies in physics education with the TPACK field.
The TPACK framework was initially criticized as there were fuzzy boundaries between definitions. However, in the following years, these criticisms have supported its development. The basis of the models is the knowledge that teachers should have to integrate technologies into their lessons. Models have also been developed for different subject areas or competencies without departing from this basis. In addition, studies modeling the transfer of TPACK to teaching practices have also been suggested. Considering the changes in the models from the past to the present, it has been determined that the TPACK theoretical framework attaches importance to (a) teachers' attitudes, ideas, teaching philosophy, or paradigms, (b) the form in the teaching practices, and (c) differentiation for different contents.
TPACK “is about a specific topic using a specific technology within a domain. There is no general version” (McCrory, 2008, p. 203). Most empirical TPACK research focused on teachers' domain-general TPACKs, whereas few studies examined teachers' domain-specific TPACKs (Wu, 2013; and Willermark, 2018). Furthermore, physics education research with TPACK has been conducted in association with other science disciplines. Therefore, studies with only physics pre-service and in-service teachers are limited. Based on the existing research on physics education, we need more subject-specific TPACK studies in physics.
Few studies have determined science teaching orientations in the classroom where teachers use educational technologies. One of them is the study of the effects of using technology-enhanced tools on teachers' orientations by using the headings proposed by Friedrichsen et al. (2011) for orientations (Campbell et al., 2013). Future research efforts should reveal the relationship of physics teachers' beliefs and orientations to their TPACK.
TPACK studies have commonly used a mixed-methods approach (Willermark, 2018). On the contrary, most physics education studies used a quantitative survey approach. A few of them used mixed-methods together with a survey, observation, and interviews for the data collection. Given this background, future research should investigate physics teachers' TPACKs using a mixed-method approach. Qualitative methodologies and reflective practices will be critical in understanding the technology's possibilities to improve teaching and learning (Archambault, 2016, p. 84).
An interesting result in physics education is that the TPACK theoretical framework was used in the instructional material development process. This result reminded us of the problem of defining educational technology (ET) and technology education (TE).
Dugger and Naik (2001) noted ITEA's definition of TE: “a study of technology which provides an opportunity for students to learn about the processes and knowledge related to technology that are needed to solve problems and extend human potential.” They explained that educational technology has a very different meaning with the following definition: “Educational technology is involved in the use of technology as a tool to enhance the teaching and learning process across all subject areas. Educational technology is concerned about teaching and learning with technology.” Similarly, Huang et al. (2019, p. 4) defined ET as “the use of tools, technologies, processes, procedures, resources, and strategies to enhance learning in a range of situations.” Petrina (2003) argues that Dugger and Naik's definition of educational technology is not functional and that this is not the case observed in practice. In practice, ET and TE are the same. Petrina (2003) even emphasizes that instead of separating these two concepts from each other, it is necessary to focus on IT (information technology). As a result, Petrina (2003) advocates not discriminating, being together, and getting stronger. When the technology dimension in the theoretical framework of TPACK is examined in terms of what has been said, it is seen that it complies with the definition of educational technologies of Dugger and Naik (2001). TPACK focuses on integrating technology into teaching to support student learning/evaluation following the subject and the cognitive characteristics of the student. Therefore, TPACK is about using existing technologies effectively and efficiently in teaching rather than developing appropriate technologies.
Finally, TPACK is often presented to us as teacher knowledge. Another gap in the research is how TPACK is reflected in student learning. Chai et al. (2013) could not identify any study in their literature review that focuses on the relationship between student achievement and TPACK. Likewise, we did not find any study investigating this relationship in our review. As a result, there is a need for further research investigating the effect of TPACK on student achievement in (particular) physics (topics). That line of research should also be extended to other science disciplines.