Next Article in Journal
Gender Diversity and Firms’ Sustainable Performance: Moderating Role of CEO Duality in Emerging Equity Market
Next Article in Special Issue
Digitalisation of Schools from the Perspective of Teachers’ Opinions and Experiences: The Frequency of ICT Use in Education, Attitudes towards New Media, and Support from Management
Previous Article in Journal
A Systematic Study on a Customer’s Next-Items Recommendation Techniques
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Online Pattern Recognition-Oriented Workshop to Promote Interest among Undergraduate Students in How Mathematical Principles Could Be Applied within Veterinary Science
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/su14127176
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Differential Analysis of Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Abilities According to Teaching Stages and Educational Levels

by
Suqi Li
1,
Yuxuan Liu
2 and
Yu-Sheng Su
3,*
1
School of Education Science, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China
2
College of Arts and Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
3
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung City 202, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(12), 7176; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127176
Submission received: 7 April 2022 / Revised: 7 June 2022 / Accepted: 9 June 2022 / Published: 11 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovation and Advances in Digital Technology-based Educational Design: Digital Competence of Students and Teachers)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The development of educational informatization imposes new requirements on the cultivation of teachers’ digital competence, which appeals to teachers who aim to optimize their teaching by integrating appropriate Information and Communication Technology (ICT). The requirement of digital competence corresponds to the meaning of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Therefore, the development of teachers’ TPACK abilities can also positively influence the cultivation of their digital competence. The study was to examine the level of teachers’ TPACK abilities, and whether any difference in such abilities would be found according to the different teaching stages and teachers’ educational levels. An online questionnaire was distributed to the target teachers. Data of 1342 participants were analyzed. SPSS was used to conduct the descriptive statistics, and the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test with the post-hoc pairwise comparisons was used to determine teachers’ TPACK ability levels and explore the differences in teachers’ TPACK according to their different teaching stages and educational levels. The results indicated that teachers’ TPACK abilities were at a generally high level. Moreover, significant differences in teachers’ TPACK abilities were found in the teaching stages and educational levels. Teachers with different teaching stages have significant differences in Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). However, no difference was found between Technological Knowledge (TK) and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). In addition, the results suggested that the seven sub-dimensions of TPACK differed significantly according to teachers’ educational levels, where the higher the educational level, the better the teachers’ TPACK abilities. Therefore, teachers should effectively integrate technology and apply appropriate pedagogies according to the teaching content in different teaching stages. A planned and targeted series of ICT application training courses for teachers with lower educational levels would be helpful to improve their self-confidence in using technology to promote their teaching effectiveness.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, the evolution of technology has updated information and the ways of learning [1], and the informatization of education has correspondingly become a vital part of social informatization [2]. With the development of education informatization, digital competence has become one of the most important abilities that teachers need to master [3]. Teachers’ digital competence refers to a set of abilities to effectively use various appropriate technologies to optimize the teaching process [4]. Many studies have suggested that learning with technology is helpful for students’ active learning, enables them to promote their cognition, supports constructive thinking, and improves conceptual learning and scientific inquiry [5]. However, technology by itself cannot improve learning effectiveness [6]. Teachers play an essential role in the teaching process [7], but how to appropriately apply technology in teaching to improve teaching quality is a challenge for teachers [8]. What should teachers do to develop their digital competence so as to better integrate technology into their teaching? The TPACK framework provides a new perspective [9]. It appropriately integrates all aspects, i.e., digital technology, teaching pedagogy, and teaching content, making it capable of assessing teachers’ digital competence [10]. The TPACK framework emphasizes that for teachers it is not sufficient to have content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and technological knowledge (TK) only; what is important is to master the abilities of integrating these different types of knowledge. TPACK can be applied in teaching contexts and reflects teachers’ wisdom and mastery of knowledge [9]. In addition, in the early 21st century, a sustainable education development international scheme was initiated by the United Nations [11]. This scheme is committed to the sustainable development of education to promote the ability of individuals and societies to work sustainably for the future [12]. To ensure the implementation of the scheme, the use of ICT is a crucial educational skill [13]. Especially in elementary school education, teachers should be equipped with the abilities of using technology appropriately in order to play their part in promoting sustainable education [14]. What is more, a previous study indicated that measuring teachers’ TPACK ability level is beneficial to the improvement of their teaching ability [15]. Therefore, TPACK abilities can be specifically considered as a core component of teachers’ digital competence in the future, since they can affect teachers’ teaching practice, which will directly influence students’ development [16]. Therefore, in order to improve teachers’ digital competence, it is necessary for teachers to examine their TPACK abilities.
Since TPACK is a composite framework, there are many factors that can affect the development of teachers’ TPACK abilities. Teachers’ beliefs of self-efficacy about applying technology have a great impact on the development of their TPACK abilities [17]. Previous studies indicated that teachers need practical performance with technology in their teaching stages to improve the learning and teaching efficiency [18]. Meanwhile, differences in teaching objectives could influence the development of their TPACK abilities, and for different teaching objectives, using the same technology would also produce different teaching effects [19]. Therefore, for teachers in different teaching stages, the teaching content and objectives are distinct. Moreover, this difference might generate differences in teachers’ integration of technology into their teaching practice. Previous studies indicated that it was important to develop teachers’ TPACK abilities with an accurate understanding of content knowledge in different teaching stages [15], but little research has been done on whether there are differences in the specific dimensions of TPACK possessed by teachers in different teaching stages. Therefore, for teachers in different teaching stages to improve their specific TPACK abilities, it is of great value to explore whether any differences in teachers’ TPACK abilities could be found according to their teaching stages, especially differences in their TK, PK, CK, TPK, PCK, TCK, and TPACK. In addition, in the national context of this study, the prerequisite for becoming a teacher is to gain a teacher qualification certificate [20], and there are different restrictions on the educational levels for teachers at different stages. According to [21], the educational level of post-secondary school is the lowest requirement of the educational level for a teacher qualification certificate in China. Generally, the education level of teachers in different regions is different. Compared to cities and towns, teachers in rural and remote areas have a relatively lower educational level [22]. This difference leads to the inequity of teachers’ digital competence and teaching quality [23], and teachers with different educational levels have different understandings of teaching strategies and usage of technology [24,25]. Thus, to narrow this inequity, it is worth determining the specific effects of teachers’ educational levels on their TPACK abilities, especially the specific seven sub-dimensions of TPACK.
Overall, the current study aimed to explore teachers’ TPACK abilities levels, and to analyze the differences in teachers’ TPACK abilities in the different teaching stages and educational levels. Then, more targeted suggestions for teachers’ professional development can be provided to help them achieve better teaching effects.

2. Literature Review

2.1. TPACK Abilities

TPACK refers to the knowledge base for teachers to teach effectively with technology [14]. With the development of educational informatization, the improvement in teachers’ information-based teaching ability is becoming increasingly important. Teachers should not only master the teaching content and teaching pedagogy but should also understand how to utilize information technologies in the instruction process. To cater to the requirements of the revolution of education, based on the conception of PCK [26], the conceptual framework of TPACK was proposed [9], as the short form of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Three core elements in the structure, TK, PK, and CK, respectively, mean the knowledge of technological tools, teaching methods, and the subjects that truly deserve to be learned or taught. Meanwhile, the areas of overlap between TK, PK, and CK can also give rise to four compound elements, namely TCK, TPK, PCK, and TPACK. These four elements are equally important.
Studies have shown that TPACK is not a simple collection of content, technology, and pedagogy, but is rather the dynamic integration of the three aspects [27], which supports teachers with technology in teaching their subject matter [28]. Furthermore, during the teaching process, technology is not isolated [29]. Good instruction does not just depend on teachers’ skills of using technical equipment, but rather on their understanding and choice of technological resources that are best suited to enhance students’ knowledge and skills [24]. Therefore, teachers need to flexibly incorporate knowledge about students, environment, and school in order to teach effectively with technology [30].
Previous studies have suggested that in teachers’ professional development, it is very important to cultivate their TPACK abilities [30]. Some studies have been carried out to explore the determinants affecting the improvement of teachers’ TPACK abilities, and the differences in their TPACK abilities in the learning approach [31]. The results indicated that teachers applying the deep learning approach in teaching can improve their TPACK abilities. Teachers with a higher educational level tend to master more knowledge and skills of technology usage and ICT integration in their teaching process [32]. Moreover, many measurements have been designed, developed, and validated to examine the difference in teachers’ TPACK abilities. A Meaningful Learning Survey was created to test teachers’ abilities of constructivist-oriented TPACK [33]. A scale of seven dimensions with 24 items was also designed to investigate American K-12 teachers’ TPACK abilities [34]. In addition, in a previous study, an instrument of six variables with 30 factors was developed to test teachers’ perceived TPACK self-efficacy [35]. In a word, the existing survey or new surveys about TPACK are often adapted in studies that assess TPACK as an important aspect for future studies [36].
Therefore, as TPACK is an important vehicle for assessing teachers’ digital competence, it is vital to improve teachers’ digital competence by examining their TPACK abilities.

2.2. The Role of the Teaching Stages and Educational Levels in TPACK

2.2.1. Teaching Stages

Teaching stage is a broader concept than grade level [37]. In the national context of the current study, generally, grade levels 1–3 are called the lower elementary school stage; grade levels 4–6 refer to the higher elementary school stage; grade levels 7–9 are called the middle school stage; and grade levels 10–12 refer to the high school stage [38]. In teaching, one area that teachers in different teaching stages pay much attention to is how to most effectively integrate appropriate digital technologies into their subject teaching [39]. A previous study indicated that in different teaching stages, there are differences in the way teachers integrate technology into teaching [40]. Due to the skilled application of ICT, teachers in elementary schools had a strong sense of self-efficacy for mastering TPACK abilities [41]. In addition, experienced elementary science teachers made use of more pedagogical knowledge in their science pedagogy [42]. Meanwhile, middle school teachers had relatively higher awareness of ICT [43]. However, some studies found there was no significant difference of teachers’ teaching stages in their TPACK ability levels through the investigation of teachers’ TPACK abilities [44].
Teachers in different teaching stages face different student audiences, and their teaching objectives and teaching content also differ. As the above introduction mentioned, the differences in teaching content and setting of teaching objectives can affect teachers’ TPACK abilities [18,19]. In addition, a previous study has indicated that it is important for teachers to promote their TPACK abilities with the accurate understanding of content knowledge in different teaching stages [15]. Therefore, teachers’ teaching stage is an important factor influencing teachers’ TPACK abilities, and so it is worth exploring whether differences can be found in the specific seven sub-dimensions of teachers’ TPACK abilities in the different teaching stages.

2.2.2. Educational Levels

Teachers’ educational level refers to the highest academic qualifications that teachers have acquired [45]. For teachers in China, the lowest educational level is a post-secondary school qualification [21]. A previous study indicated that teachers’ own educational level will affect their acceptance of new technology [46]. People with a higher educational level were found to be positively correlated with providing high-quality services [47]. Teachers with higher educational levels had higher digital literacy and found it easier to master ICT [48]. However, less-educated teachers tended to have more positive attitudes and, thus, used more technology in class in comparison with more educated teachers [49]. Meanwhile, some studies showed that teachers’ educational levels also affected their teaching strategies. Teachers with different educational levels had different levels of teaching technology skills [24]. Teachers with lower educational levels were more active in teaching, which might be associated with their lack of specific teaching techniques and abundance of solid knowledge compared with teachers with higher educational levels [25]. In contrast, however, one study showed no significant difference in teachers’ usage of behavioral or instructional management strategies according to teachers’ educational levels [50].
According to the above literature review, it is clear that there are differences in teachers’ acceptance of technology and their teaching styles and strategies at different levels of education, and TPACK refers to teachers’ ability to effectively apply technology in their teaching. Therefore, in the current study, exploring the impact of teachers’ educational levels on their TPACK abilities, especially the specific sub-dimensions of TPACK, can help teachers and researchers better understand the extent to which teachers at different educational levels have mastered TPACK competencies, and, thus, suggest some strategies to help teachers improve their TPACK abilities for effective teaching.

2.3. Research Questions

Based on the above studies, this study aimed to explore teachers’ TPACK abilities from the perspective of their teaching stages and educational levels. Three questions were proposed.
(1)
What is the level of teachers’ TPACK abilities?
(2)
Is there any significant difference of teachers’ TPACK abilities in their teaching stages?
(3)
Is there any significant difference of teachers’ TPACK abilities in their educational levels?

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

In total, 1390 teachers participated in the research. The effective number of participants was 1342. As shown in Table 1, among these 1342 teachers, there were 350 lower grade elementary school teachers (26.1%), 341 higher grade elementary school teachers (25.4%), 311 middle school teachers (23.2%), and 340 high school teachers (25.3%). There were 299 teachers with an education level of post-secondary school (22.2%), 315 with an education level of 3-year college (23.5%), 378 with an education level of 4-year college or university (28.2%), and 350 with a postgraduate educational level (26.1%).

3.2. Procedure

An online questionnaire of teachers’ TPACK abilities was distributed through a free platform called Questionnaire Star (www.wjx.cn) (accessed on 14 October 2021). A website address was generated and distributed through a number of teachers in different schools in Nanjing, China. The informed consent letter was the first part of the questionnaire. Participants were told that their participation was anonymous and that their response information would not be known by anyone other than the researchers. The data would be used for a study and would be published. Participants who agreed with the letter continued to fill out the questionnaire. Otherwise, they left the website. A total of 1390 teachers participated in the research in the Jiangsu province, China, and the effective data of 1342 samples were analyzed after 48 incomplete questionnaires were deleted. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and difference analysis.

3.3. Instruments

The scale of the study was adapted from Graham’s study [51] and consisted of seven dimensions with a total of 24 items, including three for TK, two for PK, three for CK, three for TPK, five for PCK, four for TCK, and four for TPACK. These seven dimensions reflect all factors of teachers’ TPACK abilities. A five-point Likert scale was used to measure teachers’ TPACK abilities from strongly disagree to strongly agree as 1–5. Missing and invalid data were removed and then SPSS 26.0 and Amos 26.0 were used for the data analysis. Internal consistency tests and confirmatory factor analysis were applied to ensure the reliability and validity of the instrument. The questionnaire had extremely high internal consistency, with an overall Cronbach’s alpha of 0.964, and for each sub-scale: 0.956 (TK), 0.946 (PK), 0.973 (CK), 0.976 (PCK), 0.976 (TCK), 0.961 (TPK), and 0.979 (TPACK). The structure validity of the scale was judged. The KMO value was 0.946, and the Barlett sphere test reached a significant level (p < 0.001). The CFA results showed that the questionnaire had acceptable psychometric properties (χ2/df = 4.245; p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.049; GFI = 0.933; NFI = 0.979; CFI = 0.984; IFI = 0.984; TLI = 0.981). Results suggested that the model of teachers’ TPACK abilities fit adequately based on the fit indices criteria [52]. The model fit statistics are presented in Table 2.

3.4. Data Analysis

SPSS 26.0 was applied in the data entry and statistical data analysis. Firstly, demographic data were analyzed using descriptive analysis, which was also used to calculate the means and standard deviation (SD) of the seven dimensions of teachers’ TPACK abilities. Then, the Shapiro–Wilks normality test was applied to examine whether the original data conformed to the normal distribution [53]. The results (p < 0.05) demonstrated that the original score data of the dependent variables such as CK, TK, PK, TPK, PCK, TCK, and TPACK did not accord with the normal distribution. Therefore, the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test was used for the differential analysis [54]. Finally, the Kruskal–Wallis post-hoc pairwise comparison was performed on samples with significant differences across samples [55].

4. Results

4.1. TPACK Abilities

The statistical data analysis was performed to examine teachers’ TPACK abilities. The means and standard deviations of teachers’ TPACK abilities are shown in Table 3. A mean of 3.5–5.0 is considered to be high frequency [56]. In total, the average degree of TPACK is greater than 3.5, indicating that teachers’ TPACK abilities were at a generally high level. Specifically, the ranking of teachers’ mean scores on each dimension from highest to lowest is TPK (M = 4.42, SD = 0.63), PK (M = 4.41, SD = 0.66), TCK (M = 4.37, SD = 0.66), TPACK (M = 4.30, SD = 0.64), PCK (M = 4.25, SD = 0.66), CK (M = 4.17, SD = 0.69), and TK (M = 3.86, SD = 0.81).

4.2. Exploring Teaching Stage and Education Level Differences in Teachers’ TPACK Abilities

4.2.1. Teaching Stages

The Kruskal–Wallis test was applied to explore the difference of teachers’ TPACK abilities in their different teaching stages, i.e., lower grades in elementary school, higher grades in elementary school, middle school, and high school. The analysis results indicated statistically significant differences in PK, TPK, TCK, and TPACK, and there was also a difference in CK (see Table 4). Teachers’ PK, TPK, TCK, and TPACK indicated that there were significant differences in CK, PK, TPK, TCK, and TPACK, and there was also a difference in teachers’ CK. However, no significant difference existed in TK or PCK.
Then, the post-hoc pairwise comparisons of Kruskal–Wallis test was applied to evaluate the significant difference in the seven dimensions of TPACK between groups with different teaching stages [55]. According to Table 5, differences were found. Significant differences were found in CK, TCK, and TPACK between the elementary school group and the high school group. For these three dimensions, generally, teachers in the high school group acquired higher scores. For teachers in these two teaching stages, the teaching content and characteristics of students are distinct, which may have contributed to the differences. In addition, the results also revealed statistically significant differences among elementary, middle, and high school teachers in PK and TPK. The result indicated that the higher teaching stage teachers are in, the better their PK and TPK.

4.2.2. Educational Levels

The Kruskal–Wallis test was applied to explore the difference in teachers’ TPACK abilities in their different educational levels, i.e., post-secondary school, 3-year college, 4-year college or university, and postgraduate. Significant differences were found in teachers’ TPACK abilities depending on their educational levels. For the seven dimensions of the TPACK framework, significant differences were found for all education levels. Table 6 provides a summary of the mean ranks for participants, χ2 values, df values, and significance levels.
Then, the post-hoc pairwise comparisons of Kruskal–Wallis test was applied to evaluate the significant differences in the seven dimensions of TPACK between groups with different educational levels [55]. Differences were found (see Table 7). The results showed that significant differences were found in CK, TK, PCK, and TPACK among teachers’ four educational levels. In general, the higher educational level teachers had, the better they could integrate technology into teaching, and so they had better abilities of the TPACK sub-dimensions. Therefore, some differences in teachers’ TPACK abilities according to educational levels were found in this study. However, there were no differences in PK, TPK, and TCK between teachers with post-secondary school level and 3-year college educational level.

5. Discussion

The study explored the level of teachers’ TPACK abilities, and whether teachers’ teaching stages and educational levels affected their abilities. Some significant findings were made. The empirical evidence and data analysis showed that the abilities of teachers’ TPACK were generally high (answering RQ1). There were significant differences in teachers’ CK, PK, TPK, TCK, and TPACK abilities according to their teaching stages (answering RQ2). Significant differences in teachers’ TPACK abilities were also found according to their educational levels (answering RQ3).

5.1. Teachers’ TPACK Abilities

In the study, the mean score of the seven sub-dimensions of TPACK abilities was greater than 3.5, indicating that teachers generally rated themselves at a generally high level [56]. This finding aligned with the research by Koh [33] and Liu et al. [57]. Specifically, among the seven sub-dimensions, teachers’ TPK and PK abilities were the highest. TPK refers to the knowledge of how to utilize diverse technologies with different types of pedagogical approaches. It is vital for teachers to recognize and apply the technologies and to choose pedagogical approaches that fit particular technologies, and vice versa [58]. PK is the knowledge about the teaching process and practices, including teachers’ understanding of students’ learning styles, classroom management, lesson design, and teaching evaluation. According to the results, teachers participating in this research performed better in TPK and PK abilities. Then, teachers’ TCK and TPACK abilities were the second strongest. For TCK, it means the knowledge of subject matter representation with technology. It is beneficial for effective teaching to understand the subject matter using the appropriate technology [31]. TPACK refers to the ability of appropriately using ICT according to teaching content and methods. The results of the current study indicated that teachers’ TPACK ability was relatively high. Next were PCK and CK; they are the knowledge of teaching methods with respect to subject matter content and the actual subject matter that is to be taught. For teachers, the teaching content and teaching pedagogies is the essential part. Therefore, the PCK and CK levels of teachers in this research were also relatively high. However, the results showed that compared to the other dimensions of the TPACK framework, teachers’ TK ability was the weakest. This indicated that the teachers who participated in the research could not solve certain kinds of technical problems well in teaching, such as hardware and software equipment failure. As technology plays an important role in traditional teacher-centered teaching [59], teachers should strengthen their mastery of technology and pay more attention to accumulating relevant experience in technology usage and device management [60].
According to the results, we learnt that technological knowledge (TK) was not well mastered by teachers, but they performed better in integrating technology into teaching and teaching pedagogies; these findings seem to contradict each other. In fact, technology often does not exist in isolation [61] but requires teachers to apply it flexibly according to the needs of the teaching content [30]. This also shows the importance of teachers’ TPACK abilities. TPACK is an important knowledge base to improve teachers’ digital competency [62]. The results showed that teachers had stronger TPK and PK abilities, which indicated that they could master the abilities of applying technology when implementing different teaching methods.
In total, due to the lowest scores of TK, it is vital to promote teachers’ usage of ICT [57]. For sustainable education, ICT is seen as an important vehicle for learning and expression [14]. However, one thing to note is that merely focusing on technology knowledge does not adequately meet the needs of teachers to integrate technology into the teaching process [63]. Therefore, as strengthening the training of teachers’ informational technological ability will help to comprehensively improve teachers’ TPACK abilities, teachers should start by determining the teaching pedagogies suitable for the teaching content and search for relevant digital technologies to support teaching activities to improve their digital competence and the quality of education, so as to work towards the development of sustainable education.

5.2. Difference of Teachers’ TPACK Abilities in Their Teaching Stages

According to the results, on the whole, teachers’ abilities at different teaching stages were significantly different in some dimensions of TPACK such as PK, TPK, TCK, TPACK, and CK. In those sub-dimensions, teachers in higher teaching stages performed better than teachers in lower teaching stages. However, no significant difference was found in TK and PCK according to their teaching stages.
Specifically, for PK and TPK, significant differences were found among the four teaching stages, and the higher teaching stage teachers were in, the higher their mean scores were. PK ability needs teachers to master the knowledge of process and practices of teaching, including their understanding of students’ learning styles, classroom management, lesson design, and teaching evaluation. Teachers in different teaching stages need to deal with different teacher–student relations. Compared to the students in middle and high school, the elementary school students have relatively less self-control [64]. Therefore, it is a challenge for elementary school teachers to manage the classroom and educate students effectively. As for TPK ability, it requires teachers to use useful technology according to the specific methodologies in teaching. However, for teachers in lower teaching stages, according to the results, their PK score was relatively lower; thus, it will also be harder to integrate appropriate technologies based on the specific methodologies. As for CK, TCK, and TPACK, there were significant differences between teachers in elementary and high school. The high school teachers scored higher on those sub-dimensions than elementary school teachers. For teachers in different teaching stages, their teaching should be based on the teaching contents and objectives of the current teaching stage [65]. Because of the great differences in the teaching contents and teaching objectives at elementary school, middle school, and high school [57], teachers at different teaching stages should apply technology in their teaching in different ways. However, in terms of TK and PCK, the mean scores of the four teaching stages were comparable. This showed that teachers at different teaching stages had the same abilities to master TK and PCK. In the information era, ICT has become increasingly important. In the process of educational informatization, technology is also gradually occupying an important position, and effective teaching is dependent on technology [66]. The teaching ability concerning information technology will directly affect the efficiency of students’ learning and the mastery of knowledge [67]. Therefore, in order to improve the quality of education and sustainable education, teachers in each teaching stage should have certain teaching abilities related to information technology.
In general, teachers in any teaching stage should aim at improving the quality of education, promoting students’ personalized development, and building a trustworthy and productive relationship with students [68]. Meanwhile, for teachers, especially elementary school teachers, applying gamified teaching strategies in their teaching also helps them to improve their teaching quality [69]. Overall, teachers should not only have certain technological knowledge, but should also be able to adopt appropriate teaching methods based on their own teaching content, and effectively integrate resources and apply technology.

5.3. Differences of Teachers’ TPACK Abilities in Their Educational Levels

Teachers’ TPACK abilities were also affected by their educational levels. The results illustrated significant differences of teachers’ TPACK abilities in their educational levels, especially in CK, TK, PCK, and TPACK. Meanwhile, teachers with higher educational levels could acquire stronger TPACK abilities. Teachers with a higher educational level find it easier to accept new teaching pedagogies [70]. Therefore, they could apply different pedagogies flexibly to promote better teaching. Additionally, there is a positive correlation between excellent teaching ability and teachers’ educational levels [47]. A consistent conclusion was helpful for understanding the findings of this study. In terms of TK and TCK, there were also significant differences between teachers with different educational levels. Teachers with higher educational levels could make better use of technology. Teachers with a postgraduate degree were at the highest level, followed by teachers with a 4-year college or university degree, and a 3-year college degree, while teachers with a post-secondary school degree were the lowest. Teachers with different educational levels face different technical pressures, and their proficiency in mastering the technology differed [16]. Teachers with a higher education level had higher technical capabilities and information literacy [48], which was consistent with the findings of the study.
Furthermore, according to the results, significant differences in CK, TK, PCK, and TPACK among the four educational levels were found. However, there were no differences in PK, TPK, and TCK for teachers with a post-secondary degree and a 3-year college degree. Teachers with a higher level of TPACK abilities believed more strongly in the value of using ICT to facilitate learning than teachers with lower levels of proficiency [71]. Thus, for teachers with a post-secondary degree and a 3-year college degree, it is necessary to implement a series of ICT application training courses to improve their self-confidence in using technology [72].
In general, no matter what educational level teachers have, they should positively learn the application of ICT in the instruction process to improve their educational digital competence. Meanwhile, it is also vital to select appropriate technologies based on teaching content and teaching pedagogies.

6. Conclusions

The study was to measure teachers’ TPACK abilities, and to determine whether any difference in teachers’ TPACK abilities could be found according to their teaching stages and educational levels. The results showed significant differences of teachers’ TPACK abilities in their teaching stages and educational levels. In terms of CK, PK, TPK, TCK, and TPACK, significant differences in teachers’ TPACK abilities were found in their different teaching stages, especially in the lower grades in elementary school and high school. However, no significant differences were found in TK and PCK. Meanwhile, the seven dimensions of teachers’ TPACK abilities reflected significant differences in the education level of teachers, especially in CK, TK, PCK, and TPACK, but there were no differences between teachers with high school and below education level and teachers with a junior college level education in terms of PK, TPK, and TCK. Furthermore, teachers with a higher education level were generally better at TPACK abilities.

6.1. Implications

For teachers’ TPACK abilities, the study could provide some suggestions for both teachers and trainers. Firstly, according to the results, some differences of teachers’ TPACK abilities were found in their teaching stages. Thus, more attention should be paid to the teachers’ abilities in each stage to integrate technology effectively. Due to different teaching stages, there are great differences in teaching content and objectives [62]. Therefore, teachers in different teaching stages should integrate ICT into the instruction process based on their different content and pedagogical knowledge and should aim to master different teaching methods knowledge and integrated technology teaching knowledge. Secondly, in view of the differences in teachers’ TPACK abilities in their different educational levels, more guidance strategies tailored to the characteristics of teachers at different levels should be provided. Teachers with a higher education level can better integrate technology into teaching [73,74,75]. Teachers with a lower education level have a poorer grasp of the ability to integrate technology into teaching. Therefore, special attention and more strategic guidance should be paid to enhance their TPACK abilities. Technical guidance and training for teachers should be provided to enhance their teaching skills, and an appropriate teaching pedagogy is required to improve their TPACK abilities [24]. Thirdly, this study summarized the main dimensions of measuring teachers’ TPACK abilities, formed a measurement model of teachers’ TPACK abilities, prepared a reliable questionnaire that provides a reference for future studies, and has made a contribution to measuring teachers’ TPACK abilities.

6.2. Limitations and Future Study

There are still some limitations in the study. Firstly, the teachers participating in the survey came from specific regions, and the number of participants was small. The results are limited to the target region, individuals, and groups. In order to make the research results more representative, teachers in more different regions should be involved to obtain a larger sample size in future studies. Secondly, this study only used the quantitative method of a questionnaire; qualitative methods (such as interviews) may better help to understand the difference in teachers’ TPACK abilities in different dimensions and can be used to enrich the data and findings in future research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.-S.S.; methodology, S.L.; writing—original draft preparation, S.L. and Y.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.-S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under grants MOST 111-2622-H-019–001 and MOST 109-2511-H-019-004-MY2.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Some or all data and models that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Starkey, L. Evaluating learning in the 21st century: A digital age learning matrix. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 2011, 20, 19–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dong, Y.; Wu, L. Review of Digital School Construction and Development in China. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 103, 781–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhao, Y.; Llorente, A.M.P.; Gomez, M.C.S. Digital competence in higher education research: A systematic literature review. Comput. Educ. 2021, 168, 104212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chadegani, A.A.; Salehi, H.; Yunus, M.; Farhadi, H.; Fooladi, M.; Farhadi, M.; Ebrahim, N.A. A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Soc. Sci. 2013, 9, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jimoyiannis, A. Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers’ professional development. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 1259–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Goodyear, P. Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and educational design. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2005, 21, 82–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kirkwood, A.; Price, L. Missing: Evidence of a scholarly approach to teaching and learning with technology in higher education. Teach. High. Educ. 2013, 18, 327–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rolf, E.; Knutsson, O.; Pamberg, R. An analysis of digital competence as expressed in design patterns for technology use in teaching. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50, 3361–3375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mishra, P.; Koehler, M.J. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2006, 108, 1017–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Miguel-Revilla, D.; Martinez-Ferreira, J.M.; Sanchez-Agusti, M. Assessing the digital competence of educators in social studies: An analysis in initial teacher training using the TPACK-21 model. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 36, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization. UNESCO Institute for Education (UIE): Annual Report. 2003. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000149312 (accessed on 20 May 2022).
  12. O’Flaherty, J.; Liddy, M. The impact of development education and education for sustainable development interventions: A synthesis of the research. Environ. Educ. Res. 2018, 24, 1031–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Álvarez-Otero, J.; Torres, M.L. Education in Sustainable Development Goals Using the Spatial Data Infrastructures and the TPACK Model. Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Köybaşı, F. Examining teachers’ disposition towards sustainable education through discriminant analysis. Res. Pedagog. 2020, 10, 229–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Harris, J.; Hofer, M. Instructional Planning Activity Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development. Res. High. Technol. Teach. Educ. 2009, 99–108. Available online: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/31298/ (accessed on 20 May 2022).
  16. Niess, M.L. Investigating TPACK: Knowledge Growth in Teaching with Technology. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2011, 44, 299–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. López-Vargas, O.; Duarte-Suárez, L.; Ibáñez-Ibáñez, J. Teacher’s computer self-efficacy and its relationship with cognitive style and TPACK. Improv. Sch. 2017, 20, 264–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Voogt, J.; Fisser, P.; Roblin, N.P.; Tondeur, J.; Braak, J.V. Technological pedagogical content knowledge—A review of the literature. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2013, 29, 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Manfra, M.M.; Hammond, T.C. Teachers’ instructional choices with student-created digital documentaries: Case studies. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2008, 41, 223–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lee, S.W.; Lee, E.A. Teacher qualification matters: The association between cumulative teacher qualification and students’ educational attainment. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2020, 77, 102218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Teachers Law of the People’s Republic of China. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. 1993. Available online: http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_zcfg/zcfg_jyfl/tnull_1314.html (accessed on 21 May 2022).
  22. Wang, J.; Tigelaar, D.E.H.; Admiraal, W. Connecting rural schools to quality education: Rural teachers’ use of digital educational resources. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 101, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, J.; Fang, Y.; Ma, X. The latest progress report on ICT application in Chinese basic education. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2010, 41, 567–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chou, H.L.; Chou, C. A multigroup analysis of factors underlying teachers’ technostress and their continuance intention toward online teaching. Comput. Educ. 2021, 175, 104–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Diep, N.A.; Cocquyt, C.; Zhu, C.; Vanwing, T. Predicting adult learners’ online participation: Effects of altruism, performance expectancy, and social capital. Comput. Educ. 2016, 101, 84–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shulman, L.S. Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educ. Res. 1986, 15, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yeh, Y.-F.; Chan, K.K.H.; Hsu, Y.-S. Toward a framework that connects individual TPACK and collective TPACK: A systematic review of TPACK studies investigating teacher collaborative discourse in the learning by design process. Comput. Educ. 2021, 171, 104–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Niess, M.L. Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2005, 21, 509–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, W.; Tang, J. Teachers’ TPACK Development: A Review of Literature. Open J. Soc. Sci. 2021, 7, 367–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lux, N.J.; Bangert, A.W.; Whittier, D.B. The Development of An Instrument to Assess Preservice Teacher’s Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2011, 45, 415–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Horzum, M.B. An investigation of the technological pedagogical content knowledge of pre-service teachers. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 2013, 22, 303–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liang, J.-C.; Chai, C.S.; Koh, J.H.L.; Yang, C.J.; Tsai, C.C. Surveying in-service preschool teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2013, 29, 581–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Koh, J.H.L.; Chai, C.S.; Tsai, C.C. Examining the technological pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2010, 26, 563–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Archambault, L.M.; Barnett, J.H. Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 1656–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Koh, J.H.L.; Chai, C.S. Teacher clusters and their perceptions of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) development through ICT lesson design. Comput. Educ. 2014, 70, 222–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chai, C.S.; Koh, J.H.L.; Tsai, C.-C. A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2013, 16, 31–51. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290044779 (accessed on 21 May 2022).
  37. Bai, B.; Shen, B.; Mei, H. Hong Kong primary students’ self-regulated writing strategy use: Influences of gender, writing proficiency, and grade level. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2020, 65, 100839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Luo, M.; Sun, D.; Zhu, L.; Yang, Y. Evaluating scientific reasoning ability: Student performance and the interaction effects between grade level, gender, and academic achievement level. Think. Ski. Creat. 2021, 41, 100899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Goodson, I.F.; Mangan, J.M. Subject cultures and the introduction of classroom computers. Br. Educ. Res. J. 1995, 21, 613–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Howard, S.K.; Chan, A.; Caputi, P. More than beliefs: Subject areas and teachers’ integration of laptops in secondary teaching. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2015, 46, 260–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Çoklar, A.N. Primary school preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge competency in terms of gender and ict use phase. Eğitim Bilim 2014, 39, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Doğanay, A.; Ayse, O. An Investigation of Experienced and Inexperienced Primary School Teachers’ Teaching Process in Science and Technology Classes in Terms of Metacognitive Strategies. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2011, 11, 1320–1325. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ936314 (accessed on 21 May 2022).
  43. He, N.; Yang, X.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Z. Structure of TKPCK of Mathematics Teachers in Junior Middle Schools in China. Int. Conf. Educ. Innov. Technol. 2017, 258–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bingimlas, K. Investigating the level of teachers’ Knowledge in Technology, Pedagogy, and Content (TPACK) in Saudi Arabia. S. Afr. J. Educ. 2018, 38, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yu, C.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, K.; Tang, Z. A cross-sectional study for estimation of associations between education level and osteoporosis in a Chinese men sample. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2015, 16, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Drent, M.; Meelissen, M. Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Comput. Educ. 2008, 51, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sherrod, D.R. A call for continued education. Nurs. Manag. 2014, 45, 9–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Tafazoli, D.; Parra, M.E.G.; Abril, C. Computer literacy: Sine qua non for digital age of language learning & teaching. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2017, 7, 716–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Arar, K. Teacher-related factors in assimilation of technological change in schools: The case of an Arab school in Israel. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2017, 31, 766–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Reddy, L.A.; Fabiano, G.A.; Dudek, C.M.; Hsu, L. Instructional and behavior management practices implemented by elementary general education teachers. J. Sch. Psychol. 2013, 51, 683–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Graham, C.R.; Burgoyne, N. TPACK Development in Science Teaching: Measuring the TPACK Confidence of Inservice Science Teachers. TechTrends 2009, 53, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Abbas, A.; Sunguh, K.K.; Arrona-Palacios, A.; Hosseini, S. Can we have trust in host government? Self-esteem, work attitudes and prejudice of low-status expatriates living in China. Econ. Sociol. 2021, 14, 11–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shapiro, S.S.; Wilk, M.B. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 1965, 52, 591–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Corder, G.W.; Foreman, D.I. Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians: A step-by-step approach. Int. Stat. Rev. 2009, 78, 451–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Banneheke, H.; Nadarajah, V.D.; Ramamurthy, S.; Sumera, A.; Ravindranath, S.; Jeevaratnam, K.; Efendie, B.; Chellamuthu, L.; Krishnappa, P.; Peterson, R. Student preparedness characteristics important for clinical learning: Perspectives of supervisors from medicine, pharmacy and nursing. BMC Med. Educ. 2017, 17, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Elyazale, N. Attitudes towards English and ESP Learning for University Students: The Case of School of Economics and Law in Meknes. Open J. Sci. 2019, 7, 420–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Liu, Q.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Q. Surveying Chinese In-Service K12 Teachers’ Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2015, 53, 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Getenet, S.T. Adapting technological pedagogical content knowledge framework to teach mathematics. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2017, 22, 2629–2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tseng, J.-J.; Chai, C.S.; Tan, L.; Park, M. A critical review of research on technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in language teaching. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2020, 35, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Irdalisa; Paidi; Djukri. Implementation of Technology-based Guided Inquiry to Improve TPACK among Prospective Biology Teachers. Int. J. Instr. 2020, 13, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Schoonenboom, J. The use of technology as one of the possible means of performing instructor tasks: Putting technology acceptance in context. Comput. Educ. 2012, 59, 1309–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Erdogan, A.; Sahin, I. Relationship between math teacher candidates’ Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) and achievement levels. Innov. Creat. Educ. 2010, 2, 2707–2711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tillberg-Webb, S.H. The song remains the same: Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends 2009, 53, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lei, H.; Chiu, M.; Quan, J.; Zhou, W. Effect of self-control on aggression among students in China: A meta-analysis. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2021, 116, 105107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kwak, Y. Research on the Characteristics of Science Subject Matter Knowledge (SMK) and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) of Primary School Teachers in Classroom Teaching. J. Korean Earth Sci. Soc. 2017, 38, 367–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gebre, E.; Saroyan, A.; Bracewell, R. Students’ engagement in technology rich classrooms and its relationship to professors’ conceptions of effective teaching. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2014, 45, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Guan, H.M.; Wang, L.Y. Research on the Countermeasures for the Development of Informatization Teaching Ability of University Teachers. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Workshop on Education Reform and Social Sciences (ERSS 2018), Qingdao, China, 29–30 December 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Abbas, A.; Arrona-Palacios, A.; Haruna, H.; Alvarez-Sosa, D. Elements of students’ expectation towards teach-er-student research collaboration in higher education. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Uppsala, Sweden, 21–24 October 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ar, A.Y.; Abbas, A. Role of gamification in Engineering Education: A systematic literature review. IEEE Global Eng. Educ. Conf. 2021, 210–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Allinder, R.M. The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teach. Educ. Spec. Educ. 1994, 17, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Saubern, R.; Phillips, M.; Urbach, D.; Koehler, M. Describing increasing proficiency in teachers’ knowledge of the effective use of digital technology. Comput. Educ. 2020, 147, 103784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Karataş, I.; Tunc, M.P.; Yilmaz, N.; Karaci, G. An Investigation of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Self-Confidence, and perception of pre-Service Middle School Mathematics Teachers towards Instructional Technologies. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2017, 20, 122–132. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1147007 (accessed on 21 May 2022).
  73. Chung, C.E.; Kowalski, S. Job stress, mentoring, psychological empowerment, and job satisfaction among nursing faculty. J. Nurs. Educ. 2012, 51, 381–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wu, W.T.; Cai, J.; Li, S.T.; Zhang, X.; Su, Y.S. Study on preschool teachers’ willingness to accept intelligent camera technology in the classroom—An empirical case based on perceived risk theory. J. Int. Technol. 2021, 22, 811–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zhao, L.; Liu, X.; Su, Y.S. The differentiate effect of self-efficacy, motivation, and satisfaction on pre-service teacher students’ learning achievement in a flipped classroom: A case of a modern educational technology course. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the participants.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the participants.
VariableFrequencyPercentage
Teaching stagesLower grades in elementary school35026.1%
Higher grades in elementary school34125.4%
Middle school31123.2%
High school34025.3%
Educational levelsPost-secondary school29922.2%
3-year college31523.5%
4-year college or university 37828.2%
Postgraduate35026.1%
Table
Table 2. Model fit indices for the CFA of teachers’ TPACK abilities.
Table 2. Model fit indices for the CFA of teachers’ TPACK abilities.
χ2/dfRMSEAGFINFICFIIFITLI
4.2450.0490.9330.9790.9840.9840.981
Table
Table 3. Overall teachers’ TPACK abilities of different teaching stages and educational levels.
Table 3. Overall teachers’ TPACK abilities of different teaching stages and educational levels.
Teachers’ TPACK AbilitiesTeaching Stages
M (SD)		Educational Levels
M (SD)
Lower Grades in Elementary SchoolHigher Grades in Elementary SchoolMiddle SchoolHigh SchoolPost-Secondary School3-Year College4-Year College or University Postgraduate
CK
4.17 (0.69)		4.14 (0.76)4.15 (0.66)4.17 (0.63)4.28 (0.71)3.45 (0.84)3.85 (0.54)4.25 (0.62)4.58 (0.54)
TK
3.86 (0.81)		3.88 (0.82)3.81 (0,81)3.86 (0.77)3.89 (0.84)3.14 (0.70)3.63 (0.61)3.84 (0.75)4.31 (0.82)
PK
4.41 (0.66)		4.24 (0.73)4.41 (0.59)4.50 (0.57)4.60 (0.69)3.80 (0.79)4.00 (0.49)4.55 (0.51)4.73 (0.66)
TPK
4.42 (0.63)		4.31 (0.66)4.39 (0.61)4.48 (0.56)4.59 (0.73)3.73 (0.72)4.03 (0.36)4.52 (0.62)4.83 (0.41)
PCK
4.25 (0.66)		4.23 (0.70)4.22 (0.65)4.26 (0.63)4.32 (0.70)3.39 (0.73)3.92 (0.43)4.29 (0.60)4.75 (0.43)
TCK
4.37 (0.66)		4.29 (0.68)4.35 (0.63)4.44 (0.55)4.46 (080)3.77 (0.73)3.98 (0.46)4.44 (0.61)4.79 (0.44)
TPACK
4.30 (0.64)		4.23 (0.71)4.26 (0.68)4.34 (0.58)4.47 (0.54)3.07 (0.78)4.02 (0.23)4.42 (0.47)4.77 (0.41)
Table
Table 4. Results of the Kruskal–Wallis test statistic.
Table 4. Results of the Kruskal–Wallis test statistic.
Independent VariableDependent VariableMean Ranksχ2dfp
Lower Grades in Elementary SchoolHigher Grades in Elementary SchoolMiddle SchoolHigh School
Teaching stagesCK659.40656.19658.59736.629.2730.026 *
TK688.51648.73667.12680.322.4830.479
PK581.63658.87713.99823.1567.6530.000 ***
TPK608.08648.20701.61802.3148.5830.000 ***
PCK663.79651.40667.45725.256.6430.084
TCK626.54656.56691.03763.7624.1830.000 ***
TPACK638.74650.69682.91758.5819.2430.000 ***
Note. *** p < 0.001; * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 5. Pairwise multiple comparisons for teaching stages.
Table 5. Pairwise multiple comparisons for teaching stages.
Teaching Stagesp
CKLower grades in elementary schoolHigher grades in elementary school1.000
Middle school1.000
High school0.044 *
Higher grades in elementary schoolMiddle school1.000
High school0.041 *
Middle schoolHigh school0.087
PKLower grades in elementary schoolHigher grades in elementary school0.018 *
Middle school0.000 ***
High school0.000 ***
Higher grades in elementary schoolMiddle school0.388
High school0.000 ***
Middle schoolHigh school0.007 **
TPKLower grades in elementary schoolHigher grades in elementary school0.633
Middle school0.004 **
High school0.000 ***
Higher grades in elementary schoolmiddle school0.363
High school0.000 ***
Middle schoolHigh school0.010 **
TCKLower grades in elementary schoolHigher grade in elementary school1.000
Middle school0.108
High school0.000 ***
Higher grades in elementary schoolMiddle school1.000
High school0.002 **
Middle schoolHigh school0.138
TPACKLower grades in elementary schoolHigher grades in elementary school1.000
Middle school0.627
High school0.000 ***
Higher grades in elementary schoolMiddle school1.000
High school0.002 **
Middle schoolHigh school0.106
Note. *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 6. Results of the Kruskal–Wallis test statistic.
Table 6. Results of the Kruskal–Wallis test statistic.
Independent VariableDependent VariableMean Ranksχ2dfp
Post-Secondary School3-Year College4-Year College or UniversityPostgraduate
Educational levelsCK317.04482.49712.55891.03342.84030.000 ***
TK325.10576.24661.60885.98228.85830.000 ***
PK352.74387.71732.40932.78446.28130.000 ***
TPK306.81392.45735.31938.79522.72130.000 ***
PCK235.70464.64694.87962.04509.13230.000 ***
TCK379.15406.74716.93931.93446.75230.000 ***
TPACK68.21465.47731.18957.44676.25730.000 ***
Note. *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 7. Pairwise multiple comparisons for education level.
Table 7. Pairwise multiple comparisons for education level.
Educational Levelsp
CKPost-secondary school3-year college0.000 ***
4-year college or university0.000 ***
Postgraduate0.000 ***
3-year college4-year college or university0.000 ***
Postgraduate0.000 ***
4-year college or universityPostgraduate0.000 ***
TKPost-secondary school3-year college0.000 ***
4-year college or university0.000 ***
Postgraduate0.000 ***
3-year college4-year college or university0.008 **
Postgraduate0.000 ***
4-year college or universityPostgraduate0.000 ***
PKPost-secondary school3-year college1.000
4-year college or university0.000 ***
Postgraduate0.000 ***
3-year college4-year college or university0.000 ***
Postgraduate0.000 ***
4-year college or universityPostgraduate0.000 ***
TPKPost-secondary school3-year college0.172
4-year college or university0.000 ***
Postgraduate0.000 ***
3-year college4-year college or university0.000 ***
Postgraduate0.000 ***
4-year college or universityPostgraduate0.000 ***
PCKPost-secondary school3-year college0.000 ***
4-year college or university0.000 ***
Postgraduate0.000 ***
3-year college4-year college or university0.000 ***
Postgraduate0.000 ***
4-year college or universityPostgraduate0.000 ***
TCKPost-secondary school3-year college1.000
4-year college or university0.000 ***
Postgraduate0.000 ***
3-year college4-year college or university0.000 ***
Postgraduate0.000 ***
4-year college or universityPostgraduate0.000 ***
TPACKPost-secondary school3-year college0.000 ***
4-year college or university0.000 ***
Postgraduate0.000 ***
3-year college4-year college or university0.000 ***
Postgraduate0.000 ***
4-year college or universityPostgraduate0.000 ***
Note. ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, S.; Liu, Y.; Su, Y.-S. Differential Analysis of Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Abilities According to Teaching Stages and Educational Levels. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7176. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127176

AMA Style

Li S, Liu Y, Su Y-S. Differential Analysis of Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Abilities According to Teaching Stages and Educational Levels. Sustainability. 2022; 14(12):7176. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127176

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Suqi, Yuxuan Liu, and Yu-Sheng Su. 2022. "Differential Analysis of Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Abilities According to Teaching Stages and Educational Levels" Sustainability 14, no. 12: 7176. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127176

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop