The literature above suggests that often teachers’ early established practices, beliefs, and pedagogical thinking may influence the way they use technologies in teaching. According to Koehler and Mishra (2008), technology introduces additional variables to the learning and teaching context that demand teachers change their practices, which eventually adds double complexity to their pedagogical approaches. This double complexity is
represented in terms of marrying teachers’ use of digital technologies with their pedagogical approaches. Mishra and Koehler (2006) proposed a framework named technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) for integrating technology in pedagogical practice both in teacher education and professional learning in schools. The TPACK model was originally an expansion of the PCK (pedagogical content knowledge) model theorised by Shulman (1986). Shulman critiqued the way the two types of knowledge (content and pedagogy) were being treated in isolation from each other in teacher education programmes. Shulman (1986) argues that pre-service teachers should have a deep understanding of both areas of knowledge, as they are inter-related. Mishra and Koehler (2006) adopted this view and extended the argument with a new conceptualisation of teacher knowledge, which can be understood as three important domains for teacher knowledge, as illustrated in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3. 1.Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge, Source: Mishra and Koehler (2006), http://tpack.org
Mishra and Koehler (2006) argue that since technology has become an important tenet of teaching and learning processes, and more particularly because of its potential for
51
improving learning/teaching process, teachers are required to understand the relationship between these three types of teacher knowledge content, pedagogy, and technology. Harris, Mishra, and Koehler (2009) believe that teachers often use digital technology as a transformative tool (a delivery tool) in their teaching of subject matter. This means that teachers use digital technologies merely to deliver content they want to teach. Koehler, Mishra, and Yahya (2007) suggest that this complexity arises due to teachers’ lack of understanding of the relationships between content, pedagogy, and technology and the context within which they function. The literature here suggests that teachers require certain competencies in terms of connecting the three types of knowledge (knowing content (subject area), pedagogy (teaching knowledge) and technology (technology background).
A large body of literature discusses the TPACK framework and its application in teacher preparation contexts and teachers’ classroom practices, as illustrated in Table 3.1 below. Table 3. 1.TPACK research with teachers and pre-service teachers
Source Context Methodology Key findings
(Abbitt, 2011a) Pre-service teacher (USA)
Quantitative Reported on the changing nature of the complex relationship between knowledge and self-efficacy beliefs. (Abbitt, 2011b) Pre-service
teacher (USA)
Quantitative Developed methods and instruments to assess TPACK understanding among pre-service teachers through a literature review.
(Chai, Ling Koh, Tsai, & Lee Wee Tan, 2011) Measures of TPACK in teacher education (Singapore)
Quantitative Found that pedagogical knowledge had a direct impact on TPACK at the beginning of the course and
strengthened during the course.
(Ching Sing, Joyce Hwee Ling, & Chin- Chung, 2010) Examines TPACK knowledge among pre- service teachers (Singapore)
Quantitative Revealed that technological
knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge are all significant predictors of pre-service teachers' TPACK, with pedagogical knowledge having the largest impact. (Harris & Hofer,
2011)
School teachers in USA
Qualitative After a professional development examined teachers TPACK, a) Teachers selected various technologies more consciously, strategically, thoughtfully for student learning; and
b) Teachers’ instructional planning became more student-centred and focused-on student learning.
52
Source Context Methodology Key findings
(Hyo-Jeong & Bosung, 2009) Pre-service teachers in Singapore Mixed- method
Found that participants had theoretical understanding of pedagogical knowledge; however, their lesson designs showed a mismatch among technology tools, content representations, and pedagogical strategies. (Koh, Chai, &
Tsai, 2010)
Pre-service teachers in Singapore
Quantitative The participants did not make conceptual distinctions between TPACK constructs.
(Koh, Chai, & Tsai, 2013)
School teachers in Singapore
Quantitative Showed that teachers perceived TPACK to be formulated from the direct effects of technological knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. They also perceived these knowledge sources as contributing to the development of technological pedagogical knowledge and technological content knowledge, which also contributed to their TPACK.
(Niess, 2005) Pre-service teachers in USA
Qualitative Five cases described the difficulties and successes of student teachers teaching with technology in developing their TPACK. (Polly, 2011) School teachers
in USA
Qualitative In a year-long professional
development programme, two cases displayed evidence of understanding TPACK; however, their enacted pedagogies did not completely align with the pedagogies emphasised during professional development. (Schmidt et al., 2009) Pre-service teachers in Midwestern University
Quantitative Suggested that the modification and/or deletion of 18 of the survey items, the survey is a reliable and valid instrument that will help educators design longitudinal studies to assess pre-service teachers' development of TPACK. (Sahin, 2011) School teachers
in Turkey
Quantitative Examined TPACK constructs survey and demonstrated the TPACK survey is a valid and reliable measure. (Swan & Hofer,
2011)
School teachers in USA
Qualitative Found that teachers demonstrated strong technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) but a lack of technological content knowledge (TCK) in the design and
implementation of the podcasting projects.
53
The TPACK studies above outline its contribution to understanding the complexity of technological and pedagogical practices in schooling contexts. However, none of these studies have addressed the influence of teachers’ background or culture in relation to how teachers’ understood or practised their theoretical understanding of TPACK. Some studies (Niess, 2005; Polly, 2011) have highlighted some reasons related to the difficulty of enacting TPACK in pedagogical practices, but they did not explain much about teachers’ backgrounds when examining participants’ TPACK. I want to know whether or not TPACK’s theorisation leaves room for explaining teachers’ background when investigating pedagogical practices through it. Though the TPACK diagram now situates the interconnecting ring within an area marked ‘context’, it is not specific about what might constitute this context (Figure 3.1). As ‘context’ is an outer layer, it is possible to assume that it relates to teachers’ backgrounds. However, TPACK studies listed in Table 3.1 did not take teachers’ backgrounds into account when explaining the idea of context. Moreover, most of these TPACK studies are based on quantitative measures in which researchers focused on examining teachers’ understanding of TPACK constructs, rather than looking at their actual pedagogical practices.
In addition, TPACK’s theoretical underpinning as a framework is well presented in many studies (Cox & Graham, 2009; Graham et al., 2009; Harris et al., 2009; Heaven, Clegg, & Maguire, 2006; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2005a, 2005b). These TPACK researchers have attempted defining and measuring its constructs without necessarily focusing on how its theorisation can link to explaining teachers’ backgrounds and how that impacts on their use of digital technologies. Cox and Graham (2009) provide examples of teaching strategies using technology-rich activities. One of these centres on the use of PowerPoint by a geology professor. Another is about a history teacher’s blog. Cox and Graham’s findings demonstrate interactions between the use of technology, pedagogy and content to serve learning objectives. Cox and Graham’s views had a profound effect on fostering pedagogical strategies through the TPACK framework. However, Cox and Graham recommend that the TPACK framework still needs to be understood within teachers’ actual pedagogical practices in specific contexts.
Graham et al. (2009) investigated in-service teachers’ confidence levels in four constructs of TPACK through a professional development programme using pre- and post-surveys in USA. The study revealed that TPACK knowledge increased teachers’ confidence levels after the TPACK professional development programme. However, the study relied on quantitative measures that provide little information about the extent to which
teachers’ confidence levels increased based on their TPACK understanding and their experience of using digital technologies in teaching.
54
Despite the contribution of the TPACK framework, Koh et al. (2013) claim that even after many years of study, teachers’ application of TPACK in teaching remains unclear. Through a professional development project, Pierson and Borthwick (2010) offer additional elements related to individual and organisational learning into the TPACK model for explaining teachers’ conceptualisation of TPACK. They argue that teachers need to understand what works and in what contexts they can use various technologies when teaching. Jang (2010) investigated the use of IWB by school teachers in Taiwan through a qualitative approach. He argues that TPACK is not a distinct form of teacher knowledge; rather it is a body of knowledge, developed through teachers’ pedagogical acts in classrooms. This finding implies that teachers’ backgrounds and culture can play an important role when developing their use of digital technologies in teaching. Syh-Jong and Meng-Fang (2013) argue that teachers’ background experiences can also influence the development of TPACK in teaching. This finding was generated through self-reported data, so refers to teachers’ own perceptions.
In addition, in a professional development course on TPACK, Niess, van Zee, and Gillow-Wiles (2011) conclude that regardless of teachers’ excitement in using digital technologies (in this case, spreadsheets in maths teaching), their prior beliefs about how specific content must be taught influenced both adoption of this specific digital
technology and the implementation of it in their teaching. Niess et al., however, did not explain much about teachers’ beliefs and how they influenced their use of spreadsheets. From a review of empirical literature on TPACK, Niess (2011) recommends that more investigation is needed to describe teachers’ trajectories in developing “the knowledge, skills, and dispositions” (p. 300) for incorporating digital technologies in various subject areas and contexts. I am keen to understand how teacher educators’ specific pedagogical practice related to their use of digital technologies is conceptualised, formed, or
developed.
In summary, the literature highlights the notion that traditional teaching methods continue with the addition of technologies in many pedagogical contexts (Adams, 2012; Bang & Luft, 2013; Baran, 2010; Jones, 2003; Judson, 2006; Perkins, 2012; Pritchard, 2007; Sipilä, 2010; Zisow, 2000). That these studies were published at different times from the 2000s until the 2010s suggests that teachers’ use of digital technologies does not
necessarily bring change to their pedagogical practices. When synthesising these studies, what is still unclear is the reason for teachers adopting certain tools or forming certain pedagogical practices. In the context of my research, where digital technologies have only been introduced in the 2000s (refer Chapter Two), the way teacher educators use digital technologies may mirror issues similar to those examined by the above researchers. In
55
addition, this literature discussed above overly concentrates on attempting to understand what teachers can do with technologies in their teaching. However, it is yet not clear why teachers do what they do when teaching with various technologies.
Many researchers suggest that pedagogical practice with digital technologies must be more than just the transmission of knowledge through the teachers’ use of these tools (Boshuizen & Wopereis, 2003; Brooks & Brooks, 1999; Gallant, 2000; Pritchard, 2007; Webb, 2013). These studies provide useful ideas for exploring teacher educators’ conceptualised pedagogy in the Maldives, specifically in terms of how they teach, what tools they use, and the approaches they use for teaching. However, it must be noted that these studies pay very little attention to the impact culture has on teachers’ use of digital technologies. Instead, they merely concentrate on teachers' and students’ roles when using these tools, whilst overlooking the influence of teachers’ culture and their backgrounds on their shaping of pedagogical practice with digital technologies.
TPACK studies also provide limited knowledge about teachers’ backgrounds and culture when examining their use of digital technologies in their pedagogical contexts (Abbitt, 2011a, 2011b; Chai et al., 2011; Koh et al., 2013; Koh et al., 2010; Sahin, 2011; Schmidt et al., 2009). I need to know how far the TPACK model can be helpful to understand the connections between teachers’ early background, culture, and their use of digital technologies in teacher educators’ practices. This leads to a critical gap even in the TPACK model itself when understanding technological and pedagogical practices specifically in cultural contexts. The next section examines literature on digital technology adoption by teachers.