Presentation 13.4.2016, ITK2016 Hämeenlinna.

1. TPACK –SKILLS OF CLASSROOM
TEACHERS TEACHING CRAFTS
MARI KYLLÖNEN
ITK –TUTKIJATAPAAMINEN 13.5.2016

2. TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE,
TPACK (MISHRA & KOEHLER, 2006)
PK
Pedagogical
Knowledge
CK
Content
knowledge
TCKTPK
PCK
TPACK adds teachers’ Technological Knowledge (TK)
as third main constituent, increasing also number of
intersections:
Derived from Shulmans’ (1986) model of Pedagogical-
Content Knowledge (PCK), where Content Knowledge,
(CK) meets Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), creating
intersect Pedagogical Contentknowledge (PCK).
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Shulman, 1986)Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge,
TPACK (Mishra &Koehler 2006)
TPACK
´ Technological Content Knowleddge (TCK)
´ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
´ Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)
TPACK –model has been revised (2008) in order to
acknowledge affect of the context
TK
Technological
Knowledge

3. AIMS OF THE STUDY
1) Describe Finnish class teachers’ self-assessed TPACK –skills in crafts: how teachers
perceive their skills in integrating technology in their pedagogical practices in crafts
2) Test TPACK –surveys applicability for self-assessment of Finnish in-service teachers
in crafts context.
3) Find out possible needs for teachers professional development and training.
METHODS
§ Mixed-methods approach (Hesse-Biber, 2014)
§ Two sub-studies*: The Survey (n =97) and interviews (n =5).
§ Data collected via web-based survey and thematic interviews fall 2015.
§ Analysis conducted by both, quantitative and qualitative methods.
*) Part of doctoral disseratation research ”Finnish Class Teachers’ TPACK –skills in Crafts and students motivational experiences of technology supported crafts teaching.”

4. THE SURVEY: meter application and analysis
Survey design followed - TPACK survey by Schmidt et al. (2009)
- Finnish TPACK-21 survey used by Valtonen et al. (2015)
- Crafts contents applied following Finnish National Curriulum
2014’s statements on crafts.
- 7 scale Likert-type survey, 46 items in the end
Analysis - SPSS v22
- Maximum Likelihood (ML) factoring
- Descriptive statistics (M, SD, skewness, kurtosis)
- Cronbach’s alpha (confidence intervals 95%)
- Oblique rotation (direct oblimin) to detect expected correlations.
- Correlation analysis of sums
- Comparing analysis between teachers by their educational
background

5. M SD
Skew
ness
Kurto
sis
Crobachs’
∝
N = 97
TK 5.2 (1.0) -.32 .09 .93
PK 5.4 (0.6) .10 -.51 .89
CK 5.2 (1.1) -.72 1.05 .96
TPK 4.5 (1.1) -.45 .84 .97
PCK 4.9 (0.9) -.43 .66 .95
TCK 3.8 (1.5) .11 -.48 .94
Descriptives of six Sums derived
from the ML –analysis factoring
TK = Technologial Knowledge PK = Pedagogical Knowledge CK = Content Knowledge
TPK = Technological Pedagogical Knowledge PCK = Pedagogical Content Knowledge TCK = Technological Content Knowledge
TK PK CK TPK PCK TCK
TK 1.000
PK .30 1.000
CK .21 .36 1.000
TPK .76 .47 .29 1.000
PCK .30 .52 .74 .39 1.000
TCK .55 .30 .58 .59 .61 1.000
Inter-item correlations of the sums

6. TK TCK CK PCK PK TPK
M of all
constituents
Class teachers (n =76) 5,1 3,53 4,94 4,76 5,45 4,45 4,85
Class teachers specialized in crafts
(no crafts teachers eligibility) (n =24)
5,14 4,02 5,53 5,2 5,49 4,71 5,17
Crafts teachers (n =14) 5,29 4,71 6,01 5,17 5,26 4,56 5,21
Class+Crafts teachers’ eligibility (n =7) 5,8 5,02 6,11 6,03 5,6 5,2 5,7
All teachers (n =97) 5,2 3,81 5,18 4,94 5,4 4,52 5,06
1 = No skill, 2 = Poor, 3 = Modest, 4 = Average, 5 = Good, 6 = Advanced/very good, 7 = Excellent.
Respondants’educationalbackground N Women Men
1. Class teachers eligibility 76 63 13
2. Class teachers eligibility with basic studies in crafts. 24 17 7
3. Crafts teachers eligibility 14 11 3
4. Both class teachers and crafts teachers eligibility 7 6 1
All respondants 97 80 17
Means of teachers self-assessed TPACK –skilss in Crafts

7. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TK
TCK
CK
PCK
PK
TPK
TPACK -profiles of teachergroups
Class teacher
Class teacher specialized in
crafts (no crafts teachers)
eligibility
Crafts teacher
Class+Crafts teacher
All teachers

8. FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEY
§ 6 TPACK constituents were found: TK, PK, CK, TPK, TCK and PCK
§ Core constituents TK, PK and CK have statistically significant, fairly strong correlations
with related to their intersects (rs = .47 - .76, p < .0005 - .01 ).
§ All constituents have some correlation with each others (rs = .21 - .76, p < 0005 - .04
Surveys fitness for assessing TPACK –skills in Crafts:
Teachers TPACK –skills in Crafts:
§ In general teachers assessed their TPACK -skills to be “good” (M =5,06) with
PK as the strongest as “good” (M =5,4).
§ Skills in the intersections (TCK, PCK and TPK) were estimated systematically lower
than skills of the related core constituents. Same effect was found with other core
constituents and their intersections as well.

9. INTERVIEWS: analysis and interviewees
Classteacher
not specialized
in crafts
Agegroup
Teaching
years
Teacher
graduation
year
Teached crafts for
(years)
A X 60- 35-40 1978 10
B X 45-49 '20-24 1993 20
C* X 50-54 '25-29 1987 20
D X 40-44 '10-14 2000 6
E* x 40-44 -4 1998 2,5
§ Thematic content analysis in line with theory-informed content analysis principles.
§ Teachers’ point of views and expressions were classified with thematic structure
following TPACK –models’ three main constituents (TK, PK and CK) and statements
related to other constituents were marked out.
Background
information of
interviewees

10. INTERVIEWS: FINDINGS
§ Teachers identified several technologies used in their daily lives, both at home
and at work.
§ Technologies most commonly used at work were related with communication,
presentation, information search and learning softwares and games.
§ Attitude towards using technologies is more or less positive.
§ Availability of the hardware and their usability (e.g. access to proficiently
functioning broadband and networks) was seen essential in order to use
technology at work.
“…as long as it was like you had to get that cart (with dataprojector) from
somewhere, I was like a “help me”! What to do next? I was in trouble. Before
it was like now (permanently in the classroom), it’s not worth.”
Teacher A

11. Pedagogy dominates use of technology:
“…when I plan my lesson, I always think through what
available technologies could be used. Sometimes I choose like
nothing, but almost every lesson I use some…by the content
that is about to be learned.”
Teacher B

12. § Lack of time and training at working hours were seen as challenges or obstacles
of learning new technologies to be used at work.
§ All teachers expressed desire to get more training. Need of training did’nt
concern only technology, but it’s pedagogical use and nature of being teacher
as well.
“Training in working hours interests me…In a way my employer
doesn’t offer me time enough to get acquainted with it (new technologies)
in order to develop and enhance my teaching. And that makes me worry,
because essence of being teacher is changing.”
Teacher D

13. § Use of technology (websites, blogs and social media like Pinterest, Facebook)
was mentioned several times with 3 teachers, related to lesson planning and
looking for ideas.
§ When technology was used it was for for mediating examples and instruction
and as skill practicing tool for kids (sewing machine).
§ Most teachers saw possible advantages if technologies would be more used in crafts.
- motivate students both in general and in crafts
- ease up bringing up and searching ideas with students
- enhance project planning
Two teachers (Teacher C and D) mentioned students self-assessment and process
documentation as possible or desired use of technology in crafts.

14. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
§ TPACK –model seems to be adaptable to measure Finnish teachers’ TPACK –skills.
§ Differences in teachers’ self-assessed TPACK -skills between differently educated
teachers may indicate that specialization in subject leads into more confindence in
CK, TCK and PCK, as well in TK.
§ Class teachers education provided stronger PK than pure crafts teachers’ education.
This reflects similarly to PCK and TCK between crafts teachers and tecaher with both
eligibilites.
§ TPACK –constituents elements are recognizably used by teachers in their speech,
even when not familiar with TPACK -model.
§ Class teachers emphasize pedagogical reasoning when making decisions of ICT use,
and are eager to get professional training in order to apply ICT into their teaching.

15. More research is needed…
…in order to corroborate these findings and to understand TPACK constituents
relations in crafts?
…off interest of whether self-assessment of TPACK constituents changes after
teachers receive training?
Action research designs are where pedagogical and technical support is
provided for teachers with a pre- and post-assessment of TPACK skills.
However, more research is needed incorporating not only the teachers’ views, but also
students
experiences and performances..

16. References:
Chai, C.S., Koh, J.H.L., & Tsai, C.C. (2013). A Review of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31 – 5.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2014). Mixed Methods Research. New York, US: Guilford Press. Retrieved 16.11.2015 from http://www.ebrary.com
Hirsjärvi, S., & Hurme, H. (2008). Tutkimushaastattelu: Teemahaastattelun teoria ja käytäntö. Helsinki: Gaudeamus Helsinki University Press.
Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6),
1017-1054.
Metsämuuronen, J. (2006). Tutkimuksen tekemisen perusteet ihmistieteissä: Opiskelijalaitos (2. laitos, 3. uud. p.). Helsinki: International Methelp.
Schmidt, D.A., Baran, E., Thompson, A.D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., & Shin, T.S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development
and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 4-14.
Valtonen, T., Sointu, E.T., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Kukkonen, J. (2015). Developing a TPACK measurement instrument for 21st century pre-service teachers. Seminar.net.
International Journal of media, technology and lifelong learning, 11(2). 87-100.
Voogt, J. & Roblin, N.P. (2012) A comparative analysis if international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299-321.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge–a review of the literature. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109-121. Retrieved 10.6.2016 from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.jyu.fi/login.aspx
direct=true&db=afh&AN=86052527&site=ehost-live