Conference paper

2015 International Business & Education Conferences – October 11-14 Las Vegas, NV, USA
© Copyright by author(s) 227-1 The Clute Institute
In-Service English Language Teachers’
Knowledge Of Technology Integration
Into The Classroom
Emtinan Alqurashi, Duquesne University, USA
Sundus Samarin, Duquesne University, USA
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived TPACK (technological pedagogical content knowledge)
level of in-service English language teachers, to examine the correlation among the TPACK components, and to
explore the extent in which TPACK components correlate with demographic characteristics (age, years of
experience, level of education). Findings revealed that teachers’ knowledge in technology was not as strong as their
knowledge in pedagogy and content. Correlations between the subscale variables in the TPACK were significant
except for the relationship between content and technology. A significant and positive correlation found between
Teachers’ age and pedagogy, content, and pedagogical content knowledge, between experience and pedagogy and
pedagogical content knowledge, and between education level and pedagogy, pedagogical content knowledge and
technological content knowledge.
Keywords: TPACK; Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge; English Language Teaching
INTRODUCTION
Teaching is a complex process. Shulman, in the mid 80s, has explained this complexity by discussing the PCK
(Pedagogical Content Knowledge) framework, which is a combination of two components: pedagogy knowledge
and content knowledge. Shulman has stated that the key to an effective teaching practice is teachers’ understanding
of how to bring together their knowledge of content and pedagogical (Hofer, & Grandgenett, 2012). Shulman (1986)
considered teachers’ PCK as knowledge of “the most regularly taught topics in one's subject area, the most useful
forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and
demonstrations” It also includes “an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult:
the conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning
of those most frequently taught topics and lessons” (p. 9). Koehler & Mishra, in 2006, has developed a third
component of knowledge in PCK framework, which is TK (Technological Knowledge). They defined TK as
“Knowledge about standard technologies, such as books, chalks, blackboard, and more advanced technologies, such
as the Internet and digital video” (Hofer, & Grandgenett, 2012, p. 85), Interactive whiteboards and software
programs (Baran, Chuang & Thompson, 2011). By adding TK to the PCK framework, Koehler & Mishra have
developed new intersection in teacher’s knowledge. This module is called TPACK.
TPACK model, as shown in Figure 1, consists of three main components of teacher’s knowledge: Content,
Pedagogy and Technology. Interactions between and among these components of knowledge lead to total seven
components of TPACK, and they are defined as follow:
1. Content knowledge (CK): refers to the subject matters that students have learned. Mishra & Koehler,
(2006, p. 1026) have defined CK as the “knowledge about actual subject matter that is to be learned or
taught” (as cited in Schmidt, et al., 2009, p. 125).
2. Pedagogical Knowledge (PK): refers to the instructional methods and its application.
3. Technological Knowledge (TK): refers to the application of technology tools and resources (Schmidt, et al.,
2009).

4. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): which deals mainly with not just teaching process but also
knowledge about the content to develop better teaching practice.
5. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK): which is knowledge of how to create a new illustration of
content areas with using technology.
6. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK): which is knowledge of how different technologies can be
used to support teaching process.
7. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): which is the knowledge that teachers are
required to have in order to integrate technology in their teaching in any discipline (Baran, Chuang &
Thompson, 2011; Koehler, & Mishra, 2009). TPACK model is defined by Mishra and Koehler (2006, p.
1029) as “the basis of good teaching with technology and requires 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 and to
develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones”.
Figure 1. TPACK Framework
Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by http://tpack.org/
The application of technology in English language teaching is important nowadays as there is a great demand on
English language teachers to have the three components of knowledge (i.e. content, pedagogy and technology). In
other words, English language teachers integrate their technological pedagogical content knowledge into their
curriculum and classroom in order to provide more opportunities for language learners and to assist students in
learning the English language. It can also help learners acquire the English language skills that include speaking,
listening, reading, and writing. Indeed, technology plays a significant role in English language teaching and learning
process (Yuksel & Asin 2014); learners can be more exposed to the English language with the use of technology.
Teachers can provide students with more language use and practice through technology. In addition, both teachers
and learners can be more connected through it, that is, teachers can engage students in more activities anytime and
anywhere, and it also helps teachers track and evaluate students’ performances without time or space limitation.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A number of studies were carried out to investigate the application of TPACK among in-service teachers
(Archambault & Crippen, 2009; Hervey & Watson, 2013; Tai & Chuanh, 2012; Yuksel & Yasin, 2014; Lin, Tsai,
Chai, & Lee, 2012) and pre-service teachers (Ekrem & Recep, 2014; Koh & Sing, 2011; Kurt, Mishra & Kocoglu,

2013; Kocoglu, 2009; Raman, 2014; Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee, 2012) in different disciplines. Moreover, The perceived
knowledge level of teachers in terms of technology, pedagogy and technology, and the combinations of these
components has been examined in many of those studies (Kocoglu, 2013; Yuksel & Yasin, 2014; Archambault &
Crippen, 2009; Raman, 2014; Kurt, Mishra & Kocoglu, 2013; Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee, 2012). A study conducted by
Archambault and Crippen (2009) with 596 teachers teaching online courses from 25 different states. The results of
the study showed that teachers had a high level of PK, CK and PCK but low level of TK. Their study also found a
strong correlation between pedagogy and content but weak correlation between technology and content, as well as
technology and pedagogy. They also indicated that there is a high correlation between technological content and
technological pedagogy, and between technological pedagogical content and both technological pedagogy and
technological content. Similar results by Ekrem & Recep (2014) who conducted a study with 137 senior pre-service
English teachers enrolled in an English Language Teaching Department of a state-run university. They found that
teachers’ technological content knowledge level was at average level (M = 3.42) but more training is needed, while
teachers’ technological pedagogical knowledge level was the highest of all TPACK components (M = 3.69). They
also investigated the correlation among the subscales of TPACK, and found that the highest correlation observed
was between pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge. Followed by the relationship between
pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogy knowledge, and between technological content knowledge and
TPACK. In terms of demographic characteristics, they found that generally females have higher level of knowledge
of TPACK models than males. However, Koh and Sing (2011) carried out a study with 350 pre-service teachers in
Singapore, they found that demographic variables of age and gender have no significant differences with respect to
the TPACK components. Their study also found that TPK and TCK are two significant predictors of TPACK. Also,
Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee (2012) found that all seven components of TPACK positively and significantly correlate with
each other. The highest correlation found is between technological content knowledge and technological
pedagogical content knowledge followed by the relationship between technological pedagogical knowledge and
technological pedagogical content knowledge, and the relationship between technology knowledge and
technological pedagogical content knowledge. This study was conducted with 222 pre- and in-service science
teachers in Singapore. In terms of teachers’ demographic characteristics, they found that TPACK components are
not affected by teaching experience, and also TK, TPK, TCK, and TPC is significantly and negatively correlated
with teachers’ age.
Spires, Hervey and Watson (2013) carried out a study with twenty in-service teachers who were enrolled in a
graduate course in literacy, technology and media. Nineteen were females and one was male and they were between
the age of 23 and 54 with a variety of teaching experiences. The study found that post-class test results were
significantly higher than pre-class test results in two areas: (a) teacher’s beliefs in using technology for instructional
purposes, and (b) their in-class technology skills. On the other hand, teacher’s pedagogical approaches or beliefs in
using technology did not change in the post-test. Similar results by Kurt, Mishra and Kocoglu (2013) who found a
statistically significant increase in TK, TCK, TPK and TPACK scores of pre-service teachers from the beginning of
the research comparing to the end. This study was conducted with 22 pre-service teachers in the final year of
English Language Teaching program.
Another study by Kocoglu (2009) with 27 pre-service EFL teachers at the Department of Foreign Language
Education at a Turkish university examined the descriptive variables of all components of TPACK. The results
found that participants had high levels of content and pedagogy knowledge but medium levels of technological
content knowledge and technological pedagogical knowledge. Similarly, Yuksel & Yasin (2014) conducted a
descriptive study to determine in-service English language teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge
levels. The results of the study found that teachers had medium capability levels in TPACK. The researchers also
investigated teachers’ TPACK differences in term of gender, teaching experience, work place. There were no
significant differences in terms of gender and workplace; in other words, both males and females almost had the
same TPACK competency levels. Moreover, teachers who worked in public and private schools had almost the
same competency levels as well. However, when it comes to teaching experience, Yuksel & Yasin found that
teachers with five years or less experience had better technological pedagogical content knowledge level. In
contrast, Raman (2014) in Malaysia at Universiti Utara Malaysia, carried out a study that aimed to measure pre-
service teachers’ level of competence in using information and Communication Technology (ICT) application,
confidence level in ICT, and TPACK confidence level. From his analysis, Raman found that the pre-service teachers
were both competent and confident in using ICT, and they had high level of TPACK. In terms of gender, it was

found that female tended to have higher level of confidence in using ICT. Moreover, Tai and Chuanh (2012) have
researched in-service English teachers to help develop teacher’s proficiency in TPACK model and integrate
technology into their classrooms. They emphasized that teachers need to know why they are using a certain
technology and how to use it. They stated that “teachers need to be equipped with more than technology knowledge
and teachers must use technology while learning to integrate technology to be able to integrate technology
effectively in the authentic teaching context” (p. 2).
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived TPACK level of in-service English language teachers, to
examine the correlation between each of the TPACK components, and to explore the extent in which TPACK
components correlate with demographic characteristics. Hence, the following research questions were designed and
examined in this study.
-What is the perceived knowledge level of English language teachers in terms of technology, pedagogy and
technology, and the combinations of these components?
-Is there a statistically significant correlation among the subscale of TPACK?
-To what extent do demographic characteristics (age, years of experience, level of education) of English
language teachers correlate with their TPACK?
METHODOLOGY
Study Participants
A web-based survey was sent to in-service English language teachers in 2015 Spring semester to seek their
voluntary participation. A total of 52 English teachers participated in this study that teach English language in
different countries: USA, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom and Peru. There were two age groups:
younger teachers (63.5%) who were under the age of 37 (n = 33,), and older teachers (36.5%) who were above the
age of 38 (n = 19). The majority of participants (92.3%) were females (n = 48). A large number of participants
(78.8%) have less than 10 years of teaching experience (n = 41). About 51.9% of the participants (n = 27) were
Arabs, 19.2% of them (n = 10) were Caucasians, 15.4% of them (n = 8) were European Americans, 5.8% were
Turkish, 3.8% were South Africans, and 3.8% were Indians. The number of participants who have a graduate degree
were 29 (55.8%), and 23 of the participants (44.2%) have an undergraduate degree.
Instrumentation
The instrument was administrated in this study was developed by Archambault and Crippen (2009). The survey aims
to measures teacher’s knowledge in the three key components as described by the TPACK model: technology,
pedagogy, content, and also the intersection of each of these areas. The survey includes of 24 items designed to
measure online teachers’ TPACK. The survey asks participants to rate their knowledge in certain tasks in a five-
point Likert scale ranging from poor (1) to excellent (5). The reliability coefficient for each subscale was reported
“ranging from alpha = .699 for the technology content domain to alpha = .888 for the domain of technology”
(Archambault and Crippen, 2009, p. 78).
Data Collection and Analysis
Quantitative data were collected using SurveyMonkey and was analyzed using IBM SPSS 22 statistical package. In
order to answer the first research question, descriptive statistics of English language teachers’ TPACK were and
analyzed. The second research question was answered by examining if there is a statistically significant Pearson’s
correlation among the seven components of TPACK, and also to understand how demographic characteristics (age,
years of experience, level of education) of English language teachers correlate with their TPACK.

Results
The participants were asked “rate your knowledge in certain tasks from poor (1) to excellent (5). Twenty-four items
were asked that include technology, pedagogy and content, and the combination of each of these areas. The number
of responses, the mean and the standard deviation for each domain are reported in Table 1. Correlations among each
domain were reported in Table 2. In addition, correlations between each domain and demographic characteristics
(i.e. age, years of teaching experience, level of education) were reported in Table 3.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics
Domain Responses Mean Standard Deviation
PK (3 items) 52 4.2115 .75848
TK (3 items) 52 3.2853 .93021
CK (3 items) 52 4.0288 .70148
PCK (4 items) 52 4.2260 .71445
TPK (4 items) 52 3.4038 1.07916
TCK (3 items) 52 3.7885 .88075
TPCK (4 items) 52 3.7131 .91304
Table 2
Correlations among subscale variables
PK TK CK PCK TPK TCK TPACK
PK Pearson Correlation _
Sig. (2-tailed)
TK Pearson Correlation .357**
_
Sig. (2-tailed) .009
CK Pearson Correlation .666**
.264 _
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .058
PCK Pearson Correlation .851**
.296*
.717**
_
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .033 .000
TPK Pearson Correlation .435**
.708**
.519**
.420**
_
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .002
TCK Pearson Correlation .535**
.566**
.594**
.566**
.781**
_
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
TPACK Pearson Correlation .608**
.718**
.520**
.513**
.836**
.827**
_
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 3
Correlations between subscale variables and demographic characteristics
Age Teaching experience Education level
PK Pearson Correlation .424**
.397**
.302*
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .004 .029
TK Pearson Correlation -.062 .112 -.025
Sig. (2-tailed) .665 .428 .858
CK Pearson Correlation .313*
.272 .260
Sig. (2-tailed) .024 .051 .063
PCK Pearson Correlation .421**
.417**
.366**
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .002 .008
TPK Pearson Correlation .096 .212 .047
Sig. (2-tailed) .497 .132 .742
TCK Pearson Correlation .245 .270 .287*
Sig. (2-tailed) .080 .053 .039
TPACK Pearson Correlation .075 .138 .089
Sig. (2-tailed) .596 .328 .532
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
DISCUSSION
English language teachers rated their knowledge for the pedagogy content (M = 4.22, SD = .714), pedagogy (M =
4.21, SD = .758) and content (M = 4.02, SD = .701), which had the highest mean scores of all domains. However,
participants had the lowest mean scores when rating their knowledge for technology (M = 3.28, SD = .930) followed
by technology pedagogy (M = 3.40, SD = 1.079). This indicates that English language teachers believed that their
knowledge in troubleshooting technical problems with computer hardware or software, and also help students with
such problems were not as strong as their knowledge in pedagogy and content. Table 1 also shows that the
combination of technology and content knowledge had a mean score of 3.78 and standard deviation of .880 of which
is not as low as technology knowledge by itself (M = 3.28, SD = .930) and it is not as high as content knowledge by
itself (M = 4.02, SD = .701). This shows that teacher’s knowledge in tradition method of teaching is higher than
using and incorporating technology in the classroom. English language teachers rated their overall knowledge of
technology, pedagogy and content at 3.71. This is similar to Archambault and Crippen’s results (2009) as they also
found that teachers had the highest mean scores in pedagogy, content and pedagogy content knowledge. However,
the level of technology knowledge dropped by .81 points, and overall mean scores of 3.79 of TPACK. Similarly,
Kocoglu (2009) found that teachers had high levels of content and pedagogy knowledge but medium levels of
technological content knowledge and technological pedagogical knowledge, and also Yuksel & Yasin (2014) found
that teachers had medium capability levels in TPACK. However, Ekrem & Recep (2014) also found that teachers’
level of technological content knowledge not very high (M = 3.42) while teachers’ knowledge level in technological
pedagogical knowledge was the highest of all subscales of TPACK.
This study also examined the correlations among each subscale variables in the TPACK framework in Table 2
which include: pedagogy (PK), technology (TK), content (CK), pedagogical content (PCK), technological pedagogy
(TPK), technological content (TCK), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Positive and high
correlations were found between PK and PCK (.851), between TPACK and TPK (.836) and between TPACK and
TCK (.827). These correlations were the highest of all and were very significant as well (p < .001). In addition,
positive high correlations were found between TCK and TPK (.781), between TPACK and TK (.718), and between
PCK and CK (.717); they were also very significant (p < .001). All of the correlations between the subscale
variables of TPACK were significant (p < .05) except for the relationship between content and technology
knowledge as the results show that it is not a significant relationship but have a weak positive correlation. Positive
and significant correlation between all the TPACK components was also found in many previous studies
(Archambault and Crippen, 2009; Ekrem & Recep, 2014; Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee, 2012). This study also found a
strong relationship between pedagogy and content (.666) but weak relationship between technology and content

(.264), as well as technology and pedagogy (.357), this is in consistent with the findings of Archambault and
Crippen (2009), Ekrem & Recep (2014) and Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee’s studies (2012).
Correlations between English language teachers’ demographic characteristics and subscales variables of TPACK
framework were also examined in this study as shown in Table 3. From the Pearson’s correlation between the age of
English language teachers and the domains of TPACK, the results indicate that pedagogy (.424), content (.313) and
pedagogy content knowledge (.421) were significantly (p < .05) and positively correlated with English language
teachers’ age. Although these correlations are not high, they indicate that age play a significant role in teacher’s
knowledge of pedagogy and content. However, technology knowledge had a negative weak correlation with
teachers’ age (-.062) and was not significant. This finding is in line with Koh and Sing’s study (2011) as they found
that teachers’ age have no significant differences with respect to the TPACK components. However, Lin, Tsai, Chai,
& Lee, (2012) found that TK, TPK, TCK, and TPC is significantly and negatively correlated with teachers’ age.
The results of correlation between years of teaching experience and the domains of TPACK show that there were
significant (p < .01) and positive correlations between years of teaching experience and teachers’ knowledge of
pedagogy (.397) and pedagogy content (.417). This indicate that teachers with more years of teaching experience
have higher knowledge in teaching strategies and methodologies, identifying weak students and provide assistance
to understand the learned materials. When it comes to the use of technology in presenting material or in
implementing it in different teaching methods, there is not neither significant nor strong correlation between
technology and years of teaching experience. However, Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee, (2012) found that all TPACK
components are not affected by teaching experience, but Yuksel & Yasin (2014) found that teachers with less
experience had better technological pedagogical content knowledge level. When examining the correlation between
the level of education of the English language teachers, the results revealed that there were significant (p < .05) and
positive correlations between English language teachers’ education level and pedagogy (.302), pedagogy content
(.366) and technology content (.287). This indicate that teacher’s with higher educational degrees have higher
knowledge in teaching methodologies and strategies, adjust teaching methods to help students understand the topic,
and sometimes use technology to present the learning materials.
Limitations
The main limitation of the current study was the low number of responses received. Therefore, no generalizations
can be made to the overall population of in-service English language Teachers. Another limitation of this study that
is the instrument used was a self-assessment survey as teachers self-judged their knowledge in TPACK component
rather than being observed. In this case, bias can occur.
CONCLUSION
Nowadays, the application of technology in English language teaching is important and there is a great demand on
English language teachers not just to have knowledge in content and pedagogy but also technology and how to use it
effectively to enhance practices. The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived TPACK level of in-
service English language teachers, to examine the correlation between each of the TPACK components, and to
explore the extent in which TPACK components correlate with demographic characteristics (i.e. age, teaching
experience, and education level). The TPACK model was developed by Koehler & Mishra (2006) consists of seven
components including pedagogy (PK), technology (TK), content (CK), pedagogical content (PCK), technological
pedagogy (TPK), technological content (TCK), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). The
findings of the results revealed that perceived knowledge level of pedagogy and content of in-service English
language teachers was higher that technology. All the subscales of TPACK were significantly and positively
correlated with each other except for one, as there is no significant relationship between content and technology
knowledge. In terms of demographic characteristics, English language teachers’ age was significantly and positively
correlated with their knowledge of pedagogy, content, and pedagogical content. The years of teaching experience
was significantly and positively correlated with English language teachers’ knowledge of pedagogy and pedagogy
content. English language teachers’ education level was significantly and positively correlated with their knowledge
of pedagogy, pedagogy content, and technology content.
These findings are important for teacher education to prepare future English language teachers to have knowledge in
other than traditional method of teaching. More field practices for future teacher are needed before starting their

teaching career. This includes using technology for content presentation as well as using technology for different
methods of teaching the English language. More research is still needed in TPACK in the field of English language
teaching with more focus on pre-service English language teachers to have a better understanding of the TPACK
perceptions of those future teachers. The data collected in this study was through a self-reported survey. Future
studies may employ qualitative method of data collection by observing or interviewing teachers to have a deeper
understanding of their perceptions.
REFERENCES
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United
States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.
Baran, E., Chuang, H., & Thompson, A. (2011). TPACK: An Emerging Research and Development Tool for
Teacher Educators. Turkish Online Journal Of Educational Technology - TOJET, 10(4), 370-377.
Ekrem, S., & Recep, Ç. (2014). Examining Preservice EFL Teachers' TPACK Competencies in Turkey. Journal Of
Educators Online, 11(2), 1.
Hofer, M., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). TPACK Development in Teacher Education: A Longitudinal Study of
Preservice Teachers in a Secondary M.A.Ed. Program. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education,
45(1), 83-106.
Kocoglu, Z. (2009). Exploring the technological pedagogical content knowledge of preservice teachers in language
education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), p. 2734-2737.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1) 60-70.
Koh, J. H. L. & Sing, C. C. (2011). Modeling pre-service teacher’s technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK) perceptions: the influence of demographic factors and TPACK constructs. G. Williams, N.
Brown, M. Pittard, B. Cleland (Ed.), Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings ascilite 4-7
December 2011, 17, 735-746.
Kurt, G., Mishra, P., & Kocoglu, Z. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge development of Turkish
pre-service teachers of English. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Information Technology
and Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA.
Lin, T.-C., Tsai, C.-C., Chai, C. S., & Lee, M.-H. (2012). Identifying Science Teachers’ Perceptions of
Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 22(3), 325-336. doi: 10.1007/s10956-012-9396-6
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher
knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher
knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Raman, A. (2014). TPACK Confidence of Pre-service Teachers in Universiti Utara Malaysia. Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences, 5(22), 167-175.
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, 15(2), 4-
14.
Spires, H., Hervey, L., & Watson, T. (2013). Scaffolding the TPACK framework in reading and language arts: New
literacies, new minds. In C.A. Young &Kajder (Eds.), Research on technology in English education, 33-61.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Tai, S.-J. D., & Chuang, H.-H. (2012). TPACK-in-Action: An Innovative Model to Help English Teachers Integrate
CALL. Paper presented at the ICCE 2012, Singapore. Retrieved from
http://www.lsl.nie.edu.sg/icce2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/C6-t-68.pdf
Yuksel, I., & Asin, E. (2014). Cross-sectional Evaluation of English Language Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge. Educational Research Quarterly, 38(2), 23-42.

Conference paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Conference paper

Similar to Conference paper (20)

More from emtinanalqurashi

More from emtinanalqurashi (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Conference paper