Technological Formation Scale for Teachers (TFS): Development and Validation

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 260 - 279, 01.04.2021

Cavit Erdoğmuş , Emre Çoban , Özgen Korkmaz , M. Yaşar Özden

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.39.8.2

Cited By: 2

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable Technological Formation Scale to measure Technological Knowledge (TK) and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) which are main components of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Technology seems to have an important place in teacher training and education. It is seen that only Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) is not sufficient today. Therefore, the measurement tools including 21st century requirements which are the information and communication technologies skills, production and productive thinking are needed. Measuring technological and technological pedagogical knowledge of the teachers and teacher candidates is able to be possible by means of this measurement tool. Another aim of this study is to present a measurement tool within the TPACK framework, which is based on productivity for the researchers. The components of Technological Knowledge (TK) and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) involve the productive thinking in this scale. Thus, it is aimed to obtain real-like results. The participants were 756 teachers and and teacher candidates from different regions of Turkey. Structure validity, item factor correlations, item discrimination, internal consistency and stability levels reveal that Technological Formation Scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool. As a result of the validity and reliability analysis, the scale has a 4-factor structure, namely “Content Development”, “Interactive Object Development”, “Problem Solving” and “Creativity” under the main headings of Production and Productive Thinking. While the reliability value of the whole scale is .972, the values of the factors are .972, .973, .937 and .850, respectively.

Keywords

technological formation, teacher competence, scale development, productive thinking

References

• Adigüzel, T., Gürbulak, N., Sariçayir, H. (2011). Smart Boards and Their Instructional Uses. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 8(15).
• Al-Qallaf, C. L., & Ridha, A. (2018). A Comprehensive Analysis of Academic Library Websites: Design, Navigation, Content, Services, and Web 2.0 Tools. International Information & Library Review, 51(2), 93–106. doi: 10.1080/10572317.2018.1467166
• Alexander, B., & Levine, A. (2008). Web 2.0 Storytelling: Emergence of a New Genre. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(6), 40-56.
• An, Y. J., Williams, K. (2010). Teaching with Web 2.0 technologies: Benefits, barriers and lessons learned. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 7(3), 41-48.
• Balcı, A. (2009). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. [Research in social sciences: Methods, techniques and principles]. Ankara: PegemA Pub.
• Bakioğlu, A, Şentuna, T. (2001). İnternet ile Eğitimde Öğretmen Ve Okul Yöneticilerinin Görevleri (Duties of Teachers and School Administrators in Internet Education). Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 9 (9), 10-18.
• Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
• Bulman, G., & Fairlie, R. W. (2016). Technology and education computers, software, and the internet. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., 2002. Factor analysis: basic concepts and Using to development scale. Educational Administration in Theory & Practice, 32, 470-483.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. [Manual Of Data Analysis For Social Sciences. Ankara: Pegem Academy]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. [Scientific Research Method. Ankara: Pegem Academy]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi
• Carver, L. B. (2016). Teacher perception of barriers and benefits in K-12 technology usage. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 15(1), 110-116.
• Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in Practice: Using an Elaborated Model of the TPACK Framework to Analyze and Depict Teacher Knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60–69. doi: 10.1007/s11528-009-0327-1
• Craft, A. (2003). Creative Thinking in the Early Years of Education. Early Years, 23(2), 143–154. doi: 10.1080/09575140303105
• Doğan, N. (2011). Yaratıcı düşünme ve yaratıcılık [Creative thinking and creativity]. Eğitimde Yeni Yönelimler [New Directions in Education]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi, 167-198.
• Eroğlu, A. (2008). Faktör analizi, SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri(Factor analysis, SPSS multivariate statistical techniques), Ankara: Asil Publishers, 321-331.
• Hoffman, M. L., & Hoffman, L. W. (1964). Review of child development research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.349-381.
• Gökçek, T., & Yılmaz, A. (2019). The adaptation of the pedagogical knowledge and skills survey into Turkish: Validity and reliability study. Turkish Journal of Education, 54–70. doi: 10.19128/turje.459678
• Graham, C.R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P.P., Smith, L.K., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK Development in Science Teaching: Measuring the TPACK Confidence of Inservice Science Teachers. (2009). TechTrends, 53(5), 70–79. doi: 10.1007/s11528-009-0328-0
• Grosseck, Gabriela. (2009). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education?. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 1. 478-482. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.087.
• Guilford, J.P. (1956) The Structure of Intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267-293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0040755
• Gülen, S. (2010). The study development visual course materials containing popular physics concepts. Unpublished dissertation, Yüzüncü Yıl University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences. Van.
• Gülen, S., & Demirkuş, N. (2014). The Effects of Visual Material On Students’ Achievement In "The Solar System And Beyond: Mystery Of Space" Unit. Saarbrücken: Türkiye Alim Pub.
• Hacıömeroğlu, G., Şahin, Ç., Arcagök, S. (2014). Turkish Adaptation of Preservice Teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Assessment Instrument. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10(2), 297-315.
• Hiçyılmaz, Y. (2018). Self-efficacy of technical pedagogical content knowledge of visual arts teacher candidates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ondokuz Mayıs University Graduate School Of Educational Scıences, Samsun.
• Horzum, M. B. (2011). Examining Computer Game Addiction Level of Primary School Students in Terms of Different Variables. Education and Science, 36(159).
• Hu, C. & Fyfe, V. (2010). Impact of a new curriculum on pre-service teachers’ Technical, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). In Proceedings of ASCILITE - Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference 2010 (pp. 184-189). Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved November 16, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/45386/.
• Kalaycı Ş. (2010). Spss uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. [Applied Multivariate Statistical Techniques. Ankara: Asil Publishing Distribution]. Ankara: Asil Pub..
• Kula Kartal, S., & Mor Dirlik, E. (2016). Historical Development Of The Concept Of Validity And The Most Preferred Technique Of Reliability: Cronbach Alpha Coefficient. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Educational, 16(4), 1865-1879.
• Kaya, S., & Dağ, F. (2013). Turkish Adaptation of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Survey for Elementary Teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(1), 291-306.
• Kaya, Z., Kaya, O. N. ve Emre, İ. (2013). Adaptation of Technological Pedagogical Field Knowledge Scale to Turkish. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(4), 2355-2377.
• Koehler, M., Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
• Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005
• Kuşkaya-Mumcu, F. (2011). Effectiveness of ICT integration instruction provided to student teachers in a networked learning environmen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hacettepe University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences. Ankara.
• Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1–21. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9075-4
• Mcknight, K., Omalley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a Digital Age: How Educators Use Technology to Improve Student Learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 194–211. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856
• Ministry of National Education (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3,4,5,6,7 ve 8. Sınıflar) öğretim programı (Primary education institutions (primary and secondary schools) science courses (3,4,5,6,7 and 8th grades) curriculum). Ankara: Board of Education and Training.
• Ministry of National Education, Teacher Training and Development Directorate. (2017). Öğretmenlik Mesleği Genel Yeterlikleri (General Competencies of Teaching Profession). Retrieved from: https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_06/29111119_TeachersGeneralCompetencies.pdf
• 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
• Moradi-Rekabdarkolaei, Saeid. (2011). The Comparison of ICT' Literacy between Teachers and Students and Presenting a Model for Development of ICT in Schools. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 8(4), 43-54.
• National Research Council. (2001). Theoretical foundation for decision making in engineering design.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Okello-Obura, C., Ssekitto, F. (2015). Web 2.0 Technologies Application in Teaching and Learning by Makerere University Academic Staff. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 1248. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1248
• Önal, N. (2016). Development, Validity and Reliability of TPACK Scale with Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers, International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2016, 8 (2), 93-107.
• Özel, M., Timur, B., Timur, S. ve Bilen, K. (2013). The Adaptation of Students’ Perceptions of College Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge Questionnaire into Turkish. Ahi Evran University, Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 14(1), 407-428.
• Özden, M. Y. (n.d.). Teknolojik Formasyon? Ne olabilir ki? Retrieved from http://myozden.blogspot.com/2012/01/teknolojik-formasyon-ne-olabilir-ki.html.
• Özden, M. Y. (n.d.). Computational Thinking = Bilgisayarca Düşünme becerileri?. [Computational Thinking = Computational Thinking Skills?] Retrieved from http://myozden.blogspot.com.tr/2015/06/computational-thinking-bilgisayarca.html.
• Öztürk, E., & Horzum, M. B. (2011). Adaptation of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale to Turkish. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 12(3). Palaigeorgiou, G., & Grammatikopoulou, A. (2016). Benefits, barriers and prerequisites for Web 2.0 learning activities in the classroom. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 13(1), 2–18. doi: 10.1108/itse-09-2015-0028
• Rahimi, E., Berg, J. V. D., & Veen, W. (2015). Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Computers & Education, 81, 235–246. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.012
• Rouquette, Michel-Louis. "Yaratıcılık. çev: Işın Gürbüz." İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1992.
• Russell, D. W. (2002). In Search of Underlying Dimensions: The Use (and Abuse) of Factor Analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1629–1646. doi: 10.1177/014616702237645
• Sarı, M. H. Bostancıoğlu, A. (2018). Application of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework to elementary mathematics teaching: A scale adaptation study. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 11, 296-317.
• Sarıtepeci, M., Durak, H., Seferoğlu, S. S. (2016). Examination of Teachers’ in-Service Training Needs in the Field of Instructional Technology: An Evaluation in Light of Applications Implemented at FATIH Project. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 7(3), 601–601.
• Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson A. D., Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P. & Shin, T. (2009-10). 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. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. doi: 10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4. doi: 10.2307/1175860
• Stewig, J. W., & Vail, N. J. (1985). The Relation Between Creative Drama and Oral Language Growth. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 58(6), 261–264. doi: 10.1080/00098655.1985.9955556
• Tatlı, Z., İpek Akbulut, H., Altınışık, D. (2016). The Impact of Web 2.0 Tools on Pre-Service Teachers’ Self Confidence Levels About TPCK. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 7(3), 659–659.
• Tekin, A, Polat, E. (2014). Technology Policies In Education: Turkey and Several Other Countries. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10 (5), 1254-1266.
• Thomas, M., & Thomas, H. (2012). Using new social media and Web 2.0 technologies in business school teaching and learning. Journal of Management Development, 31(4), 358–367. doi: 10.1108/02621711211219013
• Timur, B., M, F, Taşar. (2011). The Adaptation of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Confidence Survey into Turkish. Gaziantep University. Journal of Social Sciences, 10(2), 839 -856.
• Torrance, E. P. (1968). Education and the creative potential. Minneapolis, Ma: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
• Turanlı, M , Taşpınar Cengiz, D , Bozkır, Ö . (2014). Ranking of Provinces According to Success Status in University Entrance Exams by Factor Analysis. Istanbul University Econometrics and Statistics e-Journal,17, 45-68. Retrieved from http://dergipark.org.tr/iuekois/issue/8995/112129
• Turgut İhsan. (1993). Sanat felsefesi. [Philosophy of Art. İzmir: University Bookstore]. İzmir: Üniversite Kitabevi.
• Usta, M. E., Karakuş, M. (2016). The Development Of The Scale Of Pedagogical Literacy. Kastamonu Education Journal, 24(1), 133-146.
• Voogt, J., & Mckenney, S. (2016). TPACK in teacher education: are we preparing teachers to use technology for early literacy? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(1), 69–83. doi: 10.1080/1475939x.2016.1174730
• Wegerif, R. (2007). Teaching Thinking: Metaphors and Taxonomies. Dialogic Education and Technology, 125–157. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-71142-3_7
• Yağcı Y., (2009). Web Teknolojisinde Yeni Bilgi Fırtınası: Web 3.0. [New Information Storm in Web Technology. UNAK Existence in the Information Age: “Opportunities and Threats” Symposium, Istanbul: Yeditepe University Proceedings Book]. ÜNAK Bilgi Çağında Varoluş: “Fırsatlar ve Tehditler” Sempozyumu, İstanbul: Yeditepe Üniversitesi Bildiriler Kitabı.
• Yılayaz, Ö., Kaya, Z. (2013). Technology Integration Models in Teacher Education and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(8). 57-83