Pedagojik ayna etkisi: Öğretmen adaylarının dijital pedagojik içerik bilgisi gelişimine ilişkin yorumlayıcı bir sentez

Öz

Bu çalışma, öğretmen adaylarının dijital pedagojik içerik bilgisi (DPİB) gelişimine ilişkin örüntüleri ve bu gelişime yönelik çıkarımların dayandığı kanıtları incelemektedir. Nitel bir ikincil araştırma olarak yürütülen çalışmada, Wang vd.’nin (2018) öğretmen adaylarının TPACK gelişimine ilişkin gelişimsel ve yöntemsel bulguları ile Su’nun (2023) araştırma alanının bibliyometrik yapısına ilişkin göstergeleri karşılaştırmalı ve yorumlayıcı biçimde bütünleştirilmiştir. Bulgular, öğretim elemanları ile görevdeki öğretmenlerin teknoloji kullanımını modellemelerinin öğretmen adaylarının DPİB gelişiminde farklı yöntem kategorilerinde tekrar eden belirgin bir örüntü olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu örüntüden hareketle geliştirilen pedagojik ayna etkisi, öğretmen adaylarının gözlemledikleri teknoloji destekli öğretim uygulamalarını anlamlandırmaları ve kendi öğretim tasarımlarına uyarlamaları sürecini kavramsallaştırmaktadır. Öz güven, teknolojiye yönelik tutumlar ve öz düzenleme, DPİB’in uygulamada görünür hâle gelmesine eşlik edebilecek tamamlayıcı koşullar olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Ölçme ve kanıt yaklaşımlarına ilişkin bulgular, öz bildirim, performans, görüşme ve gözlem gibi farklı veri kaynaklarının DPİB gelişiminin farklı yönlerine ilişkin bilgi sunduğunu göstermektedir. Bu doğrultuda geliştirilen ölçme paradoksu, farklı kanıt kaynaklarının farklı tür ve kapsamda çıkarımlara olanak vermesini ifade etmektedir. Bibliyometrik göstergeler ise yayın üretiminin belirli ülke ve bölgelerde yoğunlaştığını ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, öğretmen adaylarının DPİB gelişiminin görünür pedagojik modelleme, tamamlayıcı duyuşsal ve öz düzenleyici koşullar ve kullanılan kanıt kaynaklarının sağladığı çıkarım kapsamı birlikte dikkate alınarak değerlendirilmesinin önemini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital pedagojik içerik bilgisi
• öğretmen adayları
• pedagojik ayna etkisi
• ölçme paradoksu
• yorumlayıcı sentez

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma için herhangi bir kurum, kuruluş ya da fon sağlayıcıdan özel bir mali destek alınmamıştır.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma, insan katılımcı içermeyen ve kamuya açık bilimsel yayınların ikincil analizine dayalı bir yorumlayıcı sentez çalışmasıdır. Araştırma kapsamında deneysel uygulama, gözlem ya da anket yoluyla yeni veri toplanmamıştır. Bu nedenle çalışma etik kurul izni gerektirmemektedir. Yararlanılan tüm ikincil kaynaklar, akademik yayın ilkelerine uygun biçimde atıf yapılarak belirtilmiştir. Veri toplama sürecinde ölçek ya da başka bir ölçme aracı kullanılmadığı için ayrıca kullanım iznine ihtiyaç duyulmamıştır. Makalede yer alan Şekil 1, PRISMA akış diyagramı esas alınarak hazırlanmıştır. Şekil 2 ise dijital çizim ve düzenleme araçları kullanılarak hazırlanmıştır.

Pedagogical mirror effect: An interpretive synthesis of pre-service teachers’ digital pedagogical content knowledge development

Öz

This study examines patterns in pre-service teachers’ digital pedagogical content knowledge (DPCK) development and the evidence underpinning inferences about that development. As a qualitative secondary study, it interpretively integrates Wang et al.’s (2018) developmental and methodological findings with Su’s (2023) bibliometric indicators of the research field. The findings show that the modelling of technology use by teacher educators and in-service teachers constitutes a recurring pattern across different methodological categories in research on pre-service teachers’ DPCK development. The pedagogical mirror effect, developed from this pattern, conceptualises how pre-service teachers make sense of observed technology-enhanced teaching practices and adapt them to their own instructional designs. Confidence, attitudes towards technology, and self-regulation were interpreted as complementary conditions that may accompany the enactment of DPCK. Self-reports, performance assessments, interviews and observations provide different types of information about DPCK development. The measurement paradox conceptualises how different evidence sources allow for different types and scopes of inference about DPCK development. Bibliometric indicators further show that publication output is concentrated in particular countries and regions. Overall, the study highlights the importance of interpreting pre-service teachers’ DPCK development by considering visible pedagogical modelling, complementary affective and self-regulatory conditions, and the scope of inference afforded by different evidence sources.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital pedagogical content knowledge
• pre-service teachers
• pedagogical mirror effect
• measurement paradox
• interpretive synthesis

Destekleyen Kurum

The author received no specific financial support from any institution, organisation, or funding agency for this study.

Etik Beyan

This study is an interpretive synthesis based on the secondary analysis of publicly available scholarly publications and does not involve human participants. No new data were collected through experimental procedures, observation, or surveys. Therefore, ethics committee approval was not required. All secondary sources used in the study have been properly cited in accordance with academic publication standards. As no scale or other measurement instrument was used in the data collection process, no additional permission for instrument use was required. Figure 1 in the article was prepared based on the PRISMA flow diagram. Figure 2 was prepared using digital drawing and editing tools.

Kaynakça

1. Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782573
2. Akyuz, D. (2023). Exploring contextual factors for pre-service teachers teaching with technology through planning, teaching, and reflecting. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 18(1), em0721. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12624
3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
5. Celik, I. (2023). Towards Intelligent-TPACK: An empirical study on teachers’ professional knowledge to ethically integrate artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools into education. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107468
6. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31–51.
7. Dewi, N. R., Rusilowati, A., Saptono, S., Haryani, S., Wiyanto, W., Ridlo, S., Listiaji, P., & Atunnisa, R. (2021). Technological, pedagogical, content knowledge (TPACK) research trends: A systematic literature review of publications between 2010–2020. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(4), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.92
8. Irwanto, I. (2021). Research trends in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A systematic literature review from 2010 to 2021. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(4), 2045–2054. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.4.2045

9. Karadavut, A. Ö., ve Kalyoncu, R. (2025). Görsel sanatlar öğretmenleri ve adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik içerik bilgisi özyeterlikleri ile teknopedagojik eğitim yeterlilikleri arasındaki ilişki. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler ve Eğitim Dergisi, 7(12), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14633928
10. Kholid, M. N., Hendriyanto, A., Sahara, S., Muhaimin, L. H., Juandi, D., Sujadi, I., Kuncoro, K. S., & Adnan, M. (2023). A systematic literature review of Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) in mathematics education: Future challenges for educational practice and research. Cogent Education, 10(2), 2269047. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2269047
11. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
12. Koehler, M. J., Shin, T. S., & Mishra, P. (2012). How do we measure TPACK? Let me count the ways. In R. N. Ronau, C. R. Rakes, & M. L. Niess (Eds.), Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and approaches (pp. 16–31). IGI Global.
13. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002
14. Lachal, J., Revah-Levy, A., Orri, M., & Moro, M. R. (2017). Metasynthesis: An original method to synthesize qualitative literature in psychiatry. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 8, 269. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00269
15. Major, C. H., & Savin-Baden, M. (2010). An introduction to qualitative research synthesis: Managing the information explosion in social science research. Routledge.
16. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
17. Nasir, N., Bancong, H., Sukmawati, S., & Hambali, U. (2023). Bibliometric analysis of TPACK publication trends in Scopus data base from 2013 to 2022. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v4i1.199
18. Nguyen, V. L., Hang, C. T. T., Nguyen, N. T., & Sang, H. T. (2025). Contextual knowledge and TPACK: Evidence from a global south setting. Computers and Education Open, 9, 100290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100290
19. Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. SAGE.
20. OECD. (2019). OECD future of education and skills 2030: OECD learning compass 2030 (A series of concept notes). https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/1-1-learning-compass/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf
21. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
22. Pehlevan, İ., & Ünal, B. (2023). Digital literacy and TPACK levels of pre-service EFL teachers. International Journal of Field Education, 10(1), 1–17.
23. Petko, D., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2025). TPACK in context: An updated model. Computers and Education Open, 8, 100244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100244
24. Polat, S., ve Ay, O. (2016). Meta-sentez: Kavramsal bir çözümleme. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(1), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.4c2s3m
25. Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the European Union.
26. Schmid, M., Brianza, E., Mok, S. Y., & Petko, D. (2024). Running in circles: A systematic review of reviews on technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 205, 105024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105024
27. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544
28. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
29. Su, J. (2023). Preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge development: A bibliometric review. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1033895. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1033895
30. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. https://doi.org/10.54675/ASRB4722
31. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
32. Wang, W., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Jin, Y. (2018). Preservice teachers’ TPACK development: A review of literature. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(4), 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2018.1498039
33. Yurtcu, G., & Aktan, O. (2025). An examination of teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge, 21st-century skills, and teaching motivation in the context of religious education in relation to various variables. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Education Faculty, 47, 86–114. https://doi.org/10.14582/zgefd.1705052
34. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.