In

nternational R
Research in Education
E
ISSN 2327-5499
2
2016, Vol. 4, No. 1

Aree You Ready

R to
t Use Techno
ology in
n EFL T
Teachin
ng?
Exaaminingg Psych
hometrric Prop
perties of
o EFL
L Teach
hers’
Technoological Pedaggogical Conten
nt Kno wledgee
(TPA
ACK) Scale
S

Liwei Hssu (Correspo

onding auth
hor)
Proffessor, National Kaohs iung University of Hosspitality andd Tourism
N 1, Sungh
No. he Rd., Hsiaao-Kang Disstrict, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan
Tel: 886-78060505 E-mail: liw
weihsu@maail.nkuht.eddu.tw

Receiveed: Decembber 17, 2015

5 Acceptted: January
y 10, 2016 Publishedd: March 5, 2016
doi:10.55296/ire.v4ii1.8740 URL: hhttp://dx.doi.org/10.529
96/ire.v4i1.88740

Abstract
It has bbeen confirm
med that tecchnology caan be benefficial for stu
udents’ acaddemic perfo ormance,
includinng in the field of co omputer-asssisted lang
guage learning (CALL L). The su uccessful
adminisstration of CALL dep pends greattly on the teachers’ knowledge
k about techhnology,
pedagoggy and conntent. The aim of thiss study is to t explore the psychoometric prop perty of
measuree of EFL teeachers’ techhnological, Pedagogicaal and conteent knowleddge (TPACK). One
hundredd and fiftyy-eight EFL L teachers were inviteed to join this studyy through stratified
s
randommization sam mpling tech
hnique. The research in nstrument wasw the TPPACK-EFL and the
exploraatory factor analysis (E
EFA) with eextraction method
m of Maximum
M LLikelihood and the
rotationn method off Promax with
w Kaiserr Normalizaation, was performed
p tto extracted
d factors
with faactor loadinng above .550. Seven cconstructs (Technolog gical Knowl wledge, Pedaagogical
Knowleedge, Content Knowlledge, Techhnological Pedagogicaal Knowleddge, Techn nological
Contentt Knowleddge, Pedagogical Conntent Know wledge and d Technoloogical Pedaagogical
Contentt Knowledgge) were reetrieved. Affterwards, the
t Confirm matory Facttor Analysis (CFA)
was unndertaken too examine the converrgent and discriminant
d t validity oof selected factors.
Converggent validiity was ch hecked withh Composiite Reliabillity (CR), Average Variance V
Extracteed (AVE), Maximum
M Shared Varriance (MSV V), and Aveerage Shareed Variancee (ASV).
Suggestted value for
f CR and AVE was .6 and .5 respectively
r y while MSSV as well as ASV
should be lower than AVE. Results sshowed thaat constructts of this study all met the

97 http://ire.macrrothink.org
 In
nternational R
Research in Education
E
ISSN 2327-5499
2
2016, Vol. 4, No. 1

requirem ment whichh indicated that

t the item
ms had con
nvergent vallidity. In terrms of discrriminant
validityy, square rooot of AVE was
w greaterr than inter--construct correlations
c which asseerted the
discrim
minant validdity of thiis instrumeent. Subsequently, allternate moodel analysis was
conductted to yieldd the model which fitteed the best as indicated
d by the moodel fit indices and
researchh context.
Keywords: Technnology, Ped dagogy, Coontent Knowwledge (TPPACK), Eng
nglish as a Foreign
Languaage (EFL) Teaching,
T Co
omputer Asssisted Lang
guage Learn
ning (CALL
L)
1. Introoduction
Given tthe fact thaat many of students off nowadays are consid dered as “NNet Generatiion” (D.
Oblingeer, 2003) or/and
o “digiital natives”” (Prensky,, 2001); tecchnology hhas taken up u many
aspects of their daiily lives as well
w as the way to thin nk and learnn (D. G. Obllinger, 2010
0). It has
been a rigorous deebate about whether thhe applicatio on of technnology will be able to enhance
studentss’ learning (Hew
( & Ch heung, 20144) and more and more empirical
e evvidence have shown
that tecchnology iss indeed beneficial forr students’ academic performance
p e (Hsu, Hwwang, &
Chang, 2013; Tam mim, Bernarrd, Borokhoovski, Abram mi, & Schm mid, 2011). It has been n argued
that in tthis digital age, utilisin
ng pedagogiically and technologica
t ally sound mmeans of peedagogy
is able to respond the expectation of staakeholders (Roth, 2015 5) and teachhers are ad
dvised to
use techhnology eff ffectively inn and out oof classroom m (Bunch, Robinson,
R & Edwardss, 2015);
neverthheless, cautiion has beeen advised that the focus fo of tecchnology-inntegrated peedagogy
should not be thee technolog gy per se but about how it is being plannned based d on the
affordannces and fuunctionalitiees (Schmidd et al., 201 14; Wurst, Smarkola, & Gaffney y, 2008).
Furtherm more, technnology shou uld not be taken as a medium fo or material delivery; rather,
r it
should bbe utilized as a means of cognitivve support (T Tamim, Borrokhovski, PPickup, Berrnard, &
El Saaddi, 2015). The lack of a teacher’s kknowledge of how to use u technoloogy effectiv vely and
meaningfully in innstruction is identified aas a major barrier
b to su
uch uses (K
Kabakci Yurrdakul et
al., 20112). Therefo fore, gravityy has been given to the t issue off how to eeffectively integrate
i
technology in eduucation to optimize
o stuudents’ learn
ning effectiiveness is ggaining momentum
(Deutscch, 2010).
When technologiies are ap pplied in EFL teacching and learning, the typollogy of
computter-assisted language leearning (CA ALL) has beeen created. CALL embbraces a wid de range
of appllications off informatio on communnication tecchnologies (ICTs) in language teaching t
(Levy, 1997) and language
l leaarners’ learnning with, or
o through and
a around computers (Egbert,
2005). Along withh the expeditious devvelopment of o ICTs, language
l teeachers aroound the
world sstarted to coonsider commputer as ann importantt essence of language pedagogy (Dina ( &
Ciorneii, 2013). Takking moderrn concept oof modern language
l edducation, thee focus of language
educatioon programm should be on the learnners’ comm municative competence (Martin, 20 015) and
thereforre Previous studies hav ve asserted that CALL L may be beeneficial forr language learners’
l
ment (Nachooua, 2012). Because off such enco
attainm ouraging results, in reaality, quite a lot of
practitiooners as weell as policy
y makers arre aware off the advanttage of techhnology in teaching
t
and leaarning and thus makee investmennts on the technical infrastructur
i ure. However, little
attentioon has been paid to the consideratioon from ped dagogical perspective
p ((Tamim et al.,
a 2015)

98 http://ire.macrrothink.org
 In
nternational R
Research in Education
E
ISSN 2327-5499
2
2016, Vol. 4, No. 1

which iinfuse the meaningfuln

m ness in CAALL. Moreo over, the eff
ffectiveness of CALL depends
significcantly on teeachers’ kn
nowledge inn technolog gy, pedagoggy as well as contentss of the
subject matters (whhich is the target
t languuage in the context of CALL)
C (Wuu, 2015). Language
teacherss’ technologgical pedagogical conttent knowledge (TPAC CK) is an inttriguing top
pic to be
addresssed when technology is adoptedd as a part of curricu ulum designn because TPACK
suggestts that teachers as weell as curricculum designers undeerstand how w knowledg ge about
technology, pedaggogy and content interract with each e other in the pro cess of insstruction
(Rosenbberg & Koeehler, 2015)
The theeoretical frammework of TPACK is derived from the conceeptual workk of Shulmaan (1986)
who deeveloped PC CK as the pedagogical
p l and conteent knowleddge for eduucators. Misshra and
Koehlerr (2006) acknowledg
a ged the im mportant rolle that tecchnology w will be plaaying in
innovattive pedagogy and hen nce added teechnology as a an essen
ntial part to PCK and came c up
with TP PACK whiich aimed to t explore the interw weaving relaationships aamong tech hnology,
pedagoggical and coontent know wledge equippped by a teacher
t as a “Total PAC CKage” (Th hompson
& Mishhra, 2007). TPACK has h been appplied as a conceptuaal framewoork in the areas a of
researchh in mathem matics, soccial science,, science annd English;; even so, iit is still in
n logical
analysiss rather thann empirical evidence (KKelly, 20100). He furtheer suggestedd that the deefinition
of TPAACK shoulld be expllicitly ident ntified and reliable, valid
v and usable meethod of
measureement shouuld be develo oped and deemonstrated d.
Concernning the TP PACK reseaarched in thhe field of EFL
E teaching with the hhelp of CALL, it is
still in the infanccy phase which
w still calls for academic
a atttention to provide emmpirical
evidencce (Debbaghh & Jones,, 2015; Wuu, 2015). Th he gravity of preparinng EFL pree-service
teacherss with com
mpetent TPA ACK has beeen acknow wledged (Ko oçoğlu, 20099; Kurt, Mishra, &
Kocogluu, 2013) annd therefore, a reliable and valid in
nstrument iss expected tto be develo
oped. To
respondd this call, Baser, Ko opcha, and Ozden (20 015) develooped a reseearch instruument to
specificcally measuure EFL teachers’ TPA ACK; how wever, it waas undertakken within western
context and its appplicability in other ccultural con ntexts remaains un-expplored. The present
researchh aims to examine thee psychomettric propertty of measu uring EFL teeachers' TPPACK in
Taiwan through a serial
s modell comparisoons.
2. Reseearch Desiggn and Methodology
There w were 200 EFL
E teacherss at seconddary level in n Taiwan being invitedd through stratified
s
randomm sampling to t join this survey andd a total num
mber of 158
8 of them (nn = 158) responded
to this rrequest andd finished th
he survey. P
Participants' demograph
hic informaation is pressented in
the folloowing Tablee 1.

99 http://ire.macrrothink.org
 In
nternational R
Research in Education
E
ISSN 2327-5499
2
2016, Vol. 4, No. 1

Table 1. Participannts' Demographic Data

V
Variable Caategory n %
G
Gender Male
M 52 32.991%
Feemale 106
1 67.009%
Years of Teaching less th
han 3 years 63 39.888%
4-6
6 years 51 32.228%
7-9
9 years 41 25.995%
More th
han 10 years 3 0.002%
Locatioon of Schools No
orthern 53 33.554%
Central 42 26.558%
So
outhern 63 39.887%

Informaation presennted in Tablle 1 showcaased that feemales EFL L teachers wwere about twice
t of
the num
mber of theiir male cou unterparts. AAs for theirr teaching experience,
e more than 70% of
them haad been EF FL teachers less than 6 years. Th he geograph hic data abbout the loccation of
schoolss which seleected by thiis present sttudy also reeflects the big
b picture of current situation
s
in Taiw
wan and thuss it is sound
d to state thaat results ellicited from this study hhad certain level of
generalizability.
The research instruument was thet questionnnaire develloped by Baaser, Kopchha and Ozdeen (2015)
which wwas translatted into Chiinese for beetter compreehension to the particippants. To en
nsure the
accuraccy and qualiity of transllation, the C
Chinese verssion was baack-translateed into Eng
glish and
was revviewed by two nativee-speaker oof English who were on the facculty of a national
university in Taiwwan. All the items weree responded d with Likeert 5-point scale (1 = strongly
disagreee and 5 = sttrongly agreee). After thhe surveys were
w collectted, statisticcal analysess were in
processs to measuree the psychoometric propperty of it.
3. Resu
ults
Firstly, Exploratoryy Factor An nalysis (EFA
FA) was und dertaken to clean the ddata and on nly items
with suufficient facctor loading
g would bee selected. Results off KMO andd Bartlett's Test of
Sphericcity confirm
med the adeq quacy of EF FA (KMO = .88, p = .0 00). With exxtraction method of
Maximuum Likelihoood and thee rotation m method of Promax
P with
h Kaiser Noormalization n. Seven
factors were eliciteed with facttor loading above .50 thresholds.
t In the end, there weree 6 items
for the construct of Technolog gy Knowleddge (TK) an nd 5 items were retainned to measu ure EFL
teacherss’ Pedagogyy Knowled dge (PK) annd Content Knowledgee (CK). In tterms of in ntegrated
knowledge, 5 item ms were found
fo to haave sufficieent factor loading foror the consstruct of
Pedagogy Contentt Knowledg ge (PCK) aand 3 items were ado opted to exxamine Technology
Contentt Knowledgge (TCK). OnlyO two ittems were extracted in n the constrruct of Technology
Pedagogy Knowleedge (TPK).. For the Teechnology Pedagogy Content C Knnowledge (T TPACK)
construct, most of items weree ruled out aand only 1 item was kept.k Detailss of factor loadings
l
of the seven extraccted factors are presenteed in the following Tabble 2.

100 http://ire.macrrothink.org
 In
nternational R
Research in Education
E
ISSN 2327-5499
2
2016, Vol. 4, No. 1

Table 22. Factor Loadings of Each

E Selecteed Item
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CK11 .9533
CK22 .8277
CK33 .6744
CK44 .616
CK66 .6000
CK55 .578
PK55 .882
PK44 .879
PK11 .850
PK33 .793
PK22 .783
PCK
K1 .867
PCK
K3 .801
PCK
K2 .795
PCK
K4 .685
PCK
K5 .531
TK22 .862
TK33 .778
TK11 .671
TK44 .639
TK55 .617
TK66
TCK
K2 .799
TCK
K3 .665
TCK
K1 .548
TPK
K2 .732
TPK
K1 .708
TPA
ACK1 .505
Notee: Extraction Method:
M Maximum Likelihoood.
Rotation Meethod: Promaxx with Kaiser N
Normalization
n.

Reliabillity of thesee selected factors

fa was mmeasured with
w Cronbaach’s α and the results of these
seven cconstructs were
w TK = .991, CK = .888, PK = .92 2, PCK = .888, TCK = .75 and TPK K = .75.
All of tthem were above the threshold vvalue of .70 0 as suggested by Geeourge and Mallery
(2003); therefore, it is sound to say that the questio on items waas reliable. AAfter the reeliability
was exxamined annd confirmeed, Confirm matory Factor Analysis (CFA) w was underttaken to
examine the conveergent and discriminant
d t validity off selected factors. Convvergent valid
dity was
checkedd with Com mposite Relliability (C
CR), Averag ge Variance Extracted (AVE), Maximum
Shared Variance (MSV),
( andd Average Shared Vaariance (ASV). The thhresholds for fo these
values tto have adeqquate conveergent validdity are that CR should be greater tthan .70 wh hile AVE

101 http://ire.macrrothink.org
 In
nternational R
Research in Education
E
ISSN 2327-5499
2
2016, Vol. 4, No. 1

should be greater than .50. The T discrim minant validdity can bee ensured w
when AVE of each
construct is greaterr than NSV V and ASV; moreover, the square root of AVE E should bee greater
than intter-construcct correlations and the results of su
uch analysees showed tthat this surrvey had
good cconstruct validity.
v Deetails abouut the con nstruct validity (both discriminaant and
converggent validityy) analysis are
a presenteed in the Tabble 3 below
w.

Table 3. Construct Validity An

nalysis of C
Constructs
CR AVE MS
SV ASV TCK TK CK
K PK PCK TPK
T
TCK
K .76 .51 .33
3 .18 .71
TK .91 .63 .51 .26 .36 .80
CK .88 .55 .51 .17 .29 .71 .74
4
PK .92 .70 .10
0 .04 .32 .12 .19
9 .84
PCK
K .88 .59 .50
0 .23 .51 .70 .38
8 .18 .77
TPK
K .76 .61 .33
3 .16 .57 .39 .27
7 .17 .44 .7
78

Afterwaards, alternaate model analysis wass undertaken n to yield a model to bee the repressentative
of modeel specificaations whichh can be useed in practicce (Flora & Curran, 20004). Other than the
null moodel, this present
p stud
dy proposedd 4 alternatte models. Model 1 w was the 1st Order 6
factors with no corrrelation bettween factoors and Moddel 2 was thhe 1st order ssingle facto
or, which
st
was TP PACK, meassuring all ittems. Modeel 3 represeented 1 Orrder 6 factoors with corrrelation
betweenn factors annd the last model
m was thhe 2nd orderr 6 factors Model.
M Detaails are pressented in
the folloowing figurres (Figure 1~Figure 44) and modeel fit indices of these mmodels are depicted
d
in Tablee 3.

Figure 1. 1st Order 6 Factors w

with No Corrrelation betw
ween Factor
ors Model

102 http://ire.macrrothink.org
 In
nternational R
Research in Education
E
ISSN 2327-5499
2
2016, Vol. 4, No. 1

gure 2. 1st O
Fig Order Singlee Factor Mo
odel

Figure 3. 1st Order 6 Factors (wiith correlation) Model

103 http://ire.macrrothink.org
 In
nternational R
Research in Education
E
ISSN 2327-5499
2
2016, Vol. 4, No. 1

Figure
F 4. 2ndd Order 6 Faactors Modeel

Table 4. Mode Fit Indices

I of Five
F Modelss
X2 df X2/df GFI AGFI NFI CFI RM
MSEA
Null moddel 2817
7.36 351 8.03 .25 .19 0 0 .21
st
1 Order 1469
9.64 323 4.55 .52 .43 .48 .54 .15
5
6 factors
(no correelation)
1st order single factor 689.4
49 329 2.10 .76 .72 .76 .85 .08
st
1 Order 435.2
20 314 1.39 .84 .81 .85 .95 .05
5
6 factors
(with corrrelation)
2nd order 469.0
06 316 1.48 .83 .80 .83 .94 .06
6
6 factors

As the Table 4 inndicated, th he fourth m model (1st Order

O 6 facctors with correlation model)
reportedd a pretty sound mod del fit. All the indicess of this model had m made impro ovement.
st
Furthermmore, goodd-of-fit indicces of 1 O Order 6 facttors with coorrelation mmodel as weell as the
nd
2 ordeer 6 factors model weree all acceptaable; therefo fore, either one
o of thesee two modells would
be a goood choice. Additionally
A y, the Targeet Coefficiennt can be ussed to validdate the neceessity of
nd
the 2 order (in thhis present study whicch is TPAC CK) (Doll, Xia,
X & Torkkzadeh, 199 94). The
present study had the Target Coefficiennt of .92 wh hich confirmed the neecessity of TPACK
becausee the Targett Coefficientt indicated tthe fact thatt 92% of the variance iin fourth mo odel can

104 http://ire.macrrothink.org
 In
nternational R
Research in Education
E
ISSN 2327-5499
2
2016, Vol. 4, No. 1

be explaained by thee fifth modeel.

According to the results of the 2nd orrder 6 facttors model,, it can bee reported that the
standarddised regression weigh ht of PK w was way too
o low for TPACK
T (β = .18) whiile the β
value oof TCK and TPK were a little bit lower than n .50. On the other hannd, the stand
dardised
regressiion weight of TK, CK C and PC CK was alll above .7 70 which iindicated a strong
predictaability towaard the construct of TPA
ACK.
4. Concclusion, Disscussion an
nd Future W
Work
A succeessful impleementation of computter-assisted instruction programmee roots in teachers'
t
knowledge on content-base
c ed technollogy integ gration (Haarris & H Hofer, 201 11) and
computter-assisted language learning (C CALL) is no n exceptio on. Teacherr's competeence on
his/her TPACK haas been ack knowledgedd as an imp portant issuee (Bos, 20111) which calls
c for
more exxploration since
s TPAC
CK is influeenced greattly by conteextual factoors such as learning
environnment (Kellyy, 2010), cuultural as w
well as subjeect matters (Rosenbergg & Koehlerr, 2015).
EFL teaachers arouund the worlld are graduually keen to t exploit teechnology iin their insttruction;
neverthheless, little is known about
a how tthey are reaady for succh use (Bos , 2011). Ass Mishra
and Koeehler (20066) has pointeed out:
There iss no single technologic
t cal solution that appliess for every teacher,
t eveery course, or every
view of teaching. Quality teeaching reqquires deveeloping a nuanced
n unnderstandingg of the
complexx relationsships [amo ong] technnology, con ntent, and pedagogyy, and usiing this
understanding to develop
d apprropriate, coontext-speciific strateg
gies and rrepresentatio ons. (p.
1029)
Therefoore, it is quuite critical to understaand EFL teeachers' TPAACK beforre the onsett of any
CALL pprogrammee. The purpo ose of this ppresent wass to examin
ne the psychhometric prroperties
of meassuring EFL teachers’ Technologica
T al Pedagogiical Content Knowledgge (TPACK K).
Using E Exploratoryy Factor Analysis and C Confirmatory Factory Analysis, thhe items deeveloped
by Baseer et al. (20015) specifically for EF
FL teacherss were exam mined. This study attemmpted to
establissh indicators which can n properly reflect EFL L teachers' TPACK
T whhose L1 is Chinese.
C
Results of EFA ruled out som me items whhose factor loading waas below thhe threshold d of .50.
Accordingly, this version of questionnnaire was undergone a series of CFA modeling m
comparrison to exaamine the interrelatioonship betw ween knowlledge becauuse as Misshra and
Koehlerr (2006) pointed out "...taking tthe knowleedge structu ures apart would desttroy the
strengthh of the innterconnecteedness of the unified d model an nd, therebyy, misrepressent the
TPACK K model" (p. ( 1029). Results off CFA con nfirmed thaat 1st Ordeer 6 Factorrs (with
b the 2nd Order
correlattion) Modell had the beest model ffit indices but O 6 Facctors Modeel of this
instrum
ment had botth theoreticaal and practtical applicaability in Taaiwan as thee Target Coefficient
had connfirmed.
Cognitiive complexxity is adviised to be taken into consideratiion while eexamining teachers'
t
TPACK K because people with w higheer cognitiv ve compleexity are able to perform
multidimmensional tasks
t (Bos, 2011). Whhile less commplex peoplle are able to be taugh
ht with a
complexx set of dettailed distin
nctions for a specific co
ontext, peop
ple with moore complex
xity will

105 http://ire.macrrothink.org
 In
nternational R
Research in Education
E
ISSN 2327-5499
2
2016, Vol. 4, No. 1

be morre flexible while dealing with nnew situatio ons (Streufeert & Swezzey, 1986). Future
studies may exploore how ind dividual's coognitive sty
yles to provvide more iinsights abo out EFL
teacherss' cognitivee fidelity off integratingg CALL in their
t instrucction. Moreeover, teach
hers may
not be tthe only deccision makeer on the usee of technollogy in instrruction, Porrras-Hernánndez and
Salinas--Amescua (2013)
( sugggested that wwe should loook at the issue of teacchers’ TPAC
CK from
three peerspectives,, namely, Micro
M factorrs (in the classroom),
c Messo facttors (in the school)
and Maacro (the soocietal cond dition) and such a hieerarchical leevels may significantlly affect
teacherss' TPACK anda thus warrrant more eempirical ev vidence.
Last buut not least, the measurres of contennt, pedagog
gical and tecchnologicall knowledgee should
be sepaarate or hoolistic is annother interresting topiic which neeeds furtheer exploration. The
inclusioon of contexxtual factorr should be undertakenn in the futu
ure researchh of TPACK
K (Kelly,
2010).
nces
Referen
Baser, D D., Kopchaa, T. J., & Ozden,
O M. Y. (2015). Developing g a technollogical pedaagogical
content knowledgee (TPACK) assessmentt for preserv vice teacherrs learning to teach En
nglish as
a fooreign laanguage. Computeer Assistted Language LLearning, 1-16.
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1080/0958
88221.20155.1047456
Bos, B
B. (2011). Profession nal develoopment forr elementary teacherrs using TPACK.
T
Contem
mporary Issuues in Techn
nology and Teacher Ed
ducation, 11
1(2), 167-1883.
Bunch, J., Robinsoon, J. S., & Edwards,
E MM. C. (2015)). Agriculture Teacherss’ Use of Intteractive
Whiteboards (IWB Bs): Teacheers’ Perceptiions of Inn
novativenesss and Technnology Inteegration.
Journall of Human Sciences an nd Extensioon Volume, 3(1),
3 63-79.
Debbaggh, M., & Joones, W. M.
M (2015). U Using the TP PACK Framework to Ex
Examine Tecchnology
Integration in Engglish Langu
uage Teachiing. Paper presented ata the Socieety for Info
ormation
Technollogy & Teaccher Educattion Internaational Confference.
Deutschh, N. (2010)). Instructorr experiencees with imp
plementing technology
t iin blended learning
l
coursess in higher education.
e Seattle,
S WAA: Createspace.
Dina, AA. T., & Ciornei,
C S.--I. (2013). The Advan ntages and Disadvanttages of Computer
Assistedd Languagee Learning and Teachhing for Forreign Languages. Proccedia - Soccial and
Behaviooral Sciencees, 76, 248-252. http://ddx.doi.org/1
10.1016/j.sb
bspro.2013..04.107
Doll, W
W. J., Xia, W.,
W & Torkzzadeh, G. (1 994). A con nfirmatory factor analyysis of the end-user
e
computting satisfacction instrum
ment. Mis Q
Quarterly, 45
53-461.
Egbert, J. (2005). CALL
C essen
ntials: Princciples and practice
p in CALL
C classsrooms. Aleexandria,
VA: Teaachers of Ennglish to Sp
peakers of OOther Langu uages (TESO OL).
Flora, D
D. B., & Curran,
C P. J.
J (2004). A An empiriccal evaluatiion of alterrnative metthods of
estimatiion for connfirmatory factor
f analyysis with orrdinal data. Psychologgical methodds, 9(4),
466.

106 http://ire.macrrothink.org
 In
nternational R
Research in Education
E
ISSN 2327-5499
2
2016, Vol. 4, No. 1

Geourgge, D., & Mallery,

M P. (2003). SPPSS for win
ndows step by step: a simple gu
uide and
referencce (4th ed.).. Boston: Alllyn and Baacon.
Hew, K K. F., & Cheeung, W. S. (2014). Sttudents’ and d instructorrs’ use of m
massive open
n online
coursess (MOOCs)): Motivatio ons and chaallenges. Educational
E Research RReview, 12, 45-58.
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1016/j.edu
urev.2014.005.001
Hsu, C.-K., Hwanng, G.-J., & Chang, C C.-K. (2013)). A person
nalized recoommendatio on-based
mobile learning appproach to improving th the reading performancce of EFL sttudents. Co
omputers
& Educcation, 63, 327-336.
3 htttp://dx.doi.oorg/10.1016
6/j.compedu
u.2012.12.0004
Judith BB. Harris & Mark J. Hofer (20111) Techno ological Ped
dagogical CContent Knoowledge
(TPACK K) in Action. Journa al of Reseaarch on Tecchnology in
n Educatioon, 43(3), 211-229.
2
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1080/1539
91523.20111.10782570
Kabakcci Yurdakul,, I., Odabassi, H. F., Ki
Kilicer, K., Coklar,
C A. N.,
N Birinci, G., & Kurrt, A. A.
(2012). The development, validity an and reliabillity of TP PACK-deep:: A techn nological
pedagoggical conttent knowledge scalle. Compu uters & Education,
E 58(3), 964-977.
9
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1016/j.com
mpedu.20111.10.012
Kelly, M
M. (2010). Technologic
T cal pedagoggical conten nt knowledge (TPACK):: A content analysis
of 2006-2009 priint journall articles. Paper presented at the Society ty for Info ormation
Technollogy & Teaccher Educattion Internaational Confference.
Koçoğluu, Z. (20009). Explo oring the ttechnologiccal pedagog gical conteent knowleedge of
pre-servvice teacherrs in languaage educatiion. Proced
dia-Social and
a Behaviooral Sciencees, 1(1),
2734-27737.
Kurt, G
G., Mishra, P., & Koco oglu, Z. (20013). Techn
nological peedagogical content knowledge
developpment of Tuurkish pre-sservice teacchers of Eng
glish. Paper presentedd at the Socciety for
Informaation Technnology & Teacher Educcation Internnational Connference.
Levy, M
M. (1997). CALL:
C conteext and concceptualisatiion. Oxford: Oxford Unniversity Prress.
Martin, K. J. (20015). Implem menting Onnline Learnning for th
he ESL Claassroom: Tips
T and
Strategiies for Staarting or Improving
I the Online Second Language Classroom m. Paper
presenteed at the Society
S forr Informatioon Technollogy & Teaacher Educcation Interrnational
Confereence.
Mishra,, P., & Koehler,
K M. (2006). T Technologiccal pedagogical conteent knowleedge: A
framew
work for teaccher knowleedge. The Te
Teachers Colllege Recorrd, 108(6), 11017-1054.
Nachouua, H. (20012). Comp puter-Assistted Languaage Learniing for Immproving Students’
S
Listeninng Skill. Procedia - Sociaal and Behavioral B Sciences, 69, 11550-1159.
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1016/j.sbsspro.2012.1 2.045
Oblingeer, D. (20033). Boomerss gen-xers m
millennials. EDUCAUS
SE Review, 5500(4), 37-4
47.
Oblingeer, D. G. (2010). Th he next geeneration of
o educatio
onal engageement. Jou
urnal of
interacttive media in
i education
n, 2004(1), A
Art. 10.

107 http://ire.macrrothink.org
 In
nternational R
Research in Education
E
ISSN 2327-5499
2
2016, Vol. 4, No. 1

Porras-H
Hernández, L. H., & Salinas-Am
S mescua, B. (2013). Strengthening TTPACK: A broader
notion of context and the use
u of teaccher's narrattives to revveal knowlledge consttruction.
Journall of Educatiional Computing Reseaarch, 48(2), 223-244.
Prenskyy, M. (2001)). Digital naatives, digittal immigran
nts part 1. On
O the horizzon, 9(5), 1--6.
Levy, M
M. (1997). CALL:
C conteext and concceptualisatiion. Oxford
d: Oxford Unniversity Prress.
Martin, K. J. (20015). Implementing Onnline Learn ning for th
he ESL Claassroom: Tips
T and
Strategiies for Staarting or Improving
I the Online Second Language Classroom m. Paper
presenteed at the Society
S forr Informatioon Technollogy & Teaacher Educcation Interrnational
Confereence.
Mishra,, P., & Koehler,
K M. (2006). T Technologiccal pedagogical conteent knowleedge: A
framew
work for teaccher knowleedge. The Te
Teachers Colllege Recorrd, 108(6), 11017-1054.
Nachouua, H. (20012). Comp puter-Assistted Languaage Learniing for Immproving Students’
S
Listeninng Skill. Procedia - Sociaal and Behavioral B Sciences, 69, 11550-1159.
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1016/j.sbsspro.2012.1 2.045
Oblingeer, D. (20033). Boomerss gen-xers m
millennials. EDUCAUS
SE Review, 5500(4), 37-4
47.
Oblingeer, D. G. (2010). Th he next geeneration of
o educatio
onal engageement. Jou
urnal of
interacttive media in
i education
n, 2004(1), A
Art. 10.
Porras-H
Hernández, L. H., & Salinas-Am
S mescua, B. (2013). Strengthening TTPACK: A broader
notion of context and the use
u of teaccher's narrattives to revveal knowlledge consttruction.
Journall of Educatiional Computing Reseaarch, 48(2), 223-244.
Prenskyy, M. (2001)). Digital naatives, digittal immigran
nts part 1. On
O the horizzon, 9(5), 1--6.
Rosenbberg, J. M., & Koehler,, M. J. (20115). Contex
xt and Techn
nological Peedagogical Content
Knowleedge (TPACK): A Systematic Review. Journal Jo of Research on Techno ology in
Educatiion, 47(3), 186-210.
1
Roth, RR. (2015). Framework ks for Inteegration off Digital Teechnologiess at the Roadside:
Innovattive Modells, Current Trends annd Future Perspectiv ves. Internaational Jou
urnal of
Learninng, Teachingg and Educa
ational Reseearch, 13(2
2), 37-54.
Streuferrt, S., & Sw
wezey, R. W. Complexity, managers, and organizzations. New York,
W (1986). C
NY: Accademic Preess.
Schmidd, R.F., Bernnard, R.M., Borokhovvski, E., Tam mim, R.M., Abrami, PP.C., Surkess, M.A.,
Wade, C C.A. and Woods,
W J. (20
014). The e ffects of tecchnology usse in postseecondary ed
ducation:
A meta-analysis of classro oom appliccations. Co omputers & Educatiion, 72, 271-291.
2
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1016/j.com
mpedu.20133.11.002
Shulmaan, L. S. (19986). Thosee who undeerstand: kno
owledge gro
owth in teaaching. Educational
Researccher, 15(2), 4-14.
Tamim,, R. M., Berrnard, R. M., Borokhovvski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid,, R. F. (2011
1). What

108 http://ire.macrrothink.org
 In
nternational R
Research in Education
E
ISSN 2327-5499
2
2016, Vol. 4, No. 1

forty years of ressearch says about the impact off technology y on learniing a secon
nd-order
meta-annalysis and validation study.
s Revieew of Educa
ational resea
arch, 81(1),, 4-28.
Tamim,, R. M., Boorokhovski, E., Pickup,, D., Bernarrd, R. M., & El Saadi,, L. (2015).. Tablets
for Teacching and Learning:
L A Systematic Review annd Meta-Anaalysis.
Thompsson, A., & Mishra, P. (2007). Brreaking new
ws: TPCK becomes T
TPACK! Jou
urnal of
Computting in Teaccher Educattion, 24(2), 38.
Wu, Q. (2015). Deesigning a smartphone
s app to teacch English (L2)
( vocabuulary. Comp
puters &
Educatiion, 85, 1700-179. http:///dx.doi.orgg/10.1016/j.ccompedu.20015.02.013
Wurst, C., Smarkkola, C., & Gaffney, M. A. (2008). Ubiqu uitous laptoop usage in n higher
educatioon: Effects on student achievemeent, student satisfaction
n, and consstructivist measures
m
in honnors and traditional
t classroomss. Computters & Ed ducation, 551(4), 176 66-1783.
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1016/j.com
mpedu.20088.05.006

Append
dix
TPACK
K-EFL Quesstionnaire
Construcct Item
Technoloogical Knowleedge TK1 I can use basic technological terms ((e.g. operating system,
(TK) wireless connection, virtuaal memory, ettc.) appropriattely.
TK2 I can adjust computer setttings such as installing sofftware and
establishing an Internet co
onnection.
TK3 I can troubleshoot commmon computer problems (e..g. printer
nternet connection problemss, etc.) independently.
problems, In
TK4 I can createe multimedia (e.g. video, w web pages, etc.)
e using
text, picturess, sound, video
o, and animatiion.
TK5 I can use collaboration tools (wiki,, edmodo, 3D virtual
environmentts, etc.) in acco my objectivess.
ordance with m
TK6 I can learn software
s that helps
h me com
mplete a varietty of tasks
more efficienntly.
Content K
Knowledge CK1 I can expresss my ideas and
d feelings by w
writing in Eng
glish.
(CK)
CK2 I can read d texts writtten in Engliish with thee correct
pronunciatio
on.
CK3 I can understtand texts writtten in Englishh.
CK4 I can understtand the speecch of a native English speak
ker easily.
CK5 I am familiarr with the gram
mmar of Engllish.
CK6 I have no pro unicating withh people in English.
oblem commu
Pedagogiical Knowledgge PK1 I can use teaching methods
m and techniques that are
(PK) appropriate for
f a learning environment.
PK2 I can designn a learning ex
xperience that
at is appropriaate for the
level of students.
PK3 I can suppo
ort students’ learning in accordance with
w their

109 http://ire.macrrothink.org
 In
nternational R
Research in Education
E
ISSN 2327-5499
2
2016, Vol. 4, No. 1

physical, meental, emotional, social, andd cultural diffeerences.

PK4 I can collaboorate with schhool stakeholdders (studentss, parents,
teachers, etc.) to support students’
s learnning.
PK5 I can suppo ort students’ out-of-class
o w
work to faciliitate their
self-regulated learning.
Pedagogiical content PCK1 I can managee a classroom learning enviironment.
knowledgge (PCK)
PCK2 I can evaluatte students’ learning processses.
PCK3 I can use appropriate
a teaching methoods and tech hniques to
support studeents in develo
oping their lannguage skills.
PCK4 that develop students’
I can prepaare curricularr activities th
language skiills.
PCK5 I can adaptt a lesson plan
p in accorrdance with students’
language skiill levels.
Technoloogical content TCK1 I can take advantage
a of multimedia ((e.g. video, slideshow,
s
knowledgge (TCK) etc.) to expreess my ideas about
a various topics in Engllish.
TCK2 I can benefiit from using technology ((e.g. web con
nferencing
and discusssion forums) to contribuute at a disstance to
multilingual communities.
TCK3 I can use collaboration
c tools to workrk collaborativ
vely with
foreign perso
ons (e.g. Second Life, wiki,, etc.).
Technoloogical pedagoggical TPK1 I can supporrt students as they use techhnology such as virtual
knowledgge (TPK) discussion platforms
p to develop
d their higher orderr thinking
abilities.
TPK2 I can desiggn learning materials
m by using techno
ology that
supports stud
dents’ languag
ge learning.
Technoloogical Pedagoggical Content TPACK1 I can supp port my pro ofessional deevelopment by b using
Knowleddge technologicaal tools and resources to conntinuously im
mprove the
language teaaching processs.

Copyriight Disclaiimer
Copyrigght reservedd by the auth
hors.
This arrticle is ann open-acceess article ddistributed under the terms andd conditionss of the
Creative Commonss Attribution n license (hhttp://creativ
vecommonss.org/licensees/by/3.0/).

110 http://ire.macrrothink.org