Advertisement

The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 197–206 | Cite as

High School Students’ Perceptions of English Teachers’ Knowledge in Technology-Supported Class Environments

  • Hsueh-Hua Chuang
  • Chao-Ju Ho
  • Chih-Yuan Weng
  • Han-Chin Liu
Regular Article

Abstract

This study used a structural equation model to investigate the endogenous structure of high school students’ perceptions of the knowledge possessed by English teachers who handle technology-supported classes in Taiwan. We developed a validated survey composed of four constructs, namely, subject matter knowledge (SMK, 5 items), knowledge of students’ understanding (KSU, 4 items), technological knowledge (TK, 6 items), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK, 6 items). The survey was administered to 287 respondents from four target English teachers’ classes at the end of the semester in January 2015. Further analysis based on the structural equation model indicates that students’ perceptions of teachers’ TK and KSU directly affect TPACK. SMK and KSU are indirectly related to TPACK with the association significantly mediated by TK.

Keywords

Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) Students’ perceptions Technology knowledge (TK) English teachers 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research project was supported in part by the National Science Council, Taiwan; Grant No. NSC 102-2511-S-110-004-MY2.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.

Informed Consent

This study involved only voluntary participation. We have obtained informed consent from study participants who were also informed they can stop participating at any time and participating in the study will not affect their grades. All the information collected from this study is kept confidential.

References

  1. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPACK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers and Education, 52(1), 154–168.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aryadoust, V., Mehran, P., & Alizadeh, M. (2016). Validating a computer-assisted language learning attitude instrument used in Iranian EFL context: An evidence-based approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 561–595.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.1000931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlotto, T., & Jaques, P. A. (2016). The effects of animated pedagogical agents in an English-as-a-foreign-language learning environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 95(C), 15–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapelle, A. (2010). The spread of computer-assisted language learning. Language Teaching, 43(1), 66–74.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444809005850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapelle, C. A., & Hegelheimer, A. (2004). The language teacher in the 21st century. In: S. Fotos & C. M. Brown (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 299–316). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, T. H., & Massaro, D. W. (2011). Evaluation of synthetic and natural Mandarin visual speech: Initial consonants, single vowels, and syllables. Speech Communication, 53(7), 955–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conole, G., De Laat, M., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2008). ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Computers & Education, 50(2), 511–524.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Halim, L., Abdullah, S., & Meerah, T. S. (2014). Students’ perceptions of their science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(2), 227–237.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9484-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 311–326.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220505335455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hegelheimer, V. (2006). When the technology course is required. In P. Hubbard & N. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 117–133). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hofer, M., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). TPACK development in teacher education: A longitudinal study of preservice teachers in a secondary MA Ed. program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1), 83–106.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hsu, H.-Y., Wang, S.-K., & Comac, L. (2008). Using audioblogs to assist English-language learning: an investigation into student perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 181–198.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220801943775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jang, S.-J. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers. Computers & Education, 55, 1744–1751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jang, S.-J. (2011). Assessing college students’ perceptions of a case teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge using a newly developed instrument. Higher Education, 61(6), 663–678.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9355-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jang, S.-J., Guan, S.-Y., & Hsieh, H.-F. (2009). Developing an instrument for assessing college students’ perceptions of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 596–606.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonassen, D. H. (2013). Transforming learning with technology. In M. P. Clough, J. K. Olson & D. S. Niederhauser (Eds.), The nature of technology (pp. 101–110). Iowa, IA: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kamhi-Stein, L. (2000). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education: Web-based bulletin board discussions in a methods course. Tesol Quarterly, 34(3), 423–455.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3587738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2008). Does teachers’ confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 269–282.  https://doi.org/10.1080/095882200802090303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  25. Knight, S. L., & Waxman, H. C. (1991). Students’ cognition and classroom instruction. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Google Scholar
  26. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–29). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Examining the technological pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 563–573.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00372.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). Examining practicing teachers’ perceptions of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) pathways: a structural equation modeling approach. Instructional Science, 41(4), 793–809.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9249-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C., & Neter, J. (2004). Applied linear regression models. Pennsylvania: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
  30. Lam, Y. (2000). Technophilia vs. Technophobia: A preliminary look at why second-language teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(3), 389–420.  https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.56.3.389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307309921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin, C.-C., Chan, H.-J., & Hsiao, H.-S. (2011). EFL students’ perceptions of learning vocabulary in a computer-supported collaborative environment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 91–100.Google Scholar
  33. Liu, M. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (2015). Exploring EFL teachers’ CALL knowledge and competencies: In-service program perspectives. Language Learning and Technology, 19(1), 119–138. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2015/liukleinsasser.pdf
  34. Liu, S., Liu, H., Yu, Y., Li, Y., & Wen, T. (2014). TPACK: A new dimension to EFL teachers’ PCK. Journal of Education and Human Development, 3(2), 681–693.Google Scholar
  35. Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mohamad Ali, A. Z., Segaran, K., & Wee Hoe, T. (2015). Effects of verbal components in 3D talking-head on pronunciation learning among non-native speakers. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 313–322.Google Scholar
  38. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  39. Niess, M. L. (2008). Guiding preservice teachers in developing TPCK. In N. Silverman (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 223–250). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Orlando, J., & Attard, C. (2015). Digital natives come of age: The reality of today’s early career teachers using mobile devices to teach mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0159-6.Google Scholar
  42. Park, S., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922–941.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peters, M. (2006). Developing computer competencies for pre-service language teachers: Is one course enough? In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in call (pp. 153–165). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rahmany, R., Sadeghi, B., & Chegini, A. S. (2014). Normalization of CALL and TPACK: Discovering teachers’ opportunities and challenges. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(4), 891–900.  https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.4.891-900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 354–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. 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, 123–149.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Senocak, E. (2009). Development of an instrument for assessing undergraduate science students’ perceptions: the problem-based learning environment inventory. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(6), 560–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shih, C.-L., & Chuang, H.-H. (2013). The development and validation of an instrument for assessing college students’ perceptions of faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environments. Computers & Education, 63, 109–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.  https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7.4.422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Slaouti, D., & Motteram, G. (2006). Reconstructing practice: Language teacher education and ICT. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 81–97). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  56. Sullivan, G. M., & Artino, A. R., Jr. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(4), 541–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tan, S. C., Cheah, H. M., Chen, W., & Choy, D. (2017). Pushing the frontier: A cohesive system-wide approach to integrating ICT into education. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tseng, J.-J. (2014). Investigating EFL teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge: Students’ perceptions. In S. Jager, L. Bradley, E. J. Meima & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL design: Principles and practice; proceedings of the 2014 EUROCALL conference, Groningen, The Netherlands (pp. 379–384). Dublin: Research publishing.net.  https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2014.000249.Google Scholar
  59. Tseng, J.-J. (2016). Developing an instrument for assessing technological pedagogical content knowledge as perceived by EFL students. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 302–315.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.941369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tuan, H.-L., Chang, H.-P., Wang, K.-H., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). The development of an instrument for assessing students’ perceptions of teachers’ knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 22(4), 385–398.  https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van Olphen, M. (2007). Digital portfolio: Balancing the academic and professional needs of world language teacher candidates. In M. Kassen, R. Lavine, R. Murphy-Judy, & M. Peters (Eds.), Preparing and developing technology-proficient L2 teachers (pp. 265–294). San Marcos: Calico.Google Scholar
  62. Wearn, S. (2008). Stakeholders in excellence in teaching and learning of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 26(3), 326–328.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wik, P., & Hjalmarsson, A. (2009). Embodied conversational agents in computer assisted language learning. Speech Communication, 51(10), 1024–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an educational computing course on preservice and inservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 479–495.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.2000.10782293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yurdakul, I. K., Odabasi, H. F., Kilicer, K., Coklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A. (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Computers & Education, 58(3), 964–977.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zelkowski, J., Gleason, J., Cox, D. C., & Bismarck, S. (2013). Developing and validating a reliable TPACK instrument for secondary mathematics preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 173–206.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2013.10782618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© De La Salle University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Teacher Education/Graduate Institute of EducationNational Sun Yat-sen UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of SociologyFu Jen Catholic UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of E-Learning Design and ManagementNational Chiayi UniversityChiayiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations