Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge model (TPCK)

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge Model (TPCK)

Over the last decade the use of TPCK as a framework in educational research has increased rapidly, especially with the inclusion of ICT’s. Kihoza et al. (2016) define TPCK as “a tool for examining the pedagogically sound ways in which technology can support teachers’ knowledge while keeping pace in the technology, content and pedagogy contexts”. A teacher’s role is to include technology into the learning process. TPCK originated from the initial PCK model proposed by Shulman in 1896. PCK was regarded as the dimensions of professional knowledge (Kirschner, Borowski, Fischer, Gess-Newsome, & von Aufschnaiter, 2016). PCK according to Shulman consisted of seven aspects; CK, general PK, curriculum knowledge, PCK, knowledge of learners and their characteristics, knowledge of educational contexts and knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values. His theory on teacher’s professional knowledge was modified several times but the three dimensions of importance, CK, PK and PCK were constant. The inclusion of technology allowed for an additional aspect which was proposed by Mishra and Koehler in 2006. It is presumed that technology, pedagogy and content cannot be taught in isolation from one another as it may compromise good teaching or successful technology implementation (Baia, 2011). A year later Thompson and Mishra provided an acronym –TPCK as we know it today. Baia (2011) referred to Mishra and Koehler (2006, p. 1030) who wrote that “viewing any of these components in isolation from the other represents a real disservice to good teaching,” thus emphasising the restructuring of professional development for teachers to foster these interconnections. He further discussed how the adoption of instructional technology cannot be considered without content and pedagogy as depicted in Figure 3.2.

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was developed by Fred Davis in 1989. This model was changed and adapted in many studies by several researchers and has many links with other models (Adams, Nelson, & Todd, 1992; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1992; Hendrikson, Massey, & Cronan, 1993; Mathieson, 1991). Fred Davis drew on the Theory of Reasoned Action proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen in 1977 where he realised that the beliefs and evaluation that a person makes impacts on their attitude. He then added the aspects of Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEU). After a few studies he realised that the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness had a direct influence on the behaviour of the individual. In 2000, Davis and Venkatash added the aspect of external variables as they found that there were several reasons as to why an individual would find a given system useful. Therefore external variables appear twice in the model. The first type of external variables are regarded as the environmental or context type that plays a role in whether teachers find using technology useful or easy to use. The second mention of external variables refers to the teacher’s internal beliefs of teaching with technology, influence of other colleagues, support and their ease in using the technology.
In the TAM model the external factors constitute social factors, cultural factors, contextual factors and political factors. The social factors include skills, language and political crises, political factors include technology, politics and political crises and cultural factors include the beliefs of the individual and their desire to employ a particular information system application. Perceived usefulness is regarded as the extent to which a person believes a certain technology is useful to them in their lives and perceived ease of use is regarded as the measure of the extent to which an individual believes a certain technology is effortless (Mac Callum et al., 2014). The attitude to use is concerned with the desirability and evaluation of the information. The behavioural intention is the likelihood of the individual carrying out the task successfully (Surendran, 2012).The Teo and Milutinovic (2015) study proved that attitude has a significant influence on behaviour.
Adoption can be defined as the stage when an individual decides or selects technology for use in teaching (Sahin, 2005 ). The process of adoption is highly dependent on the individual’s willingness and intent to use of technology. Other theories that have linked and created debate around the credibility of the TAM model are the Theory of Reasoned Action, Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Surendran, 2012). In 1977 Fishbein and Ajzen proposed the Theory of Reasoned Action which was adapted by Davis in 1989 to form the TAM. This model however proposed that behavioural intention could be determined by the attitude of an individual towards the actual behaviour and the subjective norm associated with that behaviour (Chuttur, 2009). Fishbein and Ajzen (1977) suggested that the attitude of a person towards a behaviour can be measured as the sum of their beliefs of the consequences of the behaviour and the evaluation of the consequences of that behaviour. The subjective norm would then be defined as the individual’s perceptions of what others around them that are important to them will think or feel about them performing this behaviour (Chuttur, 2009).

READ  Motivation Scores Across the Study Participants

Chapter 1  
Introduction  
1.1 Orientation
1.2 Background
1.3. Social context
1.4 Problem
1.5 Rationale
1.6 Purpose
1.7 Aim and research questions
1.8 Concepts
1.9 Research methodology
1.10 Structure of this Thesis
Chapter 2  
Literature review  
2.1 Introduction
2.2 History of m-Learning
2.3 m-Learning research
2.4 m-Learning in educational theories
2.5 Critique of m-learning benefits and teaching strategies
2.6 Challenges to the adoption of m-learning
2.7 m-Learning initiatives in South Africa
2.8 21st century skills
2.9 Professional development for m-learning
2.10 Teacher identity
2.11 Conclusion
Chapter 3  
Theoretical Underpinnings  
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge model (TPCK)
3.3 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
3.4 Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition model (SAMR)
3.5 The researchers’s proposed conceptual framework- PTTID
3.6 Conclusion
Chapter 4  
Methodology  
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Philosophy: Interpretivism
4.3 Approach: Mixed method and Deductive
4.4 Strategy: Practical Action Research
4.5 Time horizons
4.6 Data collection
4.7 Instruments
4.8 Data analysis
4.9 Methodological norms
4.10 Ethics
4.11 Limitations
4.12 Conclusion
Chapter 5  
Results & Findings  
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Findings – phases 1
5.3 Professional Teacher Technical Identity Development Framework 0
5.4 Biographical information
5.5 Results of Written Questionnaire
5.6 Results of Part 1- Reflective Journal
5.7 Findings- phases 2
5.8 Professional Teacher Technical Identity Development – Framework 1
5.9 Analysis of Online questionnaire
5.10 Analysis of Lesson Reflections
5.11 Analysis of Part 2- Reflective Journal
5.12 Analysis of focus group discussions
5.13 Professional Teacher Technical Identity Development Framework 2
5.14 Analysis of Semi-structured interviews
5.15 Findings – phase 3
Chapter 6  
Conclusion  
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Research Overview
6.3 Research Findings
6.4 Addressing the research questions
6.5 Contribution to knowledge
6.6 Professional Teacher Technical Idenity Development (PTTID) Framework
6.7 Research reflection
6.8 Reflection of key findings
6.9 Delineation and assumptions of the research study
6.10 Limitations, Implications and Recommendations
6.11 Conclusion
References

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT

Related Posts