تصورات أعضاء هيئة تدريس جامعة الطائف عن استخدام المحتوى المعرفي التكنولوجي التربوي كطريقة تدريس ذكية
ملخص باللغة العربية
في الواقع، بعد تطوير المعرفة التكنولوجية والتربوية والمحتوى (TPACK) الذي يقدمه المعلمين أمرا بالغ الأهمية لإحداث العملية التعليمية بكفاءة وفعالية. حيث أن طبيعة التقنيات سواء كانت تناظرية أو رقمية مرتبطة بكيفية إدراج التكنولوجيا في العملية التربوية مما قد يزيد من تعقيد التدريس. لذا سعت الباحثة الى تحديد وجهات النظر اعضاء هيئة التدريس بكلية التربية جامعة الطائف حول تحديث المواد التعليمية على أساس الاحتياجات المتعلقة بالمتعلمين – البيئة التعليمية – الوقت …. الخ.. باستخدام التكنولوجيا ومدى ارتباط المحتوى التعليمي بتصميم أنشطة تسهم في اثراء العملية التعليمية ورفع جودتها من خلال توظيف أساليب وطرق التعليم المتنوعة التي تراعى الفروق الفردية بين المتعلمين. بالإضافة إلى الاعتماد على وسائل الاتصال الحديثة مثل المدونات والشبكات الاجتماعية والبريد الإلكتروني)
ويتسم التعليم بالتكنولوجيا بالتعقيد وفقاً للتحديات المختلفة التي تفرضها التقنيات الحديثة التي يتم تقديمها للمعلمين. فمن الجانب التطبيقي تعد أغلب الأساليب التقنية الحديثة أو الرقمية تتمتع ببعض الخصائص التي تجعل تطبيقها بطريقةمباشرة صعبة.
كما أن التحول الرقمي يسيطر على أغلب المهام المقدمة في العملية التعليمية والذي ارتبط بالتقدم السريع في التكنولوجيا وساهم في تقديم حلول مبتكرة في مختلف القطاعات، وتحسين جذري في إنجاز المهام.
وتوفر المعرفة التكنولوجية والتربوية والمحتوى TPACK العديد من الاحتمالات لتعزيز التعليم، والتطوير المهني للمعلمين، واستخدام المعلمين للتكنولوجيا. وهي توفر الخيارات المتاحة المتعلقة بالظاهرة المعقدة مثل تكامل التكنولوجيا بطرق قابلة للتحليل والتطوير. وعلاوة على ذلك، فإنها تتيح للمعلمين لتجاوز نهج التبسيط التي تتعامل مع التكنولوجيا على الربط بين التكنولوجيا والمحتوى وطرق التدريس لأنها تلعب بها في سياقات الفصول الدراسية.
الكلمات المفتاحية المحتوى التكنولوجي – التدريس الذكي
Tarif University staff’s Perceptions of Using Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) as a smart Teaching Method
Instructional technology Assistant professor – college of education – Taif University – Saudi Arabia
Abstract
Indeed, TPACK development by teachers is critical to effect educational process with technology. The nature of technologies whether analog or digital is considered, as well as how the inclusion of technology in pedagogy further complicates teaching. The researcher thoughts are filled with many ideas for determining college staff members’ views about updating educational materials based on needs related to students educational environment – time… etc. by using technology and the extent of educational content linked to design activities for enriching educational process, in order to raise educational process quality. Using different techniques and methods of education should take into account individual differences among students. In addition to reliance on modern means of communication such as (blogs -social networks and e-mails)
Teaching with technology is complicated according to various challenges of newer technologies presented to teachers. As a matter of practical significance, however, most of the technologies under consideration in current literature are newer, digital and have some inherent properties that make applying them in straightforward ways difficult.
Digital transformation is dominating headlines in the educational process. This is characterized by rapid advancement in technology, we are witnessing the advent of innovative solutions across various industry verticals with multiple use cases, drastically improving the way we interact or accomplish tasks.
TPACK offers several possibilities for promoting education, teacher professional development, and teachers’ use of technology. It offers available options related to complex phenomenon like technology integration in ways that are amenable to analysis and development. Besides also, it allows teachers, to move beyond oversimplified approaches that treat technology upon connections among technology, content, and pedagogy as they play out in classroom contexts..
Key words: Technological content – smart teaching
Introduction
Technological, pedagogical and content knowledge are three interrelated items can significantly enhance the quality of college teaching and support their efforts to conduct online teaching successfully. Thus, technological infrastructures and TPACK development when deployed effectively can help in utilizing the powerful features of instructional technology to support and enhance the process of teaching and learning
Teaching is a complicated practice that requires interweaving many kinds of specialized knowledge. In this way, teaching is an example of an ill-structured discipline, requiring teachers to apply complex knowledge structures across different cases and contexts. Teaching practices have crafted in highly complex, dynamic classroom contexts that require constantly shifting and evolving understanding. Thus, effective teaching depends on flexible access to rich, well-organized and integrated knowledge from different domains including students’ knowledge thinking and learning, knowledge of subject matter, and increasingly, knowledge of technology.
Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) constitutes the main required knowledge for college’s members to conduct online classes successfully (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). The development of TPACK knowledge for college’s members at SUs is as crucial as technology infrastructure development. As technology is the tool that is used by instructors in the educational field. Without updating the knowledge and skills of college’s members, the effective use of technology for instruction will not be achieved. Also, the nature of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge is interrelated. The lacks of knowledge of any type of that different knowledge will form a strong barrier that reduces the feasibility of using instructional technology in the learning process (Bingimlas, 2009).
In a descriptive way, researchers found that technological knowledge development of educators in SUs can help them to go beyond social and business use of technological tools and adapt them for teaching and learning purposes (Technology, 2008). For example, web-based interaction that is increasing today for social networking and business administration can be used by educators for increasing interaction with instructional content, among learners and between learners and educators. Thus, developing educator’s knowledge about technology capability to accommodate their pedagogical purposes are crucial (Technology, 2008). But before that, we need to shed light on college electronic knowledge at different universities.
The top ten frequent software in online social activities are word processing software, wikis, concept mapping software, multimedia editing software, web authoring software, multimedia display software, blogs, presentation software primary and secondary sources (paper-based and virtual) and chat. Some of this software is very common to be used by faculty in their daily life such as word processing software, wikis, multimedia display software, blogs, presentation software, secondary sources (paper-based and virtual) and chat. But we still need development in faculty knowledge and skills in using concept mapping software, Multimedia editing software, Web authoring software..
According to researches experience from their work, they found that users with intermediate technology knowledge, they can author their website by using authoring tools. Also, they can use their intermediate knowledge of technology to use LMS to upload PowerPoint presentation slides and set the deadline for the course activities. But in general, those are considered to be few of college members who are young and use self-learning for their professional development. In addition to that, users with limited technical knowledgeability are the college majority. They have a basic knowledge of computer use such as to write, edit or send emails. Also, they can use Microsoft Word to type exam questions and use the university online grading system. In general, they can use a computer to achieve different needs in an acceptable way
The researcher observed through reading the newest trends in technology and education helped in improving the educational process among these trends:
Firstly: Cloud-based technology, in 2018, cloud computing will continue to make learning a more streamlined experience for learners. They will no longer worry about files and documents being lost or deleted or buying multiple USB flash drives to save their assignments. Essays, content related to projects, schedules and assignments will be shared more easily and securely stored on the cloud, such as Google Docs. With more centralized storage for resources, cloud-based technology will allow educators to increase their reach and share information without increased expenditure, or additional time pressure
Secondly: Virtual and augmented reality, SMT will provide teachers with tools for delivering enhanced learning experiences through augmented and virtual reality in 2018. Teachers are increasingly using AR to layer virtual content on printed materials to enhance understanding and inspiration. With the release of increasingly affordable and accessible VR accessories, we can expect more from this technology in 2018. The number of free apps and teaching platforms designed specifically for virtual education is growing. VR and AR will move from experimental to ubiquitous in learning. Work with your IT team to review the available devices, and make sure you investigate the costs of emulating a real work environment effectively
Thirdly STEAM; There has been a strong pedagogical focus to increase the digital literacy of pupils, and encourage more students to adopt tech-focused subjects over the past few years. This has ensured children grow into more responsible citizens, as well as fostering key transferable skills for their futures. STEM classes are perceived as the most technologically-advanced of the curriculum. More traditional arts and humanities subjects, however, are recognized as catching up in their use of educational technology
Educational technology will be used extensively in 2018 to monitor learners’ technology, track the use of search terms that they use, as well as all visited websites. More apps will allow teachers and SMTs to remotely view any of their students’ devices. Other technologies will be applied directly to pupils’ devices to monitor the tone of voice, location services, image scanning, keyword flagging, and social media activity
Technology for learning in 2018 will improve engagement and motivation across all learning abilities. Mobile learning will also offer greater flexibility and accessibility for learning at home. Connecting mobile technology and devices within the classroom will allow teachers to provide a fully immersive, integrated learning experience for all learning styles and abilities
According to different electronic learning literacy among college members, any development plan should take into consideration variation of technological knowledge among them and set right plan that appropriate variation of college knowledge and
skills., although college who want to teach online are advised to join technical training
(Ray, 2009)
New educational systems influenced by instructional technology integration and must
be redesigned and updated to take full advantage ofnew digital tools
Research problem
The research problems that were tackled were two as follows
* Limitation of TAPCK training programs presented in education college at Taif university that present applying electronic learning principles
*Exploring acceptance or rejection factors of TPACK training programs which upgrade their level among education college’s members at Taif University
From the researcher’s observation and informal interviews with many college members, their technological knowledge can be categorized into three levels: high, intermediate and low. For users with high knowledge of technology, they can design and develop instructional websites by using programming languages such as PHP or ASP. In addition, they can use LMS to professionally generate the report and successfully track learners. Not only that but also they can design and develop multimedia elements such as image or animation in 2D or 3D shape effectively. But their number is limited since the majority of those faculties with high technology level come from the field of computer science
Researcher find out questions, their answers may be a suggested solution to the research problem, the main question is as the following
?What is the level of assessing TPACK among education college members at Taif university
This question can be divided into the following sub-questions
(Q 1) What are elements used for measuring TPACK level among education college members at Taif ?university
(Q 2) What are the differences in TPACK level among education college members at Taif university
(Q 3) what are difficulties faces education college members at Taif University in
TPACK
(Q 4) what are ways used for TPACK applying of education college members at Taif university
Research objectives & Importance
Achieving a successful and accepted training design for TPACK development can increase the practicality of training staff members at Taif University. The researcher tried to evaluate and assess the level of deep TPACK among college members at Taif University. Therefore, in this research, the researcher identifies training needs on educational technical knowledge use related to educational content in the educational process. According to recommendations of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Education intended to develop suitable policies and to create an ideal environment that support faculty and learners in using instructional technologies support the integration of e- learning and distance learning in Saudi universities
The objectives of the current research are in the following points
. 1-Determine elements used for measuring TPACK level among education college members at Taif university
. Identify differences in TPACK level among education college members at Taif University-2
. 3-Outline difficulties face education college members at Taif University in TPACK
. Measure TPACK applying of education college members at Taif University-4
Research limits
The results of current research Can be disseminated in light of the following parameters
A – Thematic Reduction: research is limited to evaluating TPACK level among college members at Taif University
B – Spatial limit: limited application of research tools on education college members at Taif University.
Research procedures
The researcher followed the coming steps to conduct this research
. 1.Revised review of the literature and previous research studies, in Arabic and foreign periodicals, and closely related to the current research.
Prepare a list of TPACK elements to measure education college members level at Taif University.2
Find and select a sample which will be represented in a voluntary sample of.3
. education college members at Taif University Applying pre-research tools on the sample.4
. Processing data statistically using the statistical software package for the Social Sciences.5
. Discussing results, making recommendations and presenting the proposed project.6
Research Tools
The researcher collected data through applying TPACK Assessment Questionnaire which presents two types of data: quantitative data and qualitative data. Both data types were effective in evaluating TAPCK. Also, non-random sampling technique was used as the research purpose required using this technique. In addition, the researcher reported the selection of suitable instrumentations, validation process by experts and the completion of the reliability test was done
Research Sample
A random sample from education college staff consist of 60 members in Taif University
Research Methodology
The researcher used both
First, descriptive and analytical approach the researcher studied the review of literature related to the subject matter, so that the preparation of research tools, as the survey to reach the standards of recruitment technology, e-learning to achieve the total quality. Besides in the phases of analysis, design, production, and development, the researcher identified the characteristics of learners, and program objectives for the electronic proposed program, and its outputs
Second semi-empirical approach
The researcher followed the approach in quasi-experimental stage and final evaluation of the sample; to determine the TPACK level of education college members at Taif University
Research Hypotheses
There is a statistically significant difference at the level of ≤ 0.05 between average scores of TPACK level of education college members at Taif University
Research Terms
(TPACK) is an abbreviation for Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge. PACK is the basis of good teaching with technology and requires an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge and to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones. (P:1029)
Conclusion & results
lit is important for every teacher to understand the concepts of TPACK because our world is becoming more and more technologically advanced. Students are used to having technology in their daily lives and the constant stimulation they provide. For this reason, it would be unwise for a teacher to completely ignore technology or leave it out of the classroom. Technology is becoming an imperative aspect of classroom learning. However, technology must be used wisely and purposefully. It should only be incorporated into a lesson plan if it will enhance the students’ learning.
This leads to an important aspect of TPACK: it is not only about technology. foremost, a teacher should know the subject they are teaching and how to teach it. Technology does not replace pedagogical or content knowledge, but rather adds another dimension to it. Arguably, the most effective teachers will be ones that understand and use the concepts of TPACK in the educational process.
The researcher collected data through applying TPACK Assessment Questionnaire and the results were presented as the following
| Average | Percentage | participates | Response | Questionnaire statements | s |
| 0.3 | 30 | 18 | Strongly agree | Using smart teaching technology through applying electronic – multimedia based on needs (students – educational environment time … and others -. | 1 |
| 0.416 | 41.66 | 25 | Agree | ||
| 0.083 | 8.33 | 5 | Neutral | ||
| 0.066 | 6.66 | 4 | Disagree | ||
| 0.133 | 13.33 | 8 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.366 | 36.66 | 22 | Strongly agree | Develop ways of applying smart technology to identify students’ needs associated with educational content | 2 |
| 0.4 | 40 | 24 | Agree | ||
| 0.05 | 5 | 3 | Neutral | ||
| 0.0833 | 8.33 | 5 | Disagree | ||
| 0.1 | 10 | 6 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.3 | 30 | 18 | Strongly agree | Get benefits of smart technology to design educational activities according to students needs for enriching educational process. | 3 |
| 0.516 | 51.66 | 31 | Agree | ||
| 0.033 | 3.33 | 2 | Neutral | ||
| 0.016 | 1.66 | 1 | Disagree | ||
| 0.133 | 13.33 | 8 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.183 | 18.33 | 11 | Strongly agree | Planning the educational process based on smart technological resources | 4 |
| 0.466 | 46.66 | 28 | Agree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Neutral | ||
| 0.05 | 5 | 3 | Disagree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.183 | 18.33 | 11 | Strongly agree | Identifying needs for using smart technology in educational process in order to raise quality of educational process | 5 |
| 0.45 | 45 | 27 | Agree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Neutral | ||
| 0.066 | 6.6 | 4 | Disagree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.283 | 28.33 | 7 | Strongly agree | Using lecture time to be the best use of smart technology through applying for example electronic programs, virtual labs | 6 |
| 0.416 | 25 | Agree |
| Average | Percentage | participates | Response | Questionnaire statements | s |
| 0.0833 | 8.33 | 5 | Neutral | ||
| 0.116 | 11.66 | 7 | Disagree | ||
| 0.1 | 10 | 6 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.183 | 18.33 | 11 | Strongly agree | Designing suitable measuring tool for learning acquisition using smart technology | 7 |
| 0.333 | 33.33 | 20 | Agree | ||
| 0.266 | 26.66 | 16 | Neutral | ||
| 0.05 | 5 | 3 | Disagree | ||
| 0.166 | 16.66 | 10 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.233 | 23.33 | 14 | Strongly agree | Evaluating methods of teaching methods and smart technological elements and then add them to decision to display the scientific material in an effective manner | 8 |
| 0.416 | 41.66 | 25 | Agree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Neutral | ||
| 0.066 | 6.66 | 4 | Disagree | ||
| 0.133 | 13.33 | 8 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.233 | 23.33 | 14 | Strongly agree | Using smart technology to design appropriate educational tools in order to provide an effective educational process. | 9 |
| 0.416 | 41.66 | 25 | Agree | ||
| 0.133 | 13.33 | 8 | Neutral | ||
| 0.066 | 6.66 | 4 | Disagree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.233 | 23.33 | 14 | Strongly agree | Organizing learning environment in a manner suitable for the use of smart technology | 10 |
| 0.45 | 45 | 27 | Agree | ||
| 0.116 | 11.66 | 7 | Neutral | ||
| 0.066. | 6.66. | 4 | Disagree | ||
| 0.133 | 13.33 | 8 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.2 | 20 | 12 | Strongly agree | Applying and managing the educational process during the lecture in which there is the use of smart technology. | 11 |
| 0.45 | 45 | 27 | Agree | ||
| 0.166 | 16.6 | 10 | Neutral | ||
| 0.066 | 6.66 | 4 | Disagree | ||
| 0.116 | 11.66 | 7 | Strongly disagree |
| Average | Percentage | participates | Response | Questionnaire statements | s |
| 0.183 | 18.33 | 11 | Strongly agree | Assessing students’ knowledge of scientific article through smart technology use. | 12 |
| 0.51 | 51.66 | 31 | Agree | ||
| 0.083 | 8.33 | 5 | Neutral | ||
| 0.05 | 5 | 3 | Disagree | ||
| 0.166 | 10 | 10 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.2 | 20 | 12 | Strongly agree | Using different techniques and methods of education take into account individual differences among students by using smart technology. | 13 |
| 0.45 | 45 | 27 | Agree | ||
| 0.2 | 20 | 12 | Neutral | ||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | Disagree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.266 | 26.66 | 16 | Strongly agree | Evaluating methods of teaching methods and smart technological elements and then add them to decision to display the scientific material in an effective manner | 14 |
| 0.383 | 38.33 | 23 | Agree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Neutral | ||
| 0.05 | 5 | 3 | Disagree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.316 | 31.66 | 19 | Strongly agree | Using smart technology to design appropriate educational tools in order to provide an effective educational process. | 15 |
| 0.366 | 36.66 | 22 | Agree | ||
| 0.1 | 10 | 6 | Neutral | ||
| 0.083 | 6.66 | 5 | Disagree | ||
| 0.133 | 13.33 | 8 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.183 | 18.33 | 11 | Strongly agree | Organizing learning environment in a manner suitable for the use of smart technology | 16 |
| 0.433 | 43.33 | 26 | Agree | ||
| 0.183 | 18.33 | 11 | Neutral | ||
| 0.083 | 8.33 | 5 | Disagree | ||
| 0.116 | 11.66 | 7 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.25 | 25 | 15 | Strongly agree | Applying and managing the educational process during the lecture in which there is the use of smart technology. | 17 |
| 0.5 | 50 | 30 | Agree | ||
| 0.116 | 11.66 | 7 | Neutral | ||
| 0.033 | 3.33 | 2 | Disagree |
| Average | Percentage | participates | Response | Questionnaire statements | s |
| 0.1 | 10 | 6 | Strongly agree | ||
| 0.25 | 25 | 15 | Strongly agree | Guiding students through design smart technological products such as digital activities | 18 |
| 0.33 | 33.33 | 20 | Agree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Neutral | ||
| 0.133 | 13.33 | 8 | Disagree | ||
| 0.133 | 13.33 | 8 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.166 | 16.66 | 10 | Strongly agree | Using smart technology innovations like social media (facebook- twitter – podcast … and others) to support the teaching and learning process | 19 |
| 0.43 | 43.33 | 26 | Agree | ||
| 0.183 | 18.33 | 11 | Neutral | ||
| 0.066 | 6.66 | 4 | Disagree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.266 | 26.66 | 16 | Strongly agree | Using smart technology to update knowledge and skills teaching | 20 |
| 0.466 | 46.66 | 28 | Agree | ||
| 0.116 | 11.66 | 7 | Neutral | ||
| 0.05 | 5 | 3 | Disagree | ||
| 0.1 | 10 | 6 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.283 | 28.33 | 17 | Strongly agree | Developing smart technical knowledge to serve the teaching process. | 21 |
| 0.45 | 45 | 27 | Agree | ||
| 0.083 | 8.33 | 5 | Neutral | ||
| 0.066 | 6.66 | 4 | Disagree | ||
| 0.116 | 11.66 | 7 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.25 | 25 | 15 | Strongly agree | Using smart technology to keep knowledge of educational content up to date. | 22 |
| 0.416 | 41.66 | 25 | Agree | ||
| 0.416 | 16.66 | 10 | Neutral | ||
| 0.066 | 6.66 | 4 | Disagree | ||
| 0.1 | 10 | 6 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.166 | 16.66 | 10 | Strongly agree | Giving students equal opportunities to use smart technology | 23 |
| 0.466 | 46.66 | 28 | Agree | ||
| 0.166 | 16.66 | 10 | Neutral | ||
| 0.083 | 8.33 | 5 | Disagree |
| Average | Percentage | participates | Response | Questionnaire statements | s |
| 0.11 | 11.66 | 7 | Strongly dis agree | ||
| 0.3 | 30 | 18 | Strongly agree | Following ethics of smart technology to information access (-line audio recordings and videos … etc.) and ethics of use during the learning process. | 24 |
| 0.5 | 50 | 30 | Agree | ||
| 0.05 | 5 | 3 | Neutral | ||
| 0.05 | 5 | 3 | Disagree | ||
| 0.1 | 10 | 6 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.316 | 31.66 | 19 | Strongly agree | Using smart technology through various carryover for the lesson taking intellectual property rights into accoun | 25 |
| 0.466 | 46.66 | 28 | Agree | ||
| 0.066 | 6.66 | 4 | Neutral | ||
| 0.033 | 3.33 | 2 | Disagree | ||
| 0.11 | 11.66 | 7 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.233 | 23.33 | 14 | Strongly agree | Following ethics of professional education through the use of e-learning environments such as blackboard system | 26 |
| 0.416 | 41.66 | 25 | Agree | ||
| 0.083 | 8.33 | 5 | Neutral | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Disagree | ||
| 0.11 | 11.66 | 7 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.25 | 25 | 15 | Strongly agree | Providing necessary guidance for students to use electronic resources documented and highly credible. | 27 |
| 0.45 | 45 | 27 | Agree | ||
| 0.133 | 13.33 | 8 | Neutral | ||
| 0.05 | 5 | 3 | Disagree | ||
| 0.11 | 11.66 | 7 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.3 | 30 | 18 | Strongly agree | Taking into account the use of smart technology ethics and morality in an educational environmen | 28 |
| 0.51 | 51.66 | 31 | Agree | ||
| 0.5 | 5 | 3 | Neutral | ||
| 0.033 | 3.33 | 2 | Disagree | ||
| 0.1 | 10 | 6 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Strongly agree | Finding solutions to any problem can be located through the use of learning environments such as via blackboard system | 29 |
| 0.33 | 33.33 | 20 | Agree | ||
| 0.183 | 18.33 | 11 | Neutral |
| Average | Percentage | participates | Response | Questionnaire statements | s |
| 0.183 | 18.33 | 11 | Disagree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Strongly dis agree | ||
| 0.183 | 18.33 | 11 | Strongly agree | Finding solutions to any problem could occur when smart technology use in any stage of the educational process | 30 |
| 0.283 | 28.33 | 17 | Agree | ||
| 0.2 | 20 | 12 | Neutral | ||
| 0.183 | 18.33 | 11 | Disagree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.25 | 25 | 15 | Strongly agree | Using smart technology through various carryover for the lesson taking intellectual property rights into accoun | 31 |
| 0.433 | 43.33 | 26 | Agree | ||
| 0.01 | 10 | 6 | Neutral | ||
| 0.01 | 10 | 6 | Disagree | ||
| 0.11 | 11.66 | 7 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.21 | 21.66 | 13 | Strongly agree | Following ethics of professional education through the use of e-learning environments such as blackboard system | 32 |
| 0.433 | 43.33 | 26 | Agree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Neutral | ||
| 0.083 | 8.33 | 5 | Disagree | ||
| 0.11 | 11.66 | 7 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.233 | 23.33 | 14 | Strongly agree | Providing necessary guidance for students to use electronic resources documented and highly credible. | 33 |
| 0.41 | 41.66 | 25 | Agree | ||
| 0.133 | 13.33 | 8 | Neutral | ||
| 0.083 | 8.33 | 5 | Disagree | ||
| 0.133 | 13.33 | 8 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.266 | 26.66 | 16 | Strongly agree | Taking into account the use of smart technology ethics and morality in an educational environmen | 34 |
| 0.51 | 51.66 | 31 | Agree | ||
| 0.066 | 6.66 | 4 | Neutral | ||
| 0.05 | 5 | 3 | Disagree | ||
| 0.11 | 11.66 | 7 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.21 | 21.66 | 13 | Strongly agree | Choosing technologies that will be used in the lecture to improve what teaching increases students’ learning as well | 35 |
| 0.533 | 53.33 | 32 | Agree |
| Average | Percentage | participates | Response | Questionnaire statements | s |
| 0.133 | 13.33 | 8 | Neutral | ||
| 0.016 | 1.66 | 1 | Disagree | ||
| 0.1 | 10 | 6 | Strongly dis agree | ||
| 0.2 | 20 | 12 | Strongly agree | Finding solutions to any problem could occur when smart technology use in any stage of the educational process | 36 |
| 0.433 | 43.33 | 26 | Agree | ||
| 0.21 | 21.66 | 13 | Neutral | ||
| 0.033 | 3.33 | 2 | Disagree | ||
| 0.11 | 11.66 | 7 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.2 | 20 | 12 | Strongly agree | Using smart technology through various carryover for the lesson taking intellectual property rights into accoun | 37 |
| 0.46 | 46.66 | 28 | Agree | ||
| 0.166 | 16.66 | 10 | Neutral | ||
| 0.05 | 5 | 3 | Disagree | ||
| 0.11 | 11.66 | 7 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.2 | 20 | 12 | Strongly agree | Following ethics of professional education through the use of e-learning environments such as blackboard system | 38 |
| 0.48 | 48.33 | 29 | Agree | ||
| 0.183 | 18.33 | 11 | Neutral | ||
| 0.033 | 3.33 | 2 | Disagree | ||
| 0.1 | 10 | 6 | Strongly disagree | ||
| 0.133 | 13.33 | 8 | Strongly agree | Providing necessary guidance for students to use electronic resources documented and highly credible. | 39 |
| 0.35 | 35 | 21 | Agree | ||
| 0.25 | 25 | 15 | Neutral | ||
| 0.11 | 11.66 | 7 | Disagree | ||
| 0.15 | 15 | 9 | Strongly disagree |
Recommendations for Future Research
The researcher recommended the following as a future area of researches
TPACK, with pedagogical knowledge, have the largest impact.*
Implications for designing the ICT instruction so this need more
research to get an impact on the educational process
The Technology Pedagogy Content Knowledge (TPACK)*
framework attempts to elaborate on the 3 essential types of knowledge
required by teachers for successful technology integration
References
1-Abelman, R. (2007) ‘Fighting the War on Independence: Mediating TV, Internet, and Videogame Usage among Achieving and Underachieving Gifted Children’, Roeper Review, Vol 29, pp 100- 12.
2-Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in Teaching and Learning Environments: A review of the Literature. Barriers to The Successful Integration of ICT in Teaching and Learning Environments: A review of the Literature. 5(3), 235-245.
Bull, G., Bell, L., & Hammond, T. (2008). Advancing TPCK through-3
collaborations across educational associations. Handbook of Technological Content Pedagogical Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators, New York: Routledge, 273-287.
. 4-Bury, R. and Li, J. (2015) ‘Is it live or is it timeshifted, streamed or downloaded? Watching television in the era of multiple screens’, New Media & Society, Vol. 17(4) 592-610.
5-Friel, T., Britten, J., Compton, B., Peak, A., Schoch, K., and VanTyle, W. K. (2009). Using pedagogical dialogue as a vehicle to encourage faculty technology use. Computers & Education.53, 300- 307.
6-Haddon, L (2016) ‘The Domestication of Complex Media Repertoires’, in Thorhauge, A.M. & Alysson, B. (Eds.) The Media and the Mundane: Communication across Media in Everyday Life, Routledge, Oxford. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68467/
. 7-Koca, S. A., & Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4-24
8-Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological–9
pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology-9
and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved from
http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article1.cfm
.Lim, S-S and Pham, B. (2016) ‘”If you are a foreigner in a foreign-10
country, you stick together”: Technologically mediated
communication and acculturation of migrant students, New media
and Society, Vol.18, (10) 2171-2188.
.Mishra, P., and Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical-11
Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge.
Teachers College Record.108(6), 1017–1054.
.Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2007). Technological pedagogical content-12
knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching
with technology. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society
for Information Technology and Teacher Education International
Conference 2007 (pp. 2214-2226). Chesapeake, VA: Association for
the Advancement of Computing in Education.
.Niess, M. (2008). Guiding preservice teachers in developing TPCK.13
Handbook of Technological Content Pedagogical Knowledge
(TPCK) for Educators, New York: Routledge, 223-250. –
.Ray, J. (2009). Faculty Perspective: Training and Course-14
Development for the Online Classroom. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching.5(2)
.Technology, A. C. o. I. a. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of Technological-15
pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for Educators: Routledge/
Taylor & Francis Group
Contextualized Parental Mediation Practices of Young Children’s.16-Zaman, B., et al. (2016). “A Qualitative Inquiry into the Digital Media Use at Home.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media
