Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at King Saud University

Subject: Education
Pages: 20
Words: 6795
Reading time:
35 min
Study level: PhD

Abstract

The problem of integrating technology into the classroom based on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) theoretical framework based on the elements used to build the framework for the students at King Saud University has not been fully investigated. Academic literature shows a gap on how the elements influence the adoption of technology into the classroom situation and the effects of the factors on the knowledge acquisition by students in King Saud University. To address the gap, the study was conducted for three months involving both male and female pre-services student teachers in the faculty of education in King Saud University. The goal was to demonstrate how the elements that make the TPACK theoretical framework impact the knowledge and integration of technology into the classroom for the acquisition of content with specialized focus on the TPK, TC, TK, TC, and PCK components. The methodology involved issuing questionnaires and analysing the results from 150 students from college of Education (75 females and 75 males) that enrolled in second semester 2014. They were distributed across different department: Psychology, Art Education, and Islamic study, Special education, and Quranic to answer the research questions. The results showed that a significant population was aware of the TPACK components, and that the TPACK elements were positive about the use of the elements that make the TPACK theoretical framework useful for the acquisition and teaching in class using technology. From the results it was clear that further research needs to be conducted on the students’ abilities to use technology for content acquisition and delivery in the classroom.

In only 3 hours we’ll deliver a custom Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at King Saud University essay written 100% from scratch Learn more

Introduction

Promoting student centered learning using technology has shown a strong trend of adoption for students in King Saud University (Alsofyani, Aris, Eynon & Majid, 2012). The rationale for integrating into the classroom is to gain student engagement in the acquisition of the subject matter based on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) theoretical framework. Alsofyani et al. (2012) maintain that by decomposing the theoretical framework into the three constituent elements of technology, pedagogy, and content, a further decomposition occurs at the points of intersection of the three elements, yielding the Technological Knowledge (TK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) which constitute the TPACK theoretical framework (Marino, Sameshima & Beecher, 2009). However, little research has been conducted to evaluate the use and integration of the TPACK framework components for the students at King Saud University (Tsai & Chai, 2012). The gap in knowledge in academia on the use of TPACK theoretical framework has motivated this study by focusing on the synthesis of literature on the connection between the components that make TPACK framework and the effects on instructional acquisition by students in King Saud University. The TPACK theoretical framework provides an explanation of the knowledge base required by pre-service teachers to effectively learn in a specific educational context defined by content, technology, and pedagogy. This study will be based on a review of journals on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) theoretical framework with specialized focus on the students’ skill and knowledge on the use of the key components of the framework in the context of students in the King Saud University.

Statement of the Problem

A significant gap on the capabilities, skills, and knowledge of the learners and the connection between each of the items based on a scale defined by Technological Knowledge (TK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) items has not been studied when used for instructional content delivery, learning, and teaching methodologies among the students in King Saud University (Moghaddam, 2010). The problem has led to the question on how integrating the elements of the theoretical TPACK framework affect the knowledge and skill of the students in learning and delivering educational content.

Purpose and Objectives

The “aim of the study was to assess the TPACK of Students at King Saud University with specific focus on Technological Knowledge (TK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), the constructs of the TPACK theoretical framework” (Moghaddam, 2010, p.23).

  1. To determine the components that constitute the entire TPACK theoretical framework;
  2. To investigate the impact of the elements that constitute the TPACK theoretical framework;
  3. To investigate the benefits learners and teachers gain from the use of the TPACK framework;
  4. To investigate the measures that constitute the TPACK framework in higher institutions of education;
  5. To determine how the TPACK framework is used to integrate technology in classroom;
  6. To investigate the obstacles experienced when implementing TPACK framework in the classroom.

Significance of the Study

Integrating technology into the learning framework of King Saud university students is in tandem with the current trend of using technology in the classroom for content delivery such as the use of ICT in the classroom. However, the current research fills the gap on the notion of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) adoption and use as a theoretical framework for integrating technology for knowledge acquisition and content delivery in education underpinning the importance of the study.

Research Questions

  1. What components constitute the entire TPACK theoretical framework?
  2. What is the impact of elements of the TPACK theoretical framework?
  3. What benefits do learners and teachers gain in the delivery of content using the TPACK framework?
  4. What measures constitute the TPACK measurements in higher institutions of education?
  5. How is TPACK framework used to integrate technology in class?
  6. What are the obstacles experienced when implementing TPACK framework in the classroom?

Research Hypothesis

Hypothesis: TPACK is a theoretical framework that, when developed using the Technological Knowledge (TK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) constructs, effectively fits into the classroom content acquisition among the King Saud University students.

Literature Review

The TPACK Framework

Alayyar, Fisser and Voogt (2012) maintain that the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a theoretical framework that enables teachers to combine multiple domains of the students’ knowledge acquisition strategies into understanding how learning and instructional processes can be integrated for the benefit of the teacher and the student. The work by Alayyar et al. (2012) suggests that the three primary domains of the TPACK theoretical framework include technology, content, and pedagogy represents the entire TPACK framework (Swan & Hofer, 2011). The “three framework components form intersections that create four additional components and the connection between the elements and TPCK framework include Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)” (Alayyar et al., 2012, p.5). Here, the “Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) that are combined to form the seven components defined in the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) domain” (Barnett, 2010, p.28).

Academic experts
available
We will write a custom Education essay specifically for you for only $16.00 $11/page Learn more

According to Archambault and Barnett (2010), the teacher’s knowledge was one of the components used to measure TPACK in the context of using technology to teach. To address the knowledge problem, Archambault and Barnett (2010) used a methodology consisting of lesson plans, technology selection and acceptance, fit of content, curriculum goals and technologies, student work, and the instructional strategy to measure TPACK among pre-service teachers (Jaipal & Figg, 2010).

The TPACK Framework and Constructs

Published articles in academic literature define technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) as a theoretical framework or a specialized form of knowledge that teachers possess or should use to integrate technology into the delivery of instructions to the student in the classroom (Hamdan, 2010). The key components depicted by Hamdan (2010) in the definition include the technological knowledge (TK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and content knowledge (CK). It is obvious from academic literature by various authors such as Hamdan (2010), Harris, Mishra and Koehler (2009) among others that TK refers to the technological tools that are used to deliver content or instructions to students in the classroom such as computer software programs. Different reviews show that TK incorporates the specialized areas where the TK theoretical framework is applied which include “classroom management issues, pedagogical approaches such bas problem-based learning and knowledge about students’ psychology” (Alayyar, et al., 2012, p.2).

TPACK Components

A structured approach to measuring TPACK provides the foundation for decomposing the subject matter into three components that include technological content knowledge (TCK), PCK, and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) for content delivery (Alayyar et al., 2012). The measures are based on the uniqueness of each element in the framework that plays a significant role in defining the way learners are taught the content and how they are represented by using technology without regard to the implementation process. A study by Lee, Mohamed and Altamimi (2014), for instance, demonstrates how pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is used to refer to the teaching and the transformation of knowledge process on how the content is interpreted by the teacher and understood by the student, determining how the content can be represented, and covers the core elements of instruction delivery and acquisition. In addition, “PCK covers the items of student learning assessments, use of instructional materials, pedagogy, and reporting. Here, the relationship between PCK and the TPACK framework is at the intersection between the content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical knowledge (PK)” (Lee et al., p.23). Content knowledge (CK) details the ability of the student to understand the theories, organizational frameworks, concepts, ideas, proof and evidence underpinning the best practices for the acquisition of knowledge by the student, providing a measurement scale to determine the competence of the student on the subject matter.

According to Levinsen, Ørngreen and Buhl (2013), the pedagogical content knowledge is applicable only for the teaching and acquisition of specific content that has been transformed to address the specialized needs of the student. The “underlying rationale is to focus on content based ideas to help the student, teaching and knowledge acquisition strategies, appropriate teaching methods, student prior knowledge, and alternative and effective ways of teaching and learning” (Levinsen et al., 2013, p.34). The entire framework components, the intersection among them and connection of each component with the TPACK framework is shown in figure 1.

Technological pedagogigcal content
Figure 1

The Benefits of Implementing the TPACK Framework

A study by Swan and Hofer (2011) evaluated several studies that had been conducted to determine the benefits of using technological pedagogical content knowledge theoretical framework to teach different subjects in the classroom. One area of interest pointed out by Swan and Hofer (2011) was using ICT to teach subject content. The study yielded significant portions of knowledge on the methodologies that were used to determine if the framework was worth adopting. The study on the use of the theoretical framework to teach in the classroom revealed that the theory provided a profound impact on the design, implementation and expansion of existing concepts (Swan & Hofer, 2011). In addition, the use of the theory enabled the use of technology to analyze fragmented geometric shapes and objects when they are reduced into similar copies of the same object.

Koh, Chai and Tsai (2010) argue that when the framework is used to enhance the delivery of content, the first component revolves around the conception of the teacher and the use of technology to deliver content to the student. A synthesis of the situation shows that TPACK allows teachers to make the subject matter more comprehensible and easily accessible to the learners. Koh, Chai and Tsai (2010) maintain that the components of instructional knowledge and the general principles of instructions using technology increase the responsibilities assigned to teachers in delivering content to the student (Chai, Ling Koh, Tsai & Lee, 2011).

According to Koh et al. (2010) and Keengwe (2013), when technology is pedagogically used appropriately, the students are able to learn the subject content concepts appropriately through the use of presentations, applications, examples, and demonstrations (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Koehler and Mishra (2009) and Keengwe (2013) maintain that integrating technology to seek for solution to subject matter problems that students experience when solving problems with fractions can enable the students to solve the problems properly. However, the ability of a student to use technology to solve Psychology, Art Education, and Islamic study, Special education, and Quranic studies problems depends on how the teacher has prepared the content (Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Mishra, Koehler & Shin, 2009).

15% OFF Get your very first custom-written academic paper with 15% off Get discount

Koehler and Mishra (2009) agree with Jang and Chen (2010) that using technology provides the teacher with the ability to orchestrate the classroom environment when new opportunities and technologies arise (McComas, 2013). Here, the instructional component of technology enables the teacher to adjust the instructions to the varying needs of students who have diverse abilities. In addition, when technology has been integrated into the teaching of students, it is possible for the teacher to use technology to stimulate the students’ interest in Psychology, Art Education, Islamic study, Special education, and Quranic studies (Holmgren, 2014). Holmgren (2014) argues that different types of technologies exist that can serve different needs of the students by enabling the teacher to send different problems and instructions to the students to be able to solve them and acquire refined skills in Psychology, Art Education, Islamic study, Special education, and Quranic studies via the school’s network (McComas, 2013).

Management

McComas (2013) argues that management component of the TPACK theoretical framework enables teachers to solve management problems seldom encountered by the teachers. Issues such as students sending games and other abusive messages can be handled by making constant access to the activities performed by each student on the internet. Some applications such as the Texas Instrument (TI) Navigator system enables the teacher to create a snapshot of the student’s work at any time in the learning process to be aware of insidious activities that are not permitted in the classroom to take the necessary measures to counter such a situation (Moghaddam, 2010). In addition, the management component of the system allows the teacher to deal with the physical environment and to solve technical problems that arise in the course of instructions delivery.

In-depth Comprehension of Content

Schmidt et al. (2009) conducted studies on the benefits of using the technology and showed that it was important for the teacher to fully comprehend the depth and scope of content to enable the learners to realize the benefits of using the technological framework. For instance, the teacher has to comprehend the subject matter properly to use the technology to teach subjects such as Psychology, Art Education, Islamic study, Special education, and Quranic studies using the technology. However, researchers agree that when technology is placed in the hands of the students, the students find it possible to explore the subject content in details and that becomes necessary for the teacher to master the content being taught the students. When the teacher has explored content and acquired the detailed skill that enables them to explore further the best approaches to use technology to deliver content (Schmidt et al., 2009). For instance, it is necessary for the teacher to master the content on how to calculate the gradient of a line and teach students to acquire the skills while ensuring that students are taught broadly on Psychology, Art Education, Islamic study, Special education, and Quranic studies skills such as on how derivatives work to develop a strong knowledge base in the subject matter (Schmidt et al., 2009).

TPACK Framework to Assess Higher Education Students

Schmidt et al. (2009) identified several areas where the technology can be used and pointed one area where the TPACK framework was successfully applied to be in the assessment of higher educational students to evaluate pre-service teachers’ ability to use the technology. According to Schmidt et al. (2009), the study was conducted to evaluate the skills of the pre-service teachers’ (PT) abilities to use technology to deliver content for students in different areas of study with a specific focus on the teaching of English in a Turkish school. The “study used the design of learning technology by design approach” (Schmidt et al., 2009, p.20). Schmidt et al. (2009) confirmed that the study took 12 weeks to complete by distributing the experimental time across different tasks that included the orientation to different technologies, development of materials that could be used for technological use in the delivery and acquisition of content, and integration and use of lessons that could be taught in a real classroom situation.

The underpinning reasons were that when new technologies are rolled out to the market or to schools, it does not guarantee that the teacher is able to use the technology to teach the learners. The introduction of new technology makes it undesirable for the teachers who seldom might adopt the technology. In addition, the new technologies do not provide the guarantee that success will be achieved in the classroom environment (Wolff, Ewald, Martin & McGann, 1992). In theory, Wolff et al. (1992) affirms the widely accepted notion that TPACK provides the foundation for good teaching because it enables the teacher to understand the concepts of good teaching using technology constructively.

Measures

The study “focused on six areas that involved teaching practice (TP) teachers in English, Psychology, Art Education, Islamic study, Special education, and Quranic studies who participated in a micro teaching lesson study (MLS) process” (Wolff et al., 1992, p.25). Technology enhanced instructions were used to evaluate PTs skills by making them write down the results of their studies by providing a written reflection of the technology modeled instructions. The result of the study showed that the PT’s results started to reflect the use of the components of TPACK as the studies progressed (Wolff et al., 1992).

A recent study conducted by Nyland and Alfayez, (2012) with the PTs involving 74 participants “modeled on (1) faculty modelling of a new ICT tool; (2) building technical proficiency and pedagogical modelling; (3) and pedagogical application” (p. 21) showed an increase in confidence among PTs in the use of TPACK. The studies to assess the students were conducted on a three semester teacher preparation program. The results showed that many of the teachers recommended that preparing students in higher educational institutions such as the PTs to use technology required detailed teaching to help them appreciate the use of the technology (Nyland & Alfayez, 2012). When rightly appreciated, the students were eager to integrate the technology into their studies (Nyland & Alfayez, 2012).

Get your customised and 100% plagiarism-free paper on any subject done for only $16.00 $11/page Let us help you

Using TPACK to Integrate Technology in Classroom

The intersection of the knowledge domains of the TPACK framework consisting of the technological knowledge (TK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), Content Knowledge (CK) provide the baseline for accumulating different types of knowledge for use in the classroom (Nyland & Alfayez, 2012). The uses of each of the components in the framework are influenced by contextual factors such as culture as for the King Saud student, school structure, and the social structures (Nyland & Alfayez, 2012). The result is a logical representation of knowledge that enables users and even teachers to move towards the equity and inclusiveness of integrating and using technology such as computers for content acquisition and delivery respectively (Nyland & Alfayez, 2012).

Using Technology for Students in College of Education

A study by Nyland and Alfayez (2012) showed that integrating technology into the learning environment provides the learners with the ability to integrate different facets of technology into the learning process. The rationale is that the TPACK framework provides the platform for students and teachers to integrate different domains of knowledge to optimize the knowledge acquisition process in the classroom (Swan & Hofer, 2011). To evaluate the use of technology in education, a study was developed to assess the usage of TPACK framework by students along with a rubric to determine the level of integration of the technology to achieve the curriculum goals for pre-service student teachers (Schmidt et al., 2009). The study involved the use of a TPACK Confidence Survey (TCS) to evaluate different competence issues including the competence and attitudinal elements of the TPACK framework. The aim was to evaluate the completeness of the curriculum by measuring the relationship among the TPACK framework elements (Schmidt, et al., 2009).

Schmidt et al. (2009) conducted as study which established that confidence was the most crucial component in the integration and use of technology in instructional delivery for educational learners. The study used 15 pre-service teachers who were involved in an intense pre-service delivery program. Most the work by Schmidt et al. (2009) concentrated on the application of the technology at the inquiry level by the pre-service teachers or student teachers and not at the instructional level (Swan & Hofer, 2011). The study was based on an activity approach to connect the curriculum based learning process with the activities required for the study (Wolff, Ewald, Martin & McGann, 1992).

The study by Wolff et al. (1992) was used to evaluate the interrelationship among the TPACK, TCK, TPK, TK elements when used to integrate technology into the instructional methods used by the college students. The results showed that the collaborative learning methods used in class that were designed into the instructional delivery methods used by the teacher were appropriate for pedagogical instructional delivery. In addition, the technology enabled the students and the teachers to share live interactions between the teacher and the student. The study results showed that the “integration of technology for use was noted as a positive collaboration on readings to create responses” (Wolff et al., 1992, p.45). The report by the teacher who conducted the study concluded that the “intensive week of the unit particularly valuable and the opportunity to interact and discuss with others made the on-line component easier” (Wolff et al., 1992, p.3). In conclusion, the study showed that the framework provides support for reading and task execution by engaging learners in the studying environment. Here the most important element is for the instructor to integrate the TPACK framework into the teaching process.

Obstacles of Using Technology

Studies investigating the use of TPACK framework to determine the obstacles that students experience in college when using TPACK shows that the students face a myriad of challenges and obstacles that impede the effective use of the technology in the classroom (Swan & Hofer, 2011). One study to determine the obstacles teachers were facing involved masters and undergraduate students and established that attitude was one of the first obstacles to the successful implementation and use of the theoretical TPACK framework (Archambault & Barnett, 2010). The study showed that most of the students were quoted as learning with technology and not learning from technology (Boulter, 1989).

A study conducted to determine the challenges and obstacles of adopting the technology involved music teachers, and concluded that the lack of appreciation in the teacher’s part to accept new ideas and the convergence between technology and music had a serious adverse impact on the implementation of the TPACK framework (Archambault & Barnett, 2010). A similar study that explored the teachers’ knowledge and skills in the use of technology showed that low awareness of technology led to inability of the teachers to link the learning needs and preferences of the students with the use of the technology (Berry, 2012).

Students’ Attitude and Perspectives of Using Computer Technology

A study was conducted to investigate the attitude students have toward the use of technology in the classroom. The study involved pre-service undergraduate students who were asked to answer questions in the questionnaires to measure their attitudes (Cavanagh & Koehler, 2013; Shin et al., 2009).

According to Choy, Wong and Gao (2009), the questions were used to measure their confidence in the use of technology, their interactions and previous experience with the use of technology, and knowledge on the use of technology. Paired differences were used to measure the mean before and after the values were posted in response to the questions (Harris & Hofer, 2011). The results were analyzed using the standard deviation of the statistical measures and the t test values to compare the responses from the students. The scores were noted and the mean values compared to evaluate the responses (Hulmes, 2014).

The results showed that fear of the use of computers, which was largely caused by the lack of skill or exposure to the technology could adversely impact the confidence to use the technology and the attitude of the students towards the technology (Finger, Jamieson-Proctor & Grimbeek, 2013). In addition, the glitches that the students experienced when using technology and the failure of the teachers to engage students in the learning process such as advancing, exploring, adapting, accepting, and learning with technology were identified to be the critical elements that influenced the use of technology in the classroom (Kramarski & Michalsky, 2009).

Methodology

This study was conducted to measure the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of students at King Saud University. The measurement used the key elements of content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and technological knowledge (TK), Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) as the measurement scales based on content analysis of the literature review and administration of questionnaire tools.

Population and sampling

The population of interest was the pre-service student teachers at King Saud University applying technology in the content areas of education that specifically focused on Psychology, Art Education, Islamic study, Special education, and Quranic studies.

Participants and sample size

A probabilistic sampling strategy was used to select the participants from the target population. The rationale for adopting the probabilistic random sampling method was to give equal chances of participation to the participants. The sample consisted of 150 students from the college of Education (75 females and 75 males) who enrolled in second semester 2014. They were distributed according to the departments of Psychology, Art Education, and Islamic study, Special education, and Quranic studies. Before the participation the students were informed of the objectives of this study. Some questionnaires were distributed during the free time while students were in the cafeteria, other were distributed during their class sessions (Polly, 2011).

Instrument

The instrument covered the seven constructs of the TPACK framework for this study. The “study used 58 items to address the evaluation of the Technological Knowledge (TK), Content Knowledge (CK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), and Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) on the Students at King Saud University” (Polly, 2011, p.12).

Table 1: The demographic profile of respondents

Demographic characteristics Frequency Percent%
Male 75 50
Female 75 50
Age
20-24 100 67
25-29 30 20
30-34 15 10
35-39 5 3

The distribution of the respondents by age was the following: 67% were between 20 and 24, 20% were between 25 and 29, 10% were between 30 and 43 and 3% were between 35 and 39. The distribution by gender was 50% male and female respectively.

Procedure and Time Frame

The study was conducted by determining the problem and creating a framework for identifying King Saud University as the most appropriate area of study because it involved pre service student teachers in the education faculty who could provide appropriate responses for the study (Lee et al., 2014). The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) theoretical framework is currently being used to integrate the technology into the classroom. The study was conducted in three months and the literature review was done continuously for the entire period of the study.

Statistical Methods

The statistical methods used for the analysis of objectives, which consist of the evaluation of the Technological Knowledge (TK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), include the statistical tools abbreviated as M=mean, SD=standard deviation, and CA= Cronbach’s alpha.

Results and Analysis

TPACK components

Table 2: Correlation of TPACK items

Variables Components % knowledgeable of item CITC (corrected-item total correlation) with TPACK Cronbach’s Alpa
TPAC TPACK K TK 80 0.692 .637
TCK 57 0.604 .669
CK 98 0.619 .854
PCK 56 0.662 .628
TPK 76 0.637 .650
PK 87 0.739 .897

The table shows that on average over 50% of the students were aware and knowledgeable on the TPACK theoretical framework elements. The item with the highest response rate was content knowledge and the lowest score is technology content knowledge. The students showed 19% knowledge on pedagogical knowledge, 18% technological knowledge, 12% technological content knowledge, 22% content knowledge, 12% pedagogical content knowledge, and 17% technological pedagogical knowledge.

 Knowledge of the TPACK items
Figure 2: Knowledge of the TPACK items

Impact TPACK Elements

A scale of very ineffective, ineffective, moderately effective, effective, and very effective was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the elements of the TPACK theoretical framework and the results were tabulated in table 3.

Table 3: Response on TPACK elements

Response Percentage
very ineffective (TK) 8.7
Ineffective (TCK) 11.3
moderately effective (CK, 25.3
Effective (CK, TPK) 42.0
very effective (PK) 12.7
Total 100.0

The results show that the Content Knowledge (CK) and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) registered the highest percentage of 42% and Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) registered the lowest (11.3%) response rate on the impact on the acquisition of knowledge for students in the Saud University.

Percentage representation of the effectiveness of the TPACK components
Figure 3: Percentage representation of the effectiveness of the TPACK components

Benefits of the TPACK Framework

Table 4: The benefits of the TPACK components

Description/Items Very ineffective % Ineffective % Moderate % Effective % Very effective % Total %
Design existing concepts 3 2 5 10 80 100
Expansion of concepts 10 5 5 5 75 100
Understanding content 10 3 2 5 0 100
Detailed comprehension of subject matter 12 40 5 5 8 100
Increased responsibilities 10 15 3 20 0 100
Solve knowledge acquisition problems 20 21 9 5 5 100
Guideline on how to acquire content 15 8 7 25 5 100

Designing and learning content using technology had the highest score of 80% and guidelines to acquire content scored the lowest mark, showing that students could least benefit from the use of TPACK to study.

Measures

Table 5: Measures of TPACK components

Responses Percentage
very ineffective (TK) 6.7
Ineffective (PK) 23.3
moderately effective (CK, TPK) 17.3
Effective (TCK) 24.0
very effective (TPACK) 28.7
Total 100.0

The measures of the effects of the components are summarized as shown according to the percentages in table 4. The percentage impact includes 6.7% for TK, 23.3 % PK, 17.3% CK and TPK, 24% TCK, and 28.7% TPACK framework on the knowledge of the student in Saud King University.

How to Integrate TPACK Technology

Table 6: Integrating the TAPCK components with technology

Item % (of those who prefer the use of the item to integrate technology)
Technology Content (TC) 15
Technology Content knowledge (TCK) 10
Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) 5
Content Knowledge (CK) 5
Technology Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) 35
Technology Knowledge 30
Total 100
The percentage of students who prefer to use each of the six
Figure 4: The percentage of students who prefer to use each of the six

Figure 4 illustrates the percentage of students who prefer to use each of the six components to integrate the technology into the classroom for the content acquisition and delivery. Most of the students regard TPK (35%) as the most critical component to use to integrate technology into the classroom, while CK (5%), PK (5%), TCK (10%), TC (15%), and TK (30%) rating.

Obstacles

The obstacles identified were lack of appreciation, knowledge, skills, and awareness, inability to link technology with content, attitude, and learning from technology instead of using the technology.

Table 7

Descriptive Statistics, Response on the obstacles of implementing TAPCK
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance
Lack of appreciation 100 1.00 4.00 2.5500 1.23438 1.524
Lack of Knowledge 100 1.00 5.00 1.7500 1.06992 1.145
Lack of skills 100 1.00 5.00 3.2500 1.16416 1.355
lack of awareness 100 1.00 5.00 3.4000 1.35336 1.832
Inability to use technology 100 1.00 5.00 2.4500 1.39454 1.945
Inability to understand content 100 1.00 5.00 3.1000 1.37267 1.884
Learning from technology 100 1.00 5.00 2.2500 1.48235 2.197
Poor attitude 100 1.00 5.00 2.0500 1.35627 1.839
Valid N (listwise) 100
Obstacles
Figure 5

The factors that impede the implementation of technology

Figure 5 provides the relative percentages of the items that impede the implementation of technology in the classroom and include 11% poor attitude, 22% lack of knowledge, 6% lack of appreciation, 11% lack of skills, and 11% learning from technology, 11% inability to understand content which is delivered using technology and 6% lack of awareness on the technology.

Table 8: Pearson correlation coefficients

CK PK TK PCK TCK PACK TPK TPACK
CK
PK TK
PCK
TCK
PACK
TPK
TPACK
1
.54 1
.53.39 1
.18.25 28 1
.36.23.39.14 1
.44.37.50.45.30 1
.41.37.56.42.32.76 1
.29.18.54.53.31.62.67 1

The resulting reliability coefficient of the analysis was 0.93 for the 8 factor elements in the framework proving the hypothesis that technology can be used to deliver content in class. The impact of the relationship between the elements includes the points of intersection among the components. Here, the reliability of the finding is confirmed by the Pearson correlation coefficients of 1 that is obtained when technology is integrated into the classroom. The reliability of the findings further verify the hypothesis to be supported and correct because the score of each element in all the factors relating the elements the TPACK theoretical framework as shown in table 2, 8 and 9 as being above 0.6 or over 60% of the threshold value. That proves that the Technological Knowledge (TK) (54%), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) (31%), Content Knowledge (CK) (29%), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) (53%), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) (18%), and technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) (67%).

Table 9: Correlation coefficients on knowledge acquisition

Use in class Correlation coefficient
Integration in class of technology into the classroom Pearson Correlation 0.877 272
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.476 .001
N 150 .149
Knowledge acquisition Pearson Correlation .675 1
Sig 2-tailed) 0.453 1
N 150 .149

The sample size used above to further prove the hypothesis using a sample size of 150 participants produced a Pearson correlation coefficients are positive. For instance that of the integration and use of technology in the classroom based on the TPACK theoretical framework is 0.877, which is over 87% shows a strong positive correlation and that of the acquisition of knowledge is over 0.675 or over 67% is still strongly positive and that proves the hypothesis to be correct.

Discussion

Investigations conducted show a significant impact of each of the core elements of Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), and Technological Knowledge (TK), Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) on the TPACK theoretical framework on the students at the King Saud University. The significance is in the knowledge about the elements that make the framework, where 90% were aware of CK and 50% were least aware of the Technological Content Knowledge. Content Knowledge overall score was 22% of the entire framework and TPK scored 17% comparatively. CK and TPK had the highest effectiveness and TK scored 8%, which was the lowest.

Pedagogy

Pedagogy provides clear description and definition of the procedure, processes, practices, and strategies to measure the knowledge and content of the pre-service student teachers on its effectiveness, which is an additional dimension added to the framework. Additional measures include anxiety, motivation, self-confidence, encouragement, beliefs, preference, and desire and their impact on the impact of the use of technology to teach and acquire knowledge in class. The study concludes that those elements could be used to increase the adoption of technology and integrate the framework into the acquisition of knowledge by the student in the classroom.

Technology

Technology includes tools that when integrated into the instructional framework for content acquisition and delivery of the subject matter help to facilitate the process by the pre service teachers. Technology was measured using 13 elements and the attitude occupied 11% share of the factors that influence the use of technology. On the other hand, 10% was occupied by learning from technology, 10% inability to understand content, 22% inability to use content, 22% lack of knowledge, and 5% lack of appreciation to use of technology. Here, the measures show that the students had a high liking of the use of technology such as computers and other digital devices for content and knowledge acquisition (Cox & Graham, 2009).

Content

The perceptions pre-service student teachers hold toward integrating technology for the delivery and acquisition of content in the classroom using technology such as computers shows to be a strong factor in determining the use of technology. In addition, content beliefs, teaching, and other items indicative of the positive attitude towards the use of technology. The results showed that over 50% of the students supported the idea of using computer technology in the classroom to acquire content.

Intersection of Elements

The three components intersect to produce additional components even though the boundary of intersection is vague. Here, the points of intersection are defined by the social status, the structure of the school, the culture, and additional contextual factors. It is evident that the interrelationships among the TPACK framework elements of pedagogy, technology, and content show a logical representation of how technology can be used and the expected output from technology vary between.54 as the highest and.18 as the lowest value on a scale varying between 0 and 1 as shown in figure 4 for all the six elements that make the TPACK theoretical framework. The framework enables students to consider the new technological approaches of knowledge acquisition in the classroom that are meaningful when they become classroom teachers.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In conclusion, it was established from the study that the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) theoretical framework is highly accepted among students at the King Saud University for the acquisition and delivery of content on the subject matter of the student’s areas of interest and specialization such as Psychology, Art Education, Islamic study, Special education, and Quranic studies among other areas of study. For instance, CK, TPK registered a 42% impact and over 80% knowledge the framework was useful in knowledge acquisition, and 24% agree the components are highly effective in content acquisition. However, the need for the teachers and the students to take time to study the framework to promote the teacher’s independence and the students’ attitude towards the use of technology for content delivery and acquisition is important. Here, the logical conclusion is that most teachers learn how to use technology from the student and the attitude of the student towards the technology in the acquisition of knowledge.

Summary

In summary, the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a theoretical framework that can be adopted for use in the classroom for content delivery and knowledge acquisition in different areas of learning. However, the gap in knowledge on the measures that enables the successful integration of technology for use in the classrooms reveals significant points to consider in the integration of technology. The elements factored into the measures that define the outcomes on the use of theoretical framework include attitude, knowledge on the use of technology such as computers, and exposure to technology. Here, the outcome experiences with the use of technology, teaching practices, and the cognitive processes provide a complex interplay among the three components of knowledge, technology, and pedagogy and generate additional components in the framework. However, further research should be conducted by focusing on specialized areas of study of each student to establish how the TPACK theoretical framework uniquely affects the integration of technology for teaching and learning purposes.

References

Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 281-300

Alayyar, G. M., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2012). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service science teachers: Support from blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(8), 1298-1316.

Alsofyani, M. M., Aris, B. B., Eynon, R., & Majid, N. A. (2012). A Preliminary Evaluation of Short Blended Online Training Workshop for TPACK Development Using Technology Acceptance Model. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(3), 20-32.

Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656-1662.

Berry, P. (2012). The Impact of Globalization and Technology on Teaching Business Communication: Reframing And Enlarging World View, Methods, And Content. American Journal of Business Education (AJBE), 6(1), 57-66.

Boulter, H. (1989). The World‐wide Education Service: 100 years of servicing parents as educators. Educational Review, 41(2), 181-188.

Cavanagh, R. F., & Koehler, M. J. (2013). A turn toward specifying validity criteria in the measurement of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 129-148.

Chai, C. S., Ling Koh, J. H., Tsai, C. C., & Lee Wee Tan, L. (2011). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content

Knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57(1), 1184-1193.

Choy, D., Wong, A. F., & Gao, P. (2009). Student Teachers’ Intentions and Actions on Integrating Technology into Their Classrooms during Student Teachings: A Singapore Study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 175-195.

Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60-71.

Finger, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Grimbeek, P. (2013). Teaching teachers for the future project: building TPACK confidence and capabilities for elearning. International Conference on Educational Technologies (ICEduTech 2013), 1(1), 105-115.

Hamdan, A. (2010). E-Learning and teaching: The need for clear pedagogy. Transformative learning and online education: Aesthetics, dimensions and concepts, 1(1), 111-126.

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.

Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211-229.

Holmgren, R. (2014). Firefighter training in Sweden: from face-to-face learning in training grounds to distance learning–a challenge for exercise instructors?. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 1(1), 1-19.

Hulmes, E. (2014). The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. Stanford/London, Stanford University Press, 1(1), 10-17

Isman, A., Abanmy, F. A., Hussein, H. B., Saadany, A., & Abdelrahman, M. (2012).

Saud Secondary School Teachers Attitudes’ towards Using Interactive Whiteboard in Classrooms. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(3), 286-296.

Jang, S. J., & Chen, K. C. (2010). From PCK to TPACK: Developing a transformative model for pre-service science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 553-564.

Jaipal, K., & Figg, C. (2010). Expanding the practice-based taxonomy of characteristics of TPACK. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 1(2101), 2010, 3868-3875

Keengwe, J. (2013). Research perspectives and best practices in educational technology integration. Information Science Reference.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

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.

Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2009). Three metacognitive approaches to training pre-service teachers in different learning phases of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(5), 465-485.

Lee, L. W., Mohamed, A. R., & Altamimi, A. A. (2014). Design, Development, and Evaluation of an Automated e-Learning Tutorial System to Instruct Pre-Service Special Educators in the Malay Braille Code. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 1-14.

Levinsen, K., Ørngreen, R., & Buhl, M. (2013). Telepresence as Educational Practice in the Third Teaching-Room: A Study in Higher Music Education. In European Conference on E-learning (pp. 250-257).

Marino, M., Sameshima, P., & Beecher, C. (2009). Enhancing TPACK with assistive technology: Promoting inclusive practices in pre-service teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 186-207.

McComas, W. F. (2013). The Language of Science Education: An Expanded Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts in Science Teaching and Learning. Springer Science & Business Media.

Moghaddam, S. (2010). Cultural schemata: Iranian students’ test-taking processes for cloze tests. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 3(3), 188-200.

Nyland, B., & Alfayez, S. (2012). Learning Stories–crossing borders: introducing qualitative early childhood observation techniques to early childhood practitioners in Saud Arabia. International Journal of Early Years Education, 20(4), 392-404.

Polly, D. (2011). Examining teachers’ enactment of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in their mathematics teaching after technology integration professional development. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(1), 37-59.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.

Shin, T., Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Schmidt, D., Baran, E., & Thompson, A. (2009).

Changing technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) through course experiences. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 1(2009), 4152-4159).

Swan, K., & Hofer, M. (2011). In search of technological pedagogical content knowledge: Teachers’ initial foray into podcasting in economics. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(1), 75-98.

Tsai, C. C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1057-1060.

Wolff, D., Ewald, H. R., Martin, R. M., & McGann, P. (1992). Four More Comments on” Pedagogy of the Distressed”. College English, 1(1), 352-360.

Appendix

The study is to measure the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) of Students at King Saud University when used to integrate technology into the delivery of instructions and content for the teacher and the student.

The results shall be used for academic work only and shall not be used for any other purposes.

Age __________________________________

Gender________________________________

Course undertaken_______________________

Questions Responses on a scale of:

  1. strongly agree,
  2. agree,
  3. Noether agree nor disagree,
  4. Disagree,
  5. Strongly disagree
Doing learning with computer is enjoyable and stimulating 1 2 3 4 5
I think I will enjoy teaching with computer
I am sure I am going to do better tasks with computer
I like solving problems with computer
I enjoy learning with computer
I prefer computer to traditional ways of teaching
I try to do less work with computer about subject content
Learning content with computer never threatens me
I think doing works with computers take more time
I have a lot of self-confidence with it comes to doing with ccomputers
I feel more comfortable using computer in
Knowing computers will help me do well in my teaching
If I could learn doing with computer better
Computers would stimulate students to learn more
It is possible to teach better with computer
Training should include computer based activities
Computer would improve students’ learning ability
Computer gives me more opportunity to learn new subjects
If there were a computer in my classroom, it would help me
If I could, I would take more computer based subjects
Computer help me to learn more easily
I learn better when I use computer
All students should have an opportunity to learn
Computer helps me to get better pictures of the facts and
Computer will improve education
I would like to learn more about computer based
Knowing how to use computers will help me do well
With computer, it is possible to do practical things
If I could learn doing with computer better, I believe I am going to teach more successfully
Teaching and training should be computer based
Doing lessons with computer is enjoyable and stimulating
I am sure I am going to do better tasks with computer in
I like doing well in class with computer
If there were a computer in my classroom, it would help me be a better teacher
If I could, I would take more computer based subjects
Computers can be used successfully with courses which demand creative aactivities
Doing studies with computer never threats me
Doing studies with a computer makes me feel relaxed
Using computer in education is a difficult job
I think doing works with computers take more time
I think it is easy to use computer in class
Computer help me to learn more easily
I like computer used lectures more
I can learn more from computer than books
Computer used lectures are my most favorite at school
I learn content better, when I use computer
I would learn more if I could use computers more often
I try to do less work with computer about content acquisition
Learning content with computer is a waste of time
I never think to use computer in my teaching lessons
Using computer in education is a waste of time
I think I will never use computer when I teach
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Doing learning with computers is enjoyable 100 1 5 2.32 1.332
Enjoy teaching with computers 100 1.00 5.00 2.5300 1.16736
I am sure I am going to do better with the tasks with the computers 100 1.00 5.00 2.2100 1.34311
I like solving problems using computers 100 1.00 5.00 2.3600 1.29895
I enjoy learning with computers 100 1.00 5.00 2.3000 1.26730
I prefer computers to traditional methods 100 1.00 5.00 3.1100 .87496
I try to do less work with computer about subject content 100 1.00 5.00 2.7200 1.08321
Learning content with computer never threatens me 100 1.00 4.00 3.0500 1.21751
Doing with a computer makes me feel relaxed 100 1.00 4.00 2.5300 1.05844
Using computer in education is a difficult job 100 1.00 4.00 2.1400 1.11934
I think doing works with computers take more time 100 1.00 5.00 3.8200 1.36611
I think it is easy to use computer 100 1.00 5.00 2.7900 1.26567
I like computer used lectures more 100 1.00 4.00 2.3900 1.04345
I have a lot of self-confidence with it comes to doing with computers 100 1.00 5.00 2.2500 1.07661
Doing studies with a computer makes me feel relaxed 100 1.00 4.00 2.3000 1.29880
I think doing works with computers take more time 100 1.00 4.00 2.2700 1.06225
I think it is easy to use computer in 100 2.00 5.00 3.1500 .94682
Computer help me to learn more easily 100 1.00 22.00 1.8800 2.19402
I like computer used lectures more 100 1.00 5.00 1.9100 1.03568
I can learn more from computer than books 100 1.00 5.00 2.2100 1.38750
I would learn more if I could use computers more often 100 1.00 5.00 3.0200 1.18901
Learning content with computer is a waste of time 100 1.00 5.00 3.6300 1.38283
I never think to use computer in my teaching lessons 100 1.00 5.00 3.6900 1.57438
Using computer in education is a waste of time 100 2.00 4.00 3.1300 .99143
I think I will never use computer when I teach 100 1.00 4.00 1.8200 .90319
Valid N (listwise) 100

The tables show the summary of the elements based on the mean and standard deviation of the responses to the questionnaires according to each category of responses.

Frequencies

Doing learning with computers is enjoyable
Frequency per cent Valid per cent Cumulative per cent
Valid Strongly agree 38 36.9 38.0 38.0
Agree 21 20.4 21.0 59.0
Neither agree Nor disagree 22 21.4 22.0 81.0
Disagree 9 8.7 9.0 90.0
Strongly disagree 10 9.7 10.0 100.0
Total 100 97.1 100.0
Missing System 3 2.9
Total 103 100.0
Enjoy teaching with computers, Statistics
N Valid 100
Missing 3
Mean 2.5300
Std. Error of Mean .11674
Median 2.0000
Mode 2.00
Std. Deviation 1.16736
Variance 1.363
Skewness .645
Std. Error of Skewness .241
Kurtosis -.431
Std. Error of Kurtosis .478
Range 4.00
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 5.00
Sum 253.00
Percentiles 25 2.0000
50 2.0000
75 3.0000
Enjoy teaching with computers
Frequency Per cent Valid Per cent Cumulative Per cent
Valid Strongly agree 17 16.5 17.0 17.0
Agree 43 41.7 43.0 60.0
Neither agree nor disagree 18 17.5 18.0 78.0
disagree 14 13.6 14.0 92.0
Strongly disagree 8 7.8 8.0 100.0
Total 100 97.1 100.0
Missing System 3 2.9
Total 103 100.0

I am sure I am going to do better with the tasks with the computers.

Statistics
N Valid 100
Missing 3
Mean 2.2100
Std. Error of Mean .13431
Median 2.0000
Mode 1.00
Std. Deviation 1.34311
Variance 1.804
Skewness .806
Std. Error of Skewness .241
Kurtosis -.599
Std. Error of Kurtosis .478
Range 4.00
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 5.00
Sum 221.00
Percentiles 25 1.0000
50 2.0000
75 3.0000
I am sure I am going to do better with the tasks with the computers
Frequency Per cent Valid Per cent Cumulative Per cent
Valid Strongly agree 43 41.7 43.0 43.0
Agree 22 21.4 22.0 65.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree 15 14.6 15.0 80.0
Disagree 11 10.7 11.0 91.0
Strongly disagree 9 8.7 9.0 100.0
Total 100 97.1 100.0
Missing System 3 2.9
Total 103 100.0

I like solving problems using computers.

Statistics
N Valid 100
Missing 3
Mean 2.3600
Std. Error of Mean .12990
Median 2.0000
Mode 1.00
Std. Deviation 1.29895
Variance 1.687
Skewness .484
Std. Error of Skewness .241
Kurtosis -1.026
Std. Error of Kurtosis .478
Range 4.00
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 5.00
Sum 236.00
Percentiles 25 1.0000
50 2.0000
75 3.0000
I like solving problems using computers
Frequency Per cent Valid Per cent Cumulative Per cent
Valid Strongly agree 36 35.0 36.0 36.0
Agree 22 21.4 22.0 58.0
Neither agree nor disagree 18 17.5 18.0 76.0
Disagree 18 17.5 18.0 94.0
Strongly disagree 6 5.8 6.0 100.0
Total 100 97.1 100.0
Missing System 3 2.9
Total 103 100.0

I enjoy learning with computers.

Statistics
N Valid 100
Missing 3
Mean 2.3000
Std. Error of Mean .12673
Median 2.0000
Mode 1.00
Std. Deviation 1.26730
Variance 1.606
Skewness .507
Std. Error of Skewness .241
Kurtosis -.958
Std. Error of Kurtosis .478
Range 4.00
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 5.00
Sum 230.00
Percentiles 25 1.0000
50 2.0000
75 3.0000
I enjoy learning with computers
Frequency per cent Valid per cent Cumulative per cent
Valid Strongly agree 38 36.9 38.0 38.0
Agree 20 19.4 20.0 58.0
Neither agree nor disagree 21 20.4 21.0 79.0
Disagree 16 15.5 16.0 95.0
Strongly disagree 5 4.9 5.0 100.0
Total 100 97.1 100.0
Missing System 3 2.9
Total 103 100.0

I prefer computers to traditional methods.

Statistics
N Valid 100
Missing 3
Mean 3.1100
Std. Error of Mean .08750
Median 3.0000
Mode 3.00
Std. Deviation .87496
Variance .766
Skewness .336
Std. Error of Skewness .241
Kurtosis -.202
Std. Error of Kurtosis .478
Range 4.00
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 5.00
Sum 311.00
Percentiles 25 3.0000
50 3.0000
75 4.0000
I prefer computers to traditional methods
Frequency per cent Valid per cent Cumulative per cent
Valid 1.00 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
2.00 23 22.3 23.0 24.0
3.00 47 45.6 47.0 71.0
4.00 22 21.4 22.0 93.0
5.00 7 6.8 7.0 100.0
Total 100 97.1 100.0
Missing System 3 2.9
Total 103 100.0

I try to do less work with computer about subject content.

Statistics
N Valid 100
Missing 3
Mean 2.7200
Std. Error of Mean .10832
Median 2.5000
Mode 2.00
Std. Deviation 1.08321
Variance 1.173
Skewness .679
Std. Error of Skewness .241
Kurtosis -.142
Std. Error of Kurtosis .478
Range 4.00
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 5.00
Sum 272.00
Percentiles 25 2.0000
50 2.5000
75 3.0000
I try to do less work with computer about subject content
Frequency per cent Valid per cent Cumulative per cent
Valid 1.00 8 7.8 8.0 8.0
2.00 42 40.8 42.0 50.0
3.00 30 29.1 30.0 80.0
4.00 10 9.7 10.0 90.0
5.00 10 9.7 10.0 100.0
Total 100 97.1 100.0
Missing System 3 2.9
Total 103 100.0

I can learn more from computer than books.

Statistics
N Valid 100
Missing 3
Mean 2.2100
Std. Error of Mean .13875
Median 2.0000
Mode 1.00
Std. Deviation 1.38750
Variance 1.925
Skewness .818
Std. Error of Skewness .241
Kurtosis -.689
Std. Error of Kurtosis .478
Range 4.00
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 5.00
Sum 221.00
Percentiles 25 1.0000
50 2.0000
75 3.0000
I can learn more from computer than books
Frequency per cent Valid per cent Cumulative per cent
Valid 1.00 45 43.7 45.0 45.0
2.00 21 20.4 21.0 66.0
3.00 12 11.7 12.0 78.0
4.00 12 11.7 12.0 90.0
5.00 10 9.7 10.0 100.0
Total 100 97.1 100.0
Missing System 3 2.9
Total 103 100.0

I would learn more if I could use computers more often.

Statistics
N Valid 100
Missing 3
Mean 3.0200
Std. Error of Mean .11890
Median 3.0000
Mode 3.00
Std. Deviation 1.18901
Variance 1.414
Skewness -.113
Std. Error of Skewness .241
Kurtosis -.660
Std. Error of Kurtosis .478
Range 4.00
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 5.00
Sum 302.00
Percentiles 25 2.0000
50 3.0000
75 4.0000
I would learn more if I could use computers more often
Frequency per cent Valid per cent Cumulative per cent
Valid 1.00 14 13.6 14.0 14.0
2.00 15 14.6 15.0 29.0
3.00 38 36.9 38.0 67.0
4.00 21 20.4 21.0 88.0
5.00 12 11.7 12.0 100.0
Total 100 97.1 100.0
Missing System 3 2.9
Total 103 100.0

I try to do less work with computer about content acquisition.

Statistics
N Valid 100
Missing 3
Mean 2.5700
Std. Error of Mean .11033
Median 3.0000
Mode 3.00
Std. Deviation 1.10330
Variance 1.217
Skewness .049
Std. Error of Skewness .241
Kurtosis -.827
Std. Error of Kurtosis .478
Range 4.00
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 5.00
Sum 257.00
Percentiles 25 2.0000
50 3.0000
75 3.0000
I try to do less work with computer about content acquisition
Frequency per cent Valid per cent Cumulative per cent
Valid 1.00 22 21.4 22.0 22.0
2.00 22 21.4 22.0 44.0
3.00 36 35.0 36.0 80.0
4.00 17 16.5 17.0 97.0
5.00 3 2.9 3.0 100.0
Total 100 97.1 100.0
Missing System 3 2.9
Total 103 100.0

Learning content with computer is a waste of time.

Statistics
Learning content with computer is a waste of time
N Valid 100
Missing 3
Mean 3.6300
Std. Error of Mean .13828
Median 4.0000
Mode 4.00
Std. Deviation 1.38283
Variance 1.912
Skewness -.919
Std. Error of Skewness .241
Kurtosis -.356
Std. Error of Kurtosis .478
Range 4.00
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 5.00
Sum 363.00
Percentiles 25 3.0000
50 4.0000
75 5.0000
Learning content with computer is a waste of time
Frequency per cent Valid per cent Cumulative per cent
Valid 1.00 17 16.5 17.0 17.0
2.00 1 1.0 1.0 18.0
3.00 15 14.6 15.0 33.0
4.00 36 35.0 36.0 69.0
5.00 31 30.1 31.0 100.0
Total 100 97.1 100.0
Missing System 3 2.9
Total 103 100.0

I never think to use computer in my teaching lessons.

Statistics
I never think to use computer in my teaching lessons
N Valid 100
Missing 3
Mean 3.6900
Std. Error of Mean .15744
Median 5.0000
Mode 5.00
Std. Deviation 1.57438
Variance 2.479
Skewness -.612
Std. Error of Skewness .241
Kurtosis -1.344
Std. Error of Kurtosis .478
Range 4.00
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 5.00
Sum 369.00
Percentiles 25 2.0000
50 5.0000
75 5.0000
I never think to use computer in my teaching lessons
Frequency per cent Valid per cent Cumulative per cent
Valid 1.00 13 12.6 13.0 13.0
2.00 20 19.4 20.0 33.0
3.00 5 4.9 5.0 38.0
4.00 9 8.7 9.0 47.0
5.00 53 51.5 53.0 100.0
Total 100 97.1 100.0
Missing System 3 2.9
Total 103 100.0

Using computer in education is a waste of time.

Statistics
Using computer in education is a waste of time
N Valid 100
Missing 3
Mean 3.1300
Std. Error of Mean .09914
Median 4.0000
Mode 4.00
Std. Deviation .99143
Variance .983
Skewness -.266
Std. Error of Skewness .241
Kurtosis -1.958
Std. Error of Kurtosis .478
Range 2.00
Minimum 2.00
Maximum 4.00
Sum 313.00
Percentiles 25 2.0000
50 4.0000
75 4.0000
Using computer in education is a waste of time
Frequency per cent Valid per cent Cumulative per cent
Valid 2.00 43 41.7 43.0 43.0
3.00 1 1.0 1.0 44.0
4.00 56 54.4 56.0 100.0
Total 100 97.1 100.0
Missing System 3 2.9
Total 103 100.0

I think I will never use computer when I teach.

Statistics
N Valid 100
Missing 3
Mean 1.8200
Std. Error of Mean .09032
Median 2.0000
Mode 1.00
Std. Deviation .90319
Variance .816
Skewness .870
Std. Error of Skewness .241
Kurtosis -.110
Std. Error of Kurtosis .478
Range 3.00
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 4.00
Sum 182.00
Percentiles 25 1.0000
50 2.0000
75 2.0000
I think I will never use computer when I teach
Frequency per cent Valid per cent Cumulative per cent
Valid 1.00 45 43.7 45.0 45.0
2.00 34 33.0 34.0 79.0
3.00 15 14.6 15.0 94.0
4.00 6 5.8 6.0 100.0
Total 100 97.1 100.0
Missing System 3 2.9
Total 103 100.0