Conference paper

2015 International Business & Education Conferences – October 11-14 Las Vegas, NV, USA

© Copyright by author(s) 227-1 The Clute Institute

In-Service English Language Teachers’ Knowledge Of Technology Integration

Into The Classroom Emtinan Alqurashi, Duquesne University, USA

Sundus Samarin, Duquesne University, USA

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived TPACK (technological pedagogical content knowledge) level of in-service English language teachers, to examine the correlation among the TPACK components, and to explore the extent in which TPACK components correlate with demographic characteristics (age, years of experience, level of education). Findings revealed that teachers’ knowledge in technology was not as strong as their knowledge in pedagogy and content. Correlations between the subscale variables in the TPACK were significant except for the relationship between content and technology. A significant and positive correlation found between Teachers’ age and pedagogy, content, and pedagogical content knowledge, between experience and pedagogy and pedagogical content knowledge, and between education level and pedagogy, pedagogical content knowledge and technological content knowledge. Keywords: TPACK; Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge; English Language Teaching

INTRODUCTION

Teaching is a complex process. Shulman, in the mid 80s, has explained this complexity by discussing the PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge) framework, which is a combination of two components: pedagogy knowledge and content knowledge. Shulman has stated that the key to an effective teaching practice is teachers’ understanding of how to bring together their knowledge of content and pedagogical (Hofer, & Grandgenett, 2012). Shulman (1986) considered teachers’ PCK as knowledge of “the most regularly taught topics in one's subject area, the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations” It also includes “an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult: the conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning of those most frequently taught topics and lessons” (p. 9). Koehler & Mishra, in 2006, has developed a third component of knowledge in PCK framework, which is TK (Technological Knowledge). They defined TK as “Knowledge about standard technologies, such as books, chalks, blackboard, and more advanced technologies, such as the Internet and digital video” (Hofer, & Grandgenett, 2012, p. 85), Interactive whiteboards and software programs (Baran, Chuang & Thompson, 2011). By adding TK to the PCK framework, Koehler & Mishra have developed new intersection in teacher’s knowledge. This module is called TPACK. TPACK model, as shown in Figure 1, consists of three main components of teacher’s knowledge: Content, Pedagogy and Technology. Interactions between and among these components of knowledge lead to total seven components of TPACK, and they are defined as follow: 1. Content knowledge (CK): refers to the subject matters that students have learned. Mishra & Koehler,

(2006, p. 1026) have defined CK as the “knowledge about actual subject matter that is to be learned or taught” (as cited in Schmidt, et al., 2009, p. 125).

2. Pedagogical Knowledge (PK): refers to the instructional methods and its application. 3. Technological Knowledge (TK): refers to the application of technology tools and resources (Schmidt, et al.,

2009).



4. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): which deals mainly with not just teaching process but also knowledge about the content to develop better teaching practice.

5. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK): which is knowledge of how to create a new illustration of content areas with using technology.

6. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK): which is knowledge of how different technologies can be used to support teaching process.

7. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): which is the knowledge that teachers are required to have in order to integrate technology in their teaching in any discipline (Baran, Chuang & Thompson, 2011; Koehler, & Mishra, 2009). TPACK model is defined by Mishra and Koehler (2006, p. 1029) as “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”.

Figure 1. TPACK Framework

Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by http://tpack.org/ The application of technology in English language teaching is important nowadays as there is a great demand on English language teachers to have the three components of knowledge (i.e. content, pedagogy and technology). In other words, English language teachers integrate their technological pedagogical content knowledge into their curriculum and classroom in order to provide more opportunities for language learners and to assist students in learning the English language. It can also help learners acquire the English language skills that include speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Indeed, technology plays a significant role in English language teaching and learning process (Yuksel & Asin 2014); learners can be more exposed to the English language with the use of technology. Teachers can provide students with more language use and practice through technology. In addition, both teachers and learners can be more connected through it, that is, teachers can engage students in more activities anytime and anywhere, and it also helps teachers track and evaluate students’ performances without time or space limitation.

LITERATURE REVIEW A number of studies were carried out to investigate the application of TPACK among in-service teachers (Archambault & Crippen, 2009; Hervey & Watson, 2013; Tai & Chuanh, 2012; Yuksel & Yasin, 2014; Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee, 2012) and pre-service teachers (Ekrem & Recep, 2014; Koh & Sing, 2011; Kurt, Mishra & Kocoglu,



2013; Kocoglu, 2009; Raman, 2014; Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee, 2012) in different disciplines. Moreover, The perceived knowledge level of teachers in terms of technology, pedagogy and technology, and the combinations of these components has been examined in many of those studies (Kocoglu, 2013; Yuksel & Yasin, 2014; Archambault & Crippen, 2009; Raman, 2014; Kurt, Mishra & Kocoglu, 2013; Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee, 2012). A study conducted by Archambault and Crippen (2009) with 596 teachers teaching online courses from 25 different states. The results of the study showed that teachers had a high level of PK, CK and PCK but low level of TK. Their study also found a strong correlation between pedagogy and content but weak correlation between technology and content, as well as technology and pedagogy. They also indicated that there is a high correlation between technological content and technological pedagogy, and between technological pedagogical content and both technological pedagogy and technological content. Similar results by Ekrem & Recep (2014) who conducted a study with 137 senior pre-service English teachers enrolled in an English Language Teaching Department of a state-run university. They found that teachers’ technological content knowledge level was at average level (M = 3.42) but more training is needed, while teachers’ technological pedagogical knowledge level was the highest of all TPACK components (M = 3.69). They also investigated the correlation among the subscales of TPACK, and found that the highest correlation observed was between pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge. Followed by the relationship between pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogy knowledge, and between technological content knowledge and TPACK. In terms of demographic characteristics, they found that generally females have higher level of knowledge of TPACK models than males. However, Koh and Sing (2011) carried out a study with 350 pre-service teachers in Singapore, they found that demographic variables of age and gender have no significant differences with respect to the TPACK components. Their study also found that TPK and TCK are two significant predictors of TPACK. Also, Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee (2012) found that all seven components of TPACK positively and significantly correlate with each other. The highest correlation found is between technological content knowledge and technological pedagogical content knowledge followed by the relationship between technological pedagogical knowledge and technological pedagogical content knowledge, and the relationship between technology knowledge and technological pedagogical content knowledge. This study was conducted with 222 pre- and in-service science teachers in Singapore. In terms of teachers’ demographic characteristics, they found that TPACK components are not affected by teaching experience, and also TK, TPK, TCK, and TPC is significantly and negatively correlated with teachers’ age. Spires, Hervey and Watson (2013) carried out a study with twenty in-service teachers who were enrolled in a graduate course in literacy, technology and media. Nineteen were females and one was male and they were between the age of 23 and 54 with a variety of teaching experiences. The study found that post-class test results were significantly higher than pre-class test results in two areas: (a) teacher’s beliefs in using technology for instructional purposes, and (b) their in-class technology skills. On the other hand, teacher’s pedagogical approaches or beliefs in using technology did not change in the post-test. Similar results by Kurt, Mishra and Kocoglu (2013) who found a statistically significant increase in TK, TCK, TPK and TPACK scores of pre-service teachers from the beginning of the research comparing to the end. This study was conducted with 22 pre-service teachers in the final year of English Language Teaching program. Another study by Kocoglu (2009) with 27 pre-service EFL teachers at the Department of Foreign Language Education at a Turkish university examined the descriptive variables of all components of TPACK. The results found that participants had high levels of content and pedagogy knowledge but medium levels of technological content knowledge and technological pedagogical knowledge. Similarly, Yuksel & Yasin (2014) conducted a descriptive study to determine in-service English language teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge levels. The results of the study found that teachers had medium capability levels in TPACK. The researchers also investigated teachers’ TPACK differences in term of gender, teaching experience, work place. There were no significant differences in terms of gender and workplace; in other words, both males and females almost had the same TPACK competency levels. Moreover, teachers who worked in public and private schools had almost the same competency levels as well. However, when it comes to teaching experience, Yuksel & Yasin found that teachers with five years or less experience had better technological pedagogical content knowledge level. In contrast, Raman (2014) in Malaysia at Universiti Utara Malaysia, carried out a study that aimed to measure pre-service teachers’ level of competence in using information and Communication Technology (ICT) application, confidence level in ICT, and TPACK confidence level. From his analysis, Raman found that the pre-service teachers were both competent and confident in using ICT, and they had high level of TPACK. In terms of gender, it was



found that female tended to have higher level of confidence in using ICT. Moreover, Tai and Chuanh (2012) have researched in-service English teachers to help develop teacher’s proficiency in TPACK model and integrate technology into their classrooms. They emphasized that teachers need to know why they are using a certain technology and how to use it. They stated that “teachers need to be equipped with more than technology knowledge and teachers must use technology while learning to integrate technology to be able to integrate technology effectively in the authentic teaching context” (p. 2). Research Questions The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived TPACK level of in-service English language teachers, to examine the correlation between each of the TPACK components, and to explore the extent in which TPACK components correlate with demographic characteristics. Hence, the following research questions were designed and examined in this study.

-What is the perceived knowledge level of English language teachers in terms of technology, pedagogy and technology, and the combinations of these components?

-Is there a statistically significant correlation among the subscale of TPACK? -To what extent do demographic characteristics (age, years of experience, level of education) of English language teachers correlate with their TPACK?

METHODOLOGY

Study Participants A web-based survey was sent to in-service English language teachers in 2015 Spring semester to seek their voluntary participation. A total of 52 English teachers participated in this study that teach English language in different countries: USA, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom and Peru. There were two age groups: younger teachers (63.5%) who were under the age of 37 (n = 33,), and older teachers (36.5%) who were above the age of 38 (n = 19). The majority of participants (92.3%) were females (n = 48). A large number of participants (78.8%) have less than 10 years of teaching experience (n = 41). About 51.9% of the participants (n = 27) were Arabs, 19.2% of them (n = 10) were Caucasians, 15.4% of them (n = 8) were European Americans, 5.8% were Turkish, 3.8% were South Africans, and 3.8% were Indians. The number of participants who have a graduate degree were 29 (55.8%), and 23 of the participants (44.2%) have an undergraduate degree. Instrumentation The instrument was administrated in this study was developed by Archambault and Crippen (2009). The survey aims to measures teacher’s knowledge in the three key components as described by the TPACK model: technology, pedagogy, content, and also the intersection of each of these areas. The survey includes of 24 items designed to measure online teachers’ TPACK. The survey asks participants to rate their knowledge in certain tasks in a five-point Likert scale ranging from poor (1) to excellent (5). The reliability coefficient for each subscale was reported “ranging from alpha = .699 for the technology content domain to alpha = .888 for the domain of technology” (Archambault and Crippen, 2009, p. 78). Data Collection and Analysis Quantitative data were collected using SurveyMonkey and was analyzed using IBM SPSS 22 statistical package. In order to answer the first research question, descriptive statistics of English language teachers’ TPACK were and analyzed. The second research question was answered by examining if there is a statistically significant Pearson’s correlation among the seven components of TPACK, and also to understand how demographic characteristics (age, years of experience, level of education) of English language teachers correlate with their TPACK.



Results The participants were asked “rate your knowledge in certain tasks from poor (1) to excellent (5). Twenty-four items were asked that include technology, pedagogy and content, and the combination of each of these areas. The number of responses, the mean and the standard deviation for each domain are reported in Table 1. Correlations among each domain were reported in Table 2. In addition, correlations between each domain and demographic characteristics (i.e. age, years of teaching experience, level of education) were reported in Table 3. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics

Domain Responses Mean Standard Deviation PK (3 items) 52 4.2115 .75848 TK (3 items) 52 3.2853 .93021 CK (3 items) 52 4.0288 .70148 PCK (4 items) 52 4.2260 .71445 TPK (4 items) 52 3.4038 1.07916 TCK (3 items) 52 3.7885 .88075 TPCK (4 items) 52 3.7131 .91304

Table 2 Correlations among subscale variables

PK TK CK PCK TPK TCK TPACK PK Pearson Correlation _

Sig. (2-tailed) TK Pearson Correlation .357** _

Sig. (2-tailed) .009 CK Pearson Correlation .666** .264 _

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .058 PCK Pearson Correlation .851** .296* .717** _

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .033 .000 TPK Pearson Correlation .435** .708** .519** .420** _

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .002 TCK Pearson Correlation .535** .566** .594** .566** .781** _

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 TPACK Pearson Correlation .608** .718** .520** .513** .836** .827** _

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).



Table 3 Correlations between subscale variables and demographic characteristics

Age Teaching experience Education level PK Pearson Correlation .424** .397** .302*

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .004 .029 TK Pearson Correlation -.062 .112 -.025

Sig. (2-tailed) .665 .428 .858 CK Pearson Correlation .313* .272 .260

Sig. (2-tailed) .024 .051 .063 PCK Pearson Correlation .421** .417** .366**

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .002 .008 TPK Pearson Correlation .096 .212 .047

Sig. (2-tailed) .497 .132 .742 TCK Pearson Correlation .245 .270 .287*

Sig. (2-tailed) .080 .053 .039 TPACK Pearson Correlation .075 .138 .089

Sig. (2-tailed) .596 .328 .532 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

DISCUSSION

English language teachers rated their knowledge for the pedagogy content (M = 4.22, SD = .714), pedagogy (M = 4.21, SD = .758) and content (M = 4.02, SD = .701), which had the highest mean scores of all domains. However, participants had the lowest mean scores when rating their knowledge for technology (M = 3.28, SD = .930) followed by technology pedagogy (M = 3.40, SD = 1.079). This indicates that English language teachers believed that their knowledge in troubleshooting technical problems with computer hardware or software, and also help students with such problems were not as strong as their knowledge in pedagogy and content. Table 1 also shows that the combination of technology and content knowledge had a mean score of 3.78 and standard deviation of .880 of which is not as low as technology knowledge by itself (M = 3.28, SD = .930) and it is not as high as content knowledge by itself (M = 4.02, SD = .701). This shows that teacher’s knowledge in tradition method of teaching is higher than using and incorporating technology in the classroom. English language teachers rated their overall knowledge of technology, pedagogy and content at 3.71. This is similar to Archambault and Crippen’s results (2009) as they also found that teachers had the highest mean scores in pedagogy, content and pedagogy content knowledge. However, the level of technology knowledge dropped by .81 points, and overall mean scores of 3.79 of TPACK. Similarly, Kocoglu (2009) found that teachers had high levels of content and pedagogy knowledge but medium levels of technological content knowledge and technological pedagogical knowledge, and also Yuksel & Yasin (2014) found that teachers had medium capability levels in TPACK. However, Ekrem & Recep (2014) also found that teachers’ level of technological content knowledge not very high (M = 3.42) while teachers’ knowledge level in technological pedagogical knowledge was the highest of all subscales of TPACK. This study also examined the correlations among each subscale variables in the TPACK framework in Table 2 which include: pedagogy (PK), technology (TK), content (CK), pedagogical content (PCK), technological pedagogy (TPK), technological content (TCK), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Positive and high correlations were found between PK and PCK (.851), between TPACK and TPK (.836) and between TPACK and TCK (.827). These correlations were the highest of all and were very significant as well (p < .001). In addition, positive high correlations were found between TCK and TPK (.781), between TPACK and TK (.718), and between PCK and CK (.717); they were also very significant (p < .001). All of the correlations between the subscale variables of TPACK were significant (p < .05) except for the relationship between content and technology knowledge as the results show that it is not a significant relationship but have a weak positive correlation. Positive and significant correlation between all the TPACK components was also found in many previous studies (Archambault and Crippen, 2009; Ekrem & Recep, 2014; Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee, 2012). This study also found a strong relationship between pedagogy and content (.666) but weak relationship between technology and content



(.264), as well as technology and pedagogy (.357), this is in consistent with the findings of Archambault and Crippen (2009), Ekrem & Recep (2014) and Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee’s studies (2012). Correlations between English language teachers’ demographic characteristics and subscales variables of TPACK framework were also examined in this study as shown in Table 3. From the Pearson’s correlation between the age of English language teachers and the domains of TPACK, the results indicate that pedagogy (.424), content (.313) and pedagogy content knowledge (.421) were significantly (p < .05) and positively correlated with English language teachers’ age. Although these correlations are not high, they indicate that age play a significant role in teacher’s knowledge of pedagogy and content. However, technology knowledge had a negative weak correlation with teachers’ age (-.062) and was not significant. This finding is in line with Koh and Sing’s study (2011) as they found that teachers’ age have no significant differences with respect to the TPACK components. However, Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee, (2012) found that TK, TPK, TCK, and TPC is significantly and negatively correlated with teachers’ age. The results of correlation between years of teaching experience and the domains of TPACK show that there were significant (p < .01) and positive correlations between years of teaching experience and teachers’ knowledge of pedagogy (.397) and pedagogy content (.417). This indicate that teachers with more years of teaching experience have higher knowledge in teaching strategies and methodologies, identifying weak students and provide assistance to understand the learned materials. When it comes to the use of technology in presenting material or in implementing it in different teaching methods, there is not neither significant nor strong correlation between technology and years of teaching experience. However, Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee, (2012) found that all TPACK components are not affected by teaching experience, but Yuksel & Yasin (2014) found that teachers with less experience had better technological pedagogical content knowledge level. When examining the correlation between the level of education of the English language teachers, the results revealed that there were significant (p < .05) and positive correlations between English language teachers’ education level and pedagogy (.302), pedagogy content (.366) and technology content (.287). This indicate that teacher’s with higher educational degrees have higher knowledge in teaching methodologies and strategies, adjust teaching methods to help students understand the topic, and sometimes use technology to present the learning materials. Limitations The main limitation of the current study was the low number of responses received. Therefore, no generalizations can be made to the overall population of in-service English language Teachers. Another limitation of this study that is the instrument used was a self-assessment survey as teachers self-judged their knowledge in TPACK component rather than being observed. In this case, bias can occur.

CONCLUSION

Nowadays, the application of technology in English language teaching is important and there is a great demand on English language teachers not just to have knowledge in content and pedagogy but also technology and how to use it effectively to enhance practices. The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived TPACK level of in-service English language teachers, to examine the correlation between each of the TPACK components, and to explore the extent in which TPACK components correlate with demographic characteristics (i.e. age, teaching experience, and education level). The TPACK model was developed by Koehler & Mishra (2006) consists of seven components including pedagogy (PK), technology (TK), content (CK), pedagogical content (PCK), technological pedagogy (TPK), technological content (TCK), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). The findings of the results revealed that perceived knowledge level of pedagogy and content of in-service English language teachers was higher that technology. All the subscales of TPACK were significantly and positively correlated with each other except for one, as there is no significant relationship between content and technology knowledge. In terms of demographic characteristics, English language teachers’ age was significantly and positively correlated with their knowledge of pedagogy, content, and pedagogical content. The years of teaching experience was significantly and positively correlated with English language teachers’ knowledge of pedagogy and pedagogy content. English language teachers’ education level was significantly and positively correlated with their knowledge of pedagogy, pedagogy content, and technology content. These findings are important for teacher education to prepare future English language teachers to have knowledge in other than traditional method of teaching. More field practices for future teacher are needed before starting their



teaching career. This includes using technology for content presentation as well as using technology for different methods of teaching the English language. More research is still needed in TPACK in the field of English language teaching with more focus on pre-service English language teachers to have a better understanding of the TPACK perceptions of those future teachers. The data collected in this study was through a self-reported survey. Future studies may employ qualitative method of data collection by observing or interviewing teachers to have a deeper understanding of their perceptions.

REFERENCES

Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.

Baran, E., Chuang, H., & Thompson, A. (2011). TPACK: An Emerging Research and Development Tool for Teacher Educators. Turkish Online Journal Of Educational Technology - TOJET, 10(4), 370-377.

Ekrem, S., & Recep, Ç. (2014). Examining Preservice EFL Teachers' TPACK Competencies in Turkey. Journal Of Educators Online, 11(2), 1.

Hofer, M., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). TPACK Development in Teacher Education: A Longitudinal Study of Preservice Teachers in a Secondary M.A.Ed. Program. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education, 45(1), 83-106.

Kocoglu, Z. (2009). Exploring the technological pedagogical content knowledge of preservice teachers in language education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), p. 2734-2737.

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

Koh, J. H. L. & Sing, C. C. (2011). Modeling pre-service teacher’s technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) perceptions: the influence of demographic factors and TPACK constructs. G. Williams, N. Brown, M. Pittard, B. Cleland (Ed.), Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings ascilite 4-7 December 2011, 17, 735-746.

Kurt, G., Mishra, P., & Kocoglu, Z. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge development of Turkish pre-service teachers of English. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA.

Lin, T.-C., Tsai, C.-C., Chai, C. S., & Lee, M.-H. (2012). Identifying Science Teachers’ Perceptions of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 325-336. doi: 10.1007/s10956-012-9396-6

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Raman, A. (2014). TPACK Confidence of Pre-service Teachers in Universiti Utara Malaysia. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(22), 167-175.

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.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Spires, H., Hervey, L., & Watson, T. (2013). Scaffolding the TPACK framework in reading and language arts: New literacies, new minds. In C.A. Young &Kajder (Eds.), Research on technology in English education, 33-61. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Tai, S.-J. D., & Chuang, H.-H. (2012). TPACK-in-Action: An Innovative Model to Help English Teachers Integrate CALL. Paper presented at the ICCE 2012, Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.lsl.nie.edu.sg/icce2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/C6-t-68.pdf

Yuksel, I., & Asin, E. (2014). Cross-sectional Evaluation of English Language Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Educational Research Quarterly, 38(2), 23-42.