=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2494/invited_paper_1
|storemode=property
|title=Use of ICT and Innovative Teaching Methods for STEM
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2494/invited_paper_1.pdf
|volume=Vol-2494
|authors=Vesna Ferk Savec
}}
==Use of ICT and Innovative Teaching Methods for STEM==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2494/invited_paper_1.pdf
Use of ICT and Innovative Teaching Methods for STEM
Vesna Ferk Savec
University of Ljubljana Faculty of Education
Ljubljana, Slovenia
vesna.ferk@pef.uni-lj.si
Abstract
The article focuses on the opportunities and challenges for the use of
ICT and innovative teaching methods in Science, Technology, Engineer-
ing and Mathematics (STEM) education with regard to teachers’ Tech-
nological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Thereby, teach-
ers’ self-efficacy, gender, teaching experience, teachers’ beliefs have been
studied by the use of the TPACK framework in STEM classrooms. The
need for additional support of STEM teachers been recognised, e.g. the
training to develop STEM teachers’ TPACK for the implementation of
ICT in their specific subject teaching; the importance of animating of
STEM teachers’ for their continuous participation in in-service train-
ing; and the examination of the role of STEM teachers’ TPACK in the
developing of students’ 21st century skills.
1 Introduction
With the expansion of the information age, societies have entered a process of change with the effect of rapidly
advancing science and technology. For example, the number of new substances has been growing exponentially
since the beginning of the century, the 100 millionth chemical substance was registered in the Chemical Abstracts
Service (CAS REGISTRY), in the 50th anniversary of the world’s largest database of unique chemical substances
[Cas15].
The information communication technology (ICT) tools resulting from new scientific and technological de-
velopments have been integrated in many areas of our everyday life, including education. Knowledge related
to the effective use of educational technologies has become recognised as an important aspect of an educator’s
knowledge-base for the 21st Century [P2116]. 21st Century skills comprise skills, abilities, and learning disposi-
tions that have been identified as being required for success in 21st century society and workplaces by educators,
business leaders, academics, and governmental agencies. Especially the importance of high order thinking skills
has been outlined. In order to support their development, learning is based on mastering skills such as analytic
reasoning, complex problem solving, and teamwork. These skills differ from traditional academic skills in that
they are not primarily content knowledge-based [Ded10].
In the information age, STEM teachers are continuously challenged with the occurrence of new opportunities,
which are the consequence of the new discoveries in STEM field, recent findings from the educational research,
as well as the result of a remarkable development of information technology.
Copyright 2019 for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
In: Jože Rugelj, Maria Lapina (eds.): Proceedings of SLET-2019 – International Scientic Conference Innovative Approaches to
the Application of Digital Technologies in Education and Research, Stavropol – Dombay, Russia, 20-23 May 2019, published at
http://ceur-ws.org
The new ideas can be implemented in teaching and learning processes in STEM education. Studies in STEM
field report about the implementation of ICT in the study process in various ways e.g. inquiry based learning
[Dob17; Hra18], project-based learning [Zhe10; War15; Fer18], blended learning [Bel07; Rug12; Ber14], mobile
learning [Pur18; Par12; Cro15], flipped learning [Jen15], robotics [Avs14; Ber16; Che18], 3D computer-aided
design systems [Men12; Sny14], massive open on-line courses (MOOCS) [Jao17; Tan14], etc.
The article addresses some of the opportunities and challenges in STEM education related to the use of ICT
from teachers’ perspective, e.g.:
1. What knowledge does the teacher need in order to efficiently use ICT in the classroom?
2. How is the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework implemented in STEM
education?
3. What are the future needs related to the implementation of TPACK in STEM education?
2 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
In last decade, a significant amount of teaching and learning materials has been developed, which has been to a
great extent influenced by recently emerged possibilities based on ICT, e.g. extensive use of visualisation such as
simulations, animations, video, interactive learning environments, social media, augmented reality, etc. [Apo15].
However, it seems that in a significant portion of the teaching and learning materials, the focus has been on the
implementation of new tools and quality, in the sense of learner’s aspects, has been neglected [Vrt09].
When developing teaching and learning materials, it is crucial to consider that people learn more efficiently
when they [Tam14, Hir15]:
(1) are actively involved (“minds-on”);
(2) are engaged with the learning materials and undistracted by peripheral elements;
(3) have meaningful experiences that relate to their lives;
(4) socially interact with others in high-quality ways around new material;
(5) within a context that provides clear learning goals.
To support the development of teachers’ knowledge about the possibilities of effective integration of educa-
tional technology tools in classroom instruction of specific subjects, Mishra and Koehler [Mis06] developed the
concept Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), which builds on Shulman’s [Shu87] pedagog-
ical content knowledge (PCK) model. According to Koehler and Mishra [Koe08], TPACK is an integration
of technological knowledge (TK - knowledge about technologies including the use of computers, the Internet,
interactive whiteboard), content knowledge (CK - knowledge about the subject matter that is to be learned or
taught), and pedagogical knowledge (PK - knowledge about the processes, practices or methods of teaching and
learning) and is intended to help teachers to use technology effectively in their subject teaching.
Figure 1: TPACK framework [Koe16]
In such a way, TPACK is a dynamic, integrative, and transformative knowledge of the technology, pedagogy,
and content of a subject matter needed for pedagogically meaningful integration of ICT in teaching [Mis06;
Rog14]. Effective integration of technology and pedagogy around specific subject matter requires developing
sensitivity to the dynamic relationship between these components of knowledge situated in unique contexts.
Many factors, such as the personality of teachers, grade-level, school-specific factors, demographics, culture, etc.,
contribute that every context is unique, and no single combination of content, technology, and pedagogy will
apply for every teacher, every course, or every perspective of teaching [Koe09]. The pillars and their integration
into TPACK can be conceived as a continuum. The integrative view emphasises that teacher knowledge can be
explained by the pillars per se, and TPACK is simply the sum of its parts. In contrast, the transformative view
suggests that TPACK is a unique knowledge element that needs to be developed independently of its underlying
constructs [Ges99; Gra11]. In a review of the TPACK research, Wu [Wu13] pointed that it has received increasing
attention from researchers and educators during the past decade; in particular, the TPACK research increased
at a fast pace from 2009. Regarding the distribution of the sample groups analysed by Wu [Wu13], the pre-
service teachers’ group has the highest ranking (54.2%), followed by the high school teachers’ group (20.8%), the
elementary school teachers’ group (16.7%), and the university or college teachers’ group (8.0%).
The changes in teachers’ TPACK are a function of micro factors at the classroom level (or learning envi-
ronment), meso factors at the school level (or community level) and macro factors at the societal level. The
changes in teachers’ TPACK at all three levels is associated with teachers’ factors and with students’ factors. The
proposed model presents the complexity and overlapping of factors that influence the development of teachers’
TPACK [Por13; Ros15].
3 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge In STEM Education
Despite the growing and diverse research into many aspects of TPACK, it appears that the context remains an
underdeveloped and under-researched component of the framework [Ros15]. Kelly [Kel10] examined whether
the context was included in the conceptual definition of TPACK and found that it is frequently missing when
researchers describe, explain, or operationalise TPACK in their work. In the review of research trends in
TPACK [Wu13], it was found that more than half of the empirical TPACK studies focused on teachers’ domain-
general TPACK, and relatively fewer studies explored teachers’ domain-specific TPACK. Science (20.8%) and
mathematics (12.5%) were found to be the two major subject domains that were explored in those domain-specific
TPACK studies. The researchers [Wu13] suggested that this is probably because science and mathematics are
relatively more abstract to students, and science teachers and math teachers may be more likely to adopt
technologies to help students overcome their learning difficulties.
Based on the implementation of the TPACK framework in STEM classrooms, different variables have been
examined, such as teachers’ beliefs about self-efficacy [Lee08], skills of integrating technology into teaching
[Guz09; Jan10] and teachers’ gender [Lin12]. It was found [Lin12] that female teachers were more confident
in PK but less confident in TK in comparison to male teachers; however, in the another study [Jan13], male
STEM teachers rated their technology knowledge significantly higher than female teachers did. STEM teachers’
TPACK was also found to relate to school context and their reasoning skills [Guz09]. Research on STEM teachers’
TPACK with regard to their teaching experience suggests varying results. Some studies [Lee08] found that more
experienced teachers perceived their TPACK with respect to the Web lower than less experienced teachers did.
In contrast, other studies [Jan12] found that more experienced elementary science and mathematics teachers’
TPACK were significantly higher than that of less experienced teachers. In the follow-up study [Jan13] indicated
that experienced STEM teachers tended to rate their content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge
in context (PCKCx) significantly higher than novice STEM teachers did. However, STEM teachers with less
teaching experience tended to rate their technology knowledge and technological content knowledge in context
(TPCKCx) significantly higher than teachers with more teaching experience did.
Researchers have also examined how chemistry teachers use Social Networks Sites (e.g. Facebook groups) and
social media (e.g. YouTube) to facilitate learning. It was found [Blo17] that teachers’ notion regarding what
constitutes learning using chemistry Facebook groups had not changed during the teachers’ training (workshop for
chemistry teachers about technological tools, including Facebook groups), but the teachers’ knowledge about how
they can facilitate learning improved. Similarly, to improve the implementation of YouTube in chemistry teaching
and learning, a one-year professional development course was designed to build the relevant TPCK for using
videos in chemistry lessons, and to increase teachers’ self-efficacy in editing and using videos in chemistry lessons
[Blo13]. The research outcomes suggest that when the technology is readily available, such as YouTube videos,
and the teachers receive the opportunity to develop skills, TPACK, and self-efficacy beliefs by experiencing the
new technology in their own school practice by being a part of the community of learning, teachers will efficiently
integrate the new technology in their teaching [Blo13].
Table 1: Viewpoints addressed in examining STEM teachers’ domain-specific TPACK
Viewpoints studied regarding STEM teachers’ Examples of the references
domain-specific TPACK
(Student) teachers’ perception, beliefs and attitudes to- [Lee08; Lin12; Blo13; Ozg14;Leh16; Blo17]
wards TPACK
Examining and developing of (student) teachers’ TPACK [Guz09; Nie07; Nie09; Jan10; Jan10; Jan13;
Mae13; Blo13; Jai15; Lin17; Blo17; Mel19b;
Lou19]
Teachers’ gender [Hua09; Lin12; Jan13; Cha14; Mel19a]
Teachers’ teaching experience [Lee08; Jan12; Jan13; Cha14; Sit16]
Teachers’ pedagogical reasoning skills [Guz09; Jai 2015]
Some authors felt the need for the adaptation of TPACK for a specific subject domain. The concept Tech-
nological Pedagogical Science Knowledge (TPASK) has been developed as a framework for TPACK in science
education [Jim10a]. The TPASK model is based on three knowledge domains: pedagogical science knowledge (a
science education operationalisation of PCK), technological science knowledge (a science education operationali-
sation of TCK), and TPK, but more oriented towards science education. According to Jimoyiannis [Jim10b, pp.
602], pedagogical science knowledge consists of several knowledge components e.g. scientific knowledge, science
curriculum, transformation of scientific knowledge, students’ learning difficulties about specific scientific fields,
learning strategies, general pedagogy and educational context; technological science knowledge consists of e.g.
resources and tools available for science subjects, operational and technical skills related to specific scientific
knowledge, transformation of scientific knowledge, and transformation of scientific processes; technological peda-
gogical knowledge consists of e.g. ICT-based learning strategies, fostering scientific inquiry with ICT, supporting
information skills, student scaffolding, and handling students’ technical difficulties.
Another view of TPACK in science education is built on the idea of that science teachers’ PCK is composed
of [Mag99]:
(1) knowledge related to specific subject curricula, e.g. goals and objectives for specific contents in science
curricula;
(2) knowledge related to students’ understanding of science, e.g. possible misconceptions regarding science
concepts and process;
(3) knowledge of instructional strategies, e.g. strategies and learning tools for specific science topics;
(4) knowledge of assessment of science knowledge and skills, e.g. methods of assessing experimental work in
science learning.
Based on the competencies and knowledge teachers are expected to develop for their PCK, a framework for
TPACK-practical with eight knowledge dimensions in which science teachers practice teaching with technology
has been proposed and validated[Yet14]:
(1) using ICT to understand students;
(2) using ICT to understand subject content;
(3) planning ICT infused curriculum;
(4) using ICT representations;
(5) using ICT integrated teaching strategies;
(6) applying ICT to instructional management;
(7) infusing ICT in teaching contexts;
(8) using ICT to assess students.
The last dimension enables teachers to assess not only their students’ learning progress but also the effective-
ness of their instruction.
With regard to teaching with the Internet, TPACK may be insufficient for providing adequate information
to assist teacher preparation and professional development, thereby internet could be regarded a specific form
of technology, and introduced a framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge-Web (TPCK-W)
[Lee08]. Wang, Tsai, and Wei [Wan15] examined whether TPACK-W is a potential mediator contributing to
the relationship between teaching and learning conceptions and science teaching self-efficacy by science teachers.
They found that knowledge of and attitudes toward Internet-based instruction mediated the positive relationship
between constructivist conceptions of teaching and learning and outcome expectancy, and that it also mediated
the negative correlations between traditional conceptions of teaching and learning and science teaching efficacy.
4 Challenges Related To Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
In STEM Education
Despite numerous studies dealing with various viewpoints regarding STEM teachers’ domain-specific TPACK
(Table 1) and the existence of well-elaborated modifications of the original TPACK framework for STEM edu-
cation domain, in school practice many STEM teachers still do not use ICT in their lessons, and also there is
insufficient evidence about how teachers, who claim to use ICT, implement it in their STEM classrooms.
The main challenge with regard to TPACK in STEM education, therefore, seems to be in finding ways to
facilitate STEM teachers’ recognition of the value of TPACK and how to facilitate their continuous care for the
development of their own TPACK.
Niess, Sadri and Lee [Nie07] proposed a developmental model for TPACK in terms of teachers learning to
integrate a technology into teaching. They found that teachers progressed through a five-stage developmental
process when learning to integrate a particular technology in teaching and learning [Nie11]:
(1) recognising (knowledge), by which teachers are able to use the technology and recognise the alignment of
the technology with subject matter content, yet do not integrate technology into the teaching and learning of
the content;
(2) accepting (persuasion), by which teachers form a favourable or unfavourable attitude toward teaching and
learning specific content topics with appropriate technology;
(3) adapting (decision), by which teachers engage in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject teaching
and learning specific content topics with appropriate technology;
(4) exploring (implementation), by which teachers actively integrate teaching and learning of specific content
topics with appropriate technology;
(5) advancing (confirmation), by which teachers redesign the curricula and evaluate the results of the decision
to integrate teaching and learning specific content topics with appropriate technology.
An important caveat when considering these levels and the progression toward TPACK is that, while appearing
linear with respect to a particular technology, the transition from one level to another does not display a regular,
consistently increasing pattern. It requires rethinking the content and the pedagogies, thus, the levels are
proposed to display more of an iterative process in the development of TPACK [Nie09].
Teachers often tend to use ICT largely to support, enhance and complement existing classroom practice
rather than re-shaping subject content, goals, and pedagogies [Osb03]. Regarding the state-of-the-art about
the implementation of ICT in STEM teaching and learning, TIMSS [TIM15] reported considerable variation in
computer availability among 57 participating countries for the use of computers in STEM lessons with fourth-
graders, with an international average of 46%. It was found that, on average, more than one quarter of the
fourth-grade students were asked by their STEM teachers to use computers at least monthly for activities,
such as conducting scientific procedures or experiments (26%), practicing skills and procedures (31%), looking
up ideas and information (41%) and studying natural phenomena through simulation (28%). For eighth-grade
science, TIMSS [TIM15] also found considerable variation in computer availability among participating countries
for the use in science lessons, with an international average of 42%. Thereby, 28-37% of eight-grade students
were asked to use computers at least monthly, for various activities, such as conducting scientific procedures or
experiments (28%), practicing skills and procedures (30%), looking up ideas and information (37%), studying
natural phenomena through simulation (29%), and processing and analysing data (29%). It cannot be simply
assumed that the introduction of ICT necessarily transforms science teaching and learning.
The critical role of the STEM teacher in creating the conditions for efficient ICT-supported learning through
selecting and evaluating appropriate technological resources for achieving of selected curriculum aims, addressing
students’ needs, as well as in designing, structuring and sequencing the learning activities, needs to be acknowl-
edged. In order to address the challenge of facilitating STEM teachers’ continuous development of TPACK, it
is important to efficiently overcome the constraints that might influence teachers’ TPACK development. The
possible constraints listed by STEM teachers’ include lack of time to gain confidence and experience with ICT;
limited accessibility to reliable resources; lack of time for critical selection of learning resources related to cur-
riculum topics; a STEM curriculum overloaded with content; assessment that requires no use of the technology;
the lack of subject-specific guidance for using ICT to support learning; lack of support for the installation and
use of contemporary software in STEM classrooms; and lack of students’ interest for learning STEM [Fer15;
Osb03]. Most of the above-listed constraints are related to variables also recognised other researchers [Rob03;
Ina10] as the factors that affect technology integration by using path models to determine the relationships
between teacher demographic characteristics (years of teaching and age), computer proficiency, external sup-
port variables (availability of computers, technical support, and overall support), teachers’ perceptions (beliefs,
readiness) toward using computers and usage of computers.
Factors that significantly influence on STEM teacher’s development of TPACK are the following [Fer17]:
(1) Teacher’s factors, such as teacher’s demographic characteristics, ICT proficiency, beliefs related to ICT,
perceptions about learning with ICT, readiness for lifelong learning;
(2) Students’ factors, such as student’s general interest for science, interest for learning specific science subject,
interest for learning with ICT, ICT proficiency;
(3) External support factors, such as easy availability of ICT devices, availability of in-service training for
meaningful use of ICT in science subject domain, support in school environment, supporting communities of
science teachers.
5 Conclusions
In the era of rapid development of ICT and the new discoveries in STEM field as well as in educational research,
the STEM teachers are facing many challenges and opportunities related to their teaching practice. Technological
Pedagogical Content knowledge (TPACK) can be recognised as a dynamic, integrative, and transformative
knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and STEM contents needed for the pedagogically meaningful integration of
ICT in STEM teaching. Although the general TPACK framework has been accepted in a wide range of areas,
and also extensively used in science education field, also a filed specific concept - Technological Pedagogical
Science Knowledge (TPASK) – has been proposed a framework for TPACK specific for science education. So
far the studies related to TPACK in STEM field focused on teachers’ self-efficacy, gender, teaching experience,
teachers’ beliefs and many of them to the development of teachers’ TPACK.
Among the necessary future developmental activities, the need for additional support of STEM teachers has
been recognised. Some possible activities:
- organisation of the ICT support centres at the universities, that would continuously support university
teachers and facilitate their meaningful implementation of ICT in the training of future STEM teachers (pre-
service teacher training);
- organisation ofteacher training to develop teachers’ TPACK for the meaningful implementation of ICT in
their specific STEM subject teaching(in-service teacher training);
- development of systematic means for facilitation of teachers’ participation in subject specific ICT training,
e.g. aiming to facilitate teachers’ understanding of the potential of the meaningful implementation of ICT in
STEM teaching in order to support students’ learning outcomes in STEM;
- support of the development and sustainability of the national and international communities of teachers
devoted to exchange good practices of ICT implementation in STEM area;
References
[Apo15] Apotheker, J. Veldman, I. (2015). Twenty-first century skills: Using the web in chemistry educa-
tion. In: J. Garcia-Martinez and E. Serrano-Torregrosa (Eds.) Chemistry education : best practices,
opportunities and trens. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, pp. 565-594.
[Avs14] Avsec, S., Rihtarsic, D., Kocijancic, S. (2014). A predictive study of learner attitudes toward open
learning in a robotics class. Journal of science education and technology, 23(5), 692-704.
[Ber16] Berenguel, M., Rodrı́guez, F., Moreno, J. C., Guzmán, J. L., González, R. (2016). Tools and method-
ologies for teaching robotics in computer science engineering studies. Computer Applications in Engi-
neering Education, 24(2), 202-214.
[Ber14] Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., Abrami, P. C.(2014). A meta-analysis
of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal
of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122.
[Bel07] Bele, J. L., Rugelj, J.(2007). Blended learning-an opportunity to take the best of both worlds. Inter-
national Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 2(3). [Blo13] Blonder, R., Jonatan, M.,
Bar-Dov, Z., Benny, N., Rap, S., Sakhnini, S. (2013). Can You Tube it? Providing chemistry teachers
with technological tools and enhancing their self-efficacy beliefs. Chemistry Education Research and
Practice, 14(3), 269-285.
[Cas15] CAS (2015) CAS Assigns the 100 Millionth CAS Registry Number to a Substance Designed to Treat
Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Retrieved from https://www.cas.org/news/media-releases/100-millionth-
substance
[Cha14] Chang, Y., Tsai, M. F., Jang, S. J. (2014). Exploring ICT use and TPACK of secondary science
teachers in two contexts. US-China Education Review, 4(5), 298-311.
[Che18] Chen, Y., Chang, C. C. (2018). The Impact of an Integrated Robotics STEM Course with a Sailboat
Topic on High School Students’ Perceptions of Integrative STEM, Interest, and Career Orientation.
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14, 12.
[Cro15] Crompton, H., Traxler, J. (Eds.). (2015). Mobile Learning and STEM: Case Studies in Practice.
Routledge.
[Ded10] Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. 21st century skills: Rethinking how
students learn, 20, 51-76.
[Dob17] Dobber, M., Zwart, R., Tanis, M., van Oers, B. (2017). Literature review: The role of the teacher in
inquiry-based education. Educational Research Review, 22, 194-214.
[Fer17] Ferk Savec, V. (2017). The opportunities and challenges for ICT in science education. LUMAT: Interna-
tional Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 5(1), 12-22. [Fer18] Ferk Savec, V., Hrast,
Š., Šuligoj, V., Avsec, S. (2018). The innovative use of ICT in STEM teacher training programmes at
the University of Ljubljana. World Trans. on Engng. and Technol. Educ, 16(4), 421-427.
[Fra11] Franz, A. K. Organic chemistry YouTube writing assignment for large lecture classes. Journal of
Chemical Education, 89(4), 497-501.
[Ges99] Gess-Newsome J.(1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: an introduction and orientation. In: Gess-
Newsome J, Lederman N (Eds.): Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge
for science teaching. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 3-17.
[Gra09] Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., Clair, L. S., Harris, R.(2009). TPACK devel-
opment in science teaching: Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. (2009).
TechTrends, 53(5), 70–79.
[Gra11] Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK). Computers Education, 57(3), 1953–1960.
[Guz09] Guzey, S. S. Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers’
development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 9(1), 25-45.
[Hir15] Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting
Education in “Educational” Apps: Lessons From the Science of Learning. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 16(1), 3-34.
[Hra18] Hrast, Š., Ferk Savec, V. (2018). ICT-supported inquiry-based learning. World Trans. on Engng. and
Technol. Educ, 16(4), 398-403.
[Hua09] Huang, S. Y. L., Fraser, B. J. (2009). Science teachers’ perceptions of the school environment: Gender
differences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 404-420.
[Ina10] Inan, F. A., Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A
path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137-154.
[Jan10] 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.
[Jai15] Jaipal-Jamani, K., Figg, C. (2015). A case study of a TPACK-based approach to teacher professional
development: Teaching science with blogs. Teacher Education, 15(2), 161-200.
[Jan10a] Jang, S.-J. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of
secondary science teachers. Computers Education, 55(4), 1744-1751.
[Jan10b] 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.
[Jan13] Jang, S.-J., Tsai, M.-F. (2013). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese secondary school science teachers
using a new contextualized TPACK model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4).
[Jan17] Jao, J-C. (2017). Application of a MOOC in a general physics flipped classroom. World Trans. on
Engng. and Technol. Educ., 15(1), 28-33.
[Jen15] Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., Godoy, P. D. D. M. (2015). Improvements from a Flipped Classroom
May Simply Be the Fruits of Active Learning. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(1), 1-12.
[Jim10a] Jimoyiannis, A. (2010a). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science
knowledge framework for science teachers’ professional development. Computers Education, 55(3),
1259–1269.
[Jim10b] Jimoyiannis, A. (2010b). Developing a technological pedagogical content knowledge frame-
work for science education: implications of a teacher trainers’ preparation program. Pro-
ceedings of Informing Science IT Education Conference, pp. 597 – 607. Retrieved from
http://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2010/InSITE10p597-607Jimoyiannis867.pdf
[Kel10] Kelly, M. A. (2010). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A Content analysis
of 2006–2009 print journal articles. In D. Gibson, B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for
Information Technology Teacher Education. Chesapeake, VA: AACE, pp. 3880–3888.
[Koe08] Koehler, M. J. Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation Technol-
ogy (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 3–29). NewYork:
Routledge.
[Koe09] Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contempo-
rary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
[Koe11] Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P. Bouck, E. C., DeSchryver, M., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., Wolf, L. G.
(2011). Deep-play: developing TPACK for 21st century teachers. International Journal of Learning
Technology, 6(2), 146.
[Koe16] Koehler, M. (2016). TPACK Image. Retrieved from http://www.matt-koehler.com/tpack/using-the-
tpack-image; Reproduced by permission of the publisher, c 2012 by tpack.org
[Lee08] Lee, M.-H., Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Exploring teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and technological pedagogical
content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1),
1–21.
[Leh16] Lehtinen, A., Nieminen, P., Viiri, J. (2016). Preservice teachers’ TPACK beliefs and attitudes toward
simulations. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 151-171.
[Lic12] Lichter, J. (2012). Using YouTube as a platform for teaching and learning solubility rules. Journal of
Chemical Education, 89(9), 1133-1137.
[Lin17] Lincoln Gill, Barney Dalgarno. (2017) A qualitative analysis of pre-service primary school teachers’
TPACK development over the four years of their teacher preparation programme. Technology, Pedagogy
and Education, 26(4), 439-456.
[Lou19] Loucas Fl. Tsouccas, Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris. (2019) Enhancing In-Service Primary Teachers’
Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge on Mobile Mathematics Learning. International
Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 11(3), 1-18.
[Mag99] Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content
knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome N. Lederman (Eds), PCK and science education.
New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 3–17.
[Mae13] Maeng, J. L., Mulvey, B. K., Smetana, L. K., Bell, R. L. (2013). Preservice teachers’ TPACK: Using
technology to support inquiry instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 838-857.
[Men12] Meng, Y., Mok, P. Y., Jin, X. (2012). Computer aided clothing pattern design with 3D editing and
pattern alteration. Computer-Aided Design, 44(8), 721-734.
[Mel19a] Melike Ozudogru, Fatma Ozudogru. (2019) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Math-
ematics Teachers and the Effect of Demographic Variables. Contemporary Educational Technology,
pages 1-24.
[Mel19b] Meltem Irmak, Özgül Yilmaz Tüzün. (2019a) Investigating pre-service science teachers’ perceived
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) regarding genetics. Research in Science Tech-
nological Education, 37(2), 127-146.
[Mis06] Mishra, P. Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for
integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
[Mis11] Mishra, P., Kereluik, K. (2011). What 21st century learning? A review and a synthesis. In M.
Koehler P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education
International Conference 2011. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. pp. 3301–3312.
[Nie07] Niess, M. L., Sadri, P., Lee, K. (2007). Dynamic spreadsheets as learning technology tools: Devel-
oping teachers’ technology pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). American Educational Research
Association.
[Nie09] Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston, C., . . . Kersaint,
G. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4-24.
[Nie11] Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal of
educational computing research, 44(3), 299-317.
[Osb03] Osborne, J. Hennessy S. (2003). Literature review in science education and the role of ict:
promise, problems and future directions. A NESTA Futurelab Research report. Retrieved from
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/190441/filename/osborne-j-2003-r6.pdf
[P2116] P21 Partnership for 21st century learning. (2016) Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-
framework
[Par12] Park, S. Y., Nam, M. W., Cha, S. B. (2012). University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile
learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology,
43(4), 592-605.
[Por13] Porras-Hernandez, L. H. Salinas-Amescua, B. (2013). Strengthening TPACK: A broader notion of
context and the use of teacher’s narratives to reveal knowledge construction. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 48(2), 223-244.
[Pur18] Purnawansyah and Salim, Y. (2018). Mobile-flipped learning for an information system course. World
Trans. on Engng.and Technol. Educ., 16, 2, 193-197.
[Rog13] Rogers, L., Twidle, J. (2013). A pedagogical framework for developing innovative science teachers with
ICT. Research in Science Technological Education, 31(3), 227–251.
[Ros15] Rosenberg, J. M., Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge
(tpack): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 186–210.
[Rug12] Rugelj, J., Ciglarič, M., Krevl, A., Pančur, M., Brodnik, A. (2012). Constructivist learning environment
in a cloud. In Workshop on Learning Technology for Education in Cloud (LTEC’12) (pp. 193-204).
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[Sac14] Sancar-Tokmak, H., Surmeli, H., Ozgelen, S. (2014). Preservice science teachers’ perceptions of their
tpack development after creating digital stories. International Journal of Environmental and Science
Education, 9(3), 247-264.
[Sit16] Sitti Maesuri Patahuddin, Tom Lowrie, Barney Dalgarno. (2016) Analysing Mathematics Teachers’
TPACK Through Observation of Practice. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher25:5-6, pages 863-
872.
[Shu87] Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57(1), 1–23.
[Sny14] Snyder, T. J., Andrews, M., Weislogel, M., Moeck, P., Stone-Sundberg, J., Birkes, D., ... Friedman, S.
(2014). 3D systems’ technology overview and new applications in manufacturing, engineering, science,
and education. 3D printing and additive manufacturing, 1(3), 169-176.
[Sze16] Szeto, E., Cheng, A. Y.-N., Hong, J.-C. (2016). Learning with Social Media: How do Preservice
Teachers Integrate YouTube and Social Media in Teaching? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,
25(1), 35-44.
[Tan14] Taneja, S., Goel, A. (2014). MOOC providers and their strategies. International Journal of Computer
Science and Mobile Computing, 3(5), 222-228.
[Tam14] Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Kuchirko, Y., Song, L. (2014). Why is infant language learning facilitated by
parental responsiveness? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), 121–126.
[Tim15] TIMSS (2015). IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study – TIMSS 2015. Retrieved
from http://timss2015.org/download-center/
[Zhe10] Zhe, J., Doverspike, D., Zhao, J., Lam, P. C., Menzemer, C. C. (2010). High school bridge program:
A multidisciplinary STEM research program. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research,
11(1-2), 61.
[Vrt09] Vrtačnik, M. Ferk Savec, V. (2009). Kako razvijati e-gradiva z dodano vrednostjo? = How could
value-added e-units be developed?. In: OREL, Mojca (Ed.). Nova vizija tehnologij prihodnosti = The
new vision of future technologies. Ljubljana: Evropska hiša, pp. 225-236.
[War15] Warin, B., Talbi, O., Kolski, C., Hoogstoel, F. (2015). Multi-role project (MRP): A new project-based
learning method for STEM. IEEE Transactions on Education, 59(2), 137-146.
[Wan15] Wang, Y.-L., Tsai, C.-C., Wei, S.-H. (2015). The Sources of Science Teaching Self-efficacy among Ele-
mentary School Teachers: A mediational model approach. International Journal of Science Education,
37(14), 2264–2283.
[Wu13] Wu, Y.-T. (2013). Research trends in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) research:
A review of empirical studies published in selected journals from 2002 to 2011. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 44(3), E73–E76.
[Yeh13] Yeh, Y.-F., Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, H.-K., Hwang, F.-K., Lin, T.-C. (2013). Developing and validating tech-
nological pedagogical content knowledge-practical (TPACK-Practical) through the Delphi survey tech-
nique. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 707–722.