English as a Foreign

Language Teachers’
TPACK:
Emerging Research and
Opportunities

Mehrak Rahimi
Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Iran

Shakiba Pourshahbaz
Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Iran

A volume in the Advances in

Educational Technologies and
Instructional Design (AETID) Book
Series
Published in the United States of America by
IGI Global
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA, USA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2019 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the
names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the
trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Rahimi, Mehrak, 1970- author. | Pourshahbaz, Shakiba, 1993- author.

Title: English as a foreign language teachers’ TPACK : emerging research and
opportunities / by Mehrak Rahimi and Shakiba Pourshahbaz.
Description: Hershey PA : Information Science Reference, [2019]
Identifiers: LCCN 2018005667| ISBN 9781522562672 (hardcover) | ISBN
9781522562689 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: English language--Study and teaching--Computer-assisted
instruction. | English language--Study and teaching--Foreign speakers. |
Pedagogical content knowledge--Computer-assisted instruction.
Classification: LCC P53.28 R34 2019 | DDC 428.0071--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.
loc.gov/2018005667

This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Educational Technologies and
Instructional Design (AETID) (ISSN: 2326-8905; eISSN: 2326-8913)

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material.

The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

 Advances in Educational
Technologies and
Instructional Design
(AETID) Book Series
ISSN:2326-8905
EISSN:2326-8913

Editor-in-Chief: Lawrence A. Tomei, Robert Morris University, USA

Mission
Education has undergone, and continues to undergo, immense changes in
the way it is enacted and distributed to both child and adult learners. From
distance education, Massive-Open-Online-Courses (MOOCs), and electronic
tablets in the classroom, technology is now an integral part of the educational
experience and is also affecting the way educators communicate information
to students.
The Advances in Educational Technologies & Instructional Design
(AETID) Book Series is a resource where researchers, students, administrators,
and educators alike can find the most updated research and theories regarding
technology’s integration within education and its effect on teaching as a
practice.

Coverage
• Curriculum Development IGI Global is currently accepting
• Web 2.0 and Education manuscripts for publication within this
• Digital Divide in Education series. To submit a proposal for a volume in
• Instructional Design this series, please contact our Acquisition
• Social Media Effects on Education Editors at [email protected] or
• Game-Based Learning visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/.
• Educational Telecommunications
• Hybrid Learning
• Virtual School Environments
• E-Learning

The Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series (ISSN 2326-8905) is
published by IGI Global, 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series
is composed of titles available for purchase individually; each title is edited to be contextually exclusive from any other
title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please visit http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-
educational-technologies-instructional-design/73678. Postmaster: Send all address changes to above address. ©© 2019
IGI Global. All rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this series may be
reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
taping, or information and retrieval systems – without written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial,
educational use, including classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, but
not necessarily of IGI Global.
 Titles in this Series
For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit:
https://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-educational-technologies-instructional-design/73678

Enhancing Social Presence in Online Learning Environments

Michael Marmon (University of North Texas, USA)
Information Science Reference • ©2018 • 317pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522532293) • US $185.00

Digital Technologies and Instructional Design for Personalized Learning

Robert Zheng (University of Utah, USA)
Information Science Reference • ©2018 • 391pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522539407) • US $195.00

Curriculum Development for Gifted Education Programs

Jessica Cannaday (Azusa Pacific University, USA)
Information Science Reference • ©2018 • 284pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522530411) • US $175.00

Curriculum Internationalization and the Future of Education

Semire Dikli (Georgia Gwinnett College, USA) Brian Etheridge (Georgia Gwinnett College,
USA) and Richard Rawls (Georgia Gwinnett College, USA)
Information Science Reference • ©2018 • 360pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522527916) • US $195.00

Handbook of Research on Integrating Technology Into Contemporary Language Learning ...

Bin Zou (Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, China) and Michael Thomas (University of
Central Lancashire, UK)
Information Science Reference • ©2018 • 626pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522551409) • US $265.00

Technology Management in Organizational and Societal Contexts

Andrew Borchers (Lipscomb University, USA)
Information Science Reference • ©2018 • 365pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522552796) • US $195.00

Engaging Adolescent Students in Contemporary Classrooms Emerging Research and ...

Prathiba Nagabhushan (St. Mary MacKillop College, Australia)
Information Science Reference • ©2018 • 216pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522551553) • US $135.00

For an entire list of titles in this series, please visit:

https://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-educational-technologies-instructional-design/73678

701 East Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033, USA

Tel: 717-533-8845 x100 • Fax: 717-533-8661
E-Mail: [email protected] • www.igi-global.com
Table of Contents

Preface................................................................................................................... vi

Chapter 1
A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL).....................1

Chapter 2
The Role of Teachers in CALL.............................................................................29

Chapter 3
EFL Teacher Knowledge Base..............................................................................53

Chapter 4
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The Theory.............78

Chapter 5
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): Research
Agenda................................................................................................................103

Chapter 6
EFL TPACK: The Theory...................................................................................115

Chapter 7
EFL TPACK: Research Agenda..........................................................................152

Appendix............................................................................................................ 162

Related Readings............................................................................................... 169

About the Authors............................................................................................. 190

Index................................................................................................................... 191
vi

Preface

The era of technology has brought with itself new types of competencies, skills,
and knowledge. The use of technology for more than half of a century has
evolved people’s minds and has created new ways of thinking and processing
information. As a result, the schools of the 21st century have different students,
and thus demand to have different teachers, environment, and equipment.
Undoubtedly, teachers of this century should empower themselves both
pedagogically and technologically to be able to teach more efficiently and
orchestrate efficient learning. To be able to do that, teachers are required to
arm themselves with appropriate knowledge of the subject matter to teach
the content based on pedagogical principles and practices using the-state-
of-the-art technologies. The knowledge base of teachers of the 21st century
is called TPACK (Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge)with
seven distinct and interrelated components including Content Knowledge
(CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(PCK), Technological Knowledge (TK), Technological Content Knowledge
(TCK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), and Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK).While the framework of TPACK
is based on certain theoretical underpinnings and empirical studies, extensive
research on the model of TPACK has revealed contradictions with respect
to the perfect compatibility of its components with the knowledge base of
different subject matters.
TPACK of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers can subsume
the prototypical model of TPACK if certain additional aspects are taken into
account. This would include specification of teaching English as a Foreign
Language standards, proficiencies, and competencies; accurate definition of
its underlying pedagogical frameworks associated with English Language
Teaching (ELT) and Second Language Acquisition; as well as the way English
is taught with technology in the domain of Computer Assisted Language
Learning (CALL). Although there is extensive research on the way language(s)
Preface

should be taught and learned based on teaching/learning principles using the

cutting-edge technologies, research on TPACK of EFL teachers is merging
and still in need of more scientific support.
As a result, the book ‘English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ TPACK:
Emerging Research and Opportunities’ addresses the concept of TPACK and
its related concepts in general, and the knowledge base of teaching English
as a Foreign language in particular. The book consists of seven chapters with
a historical trend of introducing concepts and models in opening chapters
and moving to more practical and research-based issues in the closing parts.
Therefore, in the first half of the book the historical background of TPACK
formation and seminal works of the founders and developers of the model
are addressed. Following that, the necessity of defining and specifying EFL
TPACK is comprehensively discussed in the second part of the book and some
studies done in this arena are reviewed in the closing sections. A summary
of each chapter follows.
Chapter One discusses a brief history of Computer Assisted Language
Learning (CALL). The chapter begins with defining CALL and its key
concepts. A comprehensive but brief account of the history of CALL from
the 1950s till the present is presented in the following. The characteristics of
each phase of CALL, the corresponding linguistic/psychological frameworks,
technologies, activities and merits/demerits are elaborated. CALL research
scope and its future perspective are portrayed and possible fields of research
are introduced. In the end, a quick and brief guideline is provided on how to
use CALL in teaching macro and micro language skills.
Chapter Two discusses the role of teachers in CALL. First the role of teachers
in EFL classes along with the timeline of language teaching methodology
(from grammar translation method to CLT approach) as well as post-method
era is discussed. Then the benefits of using CALL for language teachers is
addressed, and the concept of teacher role in CALL is defined and specified.
The importance of EFL teachers’ cognition in successful ICT integration is
discussed in the closing section of the chapter. This is specifically related to
discussion about theory of diffusion of innovation and how it can be related
to CALL history and integration in language classes.
Chapter Three pinpoints EFL teachers’ knowledge base and its components.
First, knowledge and its nature in general and teacher knowledge in particular
are discussed. The theoretical frameworks of teacher knowledge base in
general and the knowledge base of EFL teachers in particular are defined

vii
 Preface

and elaborated meticulously. In the following, the need to reconceptualizinf

EFL teacher’s knowledge base, the importance of investigating EFL teachers’
knowledge base in CALL-based teaching/learning environments, and the way
teachers should be empowered in technology era are addressed.
Chapter Four addresses the theories underlying the construct TPACK. The
chapter begins with reviewing the history and then the rationale of teacher
knowledge base in the form of a multi-dimensional model taken from published
literature. Then it discusses how TPACK framework has developed and
evolved in the last decade. Some seminal works are reviewed in this section
whose authors have contributed to the development of TPACK model. In
continuation, a comprehensive list of the definitions of TPACK and critical
issues regarding this framework are discussed. In the closing section, the
evolved model of TPACK, namely TPACK in-Action, is introduced in detail.
Chapter Five gives a brief review of literature of TPACK and the variables
researchers have focused on during the past decade. The review of literature is
divided into four parts: the research done on the emergence of the model and
the educationists’ works on the theoretical aspects of TPACK; how certain
researchers have tried to validate the TPACK model and the contradictions
they revealed in the process; the assessment of the model in the context of
teaching and the way TPACK can be related to other attributes of teachers
and their context of teaching; and finally the measures of TPACK including
both subjective and performance measures.
Chapter Six focuses on EFL teachers’ TPACK. First, the types of knowledge
that are important in pedagogy and how these categories of knowledge
and their related frameworks can differentiate models of teacher education
are discussed. In the following, some models of teacher education, their
characteristics, and their differences and similarities are introduced. Then
the rationale of developing EFL TPACK to subsume standard TPACK is
discussed and the need to EFL TPACK is addressed. The rationale includes
two important characteristics of EFL teachers that can impact the use and
adaptation of technology in the process of teaching: computer attitudes and
ICT literacy. How these two constructs are important in empowering a teacher
to use ICT in instruction, and how they can hinder technology-based teaching
and learning are discussed. Some related models and constructs associated
with these two attributes are described as well. In the last part, the construct
EFL TPACK is comprehensively introduced with respect to seven components
of TPACK: CK, PK, PCK, TK, TPK, TPCK, and TPACK. Each component
is described in detail and support/evidence from the literature is provided.

viii
Preface

Chapter Seven lists studies done on EFL TPACK. As a new and still-
evolving construct, some studies done on the understanding of the construct
itself and its relationship with other variables are listed. In the closing section
of the chapter a few measures of EFL TPACK are introduced. Three samples
of measure of TPACK are enclosed in the Appendix for further reference.
As this book gets its strength both from TPACK and ELT theories and
practices, it thus can be a helpful guide for EFL teacher educators, EFL
teachers, and researchers who are interested in issues related to teacher
empowerment and development.

ix
 1

Chapter 1
A Short History of
Computer-Assisted
Language Learning (CALL)

ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses a brief history of computer-assisted language learning
(CALL). First CALL and its key concepts are defined then a comprehensive
but brief account of the history of CALL from the 1950s till the present is
presented. The characteristics of each phase of CALL, the corresponding
linguistic/psychological frameworks, technologies, activities and merits/
demerits, and the role of the computer in instruction are elaborated. CALL
research scope and its future perspective are portrayed and possible fields of
research are introduced. In the end, a quick and brief guideline is provided
on how to use CALL in teaching macro and micro language skills.

BACKGROUND

Since the mid of 20th century, the advent of different types of technological
devices has revolutionized the way people think, work, and live. Technology
and its affordances have affected all areas of science and people’s life style;
and have had a great role in the way people look at the world and process
its components.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-6267-2.ch001

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Computers are now an indispensable part of peoples’ personal and

professional lives and are vastly exploited in general education and many fields
of studies. A revolutionary change has thus occurred in the way information
is created, saved, transferred, and processed. The huge change technology
has caused in the world has led to changes in people and thus inspired studies
on the way technology can be integrated into the way children are raised and
educated. Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) as a complimentary component
of modern education has emerged and evolved in the following decades.
In language learning, the expression Computer-Assisted Language Learning
(CALL), came into existence in early 1950s. Based on the revolutionary
and evolutionary movements in the fields of pedagogy and psychology,
CALL evolved into a full-fledged discipline of study and as a research field
received considerable attention over the past few years. A number of studies
have attempted to identify the characteristics of CALL and many theoretical
frameworks and hypotheses have developed over the past 60 years. While
CALL, as a field of study, was trying to claim its independence from CAI,
different labels and terms were in vogue among educationist to refer to the
core of computer assisted language learning and teaching.

The Definition of CALL

CALL has been labeled differently and a variety of terms have been used
for it by different scholars over time. Some of these terms are summarized
in Table 1.
The term CALL, however, seems to be more prevalent among language
experts especially after 1980s, although two basic weak points are often
highlighted regarding this term: the use of computer as the only technology
that can be integrated into language instruction and a focus on the learning,
that seems to ignore the teaching procedure (and thus the teacher role) in

Table 1. CALL Related Acronyms (Beatty, 2003)

CALL Computer Assisted Language Learning

CAI Computer Assisted Instruction
ICALL Intelligent Computer Assisted Language Learning
CELL Computer Enhanced Language Learning
TELL Technology Enhanced Language Learning
WELL Web Enhanced Language Learning

2
A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

computer-based language classes. The latter consideration, however, raises

another issue about the term itself, as one of the educationists’ concerns
about computer assisted instruction has always been the role of the teacher in
technology-based teaching/learning environments and the danger of omitting
the teacher from instruction in the modern time.
CALL is as a process of language learning during which learners use
computers and, as a result, improve their language proficiency (Beatty,
2003). In this definition, computer refers to all types of technologies that lend
themselves well into the process of teaching and learning, not necessarily
desktop computers. It can be defined as a research field which explores
the use of computational methods and techniques as well as new media for
language learning and teaching (Gamper & Knapp, 2002).
There are certain advantages for using CALL in the process of language
teaching and learning (Hubbard, 2009):

• Learning Efficiency: Learners are able to pick up language knowledge

or skills faster or with less effort;
• Learning Effectiveness: Learners retain language knowledge or skills
longer, make deeper associations and/or learn more of what they need;
• Access: Learners can get materials or experience interactions that
would otherwise be difficult or impossible to get or do;
• Convenience: Learners can study and practice with equal effectiveness
across a wider range of times and places;
• Motivation: Learners enjoy the language learning process more and
thus engage more fully;
• Institutional Efficiency: Learners require less teacher time or fewer or
less expensive resources. (p. 2)

CALL can promote language learning and teaching if it is used as a tool to

support pedagogical goals of the class and curriculum. CALL utilizes different
affordances of technology to promote learning/teaching efficiency including:

• Technological Devices: Diverse devices that are used for computer-

based instruction such as Personal Digital Assistants (PDA), laptops,
tablets, smart phones, Mp3s, Interactive White Boards, etc.
• Technological Applications: The applications and/or software
packages that can be used in teaching and learning in computer-
based learning environments. These software may include different
types of educational software such as tutors, edutainment programs,

3
 A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

simulations, etc. or utilities such as word processors, media production,

and presentation programs.
• Technological Environments: World Wide Web (WWW), its huge
databases and affordances such as blogs, wikis, online dictionaries,
corpora, concordancers, Learning Management Systems (LMSs), etc.

CALL provides integrated teaching solutions that will (Warschauer &

Healey, 1998):

1. Provide realistic, native-speaker models of the language in a variety of

media;
2. Offer a language learning curriculum;
3. Do a needs assessment;
4. Determine the best next step for the learner and provide practice with
that skill area;
5. Record what the student has done, along with an evaluation, and;
6. Be available at any hour and require no additional pay or benefits. (p.
59)

CALL status depends on three basic factors including research in applied

linguistics; changes and developments that take place in languages and language
learning; and sociological changes in schools and education (Warschauer,
2004).
The research scope and priorities of applied linguistics are the main factor
to consider for defining the scope of CALL. These priorities are defined and
specified by the path of theories and practices of language education and
SLA. This, on the other hand, is related to the socioeconomic status of the
members of the society, changes in the technology policy of a given society,
and the attitudes of people towards technology and its benefits for ordinary
life as well as professional career.
Based on technological determinism, integration of technology into
curriculum in general and language teaching in particular in different countries
across the globe is inevitable. Based on this postulation, the introduction of
any new technology automatically leads to certain social phenomena and the
ability to use it and adapt it, is the critical factor in generating and accessing
wealth, power, and knowledge in our time (Castells, 1998).
Warschauer (2004) believes that the following ten changes in technology
have affected or are still affecting CALL and its integration in language classes:

4
A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

• Phone-based to wireless communication;

• Dial-up Internet connections to permanent, direct online connections;
• The use of personal computers to the use of portable and online devices;
• Narrowband to broadband internet connections;
• Expensive personal computing systems to widely affordable computers
and other hardware;
• Internet as an exclusive form of communication/information- mostly
limited to people in developed countries- to becoming a mass form of
communication accessible to most of the planet;
• Text-based information/communication to audiovisual forms;
• Use of English as the main online language to multilingual Internet
use;
• ‘Non-native’ to ‘digital-native’ users of information technology, and;
• The movement of CALL from the language laboratory to each ordinary
classroom. (pp. 3-5)

The History of CALL

The very first generation of CALL came into picture with the development of
the mainframe computers and programs designed for those types of computers.
The emergence of CALL in 50s was coincidental with the dominancy of
one of the giants of psychology, behaviorism, and for almost two decades
the activities for machine-based learning were being designed based on
mimicry-memorization and rote learning models. Unfortunately, these types
of activities are still most common in many software packages.
The history of CALL can be divided into three main stages (Warschauer,
2000), that is, Structural/Behaviorist CALL, Communicative CALL, and
Integrative CALL. Each stage corresponds to certain levels of technology
advancement and pedagogical and psychological approaches.

Structural/Behaviorist CALL

Behaviorist CALL emerged as a result of the application of the principles of

behaviorism in mainstream education in 1960s to 1970s (Ahmad, Corbett,
Rogers, & Sussex, 1985). Based on this view, language teaching/learning was
regarded as a type of conditioning and getting students to produce a series
of responses in reaction to particular stimuli (i.e., stimulus/response theory).
In order to exploit machines in human learning, certain computer language

5
 A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

programs were developed at Stanford University, Dartmouth College, and

the University of Essex (Beatty, 2003). The very first computer programs
developed in universities and colleges of the US, because the technological
tool available at the time was mainframe terminals (Figure 1) that could only
be used in the academic centers and universities.
This mode is known as drill-and-practice CALL because it benefits from
the underpinnings of behaviorism. The best-known tutorial system of this
era was PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automated Teaching Operations).
PLATO (Figure 2) consisted mostly of a central computer and terminals that
presented drills, translation tests, and grammatical explanations (Ahmad,
Corbett, Rogers, & Sussex, 1985).
The computer thus is a teaching tutor that has the role of presenting
instructional materials and providing practice opportunities. This tutoring
function of the computer is ideal in the behaviorism as it needs a model
(teacher or tape) that never gets bored of providing the models. The mode
of learning was normally self-instruction with one student per computer,
sometimes gathered together into a computer laboratory parallel to a
language laboratory (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). The pattern of interaction
in a behavioristic CALL is depicted in Figure 3 when each student is just
allowed, and controlled, to interact with the computer screen for maximum
efficiency of the individualized instruction.

Figure 1. A mainframe computer

6
A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Figure 2. PLATO

Figure 3. Pattern of interaction in Behavioristic CALL

As one of the major premises of behaviorism, students are warranted to

go to upper levels of the program, only and if only, they can do the exercises
and activities with 10% accuracy. Otherwise, they remain in the same level
till the moment they can pass the level without any mistake.
The rationale behind Behaviorist CALL is (Warschauer, 1996):

7
 A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

• Repeated exposure to the same material is beneficial or even essential

to learning,
• A computer is ideal for carrying out repeated drills, since the machine
does not get bored with presenting the same material and since it can
provide immediate non-judgmental feedback, and;
• A computer can present such material on an individualized basis,
allowing students to proceed at their own pace and freeing up class
time for other activities.

In the late 70s, behaviorist CALL declined as a result of changes in the

realm of psychology, linguistics, and technological advancements. In the field
of psychology, behaviorism and its theoretical bases were rejected by the
emergence of Cognitivism and Constructivism. In linguistics, the Generative
Transformational Linguistics put emphasis on inner aspects of language
learning and the role of mind and cognition in processing linguistic input.
Further, the advent of personal computers (PCs) and their widespread use at
home, offices, and educational centers paved the way for the development
and use of different software. In this way, the second generation of CALL
came into picture.

Communicative CALL

The second generation of CALL, known as Communicative CALL, emerged

as a result of the revolution that took place in the realm of language teaching
and learning in the 1980s. The application of cognitive and humanistic
psychology into ELT led to the proposition of communicative language
teaching whose goal was developing language learners’ communicative
competence. At the same time, personal computers (PCs) came into the
market and their use became very popular. The affordances the PCs offered
language educationists contributed to the development and fortification of
the principles of Communicative CALL and consequently many software
packages were designed.
Communicative CALL believes in meaningful use of language for real
purposes and:

• Focuses more on using forms rather than on the forms themselves;

• Teaches grammar implicitly rather than explicitly;
• Allows and encourages students to generate original utterances rather
than just manipulate prefabricated language;

8
A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

• Does not judge and evaluate everything the students say nor reward
them with congratulatory messages, lights, or bells;
• Avoids telling students they are wrong and is flexible to a variety of
student responses;
• Uses the target language exclusively and creates an environment in
which using the target language feels natural, both on and off the
screen; and
• Will never try to do anything that a book can do just as well (Underwood,
1984).

The underlying psychological framework of Communicative CALL is

cognitive psychology and it benefits form the principles of functionalism
in language teaching and learning. In this framework, the computer is still
the provider of teaching/learning materials and practices and functions as a
teaching tutor. Additionally, it helps students to stimulate discussions, writing,
and critical thinking activities through computer games (as a stimulator). In
this way, the students may spend some time on working with the computer that
may inspire them to continue doing language activities in the class without
any reference to the computer (Figure 4).
Another function of the computer as a tool is empowering language
learners to use or understand language by different types of affordances such
as dictionaries or concordancers (Warschauer, 1996).

Figure 4. Pattern of interaction in Communicative CALL

9
 A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Integrative CALL

The third generation of CALL or Integrative CALL emerged by the advent

of two revolutionary technological advancements, that is the multimedia and
the Internet in the 90s.
Integrative CALL integrates language skills (listening, speaking, reading,
and writing) at the level of the 5th skill by incorporating appropriate technologies
into the language learning process. This new approach utilizes the principles
of constructivism and sociocultural theory (Stepp-Greany, 2002). Based on
these approaches, the central focus of attention of language teaching and
learning activities should shift from the teacher to the students while students
become more active participants (Newton & Rogers, 2001).
One technological development that had a great role in the conception
of this framework of CALL is multimedia. Multimedia technology allows a
variety of media (text, graphics, sound, animation, and video) to be accessed
on a single machine. It can entail hypermedia or the multimedia resources
linked together that can be navigated by learners’ clicking.
The advantages of using hypermedia in language learning are (Warschauer,
1996):

• The skills can be integrated, so the media makes it natural to combine

all four skills in one.
• Providing a more authentic learning environment by combining
listening with seeing.
• Students can control their learning by going at their own pace and even
on their own individual path.
• It facilitates the progress of focusing on the content with a secondary
focus on language forms or learning strategies.

The underlying theory of using multimedia in language instruction is

cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 2003; 2014). Based on this
model, multimedia learning is basically learning from words and pictures.
There are three main assumptions about how mind works during multimedia
learning (Mayer, 2014):

• Dual Channel: Humans possess separate information processing

channels for verbal and visual material
• Limited Capacity: There is only a limited amount of processing
capacity available in the verbal and visual channels.

10
A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

• Active Processing: Learning requires substantial cognitive processing

in the verbal and visual channels. (p. 62)

The cognitive theory of multimedia learning is depicted in Figure 5.

The second technological advancement that had a great role in the
development of Integrative CALL is World Wide Web (the Web, or simply
the Internet) defined as an international online database that allows the
sharing of linked multimedia documents (Warschauer, 2001). This phase of
CALL has developed coincidental with three generations of Web: Web 1.0,
Web 2.0, and Web 3.0.
Web 1.0 includes the first generation of websites that lets the users just
view the content. The users do not have any role in producing or managing
the content of the website. Web 1.0 websites are called dot com websites, as
they basically are designed for commercial purposes.
The term Web 2.0 was proposed by Tim O’Reilly (2005) for the first time
and refers to websites whose contents can be produced by users collaboratively.
Web 2.0 affordances are social media (Facebook, Twitter), wikis, podcasts,
and blogs. Web 2.0 technologies are called social software because they are
perceived as being especially connected, allow users to develop web content
collaboratively and are open to the public (Alexander, 2006).
Web 3.0, or smart Web, focuses on the way machines can interact with
human being. This generation of Web is being developed with advancements
in the fields of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Computer-Human Interface
(CHI) (Tasner, 2010). Smart web is the foundation of creating intelligent
tutors that can present teaching materials based on individual differences.
Intelligent tutors contain rich, dynamic models of student knowledge that
depict the key ideas learners should understand as well as common learner
conceptions and misconceptions (Woolf, 2008).
Three generations of web are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 5. Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2014)

11
 A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Figure 6. The Changing Intraweb-from 1.0 to 3.0 (Hayes, 2006)

As a result of the fast development of Web-based applications and

affordances, CMC tools have become very widespread. Language learners
can communicate directly and comfortably with each other whenever and
wherever they use these tools. Pattern of interaction in integrative CALL is
depicted in Figure 7.
CMC can be asynchronous (not simultaneous) through tools such as
electronic mail (email),
Or synchronous (simultaneous) via Skype or similar applications
(Warschauer, 1996). The development of mobile technologies and availability
of the web on-the-go have opened up further opportunities for mobile learning
and CMC. Mobile learning is the use of any portable learning materials
(books, audio/cassettes, audio CDs, portable radio) or portable devices for
learning. Three phases of CALL are summarized in Table 2.

CALL Approaches

Bax (2003) has reviewed the history of CALL from another perspective.
Based on Bax, Warschaure’s three phases of CALL need clarification in a
number of areas:

• It is not clear whether the phases show defined historical periods.

12
A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Figure 7. Pattern of interaction in Integrative CALL

Table 2. Three phases of CALL (Warschauer, 2000)

1970s- 1980s: 1980s-1990s: 21st century:

Phase
Structural CALL Communicative CALL Integrative CALL
Technology Mainframe PCs Multimedia and Interne
Grammar
English teaching Communicative
Translation/ Content-based, ESP/EAP
Paradigm Language Teaching
Audio-Lingual
Structural (a
Cognitive (a mentally Socio-cognitive
View of Language formal structural
constructed system) (developed in social interaction)
system)
Principal use of Communicative
Drill and practice Authentic discourse
Computers exercises
Accuracy, fluency
Principal objective Accuracy Accuracy and fluency
and agency

• The validity of the characterization of the 1980s as part of

‘Communicative CALL’ needs more support and reference to
mainstream communicative language teaching methodology if the
term is to be acceptable.
• The underlying principle for identifying a third phase, and then calling
it ’integrative’, calls for more support- in terms of attitude to language
and language teaching (p. 20).

13
 A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

In Bax’s classification, there are three approaches of CALL, namely,

Restricted, Open, and Integrated. Each approach is analyzed considering
certain key dimensions including: type of task, type of student activity, type
of feedback, teacher role, teacher attitudes, position in curriculum, position
in lesson, and physical position of computer (Table 3).

• Restricted CALL: This approach was dominant from 1960s until

about 1980s and differs from Warschaure’s Behaviorist CALL in terms
of its historical period and features. This term is more inclusive and
flexible and describes the use of CALL in the classroom to be very
limited if the above-mentioned dimensions are taken into account.
• Open CALL: It has lasted from the late 1980s until today, while some
restricted CALL manifestations are still observable and valuable in
schools and universities of many countries across the globe. The use
of CALL is relatively open in all dimensions including the feedback
given to students, to the software types, and to the teacher’s role.
• Integrated CALL (Not Integrative, as in Warschaure’s Formulation):
It portrays a situation where idealized and true integration of CALL is
taking place in education. This is called the ‘normalization’ of CALL,
when, for instance students can use computers as normally as using a
pen in classroom or out of it.

This classification has several advantages over Warschaure’s three phases

of CALL, including but not limited to:

• This classification thwarts conceptual confusion with behaviorist or

communicative approaches to learning or teaching.
• The classification is more precise as a description of what happened in
the past and is happening now.
• The framework permits us to define our practice in some detail (Bax,
2003).

CALL and Language Skills

Research shows that educational technology can help language learners

develop their language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing)
(Stinson & Claus, 2000) and can augment communication skills through
computer support group interactions (Bourdon, 1999).

14
A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Table 3. Restricted, Open and Integrated CALL (Bax, 2003)

Restricted CALL     Open CALL     Integrated CALL

Simulations CMC
Closed drills
Type of task Games WP
Quizzes
CMC e-mail
Text reconstruction Interacting with the Frequent interaction
Type of student Answering closed computer with other students
activity questions Occasional interaction Some interaction with
Minimal interaction with other student with other student computer through the lesson
Focus of linguistic Interpreting, evaluating,
Type of
Correct/incorrect skills development commenting, stimulating
feedback
Open, flexible thought
Facilitator
Teacher role Monitor Monitor/ facilitator
Manager
Exaggerated Exaggerated fear and/ Normal part of
Teacher attitudes
fear and/or awe or awe Teaching-normalized
Tool for learning
Toy
Normalized, integrated
Not integrated into
into syllabus, adapted to
Position in Not integrated into syllabus-optional extra
learners’ needs
curriculum syllabus-optional extra Technology precedes
Analysis of needs and
syllabus and learner
context precedes decisions
needs
about technology
Position in
Whole CALL lesson Whole CALL lesson Smaller part of every lesson
lesson
Physical
Separate lab-perhaps In every classroom, on
position of Separate computer lab
devoted to languages every desk, in every bag
computer

• Application of CALL in Teaching Reading: Language skills are

often integrated into technology-based learning environments. Reading
activities have been designed for computer-based environments since
the early days of the development of the field. It is evident that computer
programs can help reading development in three ways (Hubbard, 2009):
◦◦ By controlling what the readers see and how long they see it in
order to promote reading strategies and automaticity;
◦◦ By providing comprehension and other exercises, and;
◦◦ By presenting glosses and other comprehension aids.

The effects of CALL on the development of reading comprehension

have been investigated by many researchers. It is now evident that the use
of hypermedia in reading classes can improve students’ comprehension and
results in higher intrinsic motivation (Becker & Dwyer, 1994). Using audio
books can facilitate automatic word recognition, and vocabulary acquisition;
and motivate students toward reading (Kim, 2002).
15
 A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

• Application of CALL in Teaching Writing: Numerous studies have

focused on the effectiveness of CALL on writing ability. Research on
writing in CALL has focused on two basic areas of: (a) developing
learners’ word processing skills and; (b) the use of text-based and
graphic organizers to support the writing process.

Word processing was the first application of educational technology used

in writing instruction although it required the mastery of basic keyboard
skills (Lehrer, 1995). Teachers’ successful experience in assigning students
to use Microsoft PowerPoint for oral presentations and guided writing has
also been reported (Schcolnik & Kol, 1999).
In the 21st century, the trend of research on the effectiveness of CALL in
writing instruction has shifted from individualized writing to collaborative
writing. Web 2.0 applications such as blogs and wikis have been the subject
of numerous studies on writing.

Blogs by their nature and page structure encourage feedback and represent
both a reading and a writing activity. In the best of cases, this kind of
online writing stimulates debate, furthers critical analysis, and encourages
articulation of ideas and opinions. (Godwin-Jones, 2006, pp. 10-11)

Wikis also have been found to enable students to share their writing with
others and let them make changes to the content (Mazlum & Talebzadeh,
2010). The difference between a wiki and a traditional website is shown in
Figure 8.
Scholars have specified the advantages of wikis as:

1. A wiki task allows English learners practice writing as a process rather

than a product,
2. A wiki-related task leads to creative composition,
3. A wiki is an effective way for interaction and cooperation with a low
price,
4. A wiki encourages reading and editing, and;
5. A wiki allows students to participate and learn from public composition
processes and products on the internet (Lamb, 2004).

• Application of CALL in Teaching Speaking: Literature review

shows that traditional approaches of speaking have some weaknesses.
First, there is not enough opportunity for students to practice speaking

16
A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Figure 8. The difference between a traditional website and a wiki

(Taken from Plourde, 2008)

in formal classes. Second, students are anxious about their mistakes

when they talk. Third, there is a lack of technological tools at schools.
This forces students to be totally dependent on their books (Liu &
Chu, 2010) rather than their communication skill and negotiation of
meaning.

Recent studies have revealed that technologies such as video conferencing,

online conversation, PowerPoint presentation, electronic dictionaries, and
podcasting provide real time communication and appropriate interaction
(Meskill & Anthony, 2007; Yamada & Akahori, 2007) and thus can promote
genuine communication and oral proficiency. Generally two types of speaking
practices exist in a CALL setting:

• Pairs or groups of students speak to each other as they sit in front of a

computer and are engaged in a task.
• Individual students use the computer to record their voices, often in the
context of pre-determined dialogues.

Two aspects of spoken language competence should be considered when

teaching speaking with CALL: (a) the mechanical aspect in which students
learn to discriminate and produce sounds of a language to have fluent string
of sounds (pronunciation) during speaking, and; (b) the meaningful aspect
which refers to learning to code coherent and grammatical utterances; and
link them to fulfill communicative functions (Pennington, 1995).

17
 A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

• Applications of CALL in Teaching Listening: Many technological

affordances such as multimedia, digital storytelling, video conferencing
and chatting can provide students with authentic aural input. One of the
advantages of using CALL in teaching listening is providing students
with comprehensible input and extensive listening for out of classroom
times.

One specific technology that can improve listening comprehension and

understanding of academic language is podcasting as it provides students
with opportunities for mobile learning (m-learning) (Nunan, 1995). Different
types of podcasts can be used in language classes (Figure 9).
Some uses of podcasting in education include (Sloan, 2005, slide 12).

• For distance learning;

• To facilitate self-paced learning;
• For remediation of slower learners;
• To allow faculty to offer advanced and/or highly motivated learners
extra content;
• For helping students with reading and/or other learning disabilities;
• For multi-lingual education;
• To provide the ability for educators to feature guest speakers from
remote locations;

Figure 9. Taxonomy of uses of podcasting for language learning

(Taken from Rosell-Aguilar, 2007)

18
A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

• To allow guest speakers the ability to present once to many sections

and classes;
• To allow educators to escape the tedium of lecturing;
• To offer a richer learning environment;

Many technological tools (such as mobile phones and MP3 players) can
be used in the classroom for teaching and practicing listening comprehension
and improving students’ listening skill using podcasts (Valk, Rashid, & Elder,
2010).

CALL Research Scope

Early CALL research concentrated on the language performance of students

who had used CALL programs. A variety of teacher-made programs were tested
to assess students’ achievement in computer-based environment in comparison
to traditional learning context. The result of most of these studies supported
the effectiveness of CALL in improving students’ language proficiency and
achievement in learning English as a first, second, or foreign language.
Later the cognitive paradigm looked at the development of individual
processes, strategies, and competencies when students were experiencing
CALL software and applications. Different types of measures such as
motivational surveys, observations, recordings of keystrokes, and think-
aloud protocols were used to collect data. The results of these studies mainly
revealed that CALL guarantees more learning motivation and rises language
learners’ interest while reducing their anxiety and fear of language classes.
The socio-cognitive paradigm emphasized learning through computer
networks and focused on the way discourse and discourse communities
develop when computer networks were used (Kern & Warschauer, 2000).
While studies on these topics are still in progress, the findings of many
of them are in favor of distance and e-learning as well as mobile learning
through which language learners use the internet to attend electronic courses
or communicate with interlocutors in cyberspace. Table 8 summarizes the
implications for research methods of various CALL approaches.

The Future of CALL

In the modern era, the advancement of ICT tools and the development of 3D
graphics and educational computer games have modified language teaching

19
 A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Table 4. Research implications for CALL approaches (Kern & Warschauer, 2000)

Structural Cognitive Socio-Cognitive

social and cognitive
Orientation performances cognitive processes
processes
principally qualitative:
quantitative: experimental-control both quantitative discourse analysis,
Methodology
comparisons and qualitative analysis of sociocultural
context
think-aloud
transcriptions of
protocols,
social interactions,
Principal Kinds quantities/frequencies of words, errors, questionnaires,
ethnographic
of Data structures computer-recorded
observations and
data (e.g.,
interviews
keystrokes)

methodologies and learning styles (Stefan, 2012). Milgram and Kishno (1994)
have defined the concept of Virtuality-Reality continuum in the context of
immersive collaborative environments. According to this view Virtual Reality
(VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR) emphasize and
explore the role of different learning and pedagogical styles in user immersion
and interactivity. From an educational point of view, these concepts are in line
with collaborative learning (based on Constructivism theory) and in contrast
with individualized learning that allows learners to share their experiences
and resources with each other (Stefan, 2012). According to Jonassen (1999)
virtual reality may become the default method for representing problems
(p.221). The 3D Virtual Learning Environments (3D VLEs) utilize simulations
to create environments for a learner to participate in simulations where they
can explore the observable world and abstract concepts (Darvasi, 2008, wiki
site dedicated to VLEs). Darvasi (2008) further elaborated that:

the freedom and decision-making potential afforded by 3D VLEs encourages

learners to take responsibility for their own learning, as they can actively
choose paths, objects and define their own learning outcomes.

In agreement with this, Kalay (2004) suggested that:

virtual places afford group learning, of the kind enjoyed by students gathered
in a (physical) classroom, lab, or library, where they ‘know’ they are in a
communal space, are aware of the social process of learning, and are affected
by the presence and behavior of their fellow students. (p. 196)

20
A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

3D VLEs are immersive, meaning that they provide a sense of physical

manifestation in a 3D learning platform (Dickey, 2003).
VR based learning environments provide an opportunity for learners to
be immersed in a simulated, constructed world which may or may not mirror
the real-world learning environment. A VR environment might be a totally
unique experience by creating a world in which the physical laws governing
gravity, time and material properties no longer hold (Milgram & Kishino,
1994). VR is defined as 3D computer graphics, real time simulation techniques,
and a wide array of input and output devices to create illusions of being in
a virtual environment (Biocca & Delaney, 1995). Figure 10 displays a VR
based environment.
Online virtual worlds which date back to the 1970s’ computer games are
currently playing a fundamental role in education. Based on a study done
by Sykes, Oskoz, and Throne (2008) 3D VR environments are classified
into three categories: Open Social Virtualities (e.g. Second Life, There,
Quest Atlantis, Active Worlds, Teen Second Life); Massively Multiplayer
Online Games (MMOGs) (e.g. World of Warcraft, Everquest, Eve Online);
and Synthetic Immersive Environments (SIEs) i.e. visually rendered spaces
which combine aspects of open social virtualities with goal-directed gaming
models to address specific learning objectives. Among these three, synthetic
immersive environments (SIEs) are suitable for educational purposes in a
sense that learners themselves are at the center of their own learning (Sykes,

Figure 10. A VR based space

21
 A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Oskoz, 2008). Second Life is an example of immersive educational environment

(Canfield, 2008), that is also collaborative or game-like (Chan, 2008). On the
other hand, Edusim is a 3D virtual world like Second Life for the classroom
interactive whiteboard or interactive surface (Edusim home page).
In contrast to VR that disconnects the learner from the real world completely
and immerses him/her into an artificial environment, Augmented Reality
(AR) is the mixture of real-world and computer-generated objects. It provides
learners with an opportunity to experience real-world activities reinforced
by virtual objects (Stefan, 2012). AR is integrated in education by utilizing:

virtual objects on the surfaces, using either overhead or back projection. The
user can then interact with virtual objects by using traditional tools, such as
a pen, which are tracked on the augmented surface using a variety of sensing
techniques (Poupyrev, 2001, p. 16).

Today’s smart phones offer accessible AR platforms (MAR) such as

information browsers that utilize computer-vision techniques and fiducial
markers to “augment” real objects. MAR also supports experiential learning
paradigms such as content annotation and sharing (e.g. tweets or micro
blogging) (Stefan, 2012). Figure 11 displays a collaborative design in an
AR environment.

CONCLUSION

This chapter discussed a brief history of Computer Assisted Language

Learning (CALL). Starting with the definition of CALL and its key concepts,
a comprehensive but brief history of CALL from the 1950s till the present
was presented. The characteristics of each phase of CALL, the corresponding
frameworks, technologies, activities and merits/demerits were elaborated.
Moreover, a quick and brief guideline was provided on how to use CALL in
teaching macro and micro language skills. CALL research scope and its future
perspective were portrayed and possible fields of research were introduced.
In the end, a modern perspective for AR, VR, and MR in educational
environments was presented.
The wide use of computer technologies for language learning is an open
secret. However, such acceptance does not necessarily lead to a successful
story. There are many limitations that can hinder the natural flow of CALL
normalization into institutions (Mahdi, 2013). According to research, when a

22
A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Figure 11. Collaborative design in AR environment

technology is considered normal, it is no longer considered as an innovation;

it becomes invisible, easy to apply, and taken for granted in peoples’ everyday
lives (Bax, 2003). He goes on to summarize the process of normalization
as follows:

CALL will reach this state when computers ... are used every day by language
students and teachers as an integral part of every lesson, like a pen or a
book. Teachers and students will use them without fear or inhibition, and
equally without an exaggerated respect for what they can do. They will not
be the center of any lesson, but they will play a part in almost all. They will
be completely integrated into all other aspects of classroom life, alongside
course books, teachers and notepads. They will go almost unnoticed. (p.23)

Literature in this area has suggested various barriers blocking the path of
CALL normalization. Chambers and Bax (2006) were the first to introduce
eleven issues in this regard. However, there are other summarized inclusive
analyses regarding these issues. A study by Mahdi (2013) has categorized
these obstacles into five major branches: (i.e., personal, pedagogical, technical,

23
 A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

institutional, and socio-cultural). As logical as it sounds, technology without

human beings is nothing more than a useless tool. It only makes sense to claim
that the success or failure of CALL integration relies heavily on the issues
related to teachers, learners, administrators, and educational policy makers.
With teachers acting as the fundamental basis of educational system, many
studies have explored the effects of personal issues related to teachers and
students on CALL integration (e.g., Chen, 2008; Egbert, Paulus & Nakamichi,
2002; McCarthy, 1999; Mumtaz, 2000). That being mentioned, investigating
the teacher roles in traditional and CALL teaching environments is of supreme
necessity since it can provide a lens for language teachers and researchers to
analyze the complex ICT enhanced teaching environment.

REFERENCES

Ahmad, K., Corbett, G., Rodgers, M., & Sussex, R. (1985). Computers,
language learning and language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and
learning? EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 32–44.
Bax, S. (2003). CALL-past, present and future. System, 31(1), 13–28.
doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00071-4
Beatty, K. (2003). Teaching and researching Computer Assisted Language
Learning. New York: Longman.
Becker, D. A., & Dwyer, D. A. (1994). Using hypermedia to provide learner
control. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3(2), 155–172.
Biocca, F., & Delaney, B. (1995). Immersive virtual reality technology. In
F. Biocca & B. Delaney (Eds.), Communication in the age of virtual reality
(pp. 57-124). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bourdon, C. (1999). Easing into ESL. American Libraries, 30, 2–94.
Canfield, D. (2008). Using immersive learning environments in foreign
language classes: Second Life. CALICO, 2008, 398.
Castells, M. (1998). End of millennium: Vol. 3. The information age: Economy,
society and culture. Blackwell Publishers Inc.

24
A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalisation.
System, 34(4), 465–479. doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.08.001
Chan, J. (2008). Developing a meaning-focused and task-based virtual learning
reality. CALICO 2008.
Chen, Y.-L. (2008). A Mixed-method Study of EFL Teachers’ Internet Use in
Language Instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 1015–1028.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.07.002
Darvasi, P. (2008). Virtual world language learning. Retrieved from http://
sites.wiki.ubc.ca/etec510/3D_Virtual_Learning_Environments
Dickey, M. (2003). Teaching in 3D: Pedagogical Affordances and Constraints
of 3D Virtual Worlds for Synchronous Distance Learning. Distance Education,
24(1), 105–121. doi:10.1080/01587910303047
Egbert, J., Paulus, T., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction
on language classroom technology use: A foundation for rethinking CALL
teacher education? Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108–126.
Gamper, J., & Knapp, J. (2002). A review of intelligent CALL systems.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(4), 329–342. doi:10.1076/
call.15.4.329.8270
Godwin-Jones, R. (2006). Tag clouds in the blogosphere: Electronic literacy
and social networking. Language Learning & Technology, 10(2), 8–15.
Hayes, G. (2006). Virtual worlds, Web 3.0 and portable profiles. Retrieved
from http://www.personalizemedia.com/virtual-worlds-web-30-and-portable-
profiles
Hubbard, P. (2009). Computer Assisted Language Learning: Present trends
and future directions in CALL. Critical Concepts in Linguistics Series. New
York: Routledge.
Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (1999). Encyclopedic dictionary of
Applied Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. doi:10.1111/
b.9780631214823.1999.x
Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments.
Instructional design theories and models (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Kalay, Y. E. (2004). Virtual learning environments. ITcon, (9), 195.

25
 A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based

language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based
language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524735.003
Kim, M. (2002). The use of computer in developing L2 reading comprehension:
Literature review and its implications. ERIC Digest: 472671.
Lehrer, R. (1995). Review of N. Negroponte, Being digital. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 13, 207–209.
Liu, T., & Chu, Y. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and
speaking course: Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Computers
& Education, 55(2), 630–643. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.023
Mahdi, H. S. (2013). Issues of computer assisted language learning
normalization in EFL contexts. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(1),
191–203. doi:10.5296/ijl.v5i1.3305
Mayer, R. (2014). Research-based principles for designing multimedia
instruction. In V. Benassi, C. Overson, & C. Hakala (Eds.), Applying science
of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum
(pp. 59–71). American Psychological Association.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Mazlum, F., & Talebzade, A. R. (2010). The use of ICT to teach English: Focus
on internet and cell phones. Paper presented in the National Conference on
Modern Instructional Methods. Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University,
Tehran, Iran.
McCarthy, B. (1999). Integration: The sine qua non of CALL. CALL-EJ
Online, 1(2). Retrieved from http://callej.org/journal/1-2/mccarthy.html
Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2007). Learning to orchestrate online
instructional conversations: A case of faculty development for foreign
language educators. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 5–19.
doi:10.1080/09588220601118487
Milgram, P., & Kishino, A. F. (1994). Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual
Displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E77-D(12),
1321–1329.

26
A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1994). Augmented
Reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. SPIE
Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies, 2351. Retrieved from:
etclab.mie.utoronto.ca/publication/1994/Milgram_Takemura_SPIE1994.pdf
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information
and communications technology: A review of the literature. Journal
of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319–342.
doi:10.1080/14759390000200096
Newton, L. R., & Rogers, L. (2001). Teaching science with ICT. London:
Continuum.
Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL
Quarterly, 29(1), 133–158. doi:10.2307/3587808
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models
for the next generation of software. Retrieved from: http://oreilly.com/web2/
archive/what-is-web-20.html
Oskoz, A., Sykes, J., & Thorne, S. (2008). Web 2.0, Synthetic Immersive
Environments, and Mobile Resources for Language Education. CALICO
Journal, 25(3), 528–546.
Pennington, M. C. (1995). The power of CALL. Houston, TX: Athelstan.
Plourde, M. (2008). Wikis in higher education. University of Delaware.
Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
(Original work published 1966)
Poupyrev, I. (2001). Beyond VR: 3D Interfaces in Non-immersive Environments.
SIGGRAPH 2001 Course on Advanced topics in 3D User Interface Design.
Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2007). Top of the Pods - In search of a podcasting
“podagogy” for language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
20(5), 471–492. doi:10.1080/09588220701746047
Schcolnik, M., & Kol, S. (1999). Using presentation software to enhance
language learning. The Internet TESL Journal, 5(3), 5–8.
Sloan, S. (2005). Podcasting: An exciting new technology for higher education.
Paper presented at CATS. Retrieved from http://www.edupodder.com/
conferences/index.html

27
 A Short History of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Ştefan, L. (2012). Immersive Collaborative Environments for Teaching and

Learning Traditional Design. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51,
1056–1060. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.287
Stepp-Greany, J. (2002). Students’ perceptions on language learning in a
technological environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language
Learning & Technology, 6(1), 165–180.
Stinson, B. M., & Claus, K. (2000). The effects of electronic classrooms on
learning instruction. T.H.E. Journal, 27(7), 98–102.
Tasner, M. (2010). Marketing in the moment: The practical guide to using
Web 3.0 to reach your customers first. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
Underwood, J. (1984). Linguistics, computers, and the language teacher: A
communicative approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Valk, J. H., Rashid, A., & Elder, L. (2010). Using mobile phones to improve
educational outcomes: An analysis of evidence from Asia. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(1), 117. doi:10.19173/
irrodl.v11i1.794
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction.
In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3–20). Tokyo: Logos
International.
Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of
English teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 511–535. doi:10.2307/3587741
Warschauer, M. (2001). On-line communication. In R. Carter & D. Nunan
(Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages
(pp. 207–212). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511667206.031
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An
overview. Language Teaching, 31(02), 57–7. doi:10.1017/S0261444800012970
Woolfolk Hoy, A., Davis, H., & Pape, S. J. (2006). Teacher knowledge and
beliefs. Handbook of Educational Psychology, 2, 715-738.
Yamada, M., & Akahori, Y. (2007). Social presence in synchronous CMC
based language learning: How does it affect the productive performance and
consciousness of learning objectives? Computer Assisted Language Learning,
20(1), 37–65. doi:10.1080/09588220601118503

28
 29

Chapter 2
The Role of Teachers in CALL

ABSTRACT
The main aim of this chapter is introducing and discussing the role of teachers
in CALL. First the role of teachers in EFL classes along with the timeline of
language teaching methodology (from grammar translation method to CLT
approach) as well as post-method era are discussed. Then the benefits of
using CALL for language teachers is addressed, and the concept of teacher
role in CALL is defined and specified. The importance of EFL teachers’
cognition in successful ICT integration is discussed in the closing section of
the chapter. This is specifically related to discussions about theory of diffusion
of innovation and how it can be related to CALL history and integration in
language classes.

BACKGROUND

The impact of information technology in today’s society has had several

important outcomes, the most evident of which is CALL becoming the trend in
foreign language teaching all over the world. As a consequence, the tasteless,
teacher-centered environment of language classrooms surrounded by a group
of passive students has been replaced with modern teaching approaches.
Considering the technological dominancy of the 21stcentury, CALL is
believed to be an inseparable part of the modern language teaching era. What
makes CALL a powerful tool to enrich language teaching and learning is its
capability to breathe life in language classes, making students motivated and
increasing their level of engagement and participation. Several components

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-6267-2.ch002

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 The Role of Teachers in CALL

lead to this enjoyable learning process; from convenient use of multimedia

to authentic use of language which does not deviate from students’ real life.
CALL can combine language classroom environment with the real life
outside the class, make foreign language learning much more effective, and
provide a rich language input that can enhance students’ individual learning.
Although the benefits of technology-mediated instruction for all different
subject matters are an open secret, exploring the merits of integrating
technology into foreign language learning is worth considering.
Multimedia rich environments are superior to traditional ones in the case
that they can:

1. Enhance learning in different locations and institutions of diverse quality;

2. Present opportunities to students working at different rates and levels;
3. Provide (tirelessly, without holding up other students) repetition when
repetition is warranted to reinforce skills and learning, and;
4. Compensate, in the short term, for high student populations and limited
numbers of trained and experienced teachers – in combination with
robust teacher development initiatives and improvements in teachers’
working conditions (Fitzpatrik, 2004).

Serostanova (2014) elaborated more on this issue mentioning the following

merits for using ICT in foreign language instruction:

• Authentic Context: That reflects the way the language will be used in
real life, thus providing the purpose and motivation for learning;
• Cultural Understanding: The possibility to get acquainted with the
way of life of the target language community, to visit distant places
without leaving home, which makes learning the language part of a
cultural experience;
• Great Amount of Tools: For teachers and learners (audio and video
devices, television and radio broadcasts, synchronous (video and audio
conferences, chatting) and asynchronous (e-mail, forum, web logs,
message boards), Internet-based communication, which facilitates
improving reading, listening, speaking skills and grammar knowledge;
• Involvement in Collaboration and Cooperation: Participating in
Web-projects and working in a physically-separated team promotes
learners’ creatively thinking, encourages to solve problems and to
make decisions as a team;

30
The Role of Teachers in CALL

• Removing the Time and Space Limitations: Which allows students

to learn more autonomously at different rates and levels, without
interruptions, time pressure and social anxiety, and thereby raises self-
esteem and confidence;
• Immediate Feedback and Error Analysis: Which can be provided by
the computer and teachers as well, and help the learners ward off their
misconception at the very first stage. (p.196)

Traditional language learning and CALL differ in several aspects including

teaching methods, learning environment, and teacher/student roles in the
classroom. Considering the purpose of CALL, it is clear that the effective
integration of computers requires a great deal of expertise from teachers and
students’ part. Hence, teachers who utilize CALL need to master a deeper and
more relevant knowledge and experience through CALL education programs.
As a matter of fact, scholars suggest that technology education is one of the
important aspects of language teacher education programs which can provide
teachers with the necessary computer skills and strategies required to help
learners learn a foreign language better and easier (Bordbar, 2010). Keeping
in mind that CALL possesses completely different efficiency and quality in
comparison to traditional language teaching methods; it is obvious that the
teacher role is considerably different in using technology to teach and manage
instructional activities.
The first important point to consider regarding CALL is that, the language
learning environment is so different from the traditional environment, which
in parts causes the teacher role to alter dramatically. Regarding this issue,
it is claimed that the role of the teacher is of paramount significance in any
teaching-learning situation, since the learner roles and the learning environment
are greatly influenced by the role teachers adapt in language classrooms.
Therefore, teachers must obtain a clear understanding about their role during
instruction which can lead to a more effective teaching/learning process.
With that being said, it should be mentioned that gaining a comprehensive
perspective of teacher’s role in language classrooms would not be possible
without being familiar with the notion of ‘role’ to begin with.

The Concept of ‘Teacher Role’ in Language Classrooms

Teaching is believed to be a highly complex profession due to the multiple

challenges rising from the complicated interaction between teacher, students,
school, culture, and community (Oktay & Osam, 2013). This complex nature

31
 The Role of Teachers in CALL

has been the subject of study for many years. Research in this area has focused
not only on the profession’s nature, but also on the crucial characteristics
of a good teacher (Borg, 2006; Reichel & Arnon, 2009; Timmering, 2009).
Despite the fact that the main characteristics of teachers are quite similar,
teachers of different subject matters are claimed to possess distinguishing
qualities. For instance, a physics teacher supposedly requires different
attributes in comparison to a foreign language teacher (Oktay & Osam, 2013).
Research in this regard suggests that this difference is partly due the subject
matter’s nature; i.e. teaching a foreign language is far more interactive in
nature comparing other subjects.
In line with what was motioned, Borg (2006) reports that the difference
between teaching a foreign language and other subjects results from the:

dynamic nature of language, the scope and complexity of the content of

language teaching, the range of materials, methods and activities available
to language teachers, the especially close relationships between language
teachers and learners, and issues relating to the status of native and non-
native language teachers. (p. 29)

In an earlier study, Hammadou and Bernhardt (1987) have mentioned

some distinguishing characteristics of teaching a foreign language:

1. The Nature of the Subject Matter Itself: FL teaching is the only

subject where effective instruction requires the teacher to use a medium
the students do not yet understand;
2. The Interaction Patterns Necessary to Provide Instruction: Effective
FL instruction requires interaction patterns such as group work which are
desirable, but not necessary for effective instruction in other subjects;
3. The Challenge for Teachers of Increasing Their Knowledge of the
Subject: Language teachers, teach communication, not facts. In other
subjects, teachers can increase their subject matter knowledge through
books, but it is harder for FL teachers to maintain and increase their
knowledge of the FL because doing so requires regular opportunities
for them to engage in FL communication;
4. Isolation: FL teachers experience more than teachers of other subjects
feelings of isolation resulting from the absence of colleagues teaching
the same subject;

32
The Role of Teachers in CALL

5. The Need for Outside Support for Learning the Subject: For effective
instruction, FL teachers must seek ways of providing extracurricular
activities through which naturalistic learning environments can be
created. Such activities are less of a necessity in other subjects (p.302).

According to what was mentioned, it can be claimed that teaching a

foreign language is a complex process since it is not as simple as presenting
grammatical rules, vocabulary items and practicing the four basic linguistic
skills. On the other hand, the biggest challenge for foreign language teachers
is creating and maintaining a certain level of motivation for students so that
they are able to successfully master the new language. Consequently, the
unique quality of foreign language instruction will create a major distinction
in roles played by EFL teachers in classroom (Oktay & Osam, 2013).
According to Dörneyi and Murphey (2003), ‘role’ is a technical term
originated from sociology referring to the shared expectation of how an
individual should behave. In other words, roles describe what people are
supposed to do (p.109). Reviewing the literature in the field of ELT suggests
that there are several potential roles for a language teacher (e.g., Littlewood,
1981; Richards & Rodgers, 1986; Tudor, 1993; Harmer, 2001). Considering
different components of a language teaching methodology, teacher role has
been suggested to be an aspect of ‘design’ component (Richards & Rodgers,
2014). According to Richards and Rodgers (2014), the teacher roles include:

1. The types of function teachers are expected to fulfill,

2. The degree of control the teacher has over how learning takes place,
3. The degree to which is the teacher is responsible for determining the
content of what is taught, and
4. The interactional patterns that develop between teachers and learners
(p. 24).

Teacher roles in language classes have been evolved significantly alongside

the shift in language teaching methodologies. The emergence of technology
in the 21st century has certainly influenced the language teaching process and
EFL teachers’ roles consequently. But before investigating the new teacher
roles in the modern world of language teaching, it is crucial to take a brief
look at the causes and reasons behind the change without which gaining a
comprehensive insight on the subject would be impossible.

33
 The Role of Teachers in CALL

Roll the Role: Why?

Despite the abundance of opportunities and chances that come alongside

technology-mediated instruction, computers will never make teachers
redundant or suppress the need for their instruction. Instead, technological
trends in education redefine teachers’ roles. As a matter of fact, minimizing
educator’s role in ICT-integrated classroom is considered to be quite
inappropriate by scholars (Ranganath, Rayappa, & Priscilla, 2017). It is of
utmost significance to remember that without the appropriate association
from educators, technology will control the classroom instead of aiding it
and it would be a failure by default.
As Brandl (2002) declared, ICT integration will be efficient only in the
presence of educators as ‘facilitators’ who design, aid, and guide the lesson.
With that being said, it makes sense to claim that in order to utilize modern
technologies successfully, the ELT educator should embrace new roles and
responsibilities (McLaren, Madrid, & Bueno, 2005). As Canado (2010)
stated, a foreign language instructor should acquire roles of tutor, counselor,
observer, motivator, and facilitator.
Several studies have attempted to investigate causes and necessities related
to language educators’ role shift alongside the expansion of ICT (Ranganath,
Rayappa, & Priscilla, 2017). Firstly, with the proliferation of ICT, it is almost
inevitable that certain existing resources such as overhead projectors and
chalkboards become obsolete. They are no longer essential in the case that
the teacher is presenting information utilizing the same networked resource
which is available for all learners; especially if they are not in the same physical
location. Secondly, with the help of innovative software, traditional assessment
methods will be outdated. For instance, factual information has traditionally
been assessed through multiple-choice tests. These tests gave the teachers a
skin-deep level of knowledge about students’ real achievement upon which
they should have based their judgments. However, online tests can easily
be utilized in ICT environments in which the teacher can instantly access a
wide range of information associated with the learner’s score. Thirdly, it is
essential for educators to change roles since transferring content knowledge
would not suffice the requirements of the 21st century’s educational system.
Preparing students for meeting the needs of the modern society takes much
more than mere content knowledge. Foreign language teachers must equip
learners with critical thinking skills, collaborative working practices, and
information literacy. The Internet is a convenient resource for both teachers

34
The Role of Teachers in CALL

and learners to access a vast body of information easily, cooperate with one
another flexibly, and learn to actually communicate and use their knowledge
efficiently (Ranganath, Rayappa, & Priscilla, 2017).
However, there is another side to the coin of this great resource, that
is the Internet. The wealth of information available on the Internet is so
expanded that it is almost impossible to track inaccuracies and misinformation
accessed by learners. This adds another critical new role for language teachers
which include identification, qualification, and classification of electronic
information resources that are available for language learners (Wheeler, 2000).
Having proposed the significance of developing teacher roles alongside ICT
progression, it would be of major value to briefly review EFL teacher’s roles
in different language teaching methodologies, and how they have changed
over time to attain a brighter insight about the causes of this evolution.

EFL Teacher’s Roles in Time: From

Traditional to Modern Era

Traditional teaching methods have been known to be largely teacher-centered,

a situation in which students were used to being spoon-fed discrete vocabulary
items and grammatical rules by the ultimate knowledge providers; teachers.
This could be the reason that Wilkins (1976) had chosen the term ‘synthetic’
approach referring to a language teaching method in which: different parts
of the language are taught separately and step by step so that acquisition
is a process of gradual accumulation of parts until the whole structure of
language has been built up (p. 2). Nunan (1996) has explained this ‘linear’
approach by equating it to a ‘wall construction’ in this way:

The language wall is erected one linguistic “brick‟ at a time. The easy
grammatical bricks are laid at the bottom of the wall, and they provide a
foundation for the more difficult ones. The task for the learner is to get the
linguistic bricks in the right order: first the word bricks, and then the sentence
bricks. If the bricks are not in the correct order, the wall will collapse under
its own ungrammaticality. (p. 65)

In this method, the teacher builds up the ‘language wall’, and also
having several important responsibilities in classroom; including providing
knowledge, controlling the classroom and students’ activities, and evaluating
students’ learning. The dominance of language teacher as the source of

35
 The Role of Teachers in CALL

knowledge, leads to creating receptive and passive learners. Consequently,

students lose their motivation and self- confidence to reach their goals if the
teachers’ assistance is not available.
However, it is only simplistic to believe that learning is only the result of
articulate or ’eloquent’ teaching. This point is implied by Kumaravadivelu
(2006) as he suggests that teaching, however purposeful, cannot automatically
lead to learning for the simple reason that learning is primarily a personal
construct controlled by the individual learner (p. 44). It can be concluded
that the collaborative nature of language learning and teaching consists of
learning opportunities and the job of a language teacher is creating and
maximizing those learning opportunities by involving the learners in the
learning process. Hence, teaching is no longer considered to be a process of
direct knowledge transmission, but it would be more effective if it is carried
out in a cooperative environment.
Considering the amount of time teachers spend with their students and
the extent to which they influence students’ language learning, it is only
worthwhile to briefly review the role of teachers in different language teaching
methodologies (the major ones), and how it has evolved through time:

• Grammar Translation Method: Based on Allen (1983) and Chastain

(1976), the role of the teacher was indicated to be truly traditional.
Teacher was the authority, source of knowledge, and in complete
control of the classroom. Students would learn what the teacher asked
them to.
• Direct Method: According to the literature, despite the fact that the
teacher is still in charge of directing all the activities in the classroom,
the role of students is not as passive as the Grammar Translation Method.
The teacher assists students in the process of language learning; more
like a partner (Diller, 1978; Paulston, 1971).
• Situational Language Teaching: As the name suggest, the teacher’s
role is creating authentic, real life situations in which students can
practice using the target language in a way that it matches their needs
outside the classroom. The students will get to know functions of
the target language in real life situations. The role of the teacher is
deciding about the functions that are appropriate for the students’ level
and guiding the students on how they should perform these functions
accurately and fluently in each situation (Harmer, 1991).

36
The Role of Teachers in CALL

• Audio-Lingual Method: The teacher is the director and controller of

students’ behavior. He/she is like an orchestra leader and his/her role is
providing students with an acceptable role model (either him/herself or
a tape) to imitate language forms (Paulston, 1971; Finocchiaro, 1974;
Brooks, 1960).
• Silent Way: Having the role of a technician or an engineer, teachers
offer help when necessary. They try to focus on students’ perceptions
and provide exercises to facilitate language use (Gattegno, 1972;
Madesen, 1979). However, the main role of the teacher is summarized
into: teach, test, and get out of the way (Richards, & Rodgers, 2014).
• Suggestopedia: Supposedly, there is a throwback to the Grammar
Translation Method, as the teacher becomes the classroom’s authority
once again. Suggestopedia scholars suggest that students will learn the
target language more effectively when they get the knowledge from
someone they can trust fully (Lazanov, 1982; O’Connell, 1982; Racle,
1979).
• Community Language Learning: Understanding the threatening
nature of learning a foreign language for some students, teachers have
the role of counselors helping language learners cope with dilemmas
and handle their challenges when it comes to learning the target
language (Blair 1982; Curran, 1976).
• Total Physical Response: Initiating as a role model who produces
nonverbal actions, the responsibility of the teacher in this method is
directing students’ behavior. In the following stages of the class, when
the students are finally ready to speak the target language, there is a
role reversal as students in turn will act as a role model and direct their
peers’ behavior (Asher, 1982).
• Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): The teacher has so many
new roles to fulfill, the most important of which is creating situations
where students are most likely to produce the target language. The
teacher is also in charge of managing classroom activities, advising
students by answering their questions, facilitating students’ learning
and also acting as a communicator. The students are no longer passive;
they try to make themselves understood, negotiate actively and manage
their own learning (Celce-Murcia, 1983; Madsen, 1983; Littlewood,
1981; Brumfit, 1979).

37
 The Role of Teachers in CALL

The paradigm shift in the language teaching methodologies majorly relies

on Vygotsky’s (1978) socio-cultural theory (SCT), emphasizing meaning as
the main concern in any teaching environment (Fahim & Haghani, 2012).
According to this theory, language learning is a holistic process in which
skills and knowledge must be presented in all their complex forms, rather
than discrete and isolated concepts (Turuk, 2008). Such integrated learning
stems in the dynamic flow of interconnections among learners and teachers
in a classroom (Fahim & Haghani, 2012). Several researchers attempted to
investigate the implications of SCT for second/foreign language acquisition
(e.g. Parks, 2000). Among the different components of SCT and the theories
related to it, Activity theory (AT) by Leontiev (1978) has gained a significant
popularity in the field of education, especially regarding human-computer
interaction (Verenikina, 2010). In agreement with that, studies have been done
in order to relate the various aspects of AT to a broad range of educational ICT
tools and technologies (e.g., Lim & Hang, 2003; Karasavvidis, 2009; Murphy
& Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2008; Scanlon & Issroff, 2005; Demiraslan &
Koçak Usluel, 2008). According to AT, human behavior cannot be understood
independently of socio-cultural context. Moreover, humans are not simply
surrounded by this context; they rather interact with and modify it. They are
constantly influencing their environment and create culturally meaningful
artifacts. It is this complicated nature of interaction between humans and their
social context that is the center of AT (Leontiev, 1978). Based on AT, the
interactions made between individuals and their surroundings are mediated
through some social objects or tools. These tools can either be physical
(artifacts, machines, and instruments) or psychological (language, signs,
methods, and procedures). Physical tools are able to manipulate the natural
process of adaptation and act as an instrument functioning as a conductor of
human activity (Verenikina, 2010).
According to literature, AT can act as a model for the application of ICT in
education. In other words, technology is conceptualized as a tool to practice
a complex system of goal-oriented activities by teachers and learners in the
broad context of school (Murphy & Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2008). The AT
model, developed by Engstrom in 2001 (as presented in Figure 2), gives
instructors the opportunity to analyze the whole configuration of events,
activities, contents, and interpersonal processes taking place in the context
that ICT is used (Demiraslan & Koçak Usluel, 2008). This framework allows
us to examine the interconnections among individuals and socio-cultural
elements and also the tensions or barriers that exist in such relationship
(Yamagata-Lynch & Haudenschild, 2009). The analysis of tensions enables

38
The Role of Teachers in CALL

researchers to investigate potential barriers in the process of ICT integration

in a school (Zevenbergen & Lerman, 2007). It can be concluded that the
new language learning era, which is intertwined with technology, is totally
different from the traditional language teaching in nature. Unlike the teacher-
centered methods of language teaching, that placed the whole responsibility
of instruction on teachers, and turning students to passive agents, the primary
focus of technology-based language education should be the teacher and the
instructional process or the student and the learning process (Garrett, 2009).
This requires teachers to embrace new roles in order to integrate the basic
language teaching techniques with technology to attain a maximum level of
efficient language teaching/learning.

CALL Era: Teacher Roles

As promising as it might seem, technology is not the end in education; it

is more like a tool that helps pave the way to more efficient instruction.
Technology-mediated education consists of a vast and integrated environment
that includes communications among learners, teachers, computers, and
network (Vaghela, 2016).
As presented earlier, several aspects of education in general and language
teaching in particular have changed dramatically with the advent of different
types of technologies; one of the most important of which is the teacher’s

Figure 1. Activity system model: A teacher’s activity mediated by ICT within a school
community (adapted from Engestrom, 2001)

39
 The Role of Teachers in CALL

role in the teaching-learning process. Given the fact that teachers play an
enormously crucial role as an ‘instructor’, investigating teachers’ new roles
created by technology is of paramount significance. There is a focus on the
term ‘instructor’ rather than a teacher in technology-mediated education as
Vaghela (2016) points out:

Teacher is not actually teacher but an instructor so Technology Mediated

Learning is not based on teaching method but it is based on method of giving
instruction. Teacher should keep students updated with current issues. Teacher
should give clear instructions with an easy language. Teacher should give
answer of each and every question of all the students very clearly and in an
understandable method. Teacher should also be prepared about topic and
about use of technology instead of an informer. Teacher should be fair and
courteous with the fames so that learners never feel fear or shy to ask question
and in take part in the classroom. (p.5)

Hence, it is clear that technology mediated education does not imply that
there is no longer a place for teachers; it merely means that teachers now have
to play multiple new roles (Vaghela, 2016). Literature in this area states that
not all traditional teacher roles change alongside technology integration. As
a matter of fact, the findings of many studies reveal that teachers maintain
some of their previous roles and responsibilities such as information giver,
class leader and director, discussion leader, and lecturer (Murchu, 2015).
On the other hand, according to some studies, the teacher’s role has
changed from knowledge dispenser to a guide and facilitator of learning for
students (Aanchal & Goel, 2016). Ely and Plomp (1986) discussed this role
shift stating that:

The teacher will be less of an information-giver and more of a learning

facilitator. Fewer professional teachers may be required if roles are modified
and teacher aides or assistants are used alongside professional teachers. In
no way should the teacher be denigrated: he/she is still the primary resource
person now serves as more of a manager than as a fountain of knowledge.
The more a teacher participates in the planning of instructional delivery,
the greater the fidelity to an agreed-upon implementation design. (p.246)

To discuss this claim in more detail, Aanchal and Goel (2016) have proposed
four new roles for teachers in technology-mediated classrooms: Teacher as a
designer, a facilitator, a classroom manager and a paraprofessional.

40
The Role of Teachers in CALL

Teacher as designer can carefully plan classroom environment that

embraces technology-aided student learning. Teacher as a facilitator guides the
students in their own learning process instead of giving complete information
to the students directly. This becomes of vital importance in learner- centered
classes such as communicative language teaching. Teachers need to become
more flexible, respond to students’ needs irrespective of the preplanned
syllabus. This means that educators must utilize a variety of resources and
multimedia effectively…. Teacher as a classroom manager means that the
teacher is a plan manager, who organizes, directs and controls all the activities
in the technology-mediated environment. Paraprofessionals, or educational
assistants, are assigned to a teacher in a classroom to assist students with
special needs. This encourages and allows the teacher to take ownership of
every student in the class. It also provides the teacher and all students an
opportunity for extra instruction and support. (p.154)
In another study by McGhee and Kozma (2007), six new roles were
proposed for teachers in technology-integrated instruction. These roles that
were obtained from case studies include: instructional designer; trainer;
collaborator; team coordinator; advisor; and monitoring and assessment
specialist (p.3).
Instructional designer is a commonly new role for teachers. Much like the
‘self- learner’ role adopted by students, teachers in this role design, plan, and
organize everything in order to effectively use and integrate technology in their
classrooms. The instructional designer takes into account all the resources
available to meet the variety of needs of his/her students and implements
well-designed activities to address those needs.
Trainers give individual instruction to enable skill development. This
training is accomplished through modeling the use of technology and helping
students see how they might use technology to accomplish doing different
activities. Collaborator refers to a variety of activities teachers do with their
colleagues collaboratively to improve their teaching. These activities include
information sharing, team teaching, and interdisciplinary instructional
activities done with the help of coworkers. The focus of team coordinator is
on assigning individual students to project or teams to study or do activities.
The role of enabling advisor refers to the type of teacher who gives assistance,
advice, or suggestions to enable students to make sound decisions and find the
information they need to do tasks. The monitoring and assessment specialist
refers to the new role where teachers monitor student performance and try
to improve that (McGhee & Kozma, 2007).

41
 The Role of Teachers in CALL

A 2003 report by the Directorate General of Education and Culture of the

European Commission revealed the change in teacher’s roles brought by ICT
introduction. These eight roles include: facilitator and guide, integrator of
media, researcher, designer, orchestrator, collaborator, learner, and evaluator.
Teachers who are integrator of media have the knowledge of various modern
technological tools and hoe to use them. Teachers also should be able to guide
their students to use these ICT tools for making different types of projects
and presentations. Researcher teachers have a certain level of literacy to use
search engines to obtain the required information for their own use or their
students’ use. They should also be able to recognize authentic and reliable
sources of information from inauthentic and fake ones. Learner teachers
constantly empower themselves in their field of study. Orchestrator teachers
make a balance between the three components of the new learning environment:
technology, learners, and the curriculum. The syllabus and its components
including time, teaching materials, and methodology can be carefully revised
and adapted by teachers, if they want to fully exploit the potential of ICT in
their instruction. Evaluator teachers assess students’ ability and design the
activities based on the needs of the students.

The Importance of EFL Teachers’ Cognition

in Successful ICT Integration

Children born in the 21st century are labeled as “next generation” or “digital
natives” as they are living in a digital world (Prensky, 2001). Their world
is filled up with smart phones, iPods, mp4 players, 3D televisions and
videogames (Anderson, 2010). In contrast, “digital immigrants” who are the
parents (Prensky, 2001) usually struggle with implementing the innovations
that are normalized for their children. Such barriers can also affect the

Table 1.Teacher roles in ICT enriched environments

Directorate General of Education and

Mcghee and Kozma (2007) Anchal and Goel (2016)
Culture 2003
• Designer
• Instructional designer
• Facilitator and guide
• Trainer
• Integrator of media • Designer
• Collaborator
• Researcher • Facilitator
• Team coordinator
• Orchestrator • Classroom manager
• Monitoring and Assessment
• Collaborator Paraprofessional
specialist
• Learner
• Enabling advisor
• Evaluator

42
The Role of Teachers in CALL

teacher-learner interactions in educational settings. Since such innovations

provide a great opportunity for learners to interact, communicate and assign
meaning to what they have learned, they often feel detached from traditional
teaching methodologies (Anderson, 2010; Nallaya, 2010). Students’ needs
about improving technology literacy are usually taken care of by governments.
However, teachers have greater responsibilities in educating students to
function properly in this digital world. Teachers often use different types of
tools with little difficulty; but they rarely integrate more modern innovations
in their teaching process. Hence, educational administrators and policy makers
should provide a ground for pre-service teachers to develop their ICT literacy
in order to adopt the latest innovations (Davies, Hartshorne, & Ring, 2010).
The first important point regarding the implementation of an innovation is
changing teachers’ perceptions or beliefs about that innovation (Chesney &
Benson, 2012).
The concepts of innovation, innovativeness, and diffusion of innovations are
widely used today as technologies are considered an integral part of everyday
life (Dadura & Lee, 2011). Rogers (2003) in a study defines innovation as an
idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit
of adoption (p. 12). According to Parashoes and Messer (2006) innovation
is fractious when it redefines procedures, and is encouraging when it assists
people in doing things. Diffusion is defined by Rogers (2004) as: the process
through which an innovation, defined as an idea perceived as new, spreads
via certain communication channels over time among the members of a social
system (p. 13). According to Lundblad (2003) diffusion of innovations happens
when new ideas, products, services, and processes are implemented and/or
adopted. Based on literature review in this area, the diffusion of innovation
process has been scrutinized for more than 40 years. Among all the different
models presented, the Diffusion of Innovations model proposed by Rogers has
been most widely accepted and applied to various fields from mathematics
to education (Sahin & Thomson, 2006). According to this theory, once
individuals come across an innovation their reaction towards that new idea
differs because of distinctions in people’s tendencies (i.e. innovativeness,
behavioral change) (Wilson & Stacy, 2004). Rogers (2003) defines different
innovative behaviors into categories named adopters. These consist of five
groups: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards.
Figure 2 displays these categories across a bell-shaped curve.
Teachers’ ICT use has been under investigation for a long time (Rahimi
& Yadollahi, 2011). One reason for this investigation is that the advent of
instructional technology creates a full-scale transition; including not only the

43
 The Role of Teachers in CALL

Figure 2. Adopter categories based on innovativeness (Taken from Rogers 2003)

way learners learn, but also how teachers teach and school administrators
operate (Norum, Grabinder, & Duffield, 1999).
In this respect, many studies have scrutinized the role of teachers’ personal
characteristics such as teachers’ attitudes, age, gender, experience, and ICT
literacy in their use of ICT in classroom (e.g., Robinson, 2003; van Braak,
Tondeur, & Valcke, 2004; Bebell, Russell, & O’Dwyer, 2004; Rahimi &
Pourshahbaz, 2016). Although the availability of technological tools and
resources is the first step that determines the success or failure of ICT enhanced
teaching, teachers’ attitudes and perspectives towards technology is a much
more critical factor (Lamy & Hampel, 2007). In agreement with this point,
Fernández Carballo-Calero (2001) indicated that:

When we speak of the teacher and of the teacher’s role we have to consider his
attitude as well, because the teacher’s attitude is a basic element within the
group of elements which integrate the teaching of a language with multimedia.
That is to say, if the teacher does not agree with the system he is using, with
the method, with the quality of the software his students are using; if he
believes that the software is not the appropriate one for his students to reach
their objectives, and in sum, if there is a lack of motivation or an unfavorable
attitude on the part of the teacher, this attitude will be directly transmitted
to the student and the system will fail. (p.8)

Cuban (1986) analogized teachers to “gate keepers” of instructional

technology. Also, according to Smeets and Mooij (2001) teacher is the “key
person” in the process of ICT integration. This confirms the fact that although
educational administrators might provide all modern technological tools and
resources for schools, it would not be fruitful until the point that educators
implement technology into the teaching process. In other words, teachers act

44
The Role of Teachers in CALL

as a bridge between administrators’ plans and the merits of those plans for
learners (Afshari, Bakar, Luan, Abu Samah, & Fooi, 2007). The fundamental
position of teachers in the center of curriculum change underscores the fact
that successful ICT integration is heavily dependent on teachers’ abilities,
attitudes, and willingness (Mooij & Smeets, 2001).
Some issues can aid or hinder teachers in the journey of ICT integration.
These issues include technical and administrative support, presence or lack
of proper training, institutional infrastructures, restraints resulting from
teachers’ pedagogical and traditional beliefs, and resistance to change (Zhao
& Cziko, 2001). The sources of these restraints can be both internal and
external (Rogers, 1995). Internal sources of restraints consist of teachers
‘attitudes and perception regarding using technology in education. Teachers’
attitude towards technology is especially important since it determines the
extent of technological acceptance in the teaching process (Pettenati, 2001).
Teachers’ concerns regarding technology must be considered as a crucial
issue as they can influence teachers’ behavior (Rakes & Casey, 2000). Fullan
(2007) takes the importance of teachers’ attitudes even further claiming that,
Educational change depends on what teachers do and think, it’s as simple
and as complex as that. It would all be so easy if we could legislate changes
in thinking. (p.129)
In addition, the success of educational innovations is believed to be largely
dependent on teachers’ skill and knowledge in deploying them (Pelgrum, 2001).
However, teachers require adequate training programs to enhance their IT
literacy since their ICT competence influences the effective implementation
of computers in the teaching process (Knezek & Christensen, 2002). Coping
with the technological paradigm shift is not an easy task for most teachers,
in order to do so, they must update their technical literacy and be familiar
with Web technology and CALL applications (Cunningham, Many, Carver,
Gunderson, & Mosenthal, 2000). A threshold level of ICT skill and knowledge
ensures a variety of positive experiences with computers which can in part
increase EFL teachers’ confidence (Park & Son, 2009). In order to achieve
this aim, teacher development programs can aid educators in dealing with
computer-related issues and managing technology-related tasks and activities
in the process of teaching (Lee & Son, 2006; Suh, 2004; Oh & French, 2007).

45
 The Role of Teachers in CALL

REFERENCES

Aanchal, M., & Goel, N. (2016). Technology mediated classroom

communication: Enhancing inclusion in the teaching learning process.
European Journal of Academic Essays, 3(4), 151–155.
Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Fooi, F. S., & Samah, B. A. (2007).
Transformational leadership style and information communication technology.
European Journal of Soil Science, 5(3), 109–118.
Allen, V. F. (1983). Techniques in teaching vocabulary: Teaching techniques
in English as a second language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, J. (2010). ICT transforming education: A Regional guide. Bangkok:
UNESCO.
Asher, J. (1982). Learning another languages through actions: The complete
teachers’ guidebook (2nd ed.). Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Production Inc.
Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology
uses: Why multiple measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 37(1), 45–63. doi:10.1080/15391523.2004.1078
2425
Bordbar, F. (2010). English teachers’ attitudes toward computer-assisted
language learning. International Journal of Language Studies, 4(3), 179–206.
Borg, S. (2006). The distinctive characteristics of foreign language teachers.
Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 3–31. doi:10.1191/1362168806lr182oa
Brandl, K. (2002). Integrating Internet-based reading materials into the foreign
language teaching curriculum: From teacher- to student centered approaches.
Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 87–107.
Canado, M. (2010). The transformation of teacher and students roles in
the European higher education area‖. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 1(2), 103–110. doi:10.4304/jltr.1.2.103-110
Celce-Murcia, M., & Freeman, D. L. (1983). The Grammar book: An ESL /
EFL Teacher’s Course. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Chastain, K. (1976). Developing second language skills (2nd ed.). Chicago:
Rand McNally College Publishing Companies.

46
The Role of Teachers in CALL

Chesney, S., & Benson, J. (2012). Anything other than silence: Using a
personal learning system for continuing professional development. Innovations
in Education and Teaching International, 49(1), 73–82. doi:10.1080/14703
297.2012.647785
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology
since 1920. Teachers College Press.
Cunningham, J. W., Many, J. E., Carver, R. P., Gunderson, L., & Mosenthal,
P. B. (2000). How will literacy be defined in the new millennium? Reading
Research Quarterly, 35(1), 64–71. doi:10.1598/RRQ.35.1.5
Curran, C. A. (1976). Counseling-learning in Second Language. East Dubuque,
IL: Counseling Learning Publications.
Dadura, A. M., & Lee, T. R. (2011). Measuring the innovation ability of
Taiwan’s food industry using DEA. Innovation (Abingdon), 24(1-2), 151–172.
doi:10.1080/13511610.2011.583863
Demiraslan, Y., & Usluel, Y. K. (2008). ICT integration processes in Turkish
schools: Using activity theory to study issues and contradictions. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 458–474. doi:10.14742/ajet.1204
Diller, K. C. (1978). The Language Teaching Controversy. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Dörneyi, Z., & Murphey, T. (1996). Group dynamics in the language classroom.
On JALT99: Teacher Belief. Teacher Action: Connecting Research and the
Classroom., 4(2), 178–184.
Ely, D. P., & Plomp, T. (1986). The promises of educational technology: A
reassessment. International Review of Education, 32(3), 231–249. doi:10.1007/
BF02426060
Fahim, M., & Haghani, M. (2012). Sociocultural perspectives on Foreign
Language Learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4),
693–699. doi:10.4304/jltr.3.4.693-699
Fernández, M. V. (2001). The EFL Teacher and the Introduction of Multimedia
in the Classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(1), 3–14.
doi:10.1076/call.14.1.3.5785
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New
York: Teachers College Press.

47
 The Role of Teachers in CALL

Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-Assisted Language Learning trends and issues

Revisited: Integrating innovation. Modern Language Journal, 93, 719–740.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00969.x
Gattegno, C. (1972). Teaching foreign languages in schools: The silent way
(2nd ed.). New York: Educational Solutions, Inc.
Hammadou, J., & Bernhardt, E. B. (1987). On being and becoming
a foreign language teacher. Theory into Practice, 26(4), 301–306.
doi:10.1080/00405848709543290
Hampel, R., & Lamy, M. N. (2007). Online communication in language
learning and teaching. Palgrave Macmillan.
Harmer, J. (1991).The practice of English language teaching (1st ed.). New
York: Long man.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.).
London: Longman.
Karasavvidis, I. (2009). Activity Theory as a Conceptual Framework for
Understanding Teacher Approaches to Information and Communication
Technologies. Computer Education, 53(2), 436–444. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2009.03.003
Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2002). Impact of new information technologies
on teachers and students. Education and Information Technologies, 7(4),
369–376. doi:10.1023/A:1020921807131
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language
teaching. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
Lazanov, G. (1982). Suggestology and Suggestopedia. In Innovative
approaches to language teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House publisher.
Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lim, C., & Hang, D. (2003). An Activity Theory approach to research of
ICT integration in Singapore schools. Computers & Education, 41(1), 49–63.
doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00015-0
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

48
The Role of Teachers in CALL

Lundblad, J. P. (2003). A review and critique of Rogers’ diffusion of innovation

theory as it applies to organizations. Organization Development Journal,
21(4), 50–64.
McGhee, R., & Kozma, R. (2007). New teacher and student roles in the
technology-supported classroom. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.
org/1355/1dca7c97b98ceb2af4e7eb2fe3a5cb79eaa9.pdf
McLaren, N. D., & Bueno, A. (Eds.). (2005). TEFL in secondary education.
Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.
Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Using activity
theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational
technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 442–457.
doi:10.14742/ajet.1203
Nim Park, C., & Son, J. B. (2009). Implementing computer-assisted language
learning in the EFL classroom: Teachers’ perceptions and perspectives.
International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 5(2), 80–101. doi:10.5172/
ijpl.5.2.80
Norum, K., Grabinder, S., & Duffield, J. (1999). Healing the universe is an
inside job: Teachers’ view on integrating technology. Technology and Teacher
Education, 7(3), 187–203.
Oktay, Y. B., & Osam, A. (2013). Viewing foreign language teachers’ roles
through the eyes of teachers and students. Academic Press.
Parashos, P., & Messer, H. H. (2006). The diffusion of innovation in dentistry:
A review using rotary nickel-titanium technology as an example. Oral Surgery,
Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology, 101(3),
395–401. doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.02.064 PMID:16504875
Parks, S. (2000). Same task, different activities: Issues of investment, identity
and use of strategy. TESL Canada Journal, 17(2), 64–89. doi:10.18806/tesl.
v17i2.890
Paulston, Ch. B. (1971). The sequencing of structural pattern drills. TESOL
Quarterly, 5(3), 197–208. doi:10.2307/3585692
Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education:
Results from a worldwide educational Assessment. Computers & Education,
37(2), 163–178. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00045-8

49
 The Role of Teachers in CALL

Pennington, M. C. (1995). The power of CALL. Houston, TX: Athelstan.

Pettenati, M. C. (2001). Information technology and staff development: Issues
and problems related to new skills and competence acquisition. Technology
and Teacher Education, 9(2), 153–169.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon,
9(5), 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Rahimi, M., & Pourshahbaz, S. (2016). EFL Teachers’ Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A Cross Gender Comparison. The
proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Education. Tehran: SRTTU.
Rahimi, M., & Yadollahi, S. (2011). ICT Use in EFL Classes: A Focus on
EFL Teachers’ Characteristics. World Journal of English Language, 1(2),
17–29. doi:10.5430/wjel.v1n2p17
Rakes, G. C., & Casey, H. B. (2000). An analysis of teacher concerns toward
instructional technology. http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/IJET/v3n1/rakes/index.html
Ranganath, V. N. C., Rayappa, D., & Priscilla, K. (2017). New roles of English
teacher with ICT in teaching and learning of English. Retrieved from www.
aguijrssh.com/currentissue.php?id=60
Reichel, N., & Arnon, S. (2009). A multicultural view of the good teacher in
Israel. Teachers and Teaching, 15(1), 59–85. doi:10.1080/13540600802661329
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language
teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2014). Approaches and methods in language
teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Robinson, W. I. (2003). External, and internal factors which predict teachers’
computer usage in K-12 classrooms. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: The
Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2004). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

50
The Role of Teachers in CALL

Sahin, I., & Thompson, A. (2006). Using Rogers’ theory to interpret

instructional computer use by COE faculty. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 39(1), 81–104. doi:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782474
Scanlon, E., & Issroff, K. (2005). Activity Theory and Higher Education:
Evaluating learning technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
21(6), 430–439. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00153.x
Serostanova, N. (2014). Integrating information and communication
technologies in the process of foreign language teaching and learning. The
Journal of Education Culture and Society, 1, 187–197.
Smeets, E., & Mooij, T. (2001). Pupil‐centered learning, ICT, and teacher
behavior: Observations in educational practice. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 32(4), 403–417. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00210
Timmering, L. (2009). Teacher quality is… (Unpublished Master’s Thesis).
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences.
Tudor, I. (1993). Teacher roles in the learner-centered classroom. ELT Journal,
47(1), 22–31. doi:10.1093/elt/47.1.22
Turuk, M. C. (2008). The relevance and implications of Vygotsky’s
Sociocultural Theory in the second language classroom. ARECLS, 5, 244–262.
Vaghela, M. B. (2016). The role of teacher and learner in technology mediated
learning, The Global Journal of English Studies, 2(1). Retrieved from GJES-
Feb-16-Ms-Binny-Vaghela.pdf
Van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2004). Explaining different types of
computer use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 19(4), 407–422. doi:10.1007/BF03173218
Verenikina, I. (2010). Vygotsky in twenty-first-century research. In J.
Herrington, & B. Hunter (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on
Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 16-25).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

51
 The Role of Teachers in CALL

Wheeler, S. (2000). The role of the teacher in the use of ICT. Paper presented
at National Czech Teachers Conference, University of Western Bohemia,
Czech Republic
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, G., & Stacey, E. (2004). Online interaction impacts on learning:
Teaching the teachers to teach online. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 20(1), 33–48. doi:10.14742/ajet.1366
Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., & Haudenschild, M. (2009). Using activity
systems analysis to identify inner contradictions in teacher professional
development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3), 507–517. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2008.09.014
Zevenbergen, R., & Lerman, S. (2007). Pedagogy and interactive whiteboards:
Using an activity theory approach to understanding tensions in practice. In
J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential research, essential
practice. Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Mathematics
Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 853-862). Sydney:
MERGA.
Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G. A. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual
control theory perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
9(1), 5–30.

52
 53

Chapter 3
EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

ABSTRACT
This chapter aims at pinpointing EFL teachers’ knowledge base and its
components. First, knowledge and its nature in general and teacher knowledge
in particular are discussed. The theoretical frameworks of teacher knowledge
base in general and the knowledge base of EFL teachers in particular are
defined and elaborated meticulously. This includes the seminal work of Shulman
and its three main categories of teacher knowledge—content knowledge,
general pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge—and the
work of language educationists to define the tripartite model of EFL teacher
knowledge base. In the following, the need to re-conceptualize EFL teachers’
knowledge base, the importance of investigating EFL teachers’ knowledge
base in CALL-based teaching/learning environments, and the way teachers
should be empowered in technology era are addressed.

BACKGROUND

Teaching is considered by the majority of people as a profession so easy that

anyone could do it. This is pointed out by Boyer (1990) when he emphasized
the need to redefine teaching since it is often viewed as a routine function,
tacked on, something almost anyone can do (p. 23).
The demand to redefine the value of teaching is more evident in recent years
since imperative about increasing the education quality is strongly related to
higher student outcomes. Needless to say, this mean there is an immediate need
to redefine the teaching standards. As a matter of fact, research has shown

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-6267-2.ch003

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

that the quality of teaching workforce is a determining factor in students’

achievement levels regardless of students’ prior background knowledge and
family factors (Guerriero, 2014). Being familiar with the definition of ‘quality’
is considered important since it is a technical terminology used in concepts
such as ‘quality teachers’ and ‘quality teaching’. Being used interchangeably,
these terms do not actually refer to the same idea (Liddicoat, 2006). According
to Liddicoat (2006) these two terms can be defined as:

Quality teachers’ refers to issues relevant to teachers’ knowledge and practices

in language teaching and discussion of quality teachers often assumes that
quality teaching is solely dependent on the levels of attainment of individual
teachers. ‘Quality teaching’, however, sees that effective teaching relies on
many factors of which the knowledge base of the teacher is only one. (p.1)

Research has revealed several predictors for teacher quality including

teachers’ certifications, degree, qualification type, class size, years of
experience, and knowledge base among which teachers’ knowledge base is
a less studied factor (Guerriero, 2014). The fact that teacher knowledge base
is a contributing factor which can affect the teaching and learning process
is widely accepted (Gitomer & Zisk, 2015; Grossman & McDonald, 2008;
Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2007; Woolfolk, Hoy, Davis, & Pape, 2006;
Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001). Reviewing the literature in the field of
teacher expertise reveals the implication of teachers’ professional knowledge
base in carrying out job-related tasks successfully (e.g., Berliner, 2001,
2004; Bromme, 1992). Despite the importance of creating a framework for
teachers’ knowledge base, there is little consensus among researchers about
what exactly an affective teacher has to know (Faez, 2011). Some efforts have
been made to conceptualize teachers’ knowledge (e.g., Breen, 1991; Johnston
& Goettsch, 2000), their attitudes and beliefs (e.g., Almarza, 1996; Crandall,
2000; Peacock, 2001; Mattheoudakis, 2007), and cognition (Borg, 2003;
2006) as they have been hypothesized to influence the teaching process (e.g.,
Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis, 2004; Freeman & Johnson, 2005; Tsui, 2003).

Knowledge and Teacher Knowledge

Conceptualizing teachers’ knowledge base is a complicated task since it is

interrelated with other key dimensions such as understanding the teaching and
learning process, the concept of knowledge, and the way teachers’ knowledge
is functionalized in the classroom (Guerriero, 2014).

54
EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

According to Tsui (2003), Ryle (1949), and Polanyi (1966), the conceptions
of knowledge can be defined considering five categories of teacher knowledge
including: (a) knowing-in-action and reflection-in-action (Schon, 1983); (b)
“practical knowledge” (Elbaz, 1983); (c) “personal knowledge” (Clandinin
& Connelly, 1987, 1991); (d) “situated knowledge” (Leinhardt, 1988); and
(e) “content knowledge” (Shulman, 1987).
The theoretical framework proposed by Shulman (1987) is rather analytical
where he considered three main categories for teacher knowledge: (a) content
knowledge - CK (or subject matter knowledge); (b) general pedagogical
knowledge- GPK, and; (c) pedagogical content knowledge- PCK. Shulman’s
(1987) model consists of other components such as learner knowledge and
its features, contextual factors, and evaluation (Faez, 2011).
These four supporting knowledge areas in Shulman’s (1987) framework are:

1. Curriculum Knowledge, with particular grasp of the materials and

programs that serve as “tools of the trade” for teachers;
2. Knowledge of learners and their characteristics;
3. Knowledge of educational contexts, ranging from the workings of the
group or classroom, the governance and financing of school districts,
to the character of communities and cultures; and
4. Knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values, and their
philosophical and historical grounds (Abdelhafez, 2010, p.49).

Shulman’s (1987) classification has affected the definition of teacher

knowledge significantly, as a major part of today’s research on this field is
dependent on it (König, Lammerding, Nold, Rohde, Strauß, & Tachtsoglou,
2016). The three core elements of teachers’ knowledge in his classification
are specified as follows:

• Content Knowledge (CK): This knowledge which is shaped by the

academic disciplines underlying different subject matters is related to
the specific subject matter or content area that educators are required
to teach (Freeman, 2002). For instance, mathematical CK consists of
the following knowledge areas: number, algebra, geometry, and data
(Tatto, Schwille, & Senk, 2008) or CK of EFL teachers is basically
language proficiency level and command of English.
• General Pedagogy Knowledge (GPK): General pedagogy is a
scientific term which is affected by cultural approaches (Hopmann
& Riquarts, 1995). Unlike CK, GPK is not subject matter related. As

55
 EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

Shulman (1987) pointed out, GPK involves those broad principles and
strategies of classroom management and organization that appear
to transcend subject matter alongside knowledge about educational
contexts, learners and learning, and assessment (p. 8). Putting GPK
into more detail, these broad knowledge areas comprise knowledge of
instructional process (e.g., teaching methods, classroom management),
student learning (e.g., individual dispositions of students and their
learning processes), and assessment (e.g., diagnosing principles and
evaluation procedures; König, 2014). (König, Lammerding, Nold,
Rohde, Strauß, & Tachtsoglou, 2016, p.2).
• Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): This area of knowledge
consists of subject specific knowledge with the goal of teaching.
According to Shulman (1987), this knowledge functions as a category
most likely to distinguish the understanding of the content specialist
from that of the pedagogue (p. 8).

Although scholars have investigated the knowledge categories proposed by

Shulman (Depaepe, Verschaffel, & Kelchtermans, 2013), the way that these
three cognitive fields are interrelated remains an open question. According to
König et al. (2016) PCK may be seen as the result of teachers’ transforming
and applying their CK and GPK to a new subject-specific knowledge category
(p.2). Combining the elements of GPK and subject specific knowledge lets us
believe that PCK is a more central knowledge area, while GPK and CK form
the foundations of the framework (Grossman & Richert, 1988). Regarding
GPK, it must be stated that it has not been the object of many studies though
it is considered the most crucial knowledge base in developing teachers’
quality (Guerriero, 2014). Reviewing the literature presents some models
attempting to determine the features of GPK, considering pedagogical and
psychological components. Table 1 presents the elements that some models
of GPK have proposed. Needless to say, considering the multiplicity of the
models, some components may overlap (Guerriero, 2014).
Shulman’s (1987) model of teacher knowledge was adapted and expanded
in light of various investigations. For instance, Turner-Bisset (1999) proposed
a new analytic framework of teacher knowledge base in the British context
through observations and interviews. Her framework is more comprehensive
comparing to that of Shulman’s (1987), in a sense that she added knowledge
of self as a major knowledge area (Abdelhafez, 2010). Hence, her framework
comprises nine categories of:

56
EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

subject matter knowledge, curriculum knowledge, general pedagogical

knowledge, knowledge of models of teaching, knowledge of learners, knowledge
of self, knowledge of educational contexts, knowledge of educational ends,
and pedagogical content knowledge. (Abdelhafez, 2010, p.50)

Another way to conceptualize teacher knowledge is doing it in relation to

disciplines required to excel in teaching profession. For instance, Cochran-
Smith and Lytle (1999) suggest a framework of teacher knowledge consisting
of research-based findings and general approaches together creating eight
domains of knowledge base including:

1. Content or subject matter knowledge;

2. Knowledge about the disciplinary foundations of education;
3. Human development and learners;
4. Classroom organization;
5. Pedagogy;
6. Assessment;
7. The social and cultural contexts of teaching and schooling, and;
8. Knowledge of teaching as a profession. (Abdelhafez, 2010, p.48)

Based on what was presented earlier, it could be deduced that teacher

knowledge is described through five attributes: It can be conceptualized

Table 1.Components of GPK (Voss, Kunter & Baumert, 2011; König, Blömeke,
Paine, Schmidt, & Hsieh, 2011, cited in Guerriero, 2014)

Pedagogical Components Psychological Components

•Knowledge of Classroom Management: Maximizing
the quantity of instructional time,
handling classroom events, teaching at a steady
pace, maintaining clear direction in lessons.
•Knowledge of Teaching Methods: Having a
•Knowledge of Learning Processes: Supporting
command of various teaching methods, knowing when
and fostering individual learning progress by
and how to apply each method.
having knowledge of various cognitive and
•Knowledge of Classroom Assessment:
motivational learning processes (e.g. learning strategies,
Knowledge of different forms and purposes of
impact of prior knowledge, effects and quality
formative and summative assessments,
characteristics of praise, etc.).
knowledge of how different frames of reference (e.g.,
•Knowledge of Individual Student Characteristics:
social, individual, criterion based) impact students’
Having knowledge of the sources of student cognitive,
motivation.
motivational, and emotional heterogeneity.
•Structure: Structuring of learning objectives
and the lesson process, lesson planning and
evaluation.
•Adaptivity: Dealing with heterogeneous
learning groups in the classroom.

57
 EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

as a practical, personal, experiential, contextual, and a situational form of

knowledge (Abdelhafez, 2010). More specifically defined, teacher knowledge
is:

• Practical: Since it has a mutual relation with teaching process in

different ways, and can form teacher’s function in the classroom and
at the same time be under the influence of the complicated patterns of
interaction in the classroom. According to Munby, Russell, and Martin
(2001), teacher knowledge is based on the personal understandings
that teachers have of the practical circumstances in which they work
and classroom knowledge that is situated in classroom events (p.880).
• Personal: Because it has sense for the teacher as a person who cannot
be separated from his professional self. As Elbaz (1981) declared,
teacher knowledge is personal in a sense that teachers try to utilize
their knowledge to be able to breathe sense into things in personal
meaningful ways. However, Turner-Bisset (1991) emphasizes the
personal aspect of teacher knowledge as a form of self-reflection that
teachers need to protect their self-image and survive in their profession.
• Experiential: As it is shaped through teachers’ interrelated and
personal experiences with learners and the context. Xu and Liu (2009)
support this idea suggesting that teachers’ past experiences, present
actions and future plans all constitute the bulk of teacher knowledge.
(p.505)
• Contextual: In a sense that it is applied in a specific context and will
not make sense otherwise. As Hiebert, Stigler, and Gallimore (2002)
pointed out, teacher knowledge is grounded in the context in which
teachers work. (p.6)
• Situational: Since it is constructed through various situations to which
it is employed to respond. (Abdelhafez, 2010, pp. 16-17)

Compared to the vast body of research investigating the knowledge of

teachers in general (e.g., Grossman, 1990; Hillocks, 1999; Cochran-Smith,
Feiman-Nemser, McIntyre, & Demers 2008), little work has been done
emphasizing second and foreign language teacher knowledge (Andrews, 1999;
2001; Borg, 2006; 2010; Day 1993; Day & Conklin, 1992; Tsui & Nicholson,
1999; Wright, 2010). It goes without saying that foreign language teaching
is much more complex in comparison to other subject matters in the sense
that the object of learning – the target language- has to be presented through
the same medium of instruction (Faez, 2011). This unity of content and the

58
EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

medium of instruction in TEFL is evident in communicative foreign language

classrooms where no real distinction could be made between the two (König,
Lammerding, Nold, Rohde, Strauß, & Tachtsoglou, 2016). In this sense,
EFL teachers’ knowledge base differs from that of science or mathematics
teacher. Hence, it is only rational to claim that the conceptualizations about
‘knowledge base’ of language teaching are constituted from a totally different
framework. However, it has to be mentioned that in more advanced levels of
TEFL, academic disciplines of cultural and literary theories become more
emphasized, making TEFL more content based compared to primary basic
levels (König, Lammerding, Nold, Rohde, Strauß, & Tachtsoglou, 2016).
Besides the shared content and the medium of instruction in TEFL, there
are other distinctive features that make foreign language teaching varied
from subject matters like mathematics. As oral communication plays a
crucial role in teaching a foreign language (Borg, 2006), EFL curriculum
comprises both oral and written competencies, and is majorly dependent on
teaching approaches and methodologies that guarantee fluent and accurate
oral production (Spada, 2007; Watzke, 2007). While the knowledge base
of an EFL teacher with low levels of communicative skills is considered
limited, the sheer command of target language will not provide students
with effective learning opportunities. The authenticity of tasks chosen for
learning, interactions between teacher and learners, and social situations in
a foreign language classroom makes TEFL field a distinctive one (König,
Lammerding, Nold, Rohde, Strauß, & Tachtsoglou, 2016).

Knowledge Base of EFL Language Teachers

According to research, teaching is a concept intertwined with learning. This

implies that the main task of teaching is training students to learn effectively
(Fenstermacher, 1986). The definition of language teachers’ knowledge base
entails several attributes which all effective language teachers are required to
possess. EFL teachers’ knowledge base refers to understanding, awareness,
expertise, and skills (Day, 1993; Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Richards, 1998;
Tedick, 2005). Literature in the field of language teachers’ knowledge base
draws considerably from English Language Teaching (ELT) theories (Ochieng’
Ong’ondo, 2017).
Lafayette (1993) attempts to determine the subject matter knowledge
needed for EFL teachers by proposing that it encompasses three domains: (a)
language proficiency; (b) civilization and culture, and; (c) language analysis

59
 EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

(i.e., knowledge about the language). He emphasizes the role of language

proficiency as a vital knowledge area, at the same time not minimizing the
importance of cultural awareness for both language learners and teachers.
Regarding language analysis knowledge he believes that language teachers
should be familiar with applied linguistic issues (e.g., contrastive analysis/
grammar, comprehension of second language acquisition process, fossilization,
error correction, and input/output processing), and linguistic structures.
Day (1993) proposed a framework for language teachers’ knowledge base,
inspired from Lafayette (1993) and Day and Conklin’s (1992) work. His
framework which was designed especially for English as a Second/Foreign
Language (ESL and EFL) teachers in Canada, consists of four categories: (1)
content knowledge (knowledge of the subject matter i.e. English language);
(2) pedagogic knowledge (knowledge of practices of teaching); (3) pedagogic
content knowledge (knowledge of teaching strategies for teaching the subject
matter), and; (4) support knowledge (knowledge of fields/disciplines which
can affect language teaching such as linguistics, psycholinguistics, and
sociolinguistics).
Freeman and Johnson (1998) make a great contribution in conceptualizing
EFL teachers’ knowledge base by proposing a theoretical framework which
treats language teaching as an “activity” consisting of three interrelated
areas: (1) the teacher-learner; (2) the social context, and; (3) the pedagogical
process. However, Tarone and Allwright (2005) criticize this framework
due to a lack of attention to English as a specific subject matter which is
majorly distinctive compared to other fields. They point out their idea stating
that teachers of different subject areas must learn different things and may
have to learn those things in different ways (p.7). In response to Tarone and
Allwright’s (2005) critique, Freeman and Johnson (2005) have mentioned that
considering language teaching as a far distinctive subject matter compared
to other subjects is at the heart of their framework. As a matter of fact, they
have focused on the crucial role of contextual factors in foreign language
teaching in their original proposal when they posed this question about EFL
teachers’ knowledge base: who teaches what to whom, where? (Freeman &
Johnson, 1998, p. 405).
Richards (1998) defined teaching as a set of particular practices and
competencies, the application and evaluation of which can assure high quality
teaching. In his proposal about what domains shape language teachers’
knowledge base, he identified six knowledge categories including: theories of
language teaching, subject matter knowledge, teaching skills, communication
skills, pedagogical reasoning and decision making; and contextual knowledge.

60
EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

However, Richards (1998) acknowledges the fact that there is not much
consensus regarding the knowledge base of language teachers stating that
this field draws on a variety of disciplinary sources, including linguistics,
psycholinguistics, and education (p.1). The specifications of language teachers’
knowledge domains as pointed out by Richards (1998) are presented as follows:
Theories of Language Teaching: Mitchell and Myles (2004) define theory
as an: abstract set of claims about the units that are significant within the
phenomenon understudy, the relationships that exist between them and the
processes that bring about change (p.6). A theory is an effort to reach a
reasonable and research-based set of generalizations in order to explain a
phenomenon (Macaro, 2003). Hence, it is clear that:

theory tends to be concerned with general issues rather than specific issues
about a phenomenon. Therefore individual cases that are not consistent with
these general issues are mostly ignored (Ochieng’ Ong’ondo, 2017, p.29).

According to Richards (1998; 2001), English Language Teacher Education

(ELTE) programs always rely on some sort of theories whether explicitly
stated or not. Regarding this issue, he declares that:

At the core of SLTE is a theory of teaching that provides the theoretical basis
for the program as well as the justification for both the approach to teaching
as well as the instructional practices students are expected to develop in the
program. Teachers also teach within the context of beliefs that shape their
planning and interactive decisions. Theories of teaching are therefore central
to how we understand the nature and importance of classroom practices…
(1998, p.2)

• Teaching Skills: It would be the fundamental and core competency of

a successful English teacher. Shulman (1987) refers to this knowledge
domain as related to several teaching aspects. It involves presenting
language; organizing and facilitating interactive and communicative
opportunities for students, ensuring students’ comprehension; creating
reasonable balance between fluency and accuracy; apprehension of
students’ errors; and appropriate treatment to errors (Kyriacou, 1991;
Richards, 1998; Shulman, 1987).
• Subject Matter Knowledge: This knowledge simply means what of
teaching- knowledge of the specific subject matter which in the case
of ELT is the English language (Ochieng’ Ong’ondo, 2017). In other

61
 EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

words, this knowledge comprises theories, concepts, and disciplinary

knowledge serving as the theoretical basis of foreign language teaching
(Richards, 1998). According to Kumaravadivelu (2006) this knowledge
could include basic aspects of linguistics such as syntax, morphology,
phonetics and phonology, and language acquisition, and in some context
it could refer to advanced knowledge of four skills of English (e.g.
Hinkel, 2006). Subject matter knowledge is regarded as a considerably
important knowledge base for language teachers; as Shulman (1987)
argues teaching begins with a teacher’s understanding of what is to
be learned and how it is to be taught. He further explained that in the
face of student diversity, the teacher must have a flexible and multi-
faceted comprehension, adequate to impart alternative explanations of
the same concepts and principles (p.9).
• Pedagogical Reasoning Skills (PRS) and Decision Making: These
are the underlying cognitive abilities that are required for foreign
language teachers (Shulman, 1987; Shavelson & Stern, 1981). Shulman
(1987) defined PRS as:

the capacity of a teacher to transform the content knowledge he possesses

into forms that are pedagogically powerful and yet adaptive to the variations
in ability and background presented to the students. (p.15)

He further stated how comprehension of teaching process alone would

not suffice. Teachers must be aware of the contextual factors and be able
to apply their knowledge base for making judgments and taking necessary
actions. Moreover, Richards (1998) indicated that developing pedagogical
reasoning skills is extremely crucial for language teachers as it helps them to:

• Relate theories of language, teaching and learning to language teaching

in actual situations.
• Analyze pedagogical problems and develop alternative strategies for
teaching.
• Recognize the kind of decision making employed in teaching and to
utilize decision making effectively in one’s own teaching (p.15).
• Learn to think about the subject matter from the learners’ perspective.
• Acquire a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
• Learn how to present subject matter in appropriate ways.
• Learn how to integrate language learning with broader curricular goals
(p.97-98).

62
EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

Johnson (1999) agrees with Richards (1998) on the necessity of PRS for
language teachers arguing that reasoning teaching lies at the core of both
learning to teach and understanding teaching (p.1). She goes even further
supporting PRS by posing some practical questions that will help language
teachers in learning PRS. These questions are:

• Who am I as a teacher?
• Who are my students? How do they experience my teaching?
• What do I know about my teaching context?
• What do I know about the subject matter content that I teach?
• Why do I teach the way I do?
• What are the consequences of my teaching practices for my students?
• How do I make sense of theoretical knowledge?
• Who is my professional community?
• What sort of change do I see as fit for my own teaching? (p.139)

Contextual Knowledge: Awareness about the context in which language

learning takes place plays is a crucial role in efficient teaching process. This
domain of knowledge involves being familiar with the specific educational
context, i.e., the school setting, knowing about students’ background including
families, strengths, weaknesses and particular interests (Grossman, 1988;
Lampert, 1984). Kumaravadivelu (2006) emphasizes the importance of context
in language teaching when he points out: it is impossible to insulate classroom
life from the dynamics of political, educational, and social institutions… (p.
44). Borg (2003) defines contextual factors as:

the social, psychological and environmental realities of the school and the
classroom parents, principals’ requirements, society, curriculum mandates,
classroom and school layout, school policies, colleagues, standardized tests,
and the availability of resources. (p. 94)

Richards (1998) adds several institutional contextual factors to Borg’s

(2003) list as:

• Type of school, (e.g. state, or private, tertiary),

• Administrative practices, (e.g. time management, teacher’s duties,
workload),
• School culture (e.g. established beliefs and practices),
• School program (e.g. reception class, pullout class, transitional class),

63
 EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

• Level of class (e.g. elementary, intermediate, advanced),

• Teaching resources (e.g. syllabus, textbooks and other resources), and
• Testing factors (e.g. role of school and national tests) (p.12).

Communication Skills: High communication skill can aid language

teachers to achieve their interpersonal goals during authentic encounters.
These include: (1) ordering, requesting, and giving rule; (2) questioning;
(3) giving instruction; (4) repeating and reporting what has been said; (5)
warning and giving advice; (6) giving reasons and explaining, and; (7) giving
and refusing permission (Richards, 2001; Owen & Hargie, 1986).
In addition to knowledge base frameworks, there have also been attempts
to determine standards for language teaching which can aid scholars in the
field to develop effective teacher education programs (Guntermann, 1993).
An example of these attempts is the development of several standards for
effective foreign language teaching by National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE) (2008). These six standards include: (1) language,
linguistics, comparisons; (2) cultures, literatures, cross-disciplinary concepts;
(3) language acquisition theories and instructional practices; (4) integration
of standards into curriculum and instruction; (5) assessment of language
and cultures, and; (6) professionalism (cited in Faez, 2011, p.33). However,
there has been little or no research done in order to validate the efficacy
of these standards. As Donato (2009) asserts, these standards identify the
scope of knowledge domains that are necessary for efficient foreign language
teachers, but they do not demonstrate any specific direction on how teachers
could achieve their goals. In agreement with what was mentioned, Richards
(2008) attested to the fact that the standards framework reflects a reductionist
approach in which learning is reduced to the mastery of discrete skills that
can easily be taught and assessed (p. 172). Table 2 presents a summary of
knowledge frameworks discussed in this chapter.
Having presented these theoretical frameworks, it is noteworthy to mention
that conceptualizing EFL teachers’ knowledge base has moved from “discrete”
skills and competencies, drawing on socio-cultural theories (Lantolf, 2000;
2009; Johnson, 2006; 2009). It focuses on the role of context suggesting that
learning is a “situated activity” within specific contexts (Lave & Wegner,
1991). As Johnson (2009) discussed the way an individual learns, what he/
she learns, and the way he/she will use the learnt material, is majorly related
to his previous experiences, social contexts in which learning take place, his

64
EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

Table 2. Foreign language teacher knowledge base frameworks

Freeman
NCATE
Shulman Lafayett Day Richards &
Standards
(1987) (1993) (1993) (1998) Johnson
(2008)
(1998)
Subject Language,
Language Content Subject Matter The Teacher
Matter Linguistics,
Proficiency Knowledge Knowledge Learner
Knowledge Comparisons
Cultures,
Pedagogical Civilization Theories of
Pedagogic The Social literatures,
Content and Language
Knowledge Context Cross Disciplinary
Knowledge Culture Teaching
Concepts
Language
Language
Analysis
Pedagogic The Acquisition
Knowledge Curricular (i.e.,
Content Teaching Skills Pedagogical Theories and
bases Knowledge knowledge
Knowledge Process Instructional
about the
Practices
language)
Communication Integration of
Support Skills and Standards Into
Knowledge Language Curriculum and
Proficiency Instruction
Pedagogical
Assessment of
Reasoning and
Language and
Decision
Cultures
Making
Contextual
Professionalism
Knowledge

needs and wants, and what is expected from him to do with that knowledge
in the society. Hence, it can be deduced that the modern needs of the society
calls for a comprehensive reform in the educational system which will affect
the ELTE programs significantly.
In line with these propositions, Richards (2008) suggests that EFL teacher
knowledge base frameworks should be modified, putting the “nature” of
language teaching process at the center. He further argues that:

From this perspective, learning takes place in a context and evolves through
interaction and participation of the participants in that context. Teacher
learning is not viewed as translating knowledge and theories into practice
but as constructing new knowledge and theory through participating in
specific social contexts and engaging in particular types of activities and
processes. (p. 164)

65
 EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

Reconceptualizing EFL Teachers’ Knowledge Base

In recent years, there has been a growing debate between two parties arguing
about the role of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) in language teacher
education (Jourdenais, 2009). One party claims that the knowledge of SLA
and applied linguistics is vital for an effective EFL teacher (Freeman 1989;
2004), while the other party holds a completely different stand (Tarone &
Allwright, 2005).
The debate originates from a conflict between academic knowledge and
practical knowledge and the question that which knowledge base should
act as the core of EFL teacher knowledge domains (Zhu, 2013). Ever since
professional reform occurred, there has been an instant need to develop a
systematic and new knowledge base for language teacher education programs.
Simply put, given the central role of language teachers’ knowledge base
in curriculum design and EFL educational reform, reconceptualizing EFL
teachers’ knowledge frameworks are considered essential (Zhu, 2013).
According to Zhu (2013), there are three main reasons for revising EFL
teachers’ knowledge base:

• The Need of Professional Movement: Despite the fact that teaching

was listed as a separate and legitimate college major at the end of 19th
century, there have been many doubts and critiques on its quality (Zhu,
2013). Thus, the new movement of Teacher Education Reform gained
major support as several reports were presented to enhance the quality
of teaching as a profession (Shulman, 1987).
• The Need of Bridging the Big Gap between Theory and Practice:
Regardless of the fundamental role of applied linguistics as a source
for EFL teachers’ knowledge base, it turned out to be a great waste
after some teaching methodologies became unpopular (Richards,
2011; Jourdenais, 2009). Therefore it is reasonable to claim that It is
necessary to bridge theory and practice in teacher education and the
first step is to undertake a new knowledge base (Zhu, 2013).
• The Need of Education Globalization: A report of Transforming
Teacher Education informed stated that all systems of teacher
preparation have to rethink their core assumptions and processes in
the new global context (Kumaravadivelu, 2011). The core assumptions
in the traditional EFL teachers’ knowledge frameworks assumed that
an effective teacher education program must help teachers comprehend

66
EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

and eventually master the content knowledge (Kumaravadivelu, 2011).

However, this is not the case in global context. Teachers must keep up
with the expectations of the society and be able:

to play the role of reflective practitioner, who deeply think about the principles,
practices, practices and processes of classroom instruction and bring to their
task a considerable degree of creativity, artistry, and context sensitivity.
(Kumaravadivelu, 2011)

Having these points mentioned, it is clear that re-conceptualizing EFL

teachers’ knowledge base is of utmost significance (Zhu, 2013).
In an attempt to propose a framework for EFL teachers’ knowledge base that
integrates theory and practice, Zhao (2009) presents a hierarchical categorizing
method as shown in Figure 1. This figure presents EFL teacher knowledge
base through a multilayer circle. In the act of teaching, educators must apply
some or even all of these knowledge domains. There have been studies trying
to investigate this method. For instance, Wang and Han (2005) point out the
importance of maintaining a harmony between technical knowledge and
practical knowledge. However, despite the fact that this method attempts to

Figure 1. EFL teaches’ knowledge base (Zhao, 2009)

67
 EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

combine theory and practice, it has not been explored clearly by researchers
and consequently, language teachers might find these abstract concepts hard
to apply and digest (Zhu, 2013).
Fortunately, Tsui (2003) integrates the traditional and modern knowledge
base methods. Although she classifies elements of EFL teachers’ knowledge
base separately, she asserts that the delineation of teacher knowledge as
consisting of separate domains is more analytical than real (p. 247). She comes
up with three features of relations among teacher knowledge bases, including
the integration of knowledge, in relation with specific context and situated
possibility, theorizing (theorizing practical knowledge), and practicalizing
(practicalizing theoretical knowledge) (Tsui, 2003, pp. 246-257).
Moreover, in distinguishing novice and expert language teachers she finds
that the transformation of formal knowledge to personal practical knowledge
through personal interpretation of formal knowledge in the teachers’ own
specific contexts of work and making explicit the tacit knowledge (p. 265),
are two critical attributes. To sum up, it is essential to reconceptualize EFL
teachers’ knowledge base through scientific investigations. It is vital that these
investigations be based on teachers’ need primarily, that is teachers can try to
establish a proper revised knowledge base framework through self-reflective
techniques (Zhu, 2013).

The Importance of Investigating EFL

Teachers’ Knowledge Base in CALL Era

Since technology is omnipresent in today’s modern world, it is almost

impossible for an ICT illiterate teacher to process teaching activities and tasks
without resorting to technology. Hence, all teachers including EFL teachers
are dealing with the urge to master ICT tools and technologies (Mishra,
Koehler, & Kereluik, 2009). In agreement with this, Prensky (2006) stated
that EFL teachers should be “digitalized” in order to keep up with the 21st
century’s modern students. In a technology enhanced language classroom,
teachers must rethink analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations and
demonstrations in order to make learning more accessible and convenient
for students (Shulman, 1986). In other words teachers must revise their
schemata and merge technology knowledge with their content and pedagogical
knowledge. Nevertheless, technology should not be force-fed to teachers.
Before integrating technology into the teaching process, some important

68
EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

factors must be taken into account including teachers’ present knowledge,

students’ needs, societal expectation and monetary and human resources
(Liu, Liu, Yu, Li, & Wen, 2014).
Despite all the merits that come along with technology, it should be
considered that every change needs some level of preparation. A radical
jump from traditional chalk and board to smart boards for instance might
be too overwhelming instead of effective for teachers (Liu, Liu, Yu, Li, &
Wen, 2014). It is just like a 15-year old trying to learn a second language, if
immersed in the target language environment completely, is more likely to
choke rather than make considerable progress (Krashen, 1988). If teachers
want to effectively integrate smart boards into their teaching for example,
they need to learn how to use an array of web resources, how to integrate
digital technology with the subject he or she is teaching and how to plan his
or her curriculum digitally (Liu, Liu, Yu, Li, & Wen, 2014).
Considering what was presented, suffice it to say that teaching EFL for
communicative purposes could not be achieved in a nonnative context without
resorting to technology to create simulated environments for authentic learning
(Liu, Liu, Yu, Li, & Wen, 2014). An EFL teachers’ professional knowledge
consists of two major categories: knowledge and practice. Cochran-Smith
and Lytle (1999) classify three conceptions regarding the interrelations of
EFL teachers’ knowledge bases; namely knowledge-for-practice, knowledge-
in-practice and knowledge-of-practice.
According to literature the first concept, knowledge-for-practice, is what
distinguishes language teachers as different professionals compared to other
fields. This knowledge involves knowledge of subject matter, of the standards
and content of the various professions, and of research-based strategies for
effective teaching and classroom organization and also technology knowledge
for language teachers (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).
The second concept, knowledge-in-practice, which is acquired through
experience and reflection is related to the dynamic nature of teaching in
schools (Liu, Liu, Yu, Li, & Wen, 2014). According to Cochran-Smith
and Lytle (1999), this knowledge is implicit and intangible which is only
shaped through teachers’ background knowledge and in collaboration with
experienced teachers.
The third concept, knowledge-of-practice, is formed through a connection
between formal knowledge and practical knowledge. Kennedy (1991) indicated
that this knowledge help teachers practice teaching in the broad context of

69
 EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

society. To help teachers develop ICT knowledge in the form of knowledge-

of-practice, teachers should be encouraged to reflect on their present teaching,
identify problems, figure out solutions in regard of technology and generate
new teaching concepts supported by technology (Liu, Liu, Yu, Li, & Wen,
2014). Administrative resources such as school district and school principals
play an essential role in achieving this purpose. Research in this area validated
this point claiming that school leadership is the crucial factor to guarantee
the effectiveness of school reform (Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, &
Hopkins, 2006). Thus, the interactive integration of both bottom-up and top-
down will gradually turn “digital immigrants” (Greenhow & Robelia, 2009)
to be ICT native like language teachers whose knowledge of technology is
normalized in a way that it is impossible to separate it from subject matter
and pedagogical knowledge (Liu, Liu, Yu, Li, & Wen, 2014).

CONCLUSION

According to what was presented in this chapter, it is clear that the everyday
process of teaching is very complex, and hence, it will only become more
complicated while enriched with technological tools and affordances. Keeping
the multi-layered teacher’s knowledge base, it is only logical to claim that
scrutinizing the framework for teachers’ technological literacy will provide
a lens for educators to implement innovations in their teaching process more
effectively. The next chapter aims at exploring the academic framework for
teachers’ ICT knowledge, TPACK.

REFERENCES

Abdelhafez, A. (2010). An Investigation into professional practical knowledge

of EFL experienced teachers in Egypt: Implications for pre-service and in-
service teacher learning. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10036/119325
Almarza, G. (1996). Student foreign language teacher’s knowledge growth. In
D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching
(pp. 50–78). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Andrews, S. (1999). Why do L2 teachers need to ‘know about the language’?
Teacher metalinguistic awareness and input for learning. Language and
Education, 13(3), 161–177. doi:10.1080/09500789908666766

70
EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

Andrews, S. (2001). The language awareness of the L2 teacher: Its

impact upon pedagogical practice. Language Awareness, 10(2-3), 75–90.
doi:10.1080/09658410108667027
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about
incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics,
25(2), 243–272. doi:10.1093/applin/25.2.243
Berliner, D. C. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting the
accomplishments of expert teachers. Bulletin of Science, Technology &
Society, 24(3), 200–212. doi:10.1177/0270467604265535
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research
on what language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching,
36(2), 81–109. doi:10.1017/S0261444803001903
Borg, S. (2006). The distinctive characteristics of foreign language teachers.
Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 3–31. doi:10.1191/1362168806lr182oa
Borg, S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching,
43(4), 391–429. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000170
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered, priorities of the professoriate.
San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Breen, M. P. (1991). Understanding the language teacher. In R. Phillipson,
E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.),
Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 213–233). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Bromme, R. (1992). Der Lehrer als Experte. ZurPsychologie des
professionellen Wissens [The teacher as expert: The psychology of professional
knowledge]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1991). Narrative and story in practice
and research. In D. Schön (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and
on educational practice (pp. 258–281). New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., McIntyre, D. J., & Demers, K. E.
(2008). Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in
changing contexts (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

71
 EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and

practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education,
24, 249–305.
Crandall, J. A. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 20, 34–55. doi:10.1017/S0267190500200032
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2007). Preparing teachers for a
changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Day, R. (1993). Models and the knowledge base of second language teacher
education. University of Hawaii’s Working Papers in ESL, 11(2), 1-13.
Day, R. R., & Conklin, G. (1992). The knowledge base in ESL/EFL teacher
education. Paper presented at the 1992 TESOL Conference, Vancouver,
Canada.
Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content
knowledge: A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded
mathematics educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34,
12–25. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.03.001
Donato, R. (2009). Teacher education in the age of standards of professional
practice. Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 267–270. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
4781.2009.00860_3.x
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. London:
Croom Helm.
Faez, F. (2011). Points of departure: Developing the knowledge base of ESL
and FSL teachers for K-12 Programs in Canada. Canadian Journal of Applied
Linguistics (CJAL)/Revue, 14(1), 29–49.
Fenstermacher, G. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge
in research on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 3–56.
Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge
and learning to teach. Language Teaching, 35(01), 1–13. doi:10.1017/
S0261444801001720
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-
base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417.
doi:10.2307/3588114

72
EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (2005). Toward linking teacher knowledge and
student learning. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Second language teacher education:
International perspectives (pp. 5–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gitomer, D. H., & Zisk, R. C. (2015). Knowing what teachers know. Review
of Research in Education, 39(1), 1–53. doi:10.3102/0091732X14557001
Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Old communication, new literacies: Social
network sites as social learning resources. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 14(4), 1130–1161. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01484.x
Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Grossman, P. L., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for
research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research
Journal, 45(1), 184–205. doi:10.3102/0002831207312906
Grossman, P. L., & Richert, A. E. (1988). Unacknowledged knowledge growth:
A re-examination of the effects of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 4(1), 53–62. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(88)90024-8
Guerriero, S. (2014). Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge and the Teaching
Profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(1), 7.
Guntermann, G. (Ed.). (1993). Developing language teachers for a changing
world. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for
the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one.
Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15. doi:10.3102/0013189X031005003
Hillocks, G. J. (1999). Ways of thinking, ways of teaching. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Hinkel, E. (2006). Perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly,
40(1), 109–131. doi:10.2307/40264513
Johnson, K. E. (1999). Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in
action. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Johnston, B., & Goettsch, K. (2000). In search of the knowledge base of
language teaching: Explanations by experienced teachers. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 56(3), 437–468. doi:10.3138/cmlr.56.3.437

73
 EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

Jourdenais, R. (2009). Language teacher education. In The handbook

of language teaching (pp. 645–658). Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1002/9781444315783.ch34
Kennedy, M. (1991). An agenda for research on teacher learning (National
center for research on teacher learning special report). East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University.
König, J. (2014). Designing an international instrument to assess teachers’
General Pedagogical Knowledge (GPK): Review of studies, considerations,
and recommendations. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Co-Operation
and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/official- documents/
publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/CERI/CD/ RD%282014%293/
REV1&doclanguage=en
König, J., Blömeke, S., Paine, L., Schmidt, W. H., & Hsieh, F.-J. (2011). General
pedagogical knowledge of future middle school teachers: On the complex
ecology of teacher education in the United States, Germany, and Taiwan. Journal
of Teacher Education, 62(2), 188–201. doi:10.1177/0022487110388664
König, J., Lammerding, S., Nold, G., Rohde, A., Strauß, S., & Tachtsoglou,
S. (2016). Teachers’ Professional Knowledge for Teaching English as
a Foreign Language. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 320–337.
doi:10.1177/0022487116644956
Krashen, S. D. (1988). Second language acquisition and second language
learning. Prentice-Hall International.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language
teaching. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
Kyriacou, C. (1991). Essential teaching skills. Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Lafayette, R. C. (1993). Subject-matter content: What every foreign language
teacher needs to know. In G. Guntermann (Ed.), Developing language teachers
for a changing world (pp. 125–157). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Knowledge of language in foreign language teacher
education. Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 270–274. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
4781.2009.00860_4.x

74
EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

Leinhardt, G. (1988). Situated knowledge and expertise in teaching. In J.

Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning (pp. 146–168). London:
Falmer Press.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006).
Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. Retrieved from
http://www.leadershipinnovationsteam.com/files/seven-strong-claims.pdf
Liddicoat, A. J. (2006). A review of the literature: Professional knowledge
and standards for language teaching. Babel, 40(3), 7.
Liu, S., Liu, H., Yu, Y., Li, Y., & Wen, T. (2014). TPACK: A New Dimension
to EFL Teachers’ PCK. Journal of Education and Human Development,
3(2), 681–693.
Macaro, E. (2003). Teaching and learning a second language. Bath, UK:
The Bath Press.
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
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). Looking back to the future
of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 49.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd
ed.). London: Oxford University Press.
Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and
how it develops. Handbook of Research on Teaching, 4, 877-904.
NCATE. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/ProgramStandards/
ACTFL/ACTFLWebReport-July1.doc
Ong’ondo, C. O. (2017). The knowledge base for language teacher education
revisited: A review. International Journal of English Language Teaching,
4(2), 27. doi:10.5430/ijelt.v4n2p27
Owen, D.W., & Hargie. (1986). The handbook of communication skills.
Routledge.
Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about second language
earning: A longitudinal study. System, 29(2), 177–195. doi:10.1016/S0346-
251X(01)00010-0

75
 EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me, Mom, I’m learning! How computer
and video games are preparing your kids for 21st century success and how
you can help! St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.
Richards, J. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal,
39(2), 158–177. doi:10.1177/0033688208092182
Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching.
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511667220
Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical
thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research,
51(4), 455–498. doi:10.3102/00346543051004455
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the
new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. doi:10.17763/
haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004
Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching. In J. Cummins & C.
Davions (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp.
271–288). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_20
Tarone, E., & Allwright, D. (2005). Language teacher-learning and student
language-learning: Shaping the knowledge base. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Second
language teacher education: International perspectives (pp. 5–23). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., & Senk, S. L. (2008). Teacher Education and
Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Amsterdam: IEA.
Tedick, D. J. (Ed.). (2005). Second language teacher education: International
perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

76
EFL Teacher Knowledge Base

Tsui, A. (2003). Teacher knowledge. In A. Tsui (Ed.), understanding expertise

in teaching: Cases studies of EFL teachers (pp. 42–66). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524698.005
Tsui, A. B. M., & Nicholson, S. (1999). Hypermedia database and ESL
teacher knowledge enrichment. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher
Education, 8(2), 215–237. doi:10.1080/14759399900200062
Turner-Bisset, R. A. (1999). Knowledge bases for teaching. British Educational
Research Journal, 25(1), 39–55. doi:10.1080/0141192990250104
Voss, T., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2011). Assessing teacher candidates’
general pedagogical/psychological knowledge: Test construction and
validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 952–969. doi:10.1037/
a0025125
Wang, R., & Han, G. (2005). Understanding pre-service EFL teachers’
‘Reflective Practice’. Foreign Language Theory and Practice, 3, 82–87.
Watzke, J. L. (2007). Foreign language pedagogical knowledge: Toward a
developmental theory of beginning teacher practices. Modern Language
Journal, 91(1), 63–82. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00510.x
Woolfolk Hoy, A., Davis, H., & Pape, S. J. (2006). Teacher knowledge and
beliefs. Handbook of Educational Psychology, 2, 715-738.
Wright, T. (2010). Second language teacher education: Review of recent
research on practice. Language Teaching, 43(3), 259–296. doi:10.1017/
S0261444810000030
Xu, Y., & Liu, Y. (2009). Teacher assessment knowledge and practice: A
narrative inquiry of a Chinese college EFL teacher’s experience. TESOL
Quarterly, 43(3), 493–513. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00246.x
Zhao, G. (2009). Thinking of the curriculum system of primary English
teacher education. In W. C. Zou (Ed.), The research of Chinese fundamental
English teacher education (pp. 131–143). Shanghai: East China Normal
University Press.
Zhu, H. (2013). Looking back at the new knowledge bases of EFL teacher
education. Creative Education, 4(12), 752–756. doi:10.4236/ce.2013.412106

77
78

Chapter 4
Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK):
The Theory

ABSTRACT
This chapter addresses the theories underlying the construct TPACK. The
chapter begins with reviewing the history and then the rationale of teacher
knowledge base in the form of a multi-dimensional model taken from published
literature. It also discusses how TPACK framework has developed and evolved
in the last decade. Some seminal works whose authors have contributed greatly
to the development of TPACK model are reviewed. Based on the theoretical
frameworks and the findings of the empirical studies, a comprehensive list
of the definitions of TPACK and critical issues regarding this framework are
discussed. The chapter comes to its end by introducing the evolved model of
TPACK, TPACK in-Action, in detail.

BACKGROUND

It is common sense between educators that teaching is a complicated profession

that requires several types of specialized knowledge. This means that in order
to make the most of this ill-structured discipline, teachers must be able to
employ complex knowledge structures across multiple contexts (Mishra,
Spiro, & Feltovich, 1996; Spiro & Jehng, 1990). In other words, teachers
are under the constant pressure of empowering themselves technologically

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-6267-2.ch004

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

and pedagogically. Given the dynamic nature of the teaching environment,

educators need to be flexible to evolve their understanding and develop their
knowledge from well-organized and integrated domains (Glaser, 1984; Putnam
& Borko, 2000; Shulman, 1986; 1987). These domains involve knowledge
of the subject matter, students’ learning, and most importantly, knowledge of
technology. In the field of language learning, the word technology applies to
both old (analog) and new (digital) technologies (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
As technological determinist beliefs push educators to adapt themselves
to technology, it is seen that ICT use is demanded by different groups outside
of school; and teachers are expected to embrace this change accordingly.
With this force upon change in the educational system, of course come some
unintended consequences for the teachers; some good, some actually not so
desirable (Pedersen, 2001). That is to say, despite the widespread integration of
technological tools and software in peoples’ everyday lives, using technology
in education and language instruction has not always been successful.
This problem is created due to the lack of normal integration of technology
in education that can have many reasons according to empirical findings. It
is proposed that different personal, technical, pedagogical, socio-cultural,
and institutional issues act as barriers in normalization of ICT in education
(Mahdi, 2013). As a matter of fact, it is believed that the mission of integrating
ICT into classrooms cannot be a truly positive and effective experience if
the executers, in this case language teachers, do not possess the required
knowledge and skills of using technology. Lack of teachers’ skills and
abilities in incorporating technology into the classroom is known to be one
of the most important barriers to successful technology integration in the
teaching process (Yurdakul, Odabasi, Kilicer, Coklar, Birinci, & Kurt, 2012).
Recognizing the challenges of teachers in the route of ICT integration is a
great step in finding a solution.
The first challenge is related to the characteristics of technological
affordances. The traditional and modern pedagogical technologies have
distinctive features which are characterized by three attributes: specificity,
stability, and transparency (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The function of
traditional technologies is specified (a chalkboard is used for writing while
a microscope is used to view objects), stable (chalkboards, microscopes,
and pencils have not altered significantly over time), and transparent (the
function of a pencil or a microscope is simple as it is directly related to their
inner workings) (Simon, 1969).

79
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Modern technologies on the other hand are adaptable (they can be used in
many different ways), changeable (rapidly modified over time), and obscure
(the functions and inner workings are hidden and not easily accessible for
users) (Papert, 1980; Turkle, 1995). By their very nature, digital technologies
introduce new challenges to teachers who are striving to utilize more
technology in the teaching process (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Understanding
the challenges that teachers face in the path of technological integration
is vital for comprehending the need of developing teachers’ technological
knowledge base.
Another obstacle that might complicate teaching with technology is the fact
that technologies are not unbiased or neutral. In fact different technological
tools and resources are characterized by exclusive affordances, constraints,
and potentials (Bromley, 1998; Bruce, 1993; Koehler & Mishra, 2008).
For instance, using e-mail has some potentials and constraints; it provides
asynchronous communication and effortless storage of exchanges, however in
the case of instant and synchronous communication, it has to accept defeat in
the battle with phone calls and video calls. E-mail cannot provide the subtleties
of tone, mood, body language, and intentions as face-to-face communications
can. Being familiar with the distinct affordance and constraints of educational
technologies can aid teachers in their professional development program
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Last but not least in the list of challenges that technology integration
brings, are social and contextual factors. Despite the administration demands
that impel teachers to include technology in their teaching routine, they are
not as supportive as expected. Considering the fact that teachers often have
inadequate knowledge base and skills when it comes to technology, adopting
new methods of teaching with technology can be a huge struggle for them
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Obviously the lack of knowledge to use technology
creates a huge burden for teachers to integrate technology in the process of
teaching (Yurdakul, Odabasi, Kilicer, Coklar, Birinci, & Kurt, 2012). In this
condition, integrating technology into the teaching process seems unlikely
unless it is consistent with teachers’ existing pedagogical beliefs (Ertmer,
2005).
Facing the mentioned challenges, it is clear that technology integration is
not a simple task for most teachers. That is to say that there is no ‘one best
way’ to do this job. In order for this idea to make more sense to teachers, an
approach is required that treats teaching as a body of teachers’ knowledge
and its application in the classroom. Accepting the idea that teaching with
technology is a complicated and ill-structured venture, teachers must find

80
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

new ways of comprehension in order to overcome the complexities of this

process (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Nowadays, with the change in the approaches related to technology
integration, this knowledge can be either technological knowledge (teachers’
ability to use technology in general) or techno-pedagogical knowledge
(teachers’ ability to use technology in their instruction, in a way that it is
effective by using proper class management techniques as one example) (Hew
& Brush, 2007). This new knowledge base is associated with a scientific
term in education called Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK). According to Yurdakul, et al. (2012), TPACK is a framework to
describe teacher’s knowledge and skills to integrate technology. It is one of
the new frameworks that consider both teachers’ technological and techno-
pedagogical knowledge as being equally important and valid conceptions.
Teacher knowledge as regarded by TPACK framework is not simply the ability
to use technology; it is a complex interaction of three layers of knowledge
within the TPACK framework: technology, pedagogy and content (Yurdakul,
Odabasi, Kilicer, Coklar, Birinci, & Kurt, 2012).

The Development of TPACK Framework

TPACK is not a simple framework and this is due to the complicated nature
of teaching profession to begin with. Knowing about technology and how
to use it in everyday activities is just one part of the story; knowing how to
integrate this knowledge into instruction using proper pedagogical skills and
classroom management abilities is a whole different world. With that being
said, it only makes sense to state that there are different conceptualizations for
TPACK framework, each emphasizing some of the aspects of this knowledge
as the core, and some other as supporting components. As discussed in the
previous chapter, teachers’ knowledge base has mostly focused on content
knowledge (Shulman, 1986). However, according to literature review, research
on TPACK can be divided into three main categories: (1) definition and
measurement of TPACK; (2) effects of professional development on TPACK,
and; (3) evolution of the TPACK model (Yurdakul, Odabasi, Kilicer, Coklar,
Birinci, & Kurt, 2012).
The first phase of TPACK research was officially initiated when Koehler,
Mishra, Yahya, and Yadav (2004) defined the TPACK framework in a
qualitative study. This study has been suggested by researchers to be the
first attempt to create a deep understanding of the complex interrelationships

81
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

between content, pedagogy and technology knowledge and the contexts in

which they occur (Yurdakul, Odabasi, Kilicer, Coklar, Birinci, & Kurt, 2012).
Following this phase, most research on TPACK focused on the important
role of TPACK in professional development for pre-service and in-service
teachers (Koehler & Mishra, 2005). Considering the second phase of TPACK
research, a number of experimental studies have attempted to investigate
whether teachers’ professional development can influence their TPACK
development level. Not surprisingly, it was found by most of these studies that
teachers’ professional development has a positive influence on developing
teachers’ level of TPACK (Doering, Veletsianos, Scharber, & Miller, 2009;
Graham, Burgoyne, Cantrell, Smith, St. Clair, & Harris, 2009; Jang, 2010).
The most comprehensive study in this regard was carried out by Wilson
and Wright (2010). The participants of their study were two social studies’
teachers and the research was conducted over a two-year period covering
pre-service to in-service stage.
In terms of the third phase of TPACK research, several studies have tried to
develop an integrated model of TPACK considering each dimension separately
and also the relationship among the dimensions. Eventually teacher education
programs evolved to emphasize pedagogy that is independent of subject matter
as the primary knowledge bases for teachers (Ball & McDiarmid, 1990). Since
then, different theoretical frameworks of teacher education programs based
on ‘content knowledge (C)’ and ‘pedagogical knowledge (P)’ as separate
domains. The two components of teacher knowledge could be presented as
two independent circles (Figure 1) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Shulman (1987) advanced his theory about teacher knowledge and
addressed the dichotomy of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge

Figure 1. Domains of teacher knowledge; content knowledge and pedagogical

knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

82
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

by introducing the notion of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). As the

name suggests, PCK is created as an intersection of subject matter (content)
and pedagogy. It goes beyond the previous approach which was the isolation
of these two domains. In agreement with these lines of research, he argued
that the individual knowledge of content and pedagogy though essential, are
not sufficient for an effective teaching process (Shulman, 1986). He focused
on the necessity of PCK indicating that:

Pedagogical content knowledge is of special interest because it identifies

the distinctive bodies of knowledge for teaching. It represents the blending
of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics,
problems, or issues are organized, represented, and Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners,
and presented for instruction. (p. 8)

The interplay between content and pedagogy is portrayed in Figure 2. As

observed in this figure, the two circles of Figure 1 are connected with the
formation of PCK (Shulman, 1986).
The TPACK framework builds on Shulman’s (1987; 1986) explanations of
PCK to determine the complex relationships between content and pedagogy
and how content is presented, adapted, and prepared for effective instruction.
The conceptualization of TPACK framework has developed significantly

Figure 2. The two domains of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge which
are joined by PCK

83
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

over time and through various series of publications (e.g. Mishra & Koehler
2006; Koehler & Mishra, 2008).
This model (Figure 3), consists of three main components of teachers’
knowledge: content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and
technological knowledge (TK). As can be observed in Figure 3, there are other
components in TPACK framework which are created as an interaction among
the three domains of teacher knowledge within the framework of TPACK.
These components include: TCK (Technological Content Knowledge),
PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge), TPK (Technological Pedagogical
Knowledge), and TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge).
These components are considered equally important to the framework (Koehler
& Mishra, 2009; Yurdakul, Odabasi, Kilicer, Coklar, Birinci, & Kurt, 2012).

• Content Knowledge (CK): It is teachers’ knowledge of the subject

matter to be taught including knowledge of concepts, theories, ideas,
organizational frameworks, knowledge of evidence and proof, as

Figure 3. The TPACK framework and its knowledge categories (Koehler & Mishra,
2009)

84
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

well as established practices and approaches toward developing such

knowledge. The nature of this knowledge differs significantly among
different fields (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The damages made in
the case that teachers lack a required amount of content knowledge
are not always recoverable. Giving incorrect information to students
might cause them to develop misconceptions about the subject matter
(National Research Council, 2000; Pfundt, & Duit, 2000).
• Pedagogical Knowledge (PK): It is a deep and generic form of
knowledge which involves comprehending teaching processes and
methodologies. This area of knowledge involves using classroom
management techniques and understanding lesson planning, student
assessment and how different students learn. A pedagogically
literate teacher is aware of students’ cognitive processes such as the
development of mind habits, motivation, and positive or negative
dispositions about learning. With that being mentioned, in order to
build an appropriate pedagogical knowledge base, teachers need to be
familiar with developmental, cognitive, and social theories of learning
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
• Technological Knowledge (TK): This knowledge is greatly dynamic
in nature, more than the other fundamental knowledge domains in the
TPACK framework. As defined by Mishra and Koehler (2006). TK
comprises skills to operate technologies such as installing or removing
devices/software programs, or creating and archiving documents
and abilities to learn and adapt to new technology (pp.1027-1028).
Schmidt et al. (2009) add to this definition suggesting that TK also
encompasses the ability:

to solve technical problems, to learn technology easily, to keep up with

important technology, to play around with technology, to know a lot of
technologies, to have technical skills and to have opportunities to work with
different technologies. (p.145)

The definition of TK used in the TPACK framework is similar to that of

Fluency of Information Technology (FITness), as presented by the Committee
of Information Technology Literacy of the National Research Council (NRC,
1999). FITness notion claims to go beyond the traditional conceptualizations
of ICT literacy, to the convenient application of technology into work and
everyday life, to recognize situations in which technology can facilitate or
hinder a function, and to adapt with technological developments constantly.

85
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Therefore, FITness is a much deeper knowledge base compared to the traditional

ICT literacy and it encompasses information processing, communication,
and problem-solving skills. This form of knowledge does not consider an
“end state” and is rather developmental, evolving, and open-ended (Koehler
& Mishra, 2009).

• Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): As defined by Shulman

(1986) PCK is the knowledge of:

…. the most regularly taught topics in one’s subject, the most useful forms
of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations,
examples, explanations and demonstrations … including an understanding of
what makes the learning of specific concepts easy or difficult: the concepts
and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring
with them to the learning. (p. 9)

Consistent to Shulman’s (1986) concept of PCK, this flexible knowledge

is formed as the teacher interprets the subject matter, seeks various ways to
present it, and adapts and modifies the instructional material to match students’
background knowledge. PCK creates links among curriculum, pedagogy, and
evaluation (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).

• Technological Content Knowledge (TCK): According to research

there is a deep and historical relationship between technology and
content. The advent of technology has had major influence on the fields
of science, physics, history, medicine, and archeology. The impact
of technology on the mentioned fields has led to fundamental and
permanent changes. Recognizing the effects that technological tools
and resources bring to practices of a particular discipline is crucial for
developing ethnological affordances for educational purposes.

Although the choice of some ICT tools might aid or hinder representing
particular content areas, it can provide the opportunity for flexible navigation
among and across disciplines. Hence, mastering TPK equals comprehending
the manner in which content and technology are influenced and restrained
by each other. Teachers must be able to choose, understand, and effectively
utilize technologies that best suit the demands of the specific subject matter
to be taught (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).

86
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

• Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK): According to Koehler

and Mishra (2009) TPK is defined as:

An understanding of how teaching and learning can change when particular

technologies are used in particular ways. This includes knowing the
pedagogical affordances and constraints of a range of technological tools
as they relate to disciplinarily and developmentally appropriate pedagogical
designs and strategies. To build TPK, a deeper understanding of the constraints
and affordances of technologies and the disciplinary contexts within which
they function is needed. (p. 65)

TPK becomes extremely vital considering the fact that most popular
software programs such as Microsoft Office Suite (Word, PowerPoint,
Excel, Entourage, and MSN Messenger) are usually designed for business
environments and not primarily for educational purposes. Other types of
technologies such as podcasts and web-based technologies are usually known
to be in the entertainment, communication, and social networking territory.
Teachers must be able to ignore these fixed classifications (Duncker, 1945)
and restructure the functions of ICT tools to meet their classroom needs.
Thus, this knowledge does not view the use of ICT for its own sake, but for
improving students’ learning and understanding (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).

• Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): This

knowledge goes beyond the three ‘basic’ elements of TPACK framework
(content, pedagogy, and technology); it is rather an understanding
created as an interaction among these layers of knowledge by
simultaneously integrating knowledge of technology, pedagogy and
content (Koehler & Mishra, p.66). As declared by Koehler and Mishra
(2009) TPACK:

Is the basis of effective teaching with technology, requiring 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 to develop new epistemologies
or strengthen old ones. (p.66)

87
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

The importance of integrating the separate bodies of teacher knowledge

into the unified TPACK framework is visible in situations where the
introduction of a new technology pushes teachers to keep the equilibrium
among the knowledge bases. This confirms the difficult nature of teaching
with technology, and the need for teachers to develop their technological
knowledge alongside other required knowledge domains constantly (Koehler
& Mishra, 2009). Table 1 contains a short summary of the definitions and
examples for each of these seven dimensions synthesized from literature
review (Cox & Graham, 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler,
2006 cited in Chai, Koh & Tsai, 2013).

Table 1. Definition and examples of TPACK dimensions

TPACK Constructs Definition Example

Knowledge about how to use ICT
Knowledge about how to use Web 2.0
TK hardware and software and associated
tools (e.g., Wiki, Blogs, Facebook)
peripherals
Knowledge about the students’ learning,
instructional methods, different
Knowledge about how to use problem-
PK educational theories, and learning
based learning (PBL) in teaching
assessment to teach a subject matter
without references towards content
Knowledge of the subject matter without
Knowledge about Science or
CK consideration
Mathematics subjects
about teaching the subject matter
Knowledge of representing content
knowledge and adopting pedagogical
Knowledge of using analogies to teach
PCK strategies to make the specific content/
electricity (see Shulman, 1986)
topic more understandable for the
learners
Knowledge of the existence and
The notion of Web quest, KBC, using
specifications of various technologies
TPK ICT as cognitive tools, computer-
to enable teaching approaches without
supported collaborative learning
reference towards subject matter
Knowledge about how to use technology Knowledge about online dictionary,
to represent/research and SPSS, subject specific ICT tools e.g.
TCK
create the content in different ways Geometer’s Sketchpad, topic specific
without consideration about teaching simulation
Knowledge of using various technologies
Knowledge about how to use Wiki
to teach and/represent and
TPACK as an communication tool to enhance
/ facilitate knowledge creation of specific
collaborative learning in social science
subject content

88
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Issues With the TPACK Framework

Despite the fact that the TPACK framework has made significant contributions
to the field of educational technology, a number of theoretical concerns have
continued to be raised in the literature (Jordan, 2014).
The first issue lies with the ambiguous definitions of the seven TPACK
components (Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2010.; Graham, 2011; Jordan, 2014). In her
doctoral study, Cox (2008) declared that there were at least 89 definitions of
TPACK framework and its categories by 2008. For instance, in an attempt to
define PCK, Priest (2007) proposed two different ways. In the first approach,
he focused on the concept linguistically and viewed PCK as consisting of
content knowledge as a compound noun, and pedagogical knowledge as
its adjective. Thus, he defined PCK as a form of subject matter that is in
agreement with pedagogical purposes. In the second perspective however,
he believed that PCK is a form of teachers’ decision-making skills that can
be affected by different subject matters and educational contexts.
So and Kim (2009) also proposed a definition for the TPACK framework
which included only five constructs. These were: 1) CK; knowing about what
to teach; 2) PK; knowing about how to teach in general; 3) TK; knowing about
various technical tools and their capabilities; 4) PCK; knowing about how
to teach particular subject matter content, and; 5) TPCAK; knowing about
how to represent subject matter with technology in pedagogically sound ways.
In addition to inconsistent definitions, the other challenge with the TPACK
components is defining boundaries between them (Jordan, 2014). In line with
this, Graham (2011) argues that:

many researchers who have made serious attempts at measuring TPACK

constructs have been challenged by the difficulty the model presents in
distinguishing boundaries between the constructs in the model (p. 1957).

For instance, the boundaries between TCK and TPK constructs are
viewed as fuzzy indicating in their view a weakness in accurate knowledge
categorization or discrimination (Angeli & Valanides, 2009).
According to researchers, another main issue with the TPACK framework
is related to the operation of these seven elements (Dinh, 2015). Regarding
this dilemma, Archambault and Crippen (2009) stated that these domains
seem[ed] confounded and … difficult to separate … (p.74). However, Cox
and Graham (2009) represented a whole different perspective emphasizing
TPK and TCK’s independence from CK and TK elements respectively. They

89
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

elaborated that TPK that is knowledge of the general activities that a teacher
can engage using emerging technologies [should be] …independent of a
specific content or topic-CK, and also TCK that:

refers to a knowledge of the topic-specific representations in a given content

domain that utilize emerging technologies [should be] …independent of
knowledge about their use in a pedagogical context-PK. (p. 64)

So far it can be concluded from the above discussion that teachers’

knowledge to integrate technology is complicated in nature and is affected
by multiple factors (Dinh, 2015). In order to address this issue, several
studies have tried to develop an integrated model of TPACK considering
each dimension separately and also the relationship among the dimensions.
However, the number of studies with the focus of TPACK as a unified and
consistent body are very limited (Archambault & Crippen, 2009).
Despite the fact that TPACK is the basis of technological knowledge
framework, early conceptualizations of TPACK framework focused on seven
distinct components of technology knowledge (TK, PK, CK, TPK, TCK, PCK,
and TPACK) (Shahin, 2011; Shmidt, Baran, Thompson, Koehler, Mishra,
& Shin, 2009). In agreement with the following studies, Brantley-Dias and
Ertmer (2013) stated that TPACK should … become embedded within other
aspects of teachers’ knowledge, i.e., CK, PK and PACK (p. 117). They thus
suggested that TPACK should be conceptualized as concentric, rather than
intersecting circles. This lack of attention to investigate the main component
TPACK as a whole leads to the development of a more comprehensive
framework of TPACK considering all these separate parts along with the
main component. It might be safe to say that the study that has been carried
out in 2012 by Yurdakul and associates has been successful in developing a
consistent and comprehensive framework (TPACK-deep scale, Figure 4) as it
includes technology integration in classrooms based on different competencies
and components in the teaching-learning process.
Figure 4 (Yurdakul, Odabasi, Kilicer, Coklar, Birinci, & Kurt, 2012) shows
the new TPACK framework consisting of four sub-components of design,
exertion, ethics and proficiency. Design factor refers to teacher’s ability to
create and develop curriculum plans, and combining proper technological
tools and resources to enhance the teaching and learning situation. Exertion
refers to the ability to implement the design plans in the teaching and learning
situation and also using appropriate technologies to assess and evaluate students
learning. Ethics factor focuses on the ability to consider copy right issues and

90
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

show ethical behavior as a professional in online educational environments

and also when using technological tools and resources. Last but not least is
the proficiency factor which refers to teachers’ leadership ability to integrate
technology into the teaching process in the most effective way (ISTE, 2000;
2008; Niess, Ronau, Shafer, Driskell, Harper, & Johnston, 2009).

TPACK in Action: Is It Important?

In sum, these studies make a great contribution to understanding of the

ways TPACK construct is developed within educational contexts. However,
regardless of the fact that the focus of most TPACK approaches revolves
around the technology component, more attention is needed to investigate
the design and implementation of CALL-based teacher education courses in
order to maximize the successful ICT integration (Tai, 2013).
In agreement with previous lines, Kereluik et al. (2012) stated that: there
has been a significant effort in developing coherence at multiple levels,
multiple instructors and graduate students, multiple methods of delivery,
including face to face, online, and hybrid (p. 4719). Literature emphasized

Figure 4. The framework and factors of TPACK-deep scale (Yurdakul, Odabasi,

Kilicer, Coklar, Birinci, & Kurt, 2012)

91
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

the roles of power of experience (Dewey, 1938) and knowledge of practice

(Schon, 1983) in shaping a deeper and more efficient TPACK for teachers.
The deduction is that the implemented TPACK programs helped teachers
gain a more comprehensive understanding of technology since they provided
opportunities to learn TPACK by using it, instead of learning about TPACK
(Kereluik, Mishra, Hagerman, Wolf, DeSchryver, Fisser, & Spicer, 2012).
Hence, ICT-based teacher education programs should be situated in
authentic contexts in order to function efficiently (Slaouti & Motteram, 2006;
Hampel & Stickler, 2005; Chapelle & Hegelheimer, 2004; Thompson, Bull,
& Willis, 1998; Duffield, 1997) and present more than mere technology
knowledge for teachers (Kessler & Plakans, 2008; Levy & Stockwell, 2006;
Hegelheimer, 2006; Peters, 2006; Hubbard, 2004; Chisholm & Beckett, 2003;
Bennet & Marsh, 2002; Levy, 1997).
In line with the above discussion, Levy (1997) suggested a more holistic
view towards teachers rather than focusing on whether or not teachers are
educated to be technology experts. Thus, as Chapelle (2003) declared the
way that students will learn to do applied linguistics with technology is by
learning applied linguistics through technology (p. 31), teachers must learn
to utilize technology through first hand experiences. Slaouti and Motteram
(2006) confirm the importance of authentic and novel experiences for online
teaching environments when they suggest that teachers need to learn about
online learning through online learning (p. 89).
Fig and Jaipal (2012) developed a new TPACK framework to address
the necessity of experience for teachers’ computer education courses named
‘TPACK-in- Practice’ model. In an attempt to distinguish itself from traditional
technology-based TPACK framework, this model views technology as a stream
flowing and influencing teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge (Tai,
2013). This is in line with previous research in the field of teacher education
that suggested active learning and collective participation alongside content
can comprise an effective professional development program for teachers
(Desimone, 2009).
That is to say, in an ICT-based language classroom, content should still
play the fundamental role while proper technological affordances should
be adopted through sound pedagogical decisions (Tai, 2013). In addition,
this model focuses on the role of reflective practices in developing teachers’
TPACK in ICT-based educational courses as they can enhance teachers’
awareness about the teaching process and trigger positive outcomes (Liou,
2001; Kullman, 1998; Ho & Richards, 1993). Reflection in action (during
learning), and Reflection on action (after learning) are considered to be

92
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

crucial factors in helping teachers build a bridge between theory and practice
(Schon, 1983; 1987). Hence, the TPACK-in-Action model consists of five
elements: (1) Modeling; (2) Analyzing; (3) Demonstrating; (4) Application;
and (5) Reflection (Figure 5) (Tai & Chuang, 2012).
As can be observed in the above Figure 5., instructors and learners both
take responsibility for ICT integration in the process of teaching. As Lawless
and Pellegrino (2007) proposed:

A design-based approach affords teachers the opportunity to learn how to

use specific technologies situated in the context of their curricular needs.
As a result, teachers take more ownership of the resources, have higher
confidence in integrating the unit as a teaching tool, and are more likely to
believe that the curriculum resources will have a positive impact on student
achievement. (p. 594)

The five steps of TPACK in Action model are briefly discussed in the
following section:

• Modeling: This would be the first step to situate teachers in the CALL
context in line with what was mentioned previously by Chapelle
(2003) that the way that students will learn to do applied linguistics
with technology is by learning applied linguistics through technology
(p. 31). In this step, a CALL function is modeled by the workshop
instructor in order to provide an opportunity for language teachers to
experience and witness an authentic CALL utilization in action (Kessler
& Plakans, 2008; Hughes, 2005). Modeling can be helpful for teachers
in the sense why they can see the direct relevance of CALL usage in
the teaching context while they can also witness the challenges and

Figure 5. TPACK in Action model (adapted from Tai, 2013)

93
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

benefits associated to it; and thereby contributing to greater confidence

in their instructional ability (Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, & Hannay, 1999).
• Analyzing: This step enables teachers to make connections between
the modeled CALL activity and making decisions related to why and
how certain technological and pedagogical resources are selected to
meet particular goals (Tai, 2013). This element is related to a notion
proposed by Chapelle and Hegelheimer’s (2004) when they indicated
that knowing how to utilize technology is not sufficient for language
teachers; they should also be aware of the reasons that they are doing
so. Hence, analyzing step within the TPACK framework is essential for
observing connections, affordances, and constraints among content,
pedagogy, and technology and how these relationships can lead to
successful ICT implementation (Tai, 2013).
• Demonstrating: During this step, teachers gain a more comprehensive
understanding about the navigation of each technological tool or
resource, through clear, step-by-step instructions. They not only
learn about specific properties of the ICT tools used in the modeled
activity in great detail, they are required to develop activities and tasks,
individually and collaboratively using those devices. This provides a
great environment for teachers to demonstrate their comprehension
and skills, and grasp their function in relation to a specific content and
context, which can eventually enhance their self-confidence (Hoven,
2007; Hughes, 2005).
• Application: In this stage, it is time for teachers to put their knowledge
into an actual lesson plan, and attempt to teach materials from textbooks
using the learned technological tools in a group. The group work
stimulates learning among teachers as they strive to not only focus on
the three knowledge domains (content, pedagogy, and technology), but
the interrelations among them (Kamhi-Stein, 2000). They are provided
with peer feedback after completing the lesson plans. One or two groups
of teachers might voluntarily teach their lesson plan which itself acts
as a model for colleagues. This final presentation brings teacher a step
closer in gaining a realistic perspective about technology integration
(Tai, 2013).
• Reflection: Last but certainly not least in TPACK in Action model is
the reflection stage. Teachers are provided with a model based on which
they should reflect on the learning steps that occurred in the program.
The significance of reflection is secret to none as Kullman (1998) noted
that reflection […] will lead to a greater awareness among student

94
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

teachers of what constitutes appropriate pedagogic practice and will

lay the foundation for development (pp. 471 -472). The reflections in
the TPACK in Action model are carried out individually (through an
online questionnaire), or collaboratively (through online communities).
Either way, these reflections are shared among teachers to give them a
chance to benefit from peers’ comprehension and perspectives (Kamhi-
Stein, 2000).

TPACK in Action model supports practical and experiential ICT-based

programs and tries to identify language teachers’ technological competence in
light of particular content and educational context. It provides opportunities
for language to teachers to witness contextualized technology use in action,
participate in hand-on-activities, create lesson plans, and teach collaboratively
using technology. As a result, in agreement with the complexity of teachers’
technology knowledge, this model goes beyond considering domains of
content, pedagogy and technology as separate components, but rather as an
integrated unit (Tai, 2013).

CONCLUSION

This chapter presented different academic models and frameworks for teachers’
Technological and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). The different
elements of each framework were elaborated in detail. Given the important
role of educators for preparing learners to adopt technological affordances
more effectively, there has been a great interest among scholars in this field
to explore the TPACK construct and factors influencing it. The following
chapter presents research agenda of TPACK framework from traditional to
modern era and some theoretical and empirical studies would be reviewed
and discussed briefly.

REFERENCES

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological

issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK:
Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers
& Education, 52(1), 154–168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006

95
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12

online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in
Technology & Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88.
Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). The subject matter preparation of
teachers. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education
(pp. 437–449). New York: Macmillan.
Brandit, D. (2001). Information technology literacy: Task knowledge and
mental models. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4bc5/44da
0eddc27ee61a284d519892ebfaf30771.pdf
Brantley-Dias, L., & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK: Is the
construct “Just right”? Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
46(2), 103–128. doi:10.1080/15391523.2013.10782615
Bromley, H. (1998). Introduction: Data-driven democracy? Social assessment
of educational computing. In H. Bromley & M. Apple (Eds.), Education,
technology, power (pp. 1–28). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Bruce, B. C. (1993). Innovation and social change. In B. C. Bruce, J. K. Peyton,
& T. Batson (Eds.), Network-based classrooms (pp. 9–32). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating pre-service
teachers‟ development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge
(TPACK). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63–73.
Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology.
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/lllt.7
Chapelle, C. A., & Hegelheimer, V. (2004). The English language teacher in
the 21st century. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL
for second language classrooms (pp. 299–316). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cox, S. (2008). A conceptual analysis of technological pedagogical content
knowledge. Brigham Young University.
Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPCK in practice: Using
and elaborated model of the TPCK framework to analyze and depict teacher
knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60–69. doi:10.100711528-009-0327-1

96
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional

development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational
Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140
Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using the
technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to design online
learning environments and professional development. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 41(3), 3. doi:10.2190/EC.41.3.d
Duffield, J. A. (1997). Trials, tribulations, and minor successes: Integrating
technology into a pre-service preparation program. TechTrends, 42(4), 22–26.
doi:10.1007/BF02818596
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5),
1–110. doi:10.1037/h0093599
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our
quest for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 53(4), 25–39. doi:10.1007/BF02504683
Figg, C., & Jaipal, K. (2012). TPACK-in-Practice: Developing 21st Century
Teacher Knowledge. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 4683-
4689). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. The
American Psychologist, 39(2), 93–104. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.2.93
Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers &
Education, 57(3), 1953–1960. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.010
Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., & Harris,
R. (2009). TPACK development in science teaching: Measuring the TPCK
confidence of in-service science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70–79.
doi:10.100711528-009-0328-0

97
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training
tutors to teach languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
18(4), 311–326. doi:10.1080/09588220500335455
Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and
learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
doi:10.100711423-006-9022-5
Hoven, D. (2007). The affordances of technology for student teachers to
shape their teacher education experience. In M. A. Kassen, R. Z. Lavine, K.
Murphy-Judy, & M. Peters (Eds.), Preparing and Developing Technology-
Proficient L2 Teachers (pp. 133–163). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in
forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 13(2), 277–302.
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. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.020
Jordan, K. (2014). Adapting an instrument to measure teacher TPACK.
In Now It’s Personal-ACEC2014 (pp. 302-308). Australian Computers in
Education Conference
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2000). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education:
Web-based bulletin board discussions in a methods course. TESOL Quarterly,
34(3), 423–455. doi:10.2307/3587738
Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Hagerman, M., Wolf, L., DeSchryver, M., Fisser, P.,
& Spicer, J. (2012, March). What would John Dewey do: Programmatic design
for developing TPACK for 21st century learning. In Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4718-4723).
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

98
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2008). Does teachers’ confidence with CALL
equal innovative and integrated use? Computer Assisted Language Learning,
21(3), 269–282. doi:10.1080/09588220802090303
Kim, M. (2002). The use of computer in developing L2 reading comprehension:
Literature review and its implications. ERIC Digest: 472671.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design.
Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee
on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological
pedagogical content knowledge(TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher
Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Yahya, K., & Yadav, A. (2005). Successful teaching
with technology: The complex interplay of content, pedagogy, and technology.
In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education
International Conference 2004 (pp. 2347-2354). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Kullman, J. (1998). Mentoring and the development of reflective practice:
Concepts and context. System, 26(4), 471–484. doi:10.1016/S0346-
251X(98)00033-5
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in
integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and
ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research,
77(4), 575–614. doi:10.3102/0034654307309921
Levy, M. (1997). A rationale for teacher education and CALL: The holistic
view and its implications. Computers and the Humanities, 30, 293–302.
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues
in Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Liou, H. (2001). Reflective practice in a pre-service teacher education
process for high school English teachers in Taiwan. System, 29(2), 197–208.
doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00011-2

99
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Mahdi, H. S. (2013). Issues of computer assisted language learning

normalization in EFL contexts. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(1),
191–203. doi:10.5296/ijl.v5i1.3305
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
Mishra, P., Spiro, R. J., & Feltovich, P. J. (1996). Technology, representation,
and cognition: The prefiguring of knowledge in cognitive flexibility hypertexts.
Advances in Discourse Processes, 58, 287-305.
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston,
C., & ... . (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development
model. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 9(1), 4–24.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas.
New York: Basic Books.
Pedersen, J. (2001). Technological determinism and the school. Journal of
Educational Enquiry, 2(1), 61–65.
Peters, M. (2006). Developing computer competencies for pre-service
language teachers: Is one course enough? In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.),
Teacher Education in CALL (pp. 153–165). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins
Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/lllt.14.14pet
Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (2000). Bibliography: Student’s alternative frameworks
and science education (5th ed.). Kiel, Germany: University of Kiel.
Priest, W. C. (2007). What is the Common Ground between TCPK
(Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) and Learning Objects?
In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference (pp. 2258-2262). Association for the Advancement of Computing
in Education (AACE).
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge
and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational
Researcher, 29(1), 4–15. doi:10.3102/0013189X029001004

100
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (1999). Predictors of teachers’

confidence in their ability to implement computer-based instruction. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 21(1), 75–97. doi:10.2190/CGXF-
YYJE-47KQ-MFA1
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., &
Shin, T. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK):
The development and validation of an assessment instrument for pre-service
teachers. Journal of Research on Tech, 42, 123–149.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Shahin, I. (2011). Development of survey of technological pedagogical
and content knowledge (TPACK). TOJET-The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 10(1), 97–105.
Simon, H. (1969). Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Slaouti, D., & Motteram, G. (2006). Reconstructing practice: Language teacher
education and ICT. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher Education in
CALL (pp. 81–97). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
doi:10.1075/lllt.14.09sla
So, H.-J., & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: Student
teachers integrating technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 101–116. doi:10.14742/ajet.1183
Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J.-Ch. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext:
Theory and technology for the nonlinear and mutlidimensional traversal of
complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education,
and multimedia: Exploring ideas. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tai, S. J. D. (2013). From TPACK-in-action workshops to English classrooms:
CALL competencies developed and adopted into classroom teaching. Retrieved
from lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4342&context=etd
Thompson, A., Bull, G., & Willis, J. (1998). SITE Position Paper: Statement
of Basic Principles and Suggested Actions. Retrieved from http://site.aace.
org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Page.PositionPaper

101
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Wilson, E., & Wright, V. (2010). Images over time: The intersection of social
studies through technology, content, and pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in
Technology & Teacher Education, 10(2), 220–233.
Wilson, G., & Stacey, E. (2004). Online interaction impacts on learning:
Teaching the teachers to teach online. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 20(1), 33–48. doi:10.14742/ajet.1366
Yurdakul, I. K., Odabasi, H. F., Kilicer, F., Coklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt,
A. A. (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A
technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Computers & Education,
58(3), 964–977. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.012

102
 103

Chapter 5
Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK):
Research Agenda

ABSTRACT
This chapter gives a brief review of literature of TPACK and the variables
researchers have focused on during the past decade. The review of literature
is divided into four parts: the research done on the emergence of the model
and the educationists’ works on the theoretical aspects of TPACK; how certain
researchers have tried to validate the TPACK model and the contradictions
they revealed in the process; the assessment of the model in the context of
teaching and the way TPACK can be related to other attributes of teachers
and their context of teaching; and finally the measures of TPACK including
both subjective and performance measures.

BACKGROUND

Since the advent of the conceptual model of TPACK several studies have
been done to scrutinize the validity of the model, discovering teachers’
perceptions of the model, assessing the construct, and probing into possible
ways to integrate the model into teacher education programs to empower
teachers accordingly. In this chapter, a quick review of the studies done with
respect to the above mentioned aspects would be done and their findings
would be discussed briefly.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-6267-2.ch005

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

The Emergence of the Model

One of the early models of TPACK was proposed by Pierson (2001) who
based on a survey discussed the integration of technology into pedagogical
expertise. She investigated how teachers at various levels of technology use
and teaching ability used technology in instruction; and how technology use
was related to general teaching practice. Based on the empirical data and
the literature available at the time, she suggested that another component,
technological knowledge, should be added to the knowledge base of teachers.
According to her findings,

this knowledge would include not only basic technology competency but
also an understanding of the unique characteristics of particular types of
technologies that would lead themselves to particular aspects of the teaching
and learning process. (p. 427)

In another study, Angeli and Valanides (2005) discussed the evolution of

an instructional systems design (ISD) model based on an expanded view of
Shulman’s concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). The proposed
ISD model was suggested to be useful in educational technology courses,
elementary teacher education method courses, and teacher professional
development courses to develop information and communication technology
(ICT)-related PCK. The findings of the study revealed that the evolved model
was effective in developing some aspects of ICT-related PCK.
In a series of studies, Kohler and associates (Kohler & Mishra, 2005)
presented Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) as a
framework for the integration of technology within teaching. In this model,
that is the most frequently referred to in the recent literature on TPACK (See
Chapter 4), three main bodies of knowledge – technological knowledge,
content knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge – shape the design of the
theoretical framework. The characteristics of these three bodies of knowledge,
along with the bodies of knowledge that emerge from the interactions between
and among them (7 types of competencies) are discussed in the published
works. They argue that knowing how to integrate technology emerges from
an understanding both of the three main bodies of knowledge and their
interactions. TPACK framework is argued to have significant implications for
teachers and teacher educators. Therefore, TPACK is a conceptualization of
the knowledge base teachers need to effectively teach with technology (Voogt,
Fisser, ParejaRoblin, Tondeur, & van Braak, 2012).

104
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

The Validation of the Model

While TPACK framework was still developing, certain researchers scrutinized

the validity of the model by utilizing certain qualitative and quantitative
research methods.
In one of these studies, Archambault and Barnett (2010) examined the
nature of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) through
the use of a factor analysis. The used a survey with 24 items designed to
measure each of the areas described by the TPACK framework to measure
the responses of 596 teachers from across the United States. Data analysis
suggested that while the framework was helpful from an organizational
standpoint, it was difficult to separate out each of the domains, calling into
question their existence in practice. Three major factors became evident, but
rather than being comprised of pedagogy, content, and technology, the only
clear domain that distinguished itself was that of technology. Examining the
validity of the TPACK model, it was suggested that measuring each of the
domains of the framework is complicated, potentially due to the notion that
they are not separate.
In their study, Angeli and Valanides (2009) investigated the theoretical
framework of TPACK proposed by Kohler. They first raised several issues
regarding the epistemology of technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPCK) for the purpose of clarifying the construct. They concluded that
TPCK was a unique body of knowledge constructed from the interaction of
its individual contributing knowledge bases. They introduced ICT–TPCK
as a strand of TPCK described as the ways knowledge about tools and their
affordances, pedagogy, content, learners, and context were synthesized into
an understanding of the way teachers can teacher more effectively with
technology and students can learn better in this situation. One model for
the development and another for the assessment of ICT–TPCK were then
discussed. Three forms of assessment (expert assessment, peer assessment, and
self-assessment) were proposed for assessing teachers’ competencies to teach
with technology. The study also reported the empirical findings of a study that
was under taken to investigate the impact of the proposed models on student
learning. The results indicated that ICT–TPCK competency significantly
improved over the course of a semester, supporting the theoretical models.
Cox and Graham (2009) investigated the relationship between TPACK
and PCK and proposed certain problems with the framework. Discussing
the fact that TPACK is teacher’s knowledge of how to coordinate subject- or

105
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

topic-specific activities with topic-specific representations using emerging

technologies to facilitate student learning (p. 64), they concluded that there
is no need for a separate conceptual model of TPACK as these competencies
would be integrated in PCK.
In another conceptual study, Graham (2011) investigated the TPACK
framework as it is increasingly in use by educational technology researchers
around the world. He believed that TPACK framework is appropriately
designed; however, considerable theoretical work is required if TPACK
research aims at strengthening the field of educational technology. Using
Whetten’s (1989) criteria for theory building as a lens for examining the
TPACK framework, he reported specific weaknesses of the model that
needs theoretical development. His findings underscored the use of research
findings to constructively build common definitions and understandings of
the TPACK constructs and the boundaries between them.
Doering et al. (2009) used the TPACK framework to investigate the
relationship between theoretical aspects of the model and the way it can be
applied in a teacher training program. In-service teachers who went through
the TPACK-based program experienced considerable improvement within
the TPACK knowledge domains and expressed positive and encouraging
comments regarding their knowledge domains portrayed within the TPACK
framework. However, based on the findings of the study, certain limitations
were reported to exist for TPACK framework that urges a modification of the
model. They suggested that knowledge use in the model can be represented
by differing size circles (Figure 1). The diagrams show a teacher who
encompasses a content dominated knowledge base, while context can be
viewed as a variable that engulfs the whole figure as it influences the way
teachers’ knowledge is applied and used in the classroom.
In a recent study, Koh, Chai, and Tay (2014) considered TPACK framework
as a base for investigating the application and validation of the framework in
certain teaching contexts. They described TPACK-in-Action, as a framework to
visualize the interplay between TPACK and four contextual factors (Physical/
Technological, Cultural/Institutional, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal) that
influence teachers’ design of ICT lessons. The framework was used to analyze
the lesson design discussions of 24 school teachers. The findings showed
that when intrapersonal factors such as beliefs of teaching and students were
articulated and its pedagogical implications considered, it facilitated TPACK.
They suggested that for ICT innovation to be successful, the composition of
design teams should be carefully considered.

106
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Figure 1. An updated view of TPACK (Doering, Veletsianos, Scharber, & Miller,

2009, p. 337)

The findings of studies on the validation of TPAC show that three views
on TPCK have developed over time:

T(PCK) as extended PCK (Niess 2005; Cox & Graham 2009); TPCK as a
unique and distinct body of knowledge (Angeli & Valanides 2009); and TP(A)
CK as the interplay between three domains of knowledge and their intersections
and in a specific context (Koehler & Mishra 2005; 2008; Voogt, 2012).

TPACK IN THE CONTEXT

Prior to the Development of TPACK Framework

A few studies have been done on the construct technological pedagogical

knowledge of the teachers, prior the introduction of the TPACK framework.
The theoretical basis of these studies was Shulman’s model of teacher
knowledge base.
In a pioneering study, Keating and Evans (2001) examined interviews and
survey data of a small group of pre-service teachers to look at the disconnect
between using technology with confidence for personal use and using
technology as an educator and get a sense of how teaching with technology
fits into [their] student teachers’ evolving pedagogical content knowledge (p.
1672). The study suggested possible sources for this disconnect, and offered

107
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

an alternative conception of technology in education that was defined as

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). This concept extends
beyond computer proficiency to understanding the effect technology may
have on student’s conceptions of the subject matter, as well as the inevitable
challenges that accompany technology, and the judicious use of technology
when new forms of representation are most appropriate.
In another study, Margerum-Leys and Marx (2002) first investigated the
construct of teacher knowledge of educational technology through the lens
of three components of Shulman’s model of teachers’ knowledge-content
knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge.
Then they investigated the ways in which teacher knowledge is acquired,
shared, and used by student teachers and their mentors in the context of
teaching. The result of the study based on Shulman’s model, offered that the
teacher knowledge of educational technology developed within a particular
setting. It was also found that employing Shulman’s model revealed a set of
knowledge derived from and applicable to practice with educational technology.
This knowledge could be considered a Pedagogical Content Knowledge
of technology, corresponding to Shulman’s identification of a particular
understanding by teachers. Within the context of the mentor/student teacher
pairs, both knowledge acquired in and brought to the setting was shared in a
multi-year cycle from student teacher to mentor to subsequent student teacher.
In a following study, Niess (2005) investigated the development of pre-
service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) with respect to
integrating technology in instruction. Four components of PCK were adapted
to describe technology-enhanced PCK (TPCK). The study examined the TPCK
of student teachers in a multi-dimensional science and mathematics teacher
preparation program that integrated teaching and learning with technology
throughout the program. Five cases described the difficulties and successes
of student teachers teaching with technology in molding their TPCK. Student
teachers’ view of the integration of technology and the nature of the discipline
were identified as an important aspect of the development of TPCK.
Stoilescu (2015) explored the Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK) for three experienced mathematics secondary teachers.
By using a multiple case study, teachers’ attitudes, skills, and approaches
toward the use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in
classrooms were described. By being aware of the three main facets of
TPACK (technological, pedagogical, and mathematical aspects), the relative
importance of each component and their intersections were scrutinized.
Although from the same school, the teachers were found to have very different

108
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

conducts of showing their integration of ICT in mathematical pedagogy

and therefore, their TPACK was different. Teachers demonstrated various
strategies and different paces of adopting ICT. It was noticed that the teachers
integrated technology for the following main reasons: (a) help them describe
the concepts to students; (b) motivate students to learn mathematics; (c) give
students opportunities to experiment with mathematical concepts and skills;
(d) assess, evaluate, and provide feedback to student’s work, and; (e) help
them communicate mathematical solutions.

Measuring TPACK

After defining and consolidating the TPACK framework, one basic issue
researchers had TPACK was measuring the construct of TPACK and its
seven interrelated components.
In a pioneering study, the developers of the framework, Mishra and Koehler
(2005) designed a quantitative survey instrument to measure TPACK through
assessing perceptions of six component including: (a) time and effort; (b)
learning and enjoyment; (c) group functioning; (d) perceptions of online
leaning, and; (e) thinking about TPACK.
In another effort to develop a self-assertion subjective measure, Schmidt,
et al. (2009) developed Survey of Pre-service Teachers’ Knowledge of
Teaching and Technology, for pre-service teachers who were preparing to
become elementary (PK–6) or early childhood education teachers (PK–3).
They developed and validated an instrument based on TPACK framework and
related knowledge domains that are included in it. The TPACK instrument
included 47 items that clustered in 7 subscales. The scale and its components
showed high indices of reliability. Many studies have used the scale ever
since. Some have reported certain reliability and validly issues.
In a recent study, Yurdakul et al., (2012) developed and validated the
TPACK scale based on TPACK-in Action model. The scale has four sub-
scales including Design (10 items), Exertion (12 items), Ethics (6 items),
and Proficiency (5 items). The questionnaire anchors on a 5-point Likert
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The validity study of
the TPACK scale form also included the calculation of the discrimination
validity (Yurdakul, Odabasi, Kilicer, Coklar, Birinci, & Kurt, 2012). As a
result of this calculation, it was revealed that each of the items found in the
scale significantly discriminated the individuals belonging to the lower and
higher groups. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the scale as a whole was
reported to be .95.

109
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

In addition to subjective measures of TPACK, a few studies have tried to

develop performance-based TPACK measures.

Underlying the development of the performance-based measures is the

idea that the products of student work are evidence of pre service teachers’
instructional design and planning process (Abbit, 2011).

Harris, Grandgenett, and Hofer (2010), for instance, developed a TPACK-

Based Technology Integration Assessment Rubric that reflects key TPACK
concepts. The instrument’s inter-rater reliability coefficient (.857) was
computed using both Intraclass Correlation and a score agreement (84.1%)
procedure. Internal consistency (using Cronbach’s Alpha) was .911. Test-
retest reliability (score agreement) was 87.0%. Five TPACK experts also
confirmed the instrument’s construct and face validities.
Some researchers have also used qualitative measures of TPACK or have
triangulated the findings of qualitative studies by qualitative data gained by
interviews or observations. Hofer et al. (2011) believes that:

The challenges inherent in assessing teachers’ knowledge accurately via self-

reports-in particular, that of inexperienced teachers-are well-documented.
Unfortunately, measured gains in teachers’ self-assessed knowledge over
time reflect their increased confidence regarding a particular professional
development topic more than their actual increased knowledge in practice
(Lawless & Pellegrino 2007; Schrader & Lawless 2004). Self-report data
should therefore be triangulated carefully with external assessments of
teachers’ TPACK knowledge. (p. 4353)

Burgoyne, and Borup (2010), used three instructional scenarios that were
randomly selected and unique to the content area and grade level to investigate
teachers’ planning and decision making. They asked the participants to describe
two instructional strategies: one instructional strategy that used technology
and one strategy that did not use technology. They then developed a coding
scheme that included the domains of TK, TPK, and TPACK. The also identified
additional category codes and themes within each of these three domains to
further classify responses within the domains from the TPACK framework.

110
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

In another study, Stoilescu and McDougall’s (2010) used ethnographic

techniques to study mathematics teachers’ technology integration. Similarly,
Jaipal and Figg (2010) gathered qualitative data by multiple case study of
two groups of pre-service teachers and triangulated data sources and types
by combining multiple individual interviews with each participant, multiple
instructional observations and debriefings, responses to both structured
and open-ended survey items, and analysis of lesson plans to determine the
teachers’ knowledge to plan and implement technology in instruction.
In a seminal work, Hofer et al., (2011) developed and validated a TPACK-
based observation rubric that can be used to assess observed evidence of
TPACK during classroom instruction. Seven TPACK experts confirmed the
rubric’s construct and face validity. The instrument’s interrater reliability
coefficient (.802) was computed using both Intraclass Correlation and a
percent score agreement (90.8%) procedure. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s
Alpha) was .914. Test-retest reliability (score agreement) was 93.9%. The
rubric is available online at http://activitytypes.wm.edu/Assessments.
Abbit (2011), however, believes that both quantitative and qualitative
measures provide unique insights into various facets of preparing pre-service
teachers to integrate technology (p. 296). This idea is depicted in Figure 2.
Looking through these instruments shows that measuring the construct
TPACK is still open to further question and maybe there is a need for different
subject matters to develop their own measures considering the differences
that exist among the disciplines.

Figure 2. TPACK-based evaluation of teacher preparation experience existing

methods and instruments (Abbit, 2011)

111
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

CONCLUSION

This chapter covered the studies done on TPACK framework, its different
measuring instruments and models. According to literature review, the
TPACK construct is a highly complex concept that is still open to further
investigation. Having explored the TPACK construct in the field of education
in general, it would be insightful to present a TPACK platform for EFL
teachers. This is aimed at in the following chapter, in which EFL teachers’
TPACK is scrutinized.

REFERENCES

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological

issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK:
Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers
& Education, 52(1), 154–168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12
online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in
Technology & Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88.
Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPCK in practice: Using
and elaborated model of the TPCK framework to analyze and depict teacher
knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60–69. doi:10.100711528-009-0327-1
Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using the
technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to design online
learning environments and professional development. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 41(3), 3. doi:10.2190/EC.41.3.d
Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers &
Education, 57(3), 1953–1960. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.010
Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based
technology integration assessment rubric. Retrieved from http://publish.
wm.edu/bookchapters/6

112
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Hofer, M., Grandgenett, N., Harris, J., & Swan, K. (2011). Testing a TPACK-
based technology integration observation instrument. Teacher Education
Faculty Proceedings & Presentations. Paper 19. Retrieved from http://
digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/tedfacproc/19
Jaipal, K., & Figg, C. (2010). Expanding the practice-based taxonomy of
characteristics of TPACK. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference (pp. 38683875). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Keating, T., & Evans, E. (2001). Three computers in the back of the classroom:
Pre-service teachers’ conceptions of technology integration. In R. Carlsen,
N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis (Eds.), Society for Information
Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 2001 (pp. 1671–1676). Norfolk,
VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design.
Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee
on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological
pedagogical content knowledge(TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher
Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Ling-Koh, J. H., Chai, C. S., & Tay, L. Y. (2014). TPACK-in-Action:
Unpacking the contextual influences of teachers’ construction of Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 78,
20–29. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.022
Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational
technology: A case study of student/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 427–462. doi:10.2190/JXBR-
2G0G-1E4T-7T4M
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with
technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006

113
 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of

pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
33(4), 413–430. doi:10.1080/08886504.2001.10782325
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., &
Shin, T. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK):
The development and validation of an assessment instrument for pre-service
teachers. Journal of Research on Tech, 42, 123–149.
Stoilescu, D. (2015). A critical examination of the Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge framework: Secondary school mathematics teachers
integrating technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(4),
514–547. doi:10.1177/0735633115572285
Stoilescu, D., & McDougall, D. (2010). Case studies of teachers integrating
computer technology in mathematics. In J. Herrington, & B. Hunter (Eds.),
Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia
and Telecommunications (pp. 2944-2952). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2012).
Technological pedagogical content knowledge – a review of the literature.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2012.00487.x
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy
of Management Review, 14(4), 490–49. doi:10.2307/258554

114
 115

Chapter 6
EFL TPACK:
The Theory

ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on EFL teachers’ TPACK. First, the types of knowledge
that are important in pedagogy and how these categories of knowledge
and their related frameworks can differentiate models of teacher education
are discussed. In the following, some models of teacher education, their
characteristics, and their differences and similarities are introduced. Then
the rationale of developing EFL TPACK to subsume standard TPACK is
discussed and the need to EFL TPACK is addressed. The rationale includes
two important characteristics of EFL teachers that can impact the use and
adaptation of technology in the process of teaching: computer attitudes
and ICT literacy. How these two constructs are important in empowering a
teacher to use ICT in instruction and how they can hinder technology-based
teaching and learning are discussed. Some related models and constructs
associated with these two attributes are described as well. In the last part, the
construct EFL TPACK is comprehensively introduced and each component
is described in detail and support/evidence from the literature is provided.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-6267-2.ch006

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 EFL TPACK

BACKGROUND

The instruction of EFL by a nonnative English-speaking teacher, who is also

a language learner and does not speak English as naturally and idiomatically
as natives do, leads to scarcity of exposure to authentic learning environments.
Due to this limitation, effective communication (mainly in the process of
listening and speaking) in EFL is only possible with the aid of technological
tools and resources. This makes TPACK a major part of EFL teachers’
professional development (Li, Liu, Liu, Yu, Li, & Wen, 2014).
With the variety of unbounded Internet resources available for learners in
today’s digital world, to use or not to use technology is no longer considered
an important question for EFL teachers (Harris & Hofer, 2010); rather, it is
the issue of teachers’ competency in ICT integration that is worth discussing.
That is to say that the effectiveness of language teaching and learning is
decided by successful technology integration, especially in a non-English
speaking environment (Chapelle, 2009).
According to research, utilizing technology with high TPACK levels for
the purpose of EFL instruction can help solve the problems of big size classes.
Having sufficient ICT competency, EFL teachers can easily individualize
students’ learning using e-portfolios and also facilitate communication between
teacher-students and among students. In short, knowledge of technology
plays an inevitably crucial role in EFL teaching, without which effective
communication is actually impossible (Lui, Liu, Yu, Li, & Wen, 2014).

Different Types of Knowledge

Different terms have been used to address knowledge of teachers such as input,
knowledge, skill, and competency (Rahimi, 2008). Knowledge, however,
is the most frequently used technical word in teacher education domain to
define the underlying constructs of teaching and/or its related competencies
and behavior.
Knowledge can be simply defined as the information, skills, and
understanding that one has gained through learning or experience or the
body of information possessed by a person or, by extension, by a group of
persons or a culture (Reber, 1995). Defining knowledge, how it is going to
be transferred, and how it is implemented in certain areas of human domains
of activity such as teaching and learning, however, is certainly related to
philosophical, epistemological, ontological, and psychological arenas of a

116
EFL TPACK

community. For instance, based on philosophical beliefs of positivism, the

value of knowledge is in its objectivity and a single piece of reality exists
in the world around us that is worth knowing. Generally the emphasis of
knowledge transfer in this framework is on what can be observed outside the
entity of a human being or what is called behavior. The internal aspect of
people, their mind and the way it can be used in internalizing knowledge is
totally neglected. Knowledge, skill, or competence is then defined as desired
behaviors (habits) and the knowledge is transferred through mechanisms of
habit formation through instruction.
On the other hand, based on interpretive and humanistic philosophy,
subjective information is worth attention and multiple realities exist in the
world around us. Constructivist psychology emphasizes the way people use
their construction system to interpret the world and what exists in it. People’s
personal experiences with the world shape their knowledge and thus lots of
realities can be defined and internalized considering the number of people
who live on the planet. In this framework, people and their experiences
have a great role in shaping the knowledge and then transferring it to other
people. In this way, the context of living and working and the people around
get special attention in defining what knowledge is. In this sense, knowledge
is a cultural system, rather than a universal recognition of sensible practice
(Geertz, 1983, as cited in Toole, 2011).
Considering teaching/learning issues, certain types of knowledge are
documented to have greater role in academia. The ones that seem to be related
to knowledge base of learning and teaching are:

• Tacit and/or explicit;

• Individual and/or collective, and;
• Declarative and/or procedural.

Tacit vs. Explicit Knowledge

Tacit knowledge does not require and is not associated with remembering
or awareness and may unconsciously influence our perceptions, thoughts,
and actions (Schacter, 1996). This is the knowledge which individuals use
to perform effectively but which they may find hard to articulate (Sternberg
& Grigorenko, 2001). This is the knowledge that is created, written down or
codified. Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, requires remembering and
activation of the background knowledge. It is memory-based and is the type
of information that is organized and stored in the brain.

117
 EFL TPACK

Considering teaching, tacit knowledge is the knowledge of teacher

educators and/or experienced teachers that cannot be transferred very easily.
Tacit knowledge can be transferred into explicit knowledge through the use
of appropriate language (Shim & Roth, 2008).

Individual vs. Collective Knowledge

Individual knowledge refers to what individuals keep and retain as knowledge

individually and independent of the community they belong to. Collective
knowledge, though, needs the support of the context and social group.
Therefore,

knowledge retention can occur via one human brain, where one person simply
remembers what they have learnt, or on a collective level, where collective
mechanisms act to retain knowledge so that individuals and groups may
access the knowledge as they need in a workplace environment. (Toole, 2011)

Individual knowledge of teaching may consist of each teacher’s individual

understanding of the profession and the way instruction should be carried
out. However, collective knowledge embodies the body of knowledge of the
community of the teachers and is shared and used among them.

Declarative vs. Procedural Knowledge

Declarative knowledge is often defined as the type of knowledge that defines

the essence of something and what the phenomenon is. This is a conscious
knowledge that is not yet automatic. On the other hand, procedural knowledge,
is the knowledge of how to do things, most often the automatic unconscious
skills of carrying out a task.
Considering the differences that exist in underlying theories and accordingly
types of knowledge, certain models of teachers’ knowledge base has been
proposed. The distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge in
instruction is well identified bellow:

Declarative knowledge is knowledge about teaching- knowledge of subject

areas and the ‘theory’ of education; procedural knowledge is knowledge of
how to teach- knowledge of instructional routines to be used in the classroom.
(MacDonald, Badger, & White, 2001)

118
EFL TPACK

Considering different types of knowledge that is required for teaching, and

based on changes in psychological and sociological views, different types of
programs are designed to educate teachers.
The knowledge base of teachers that is specified in each model, is under
the influence of many factors that would be discussed below in more detail.

Models of EFL Teacher Education

Defining the type of knowledge language teachers need, and the way this
knowledge should be presented to pre-service and in-service language
teachers has been a matter of contradiction and confusion in the history of
language teaching. Like any movement, the development and evolution of
certain models did not happen irrespective of the movements in the fields
of psychology, pedagogy, technology and science. The inflection point of
EFL teacher education took place around 70s when the views to human,
learning, and teaching started to change under the influence of cognitivist,
constructivism, and humanism.
A retrospective view to the ups and downs of EFL teacher education
development reveals that the central point of discussions on EFL knowledge
base is the dichotomy of declarative/procedural knowledge and the way the
objectives, content, and outcome of teacher education programs should be
specified (Lightbown, 1985; Richards & Nunan, 1990; MacDonald, Badger,
& White, 2001). In this regard two basic models of teacher education are
proposed: teacher development and teacher training. These two models
are commonly referred to as the traditional and modern teacher education
respectively and can be specified by certain features.
The traditional model of teacher education focuses on theories of teaching
and emphasizes the declarative knowledge of teaching and what teachers
should now in order to become key agents of education. In this regard, learning
about teaching becomes very important and knowledge is transmitted from
teacher educator to student teachers through traditional techniques of teaching
including lectures. There is limited reference to the locale of teaching and
the contextual realities that prospective teachers will face in their teaching
context in the near future (individual knowledge). Limited cooperation with
schools and in-service teachers is also observed. As a result, what happens
in universities and teacher training centers mostly proceeds without the
involvement of schools, teachers, and students.

119
 EFL TPACK

In modern teacher education models, however, the emphasis is on in-service

teacher’s professionalism and expertise (collective/tacit knowledge). It is
assumed that teachers learn how to teach, if they actually do lots of teachings.
Therefore, instead of major focus on theories of teaching that are transmitted
to their heads from a single source-teacher educators-, the teachers construct
knowledge themselves through meaningful and real teaching practices. This
type of teacher education needs a close cooperation between schools and
universities and thus pre-service teachers become a member of the community
of in-service teachers. Ur (1997) has summarized the distinction between
these two models as can be seen in Table 1.
In a more detailed comparison, Freeman (2001) compares and contrasts
teacher training and teacher development considering ‘what, how, and to
what effect’ (Table 2).
Ur (1997), however, believes that neither of these models can satisfy teacher
professionalism single-handedly and a combination of the knowledge bases
of the two models is required.
In this sense, the optimal model of teacher learning is the one that can
combine all types of knowledge in a single program (tacit/explicit, individual/
collective, and declarative/procedural) (Figure 1).

The most important, central source (the inner circle) is the teacher’s reflection
on their own experience, whether as learner, as trainee on teaching practice
or as professional teacher. But to learn only from oneself is limited: One needs

Table 1. Teacher training and development (Ur, 1997)

TRAINING DEVELOPMENT
Imposed from “above” Initiated by “self”
Pre-determined course structure Structure determined through process
Not based on personal experience Based on personal experience
Externally determined syllabus Syllabus determined by participants
External evaluation Self-evaluation
Input from “experts” Input from participants
Unthinking acceptance of information Personal construction of knowledge
Cognitive, cerebral Cognitive and affective, “whole person”
Isolated Collaborative
Stresses professional skills Stresses personal development
Disempowers individual teacher Empowers individual teacher

120
EFL TPACK

Table 2. Teacher training and teacher education (Freeman, 2001)

‘what’ ‘how’ ‘to what effect’

content process Impact/outcome
• defined externally
• externally assessed
• usually determined • transmitting knowledge and
Teacher • bounded
beforehand skills
Training • often drawing on publicly
• providing access to • organizing access to new content
demonstrated evidence
knowledge base
in • external process of presentation/articulation triggers
• use leads to usefulness
common • internal process of incorporation
• usually generated • self-assessed
Teacher • sense making, using articulated
through experience • open-ended
Develop- experience to construct new
• determined by/in • often using self-reported
ment understandings
relation to participants evidence

Figure 1. Optimal teacher learning (Ur, 1997)

also to take advantage of the enormous amount of professional knowledge

and expertise “out there.” waiting to be tapped. …. Such knowledge, however,
cannot be taken on board simply through reading or hearing about it. In order
to function as real knowledge and not just as inert items of information, you
need to process it through your own experience, reflection, conceptualization,
and experimentation and to construct your own understanding of it. This
means, of course, that not all external input will necessarily be accepted,
and that that which is accepted may be extensively adapted. The teacher’s
processing will “filter out” those aspects which do not seem to be appropriate

121
 EFL TPACK

or comprehensible, and finally absorb the knowledge in the form which fits
in with their own thought and action and which they can “own.” (UR, 1997)

Knowledge Base of EFL Teachers

Based on Shulman’s model of teacher knowledge base each teacher should

own different types of knowledge including but not limited to (1987):

• Content knowledge
• General pedagogical knowledge, with special reference to those broad
principles strategies of classroom management and organization that
appear to transcend subject matter
• Curriculum knowledge, with particular grasp of the materials and
programs that serve as “tools of the trade” for teachers
• Pedagogical content knowledge, that special amalgam of content and
pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special
form of professional understanding
• Knowledge of learners and their characteristics
• Knowledge of educational contexts, ranging from the workings of the
groups or classroom, the governance and financing of school districts,
to the character of communities and cultures,
• Knowledge of educational ends, purpose, and values, and their
philosophical and historical grounds

Based on the guidelines of general education, language experts have

proposed a tripartite model of knowledge base for EFL teachers’ professional
empowerment (Rahimi, 2008):

• Knowledge of Language: Content knowledge, knowledge of the

subject matter, English language.
• Knowledge of Science of Teaching and Pedagogy: Pedagogical
knowledge, knowledge of generic teaching strategies, beliefs, and
practices; along with support knowledge, the knowledge of the various
disciplines that would enrich teachers’ approach to the teaching and
learning of English.

122
EFL TPACK

• Knowledge/Competency of Teaching in Reality: Pedagogical content

knowledge, the specialized knowledge of how to represent content
knowledge in the classroom and how students come to understand the
subject matter in the context of real teaching; the students’ problems
and ways to overcome those problems by considering all variables
related to their learning (teaching materials, assessment procedures,
parents, etc.).

However, these types of knowledge, cannot fulfill the needs of teachers of

the 21st century nor the needs of their students. Therefore, certain changes are
inevitable to take place to reorganize the content of EFL teacher’s knowledge
base. Expectedly, the component that is required to be added to this knowledge
base is technology. A brief review of the history of language teaching shows
that language teachers have always been pioneers of incorporating the cutting-
edge technologies in their classes. This movement started from the Direct
Method, where the use of audio-visual aids entered language classes for the
first time. Simple wall charts and posters, realia, and pictures were amongst
the primary audio-visual aids that language teachers started to use.
Later, by the advent of the Audio Lingual Method, the state-of-the-art
technology of the 50s, that is cassettes and tape recorders and later language
labs, became quite prevalent in teaching and learning languages. In the
following decades, in 60s and 70s, a group of innovative methods were
designed that utilized revolutionary techniques of teaching under the influence
of theoretical shift from behaviorism to cognitivism and humanism. As a
result, different types of audio-visual aids and modern technologies were in
vogue in language classes. Yet, the invention of computers and PCs opened
great doors of opportunity for language teachers to use modern technologies
in instruction. Using technology is so much interwoven in language classes
that a single discipline of study, CALL, has emerged and developed along
with advancements of technology in the past decades.
In spite of the great role technology plays in teaching and learning languages,
technology knowledge has not been a part of its teacher knowledge base. Based
on the framework of TPACK and the urgent necessity of integrating knowledge
of technology into language curriculum, some language educationists have
focused on the type of TPACK language teachers need to teach more efficiently
and effectively.

123
 EFL TPACK

EFL TPACK

The Rationale

Teaching English as a foreign language takes place when language learners

learn English in a nonnative English-speaking country. In this situation,
English is usually taught by nonnative English language speakers who are
not expected to be as fluent and accurate as native English speakers as they
themselves have been EFL learners.
The EFL setting is usually contrasted with English as a second language
(ESL) where the official language of the community is English and English
plays an important role in education, business, and government (like India,
Malaysia, and Hong Kong) (Rahimi, 2009).
Due to lack of exposure to real and authentic language input in EFL
environments, EFL teaching strongly depends on technological devices
especially in teaching listening and speaking (Liu, Liu, Yu, Li, & Wen,
2014). The literature on CALL is extensive and full of theories and practices
of using technology in language classes. However, the use of technology in
language classes is not as easy as it may seem. There are certain barriers to
implementing technology in EFL classes that have their roots in students and
teachers’ characteristics or personalities.
With respect to teachers, two debilitative factors are widely mentioned in
the literature: teachers’ attitudes and IT Literacy. As a matter of fact, these
two factors have been reported to have reciprocal effect on each other, that
is, those who have more positive attitudes towards technology empower
themselves more technologically and those who have less favorable attitudes
towards the benefits of technology in education, do not seem to be interested
in promoting their technological competencies and skills.
It is quite evident that attitude towards computers is an important factor in
using computers for both general purposes and learning and teaching goals.
Although the construct is of vital importance, no particular definition or the
one that all could agree upon is available (Liaw, 2002).
One of the most common definitions of attitude was proposed by Fishbein
and Ajzen’s under the influence of Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). In
this framework attitude is defined as a learned predisposition to respond in
a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object
(Fishbein & Ajzen’s, p. 6). There are three main components in the model:

124
EFL TPACK

• Attitude (A): Positive and negative feelings of doing something.

• Subjective Norm (SN): The person’s belief about whether significant
others feel that he or she should perform the target behavior (Hale,
Householder, & Greene, 2003).
• Behavioral Intention (BI): A function of both attitude towards
performing the behavior and one’s subjective norm.

The way these components function and have reciprocal effect on each
other can be seen in Figure 2.
Based on Fishbein and Ajzen, predicting the behavior, attitudes, and
norms totally depends on the individual and the situation of performance, and
therefore attitudes and norms can have certain effects on people’s behavioral
intention (Mokhtari, 2013).
Generalizing the definition of attitudes to computer-based learning,
computer attitude can be defined as a user’s general evaluation or reaction of
like or dislike toward technology and particular technology-related activities.
In can then be assumed that in the context of CAI a key user’s (student or
teacher) level of attitudes toward technology determines the degree he/she
intends to use computer in learning a certain subject matter such as a foreign
language (Kao & Tsai, 2009). The construct attitudes has three components
(Liaw, 2002):

• Cognitive,
• Affective, and
• Behavioral

Figure 2. TRA (Hale et al., 2003)

125
 EFL TPACK

The cognitive component involves beliefs or perceptions about the objects

or situations related to the attitude. The affective component expresses the
feelings that arise about the cognitive element and the appraisal (good or
bad) of these feelings. Finally, the evaluation of the affect is translated into
a behavioral component that gives utterance to the attitude and certain
attitudes tend to prompt learners to adopt particular learning behaviors.
(Vandewaetere & Desmet, 2009)

Based on what has been mentioned, it is predictable to suggest that negative

attitude is associated with more knowledge and use of technology by both
teachers and students.
Some more practical models or frameworks have tried to define the role
of attitudes in the way people behave, take actions, or carry out performance
in handling different types of jobs. One of these models is Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) (Figure 3).
TAM is a quite valid and reliable model as it has received strong theoretical
and empirical support in the literature and has been cited a lot during the last
decade (Rahimi & Yadollahi, 2015).
TAM is a model for predicting and explaining behavioral intention and
actual behavior of an individual’s computer use. Based on TAM, an individual’s
computer use is mostly influenced by their behavioral intention and there is a
causal relationship among TAM components including perceived usefulness,
perceived ease of use, attitude toward using technology and actual behavior
intention.
The perceived usefulness is the degree to which a person believes that
using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance, and

Figure 3. TAM (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989)

126
EFL TPACK

perceived ease of use is the degree to which a person believes that using a
particular system would be free of effort (Davis, 1989). In the same vein,
‘ease of use’ identifies attitudes and subsequently the degree of acceptance
of technology.
Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are as considered to be
two significant mediators mediating the effects of external variables (e.g.
training, system characteristics, and development process) on intention to
use technology.
Perceived ease of use affects perceived usefulness as with everything
equal, the easier the technology is, the more useful it can be (Venkatesh &
Davis, 2000). The underlying assumptions of TAM are:

1. Technology use is voluntary (Davis, 1989);

2. By considering enough time and knowledge about certain behavioral
activity, an individual’s preference to fulfill the behavioral intention will
be directly similar to the way they behave (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980);
and
3. When an individual intends to do something, he/she will be free to
do it without any limitation such as limited ability, time constraints,
environmental or organizational limits, or unconscious habits (Bagozzi,
1992).

TAM has been used in many fields of study including business, economy,
and recently education. TAM particularly has been used in studying the
attitudes of students and teachers towards technology in educational settings.
In line with the above-mentioned models, attitudes have been found to
be one of the key factors that contribute to accept innovations. Based on
theory of Diffusion of Innovation (DOI), the success of an innovation in
the educational setting depends on the nature of innovation and the targeted
adopters. The key agent of change in education is teachers and thus one of
the important characteristics of them, that is attitudes, can have a certain role
in integrating technology into the classroom.
The way attitudes can have a great role in the normalization of technology
in CALL is reflected in the following (Bax, 2003):

1. Early Adopters: A few teachers and schools adopt the technology out
of curiosity.
2. Ignorance/Skepticism: However, most people are skeptical, or ignorant
of its existence.

127
 EFL TPACK

3. Try Once: People try it out but reject it because of early problems.
They can’t see its value-it doesn’t appear to add anything of ‘relative
advantage’ (Rogers, 1995).
4. Try Again: Someone tells them it really works. They try again. They
see it does in fact have relative advantage.
5. Fear/Awe: More people start to use it, but still there is: (a) fear, alternating
with; (b) exaggerated expectations.
6. Normalizing: Gradually it is seen as something normal.
7. Normalization: The technology is so integrated into our lives that it
becomes invisible-‘normalized’. (p. 24)

As it was seen, knowledge is one of the key assumptions of the propositions

related to attitudes towards technology. Therefore empowering teachers with
respect to technology and its values in education can guarantee its efficient and
constant use during instruction. Follow-up studies done on computer attitudes
show that besides computer attitude, external variables such as subjective
norms, facilitating conditions, and technological complexity directly or
indirectly affect technology acceptance (Teo, 2010). All these variables can
be handled through appropriate instruction and enriching one’s competence
and knowledge base. This knowledge can be interpreted as IT literacy or:

the knowledge of computers and computer experience influence teachers’

attitudes toward computers and the use of computers in the classroom. Teachers
with computer skills or more computer experience have more favorable
attitudes and exhibit lower levels of anxiety toward computers. (Hardy, 1999)

Therefore, for language teachers to be able to implement new technologies

in language education appropriately and efficiently, certain level of computer
literacy is required. In order to be able to take over the responsibility of
educating students who are digital native, teachers must empower themselves
for their classes. Being a computer-literate teacher is reported to be as one
of the key factors that help teachers to teach efficiently and effectively in the
digital era (Konan, 2010) and to guarantee occupational and personal success
(Shapka & Ferrari, 2003).
In a general sense, computer literacy as the basic knowledge, skills, and
attitudes needed by all citizens to be able to deal with computer technology
in their daily life (Tsai, 2002). It is more specifically defined as using digital
technology, communications tools, and/or networks to access, manage,

128
EFL TPACK

integrate, evaluate, and create information in order to function in a knowledge

society (ETS, 2007) whose components are defined as:

• Access: Knowing about and knowing how to collect and/or retrieve

information.
• Manage: Applying an existing organizational or classification scheme.
• Integrate: Interpreting and representing information. It involves
summarizing, comparing and contrasting.
• Evaluate: Making judgments about the quality, relevance, usefulness,
or efficiency of information.
• Create: Generating information by adapting, applying, designing,
inventing, or authoring information.

Selber (2004) lists three main perspectives of the concept of ICT literacy,
consisting of functional, critical and rhetorical elements, which is denoted
as the conceptual landscape of a computer multi-literacies program (Selber,
2004) (Table 3).
In a more pedagogical sense, IT literacy can be interpreted as technology
knowledge base of a teacher that has other interrelated components within
the TPACK model including:

• Technological Knowledge (TK): It refers to skills to operate

technologies such as installing or removing devices/software
programs, or creating and archiving documents and abilities to
learn and adapt to new technology (pp.1027-1028) or the ability to
solve technical problems, to learn technology easily, to keep up with
important technology, to play around with technology, to know a lot of
technologies, to have technical skills and to have opportunities to work
with different technologies. (Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Koehler,
Mishra, & Shin, 2009).

Table 3. Perspectives on digital literacy (Selber, 2004)

Objective Subject Position Metaphor Category

Functional
Effective employment Teachers as users of technology Computers as tools
Literacy
Teachers as questioner of Computers as cultural
Informed critique Critical Literacy
technology artifacts
Teachers as producers of Computers a hypertextual Rhetorical
Reflective praxis
technology media Literacy

129
 EFL TPACK

This aspect of technology knowledge is what is in common among all

people, regardless of their profession, or for what reason(s) they use technology.
This construct itself can have many dynamic components as by the passage
of time, the construct TK or ICT literacy should be updated, otherwise the
person would be lagging behind the benefits of using technology in their
life or profession.
Research on this component basically focuses on developing different
types of measures to help people assess their IT literacy.

• Technological Content Knowledge (TCK): This is the knowledge of

using technology in teaching a single content knowledge or subject
matter. Teachers should be able to appropriately choose and effectively
use different types of technologies for the betterment of the teaching
of their subject matter (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Example of this
is knowing how to use a spreadsheet provides an example of how to
analyze a set of data for patterns or knowing how to use Fraction Bars
to show a proportional relationship in mathematics or the way mobile
dictionaries can be used to search collocations of certain words or
how concordancers are helpful in finding the most frequent words of
English language in teaching English.
• Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK): This is the way the
teaching procedure is changed as a result of integrating appropriate
technology into instruction. For instance, the way a chemistry teacher
uses simulation software programs in teaching an experiment or when
multimedia is integrated into the teaching of listening comprehension
in listening instruction.
• Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): This
is the integration of all types of literacies that determine a teacher’s
ability to be able to work with a certain type of technology, being able
to use it in her or his subject matter, integrate it into his/her teaching,
and ultimately manage the technology-based teaching and learning
environment effectively.

Due to the importance of IT literacy in professional life of a teacher many

studies have probed into the importance of ICT literacy in instruction and the
factors that can have certain effect on this type of knowledge.
Olaoluwakotansibe (2009) examined the gender disparities that exist in
the use of Information and Communication Technology among Nigerian
in-service teachers using a self-designed ICT Literacy Scale (ILS). The

130
EFL TPACK

findings revealed that gender is a determining factor of in-service teachers’

overall ICT literacy level, as well as their skill levels in different ICT-oriented
tasks. It was further found that a significant relationship between gender, in-
service teachers’ ICT literacy level and their monthly income exists; while
a relationship between gender, ICT literacy level and subject discipline was
significantly established among in-service teachers.
Yadollahi (2011) explored the relationship among teachers’ computer
literacy, anxiety, and use of ICT in teaching language skills and found that ICT
use had a positive and significant correlation with computer literacy while it
was inversely related to computer anxiety among Iranian language teachers.
Hatlevik and Arnseth (2012) investigated the relationship between teachers’
experiences with ICT-supportive school leaders, perceived usefulness of
computers, perceived learning outcomes for students and teachers’ use of
computers in their teaching. The correlation analysis revealed that teachers
with higher levels of ICT-supportive leaders reported higher levels of
perceived usefulness of computers, perceived learning outcomes for students
and more frequent use of computers in comparison to who had lower levels
of ICT-supportive leaders. Regression analysis indicated that two factors,
ICT-supportive school leaders and perceived learning outcomes for students
using computers, explained 25% of the variation in perceived usefulness of
computers. Finally, these two factors, ICT-supportive school leaders and
perceived learning outcomes for students using computers, explained 5% of
the variation in how frequently teachers were using computers for reading
and writing.
Alazam, Bakar, Hamzah, and Asmiran (2012) determined the levels of ICT
skills and ICT usage among technical and vocational teachers in Malaysia.
The data were gathered by quantitative techniques and assessed teachers’
ICT skills, ICT use and their demographic factors. The results showed that
teachers’ ICT skills were at moderate levels, and that a vast majority of teachers
who participated in this study were moderate users of ICT for instruction.
There were significant differences of teachers’ ICT skills based on gender,
age, years of teaching experience, and type of ICT training. Also, there were
significant correlations between ICT skills and ICT integration in classroom.
Teachers’ demographic factors (age, gender, teaching experience, except level
of education) did not influence ICT integration in classroom.
In another study, Shariatmadari and Aghajani (2015) investigated the
relationship between teachers’ ICT literacy and the academic achievement
of their students in Iran. The findings of the study indicated that there was a
significant correlation between teachers’ ICT literacy, and students’ academic

131
 EFL TPACK

achievement. Furthermore, it was found that the use of computer and

management files, jobs and ICT predicted academic achievement positively.
Shariatmadari and Mazandarani (2016) investigated teachers’ knowledge
and use of ICT along with their attitudes towards the integration of ICT in
English language classrooms. The findings revealed that most of the teachers
had positive attitudes towards ICT; but no significant relationship between
EFL teachers’ knowledge and use of, and attitudes towards computer was
reported.
The findings of many other studies suggest that technology knowledge of
teachers can be related to different factors including but not limited to gender,
age, teaching experience, computer anxiety, subject matter, degree and type
of specialty, and context of teaching.

The Construct

Combining knowledge base of EFL teachers with the TPACK model

presented in previous chapters, and considering the rationale for developing
a comprehensive (technology) knowledge base for language teachers, the
TPACK model can be modified and specified more meticulously for EFL
profession. Similar to the standard TPACK, there are seven components for
EFL TPACK: CK, PK, PCK, TK, TPK, TPCK, and TPACK. In the following,
each component of EFL TPACK will be explained and exemplified in more
detail.

Conant Knowledge (CK)

This is the knowledge of the subject matter without consideration of teaching

and/or learning the subject matter. For someone who wants to become
a language teacher, certain requirements are considered when language
knowledge is concerned. These requirements are specifically defined under
the term language proficiency.
Language proficiency is identifiable by the knowledge of the system of
language including the knowledge of macro skills (listening, speaking, reading,
and writing) and micro skills (vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation).
The way this knowledge is assessed however depends on the view towards
language.
Based on recent models of language teaching, the goal of language teaching
and learning is communication and both teachers and students should be

132
EFL TPACK

negotiators of meaning in language classes. In this framework, language

learning results from the following processes that take place in the class
(Richards & Rodgers, 2014):

• Interaction between the learner and users of the language

• Collaborative creation of meaning
• Creating meaningful and purposeful interaction through language
• Negotiation of meaning as the learner and his or her interlocutors
arrive at understanding
• Learning through attending to the feedback learners get when they use
the language
• Paying attention to the language one hears (the input) and trying
to incorporate new forms into one’s developing communicative
competence
• Trying out and experimenting with different ways of saying things
• Learning as social mediation between the learner and another during
which socially acquired knowledge becomes internal to the learner
• Learning facilitated through scaffolding by an expert or fellow learner
• Learning through collaboration dialogue centering on structured
cooperative tasks (p. 91)

This orientation leads to a recognition that linguistic accuracy is only one

component of proficiency and to an emphasis on communication as opposed
to the memorization of linguistic forms for discrete-point test items (Chastain,
1989).

Language proficiency of language teachers, therefore, should encompass

everything that ‘normal’ language users might be expected to be able to
do in the context of both formal and informal communication as well as a
range of specialist skills (Elder, 2014). These special language skills include
a command of subject specific/metalinguistic terminology and the discourse
competence required for effective classroom delivery of subject content.
Effective classroom delivery also necessitates a good command of linguistic
features such as using directives in establishing classroom procedures and
learning tasks. Further, a range of questioning techniques is necessary if the
teacher is to be able to monitor learner understanding. The teacher should
also be able to use rhetorical signaling devices and simplification strategies to
communicate specialist areas of knowledge and explain them to learners (Viete,
1998; Elder, 1994). Bachman and Palmer (1996) identify six interrelated areas

133
 EFL TPACK

of language knowledge that could be considered in developing a language

proficiency tests:

• Organizational knowledge pertaining to the way in which texts are

structured;
• Grammatical knowledge including knowledge of vocabulary, syntax
and phonology/graphology;
• Textual knowledge, which includes knowledge of cohesion and
knowledge of rhetorical or conversational organization;
• Pragmatic knowledge, related to the communicative goals of the
language user and the context in which the language is being used;
• Functional knowledge including an understanding of ideational,
manipulative, heuristic and imaginative functions, as well as socio-
linguistic knowledge (p. 68).

These propositions can be interpreted within the framework of

communicative language teaching from two perspectives: (1) the goal of
‘expanding communicative competence’ for all language learners, including
the teachers themselves, and; (2) the role of teachers in the framework of
communicative language teaching to help learners develop their communicative
competence.
It is well-known that the goal of teaching English has shifted from linguistic
norms to meaningful communication. In this process the ultimate goal of
each language learner is communicative competence with four distinctive,
yet, interrelated components: linguistic competence, discourse competence,
sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. As a result, a teacher
himself/herself should promote his/her competency in the following:

• Linguistic (Grammatical) Competence: It is in line with Chomsky’s

theory of competence as he suggests that:

Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an idea of speaker-listener

in a completely homogenous speech community, who knows its language
perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as
memory limitation, distractions, shifts of attention and interests, and errors
(random of characteristics) in applying his knowledge of the language in
actual performance. (p. 4)

134
EFL TPACK

• Linguistic Competence: Signifies whether (and to what degree)

something is formally possible (Hymes, 1972) and thus it includes the
knowledge of grammar, words, and phonology of a given language.
• Discourse Competence: Refers to the interpretation of individual
message elements in terms of their interconnectedness and of how
meaning is represented in relationship to the entire discourse or text
(Richards & Rogers, 2014).
• Strategic Competence: Refers to the coping strategies that
communicators employ to initiate, terminate, maintain, repair, and
redirect communication.
• Sociolinguistic Competence: Refers to an understanding of the social
context in which communication takes place, including relationships,
the shared information of the participants, and the communicative
purpose for their interaction.

These competences are also related to what Hymes (1972) calls the
knowledge and ability for language use with respect to:

• Whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible.

• Whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue of the
means of implementation available.
• Whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate (adequate,
happy, successful) in relation to a context in which it is used and
evaluated.
• Whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually
performed, and what its doing entails (p. 281).

This competence and proficiency would absolutely help a language teacher

to take the role of a communicative language teacher successfully as:

The teacher has two main roles: the first role is to facilitate the communication
process between all participants in the classroom, and between these
participants and the various activities and texts. The second role is to act as
an independent participant within the learning-teaching group. The latter role
is closely related to the objectives of the first role and arises from it. These
roles imply a set of secondary roles for the teacher: first, as an organizer of
resources and as resource himself, second as a guide within the classroom
procedures and activities. (Breen & Candlin, 1980)

135
 EFL TPACK

Moreover, the language proficiency that a teacher needs should enable

him/her to act as a needs analyst, counselor and group process manager in
teaching language communicatively (Richards & Rodgers, 2014).
In sum, the content knowledge of a language teacher is not just interpretable
by linguistic knowledge and knowledge of language but the way a language
teacher can act as a successful communicator in the process of language
teaching.

Pedagogical Knowledge

This is commonly referred to as the knowledge about the students’ learning,

instructional methods, different educational theories, and learning assessment
to teach a subject matter without any references towards content.
It is thus the knowledge of generic teaching strategies, beliefs, and practices
along with support knowledge, the knowledge of the various disciplines
that would enrich teachers’ approach to the teaching and learning of any
subject matter (e.g. educational psychology), such as knowledge of using
metacognitive strategies to enhance learning.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

It is the knowledge of representing content knowledge and adopting pedagogical

strategies to make the specific content/topic more understandable for the
learners. In the domain of language teaching, it is the specialized knowledge
of language teaching and learning; how to represent English as a foreign
language in the classroom and how language learners come to understand
English in the context of real teaching; discovering the students’ problems
and ways to overcome those problems by considering all variables related to
their language learning (teaching materials, assessment procedures, parents,
etc.), such as knowledge of conducting group activities to improve students’
learning.
This knowledge, as being conclusive of the three previous components,
is much related to defining and measuring the credential of good language
teachers. Some educationists have a general view towards an effective language
teacher that embodies a list of premises coming from their experience and
common sense.

136
EFL TPACK

Allen (1980), for instance, proposes a nine-item list of characteristics of

good ESL teachers including a degree in TESL (Teaching English as a Second
Language), the love of English language, critical thinking, the persistent urge
to upgrade oneself, self-subordination, readiness to go extra mile, cultural
adaptability, professional citizenship, and a feeling of excitement about one’s
work.
In the same vein, Brown (2001) suggests a 30-item list of such qualities
with four main components including technical knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge, interpersonal skills, and personal qualities.
These movements have urged the official organizations to legitimize
certain standards for language teachers. These professional standards define
what teachers should be able to do and what they should know (Sachs, 2005).
The standards are used in defining effective teaching and are essential in
evaluating one’s process of teaching (Smith, 2005).
Here TESOL/NCATE P-12 ESL Teacher Education Program Standards
(TESOL, 2008) are listed to see how all language teacher knowledge base
components discussed so far can be integrated in five main domain standards:
language, culture, assessment, instruction, and professionalism (Figure 3).

Figure 4. TESOL P-12 ESL Teacher Education Program Standard (2008)

137
 EFL TPACK

Domain 1: Language

Standard 1: Language as a System

Candidates demonstrate understanding of language as a system, including

phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics, support ESOL students as
they acquire English in order to communicate with native speakers of English.

Standard 2: Language Acquisition and Development

Candidates understand and apply theories and research, of language acquisition

and development to support their ESOL students’ learning.

Domain 2: Culture

Standard 3: Culture as it Affects Student Learning

Candidates know, understand, and use in their instruction, major theories and
research related to the nature and role of culture, and how cultural groups and
individual cultural identities affect language learning and school achievement.

Domain 3: Planning, Implementing,

and Managing Instruction

Standard 4: Planning for Standards-

Based ESL and Content Instruction

Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts, research, best practices,

and evidenced-based strategies to plan classroom instruction in a supportive
learning environment for ESOL students. Candidates plan for multilevel
classrooms with learners from diverse backgrounds using standards-based
ESL and content curriculum.

Standard 5: Managing and Implementing Standards-

Based ESL and Content Instruction

Candidates know, manage, and implement a variety of standards-based teaching

strategies and techniques for developing and integrating English listening,

138
EFL TPACK

speaking, reading, and writing. Candidates support ESOL students’ access

to the core curriculum by teaching language through academic content.

Standard 6: Using Resources and Technology

Effectively in ESL and Content Instruction

Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standards-based materials,

resources, and technologies, and choose, adapt, and use them in effective
ESL and content teaching.

Domain 4: Assessment

Standard 7: Issues of Assessment for

English Language Learners

Candidates understand various issues of assessment as they affect ESOL student

learning. Some examples include cultural and linguistic bias; testing in two
languages; political, social, and psychological factors; special education testing,
and assessing giftedness; the importance of standards; the difference between
formative and summative assessment, and the difference between language
proficiency and other types of assessment (e.g., standardized achievement
tests), Candidates will also understand issues around accountability. This
includes the implications of norm-referenced assessment as opposed to
alternative assessments and issues of accommodations in formal testing
situations.

Standard 8: Language Proficiency Assessment

Candidates can use and interpret a variety of standards-based language

proficiency instruments, usually norm-referenced, to meet district, state and
federal guidelines, and to inform their instruction. They also understand their
uses for identification, placement, and demonstration of language growth of
English learners.

139
 EFL TPACK

Standard 9: Classroom-Based Assessment for ESL

Candidates know, and can use a variety of standards-based, on-going, formative

and summative, performance-based assessment tools and techniques to inform
instruction in the classroom.

Domain 5: Professionalism

Standard 10: ESL Research and History

Candidates demonstrate knowledge of history, research, public policy and

current practice in the field of ESL teaching and apply this knowledge to
improve teaching and learning.

Standard 11: Professional Development,

Partnerships and Advocacy

Candidates take advantage of professional growth opportunities and

demonstrate the ability to build partnerships with colleagues and students’
families, serve as community resources, and advocate for ESOL students.
In many pre-service and in-service programs the type of knowledge of
this component, however, focuses on theories and the type of knowledge
language teachers should know about teaching theories and beliefs, and
language education pedagogy. Types of courses range from those that target
methodological and pedagogical knowledge (teaching methodology, theories of
teaching language skills, testing and evaluation, etc.), to supplying knowledge
about language(s) (linguistics courses), and supporting knowledge of other
disciplines (sociolinguistics, and neurolinguistics courses) (Rahimi, 2008).

Technological Knowledge

This is the knowledge about how to use ICT hardware and software and
associated peripherals. It is also called ICT literacy, IT literacy, and computer
knowledge. This includes the type of knowledge of technology that generally
a person has to be able to live in the third millennium to fulfill their personal,
social, and professional needs. What is required of a language teacher is to have
basic knowledge working with technology devices (printers, scanners, digital

140
EFL TPACK

cameras), applications and software (data management, media production)

and environment (world wide web).

Technological Content Knowledge

Knowledge about how to use technology to represent/research and create the

content in different ways without consideration about teaching. Therefore,
it is the way technology can be used in English such as available software,
databases, and devices.

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge

This is the knowledge of the existence and specifications of various technologies

to enable teaching approaches without reference towards any subject matter.
It includes all technology affordances for education that can be studied to
be later adapted for being used in teaching a subject matter. Table 4 gives a
general overview of the affordances and limitations of various technological
resources widely in use today in education (Haddad & Draxler, 2002).
Technology-supported-pedagogy may be classified into three categories
in which technology functions as: (a) replacement; (b) amplification, and; (c)
transformation (Hughes, 2005). Technology as replacement involves using
technology as a different means to teach the same instructional goal and/
or materials. Technology as amplification involves the use of technology to
accomplish tasks more efficiently and effectively without altering the task (Pea,
1985, as cited in Hew & Brush, 2007). Use of technology as transformation
provides learners and teachers with innovative educational opportunities
(Hughes, 2005) by affecting cognitive processes and doing different types
of problem solving activities.
Teachers are required to be able to use technology in their teaching in three
distinct parts of the class: preparation, presentation, and doing assignments
(Hew & Brush, 2007). In preparation phase, teachers may use technology
to prepare their lesson plans, search/prepare related sources and content for
teaching or prepare homework/assignments, tests, and task sheets. They
may use word processors or the Internet to prepare the required materials.
In presentation phase, the teachers may use different types of technologies
to present the material in teaching such as PowerPoint slide shows. After the
presentation, the teachers may provide students with tasks/assignments and
asks students to use related technologies to do the assignments. This may

141
 EFL TPACK

Table 4. Affordances and limitations of modalities (Haddad & Draxler, 2002)

Mode Instrument Affordances Limitations

• portable
• Difficult to modify (as in
• durable
localiztio, updating, etc.)
• can present complex
• Required literacy plus higher-
information
order thinking skills
Text Books/magazines • sequential structure
• Content is difficult to extract
guides learner
for use in other resources
• little eyestrain
• High per-unit cost of
• Moderate cost of
publication
development
• Dynamic and easy
modified • Non-sequential structure may
• Hyperlinks enable non- obscure critical information or
sequential navigation cause confusion
• Low cost of development • Reading may cause fatigue
Web page and very low publishing • Required OC, electricity,
costs connection
• Support interactivity • Potential additional system
(e.g., navigation, user- requirements (e.g. Java,
entered information, etc.) plugins)
• Can support assessment
• Concrete, specific,
detailed information
• Appropriate for learners
with ‘visual intelligence’
• Engaging and motivating
• Low information value
for many learners
relative to text
• Affordances similar to
• Resistant to reuse by learners
printed photos
• ‘visual literacy’ skills
Printed photos, • Easily copied, charred,
required for best use
Images maps, and schematic and used
• High cost reproduction
drawing • Low costs for
• Limitations similar to printed
reproduction and
photos
publishing
• Require PC and electricity,
• Can be data-based or
possibly an Internet connection
Web-served for delivery to
handheld computers and
other
• ‘anytime, anywhere’
devices
• Can present
• Information is not durable;
contemporary and topical
learners can’t ‘review’ a
information easily
broadcast
• Highly accessible and
• Poor presentation of complex
potentially engaging format
concepts
(no literacy skills required)
Audio Radio • No visual component (e.g.
• Widespread adoption in
schematics, maps, photos)
developing countries
• Synchronous form requires
• Moderate production
system-wide coordination
costs
(e.g. announcements, class
• Highly scalable
schedules, etc.)
• Low-cost hardware

continued on following page

142
EFL TPACK

Table 4. Continued

Mode Instrument Affordances Limitations

• Can present
contemporary and topical
information easily (Web)
• Information is durable
(e.g. it can be reviewed
many times)
• Requires robust PC and/or
• Medium is durable
high-speed Internet connection
Digital audio • Moderate production
• High storage “overhead” (in
(Web- and CD- costs
terms of hard drive capacity)
based) • Low reproduction costs;
• May not support presentation
easily scaled
of complex concepts
• Easily catalogued and
reused (by developers and
users)
• Can be indexed or
catalogued to enable non-
sequential access
• Highly accessible and
potentially engaging format
(no literacy skills required)
• High production costs;
• Sequential structure
moderate reproduction costs
guides learner
• Complex information may be
• Concrete, specific,
Video Analog difficult to present effectively
detailed information
• Information may prove
• appropriate for learners
difficult for some learners to
with ‘visual intelligence’
analyze/synthesize
• Engaging and motivating
for many learners
• Moderate hardware costs
• Same as analog video
• Can present Same as analog video; however,
Broadcast
contemporary or topical costs may be higher
information easily
• Same as analog video
• Can present
contemporary or topical
information easily
• Easily catalogued and • Same as analog video
reused (by developers and • Requires robust PC and/or
Digital (Web- and
users) high-speed Internet connection
CD-based)
• Can be indexed or • High storage “overhead” (in
catalogued to enable non- terms of hard drive capacity)
sequential access
• NOTE: “moderate
hardware costs” is not
applicable
• Active-learning
characteristics engage
learners via several parts to
• Requires robust PC and/or
reinforce concepts
Interactive high-speed Internet connection
• Quantitative elements are
Simulations (Web- and CD • Potential additional system
supported (and reinforce
based) requirements (e.g. Java, plug-
conceptual learning)
ins)
• Engaging and motivating
for many learners
• Can support assessment

143
 EFL TPACK

include tutorials, drill/practice software, educational websites, and/or online/

offline computer tests.
Teachers should also be aware of different types of instruction that can
be held using technology as well. Knowledge of the type of instruction
would help teachers design their courses more effectively. Two basic types
of instruction are specified for teaching with technology: e-learning and
blended learning. E-learning is a computer based educational tool or system
that enables you to learn anywhere and at any time (Epignosis LLC, 2014,
p. 3). There are certain plethora for e-learning that needs certain degrees of
familiarity if teachers are going to use them in instruction. These may include
Learning Management Systems (LMS), websites, collaborative systems, social
media, etc. Conventionally, if all learning takes place in a virtual learning
environment and students and the teacher never meet, the course is called
e-learning. If a part of the course is held in a face to face manner and a part
of teaching and learning materials is extended to the virtual environment,
the course is blended.
Blended instruction is defined as (Lim, Morris, & Kupritz, 2011, p. 28):

1. A learning method with more than one delivery mode is being used to
optimize learning outcomes and reduced cost associated with program
delivery,
2. Any mix of instructor-led training methods with technology-based
learning, and
3. The mix of traditional and interactive-rich forms of classroom training
with any of the innovative technologies such as multimedia, CD-ROM,
video streaming, virtual classroom, email/conference calls, and online
animation/video streaming technology.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Knowledge of using various technologies to teach, present, and facilitate

knowledge creation of specific subject content. This is the ultimate knowledge
of a language teacher to be able to teach language efficiently, based on
pedagogical norms, using appropriate technology, and combining them with
their knowledge of teaching English appropriately (considering the theories
and practices of applied linguistics).

144
EFL TPACK

Table 5. The EFL TPACK Components (Adapted from Rahimi & Pourshahbaz, 2017)

EFL TPACK
Definition Example
Constructs
Knowledge of the subject matter without
CK consideration about teaching the subject English language proficiency
matter
Knowledge of generic teaching strategies,
beliefs, and practices along with support
Knowledge about the students’ learning, knowledge, the knowledge of the various
instructional methods, different educational disciplines that would enrich teachers’
PK theories, and learning assessment to teach approach to the teaching and learning of
a subject matter without references towards English (e.g. educational psychology, second
content language acquisition), such as knowledge of
using metacognitive strategies to enhance
learning
The specialized knowledge of language
teaching and learning; how to represent
English as a foreign language in the
classroom and how language learners come
to understand English in the context of real
Knowledge of representing content
teaching; discovering the students’ problems
PCK knowledge and adopting pedagogical
and ways to overcome those problems by
strategies to teach English
considering all variables related to their
language learning (teaching materials,
assessment procedures, parents, etc.), such as
knowledge of conducting group activities to
improve students’ learning
IT literacy, knowledge of technology in
general, knowing about basic computer
Knowledge about how to use ICT hardware
TK applications (software), devices (printers,
and software and associated peripherals
scanners, digital cameras), and environment
(www)
Knowledge of the existence and
IT integration literacy, the ability to use
specifications of various technologies to
TPK technologies to teach and interact with
enable teaching approaches without reference
students
towards subject matter
Knowledge about how to use technology to
represent/research and create the content in Knowledge of CALL at the level of
TCK
different ways without consideration about technology use and content preparation
teaching
Knowledge of CALL teaching/learning: using
multimedia software/games as a tool to enrich
teaching language macro skills (listening,
speaking, reading, writing) and components
Knowledge of using various technologies (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation);
TPACK to teach, represent, and facilitate knowledge class management and assessing students’
creation of specific subject content learning; presenting content via appropriate
language teaching strategies by using proper
technological tools intermingled with
appropriate language teaching methodology/
instructional materials

145
 EFL TPACK

For a language teacher, the basic knowledge of TPACK involves the

knowledge of different types of CALL, their underlying theoretical frameworks,
the required technology, and types of activities. This also means to be able to
integrate this knowledge into teaching macro (listening, speaking, reading,
and writing) and micro skills (vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar) using
appropriate teaching methodology. This means being aware and able of
teaching appropriately and taking the role of a CLT teacher, while appropriate
class management and assessing techniques are brought into the instruction.
A summary of the EFL TPACK is presented in Table 5.
By going through the EFL TPACK model presented above, it is clear that
when ICT use is accompanied by appropriate knowledge base on teachers’ side,
it can help EFL teachers to enhance all aspects of their teaching; from materials
development to classroom management to appropriately diagnose language
learners’ learning problems and solving those problems professionally. In this
way, ICT integration would be a truly wise choice for every EFL classroom
paving the way of creating a more authentic and native-like language teaching
and learning environment for both EFL teachers and learners.

CONCLUSION

EFL teachers’ TPACK framework, its categories and models were investigated
in this chapter. This was done with the perspective of different language
teaching/learning approaches, assessment techniques, knowledge domains,
technological affordances, and their merits/demerits. Needless to say, similar
to TPACK construct for educators in general, EFL teachers’ TPACK is
complicated and requires detailed elaboration. The research carried on this
area is covered in the following chapter.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting

social behavior. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Alazam, A., Bakar, A., Hamzah, R., & Asmiran, S. (2012). Teachers’ ICT skills
and ICT integration in the classroom: The case of Vocational and Technical
Teachers in Malaysia. Creative Education, 3(08), 70–76. doi:10.4236/
ce.2012.38B016

146
EFL TPACK

Allen, H. B. (1980, April). What it means to be a professional in TESOL.

Lecture presented at the Conference of TEXTESOL.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice:
Designing and developing useful language tests. OUP.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204. doi:10.2307/2786945
Breen, M., & Candlin, C. N. (1980). The essentials of a communicative
curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 89–112.
doi:10.1093/applin/1.2.89
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to
language pedagogy. Pearson Longman.
Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The Relationship between second language acquisition
theory and computer-assisted language learning. Modern Language Journal,
93(1), 741–753. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00970.x
Chastain, K. (1989). The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines: A selected sample
of opinions. ADFL Bulletin, 20, 47–51. doi:10.1632/adfl.20.2.47
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT
press.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of
computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management
Science, 35(8), 982–1003. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Elder, C. (2014). Assessing the language proficiency of teachers:
Are there any border controls? Language Testing, 18(2), 149–170.
doi:10.1177/026553220101800203
Epignosis, L. L. C. (2014). E-learning: Concepts, trends, applications.
Epignosis, LLC.
ETS. (2007). Digital transformation: A framework for ICT literacy. ETS.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior:
An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.

147
 EFL TPACK

Freeman, D. (2001). Second language teacher education. In R. Carter &

D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of
other languages (pp. 72–79). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511667206.011
Freeman, D. (2001). Second language teacher education. In R. Carter &
D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of
other languages (pp. 72–79). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511667206.011
Haddad, W., & Draxler, A. (Eds.). (2002). Technologies for education:
Potentials, parameters, and prospects. Paris: UNESCO.
Hale, J. L., Householder, B. J., & Greene, K. L. (2003). The theory of
reasoned action. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook:
Developments in theory and practice (pp. 259–286). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Hardy, J. V. (1999). Teacher attitudes toward and knowledge of computer
technology. Computers in the Schools, 14(3-4), 119–136. doi:10.1300/
J025v14n03_11
Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2010). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’
curriculum-based, technology related instructional planning. JRTE, 42(3),
211–229.
Hatlevik, O., & Arnseth, H. (2012). ICT, teaching and leadership: How
do teachers experience the importance of ICT-Supportive school leaders?
Literacy, 7, 55–69.
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in
forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 13(2), 277–302.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride
& J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293).
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Kao, C. P., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes toward web-based
professional development, with relation to Internet self-efficacy and
beliefs about web-based learning. Computers & Education, 53(1), 66–73.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.019

148
EFL TPACK

Konan, N. (2010). Computer literacy levels of teachers. Procedia: Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2567–2571. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.374
Liaw, S., Chang, W., Hung, W., & Huang, W. (2006). Attitudes toward search
engines as a learning assisted tool: Approach of Liaw and Huang’s research
model. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 177–190. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2004.09.003
Lightbown, P. (1985). Great expectations: Second language acquisition
research and classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 173–189.
doi:10.1093/applin/6.2.173
Lim, D. H., Morris, M., & Kupritz, V. (2011). Online vs. blended learning:
Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27–42.
Liu, T., & Chu, Y. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and
speaking course: Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Computers
& Education, 55(2), 630–643. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.023
MacDonald, M., Badger, R., & White, G. (2001). Changing values: What
use are theories of language learning and teaching? Teaching and Teacher
Education, 17(8), 949–963. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00042-7
Mokhtari, H. (2013). Iranian EFL learners’ attitude towards CALL.
Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1630–1635. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2013.01.232
O’Toole, P. (2011). How organizations remember: Retaining knowledge through
organizational action. Organizational Change and Innovation, 2. Retrieved
from www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda.../9781441975232-c1.pdf
Olaoluwakotansibe, A. (2009). Gender diversity and ICT literacy among
Nigerian in-service teachers. Gender & Behaviour, 7(2), 2485–2503.
Rahimi, M. (2008). What do we want teaching-materials for in EFL teacher
training programs? Asian EFL Journal, 31, 1–17.
Rahimi, M., & Pourshahbaz, S. (2018). The Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge of EFL Teachers (EFL TPACK). In Encyclopedia of
Information Science and Technology (4th ed.; pp. 7659–7670). IGI Global.
Rahimi, M., & Yadollahi, S. (2015). Female students’ CALL attitudes: The
effects of level of education, computer ownership, and computer use. Lambert.

149
 EFL TPACK

Reber, A. (1995). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the

cognitive unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (1990). Second language teacher
education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2014). Approaches and methods in language
teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Sachs, J. (2005). Teacher professional standards: A policy strategy to control,
regulate or enhance the teaching profession? In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A.
Datnow, K. Leithwood, & D. Livingstone (Eds.), International handbook of
educational policy (pp. 579–592). Springer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-3201-3_29
Selber, S. A. (2004). Multiliteracies for a digital age. Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Shapka, J. D., & Ferrari, M. (2003). Computer-related attitudes and actions
of Shariatmadari, M., & Aghajani, M. (2015). The relationship between
teachers’ ICT literacy and the fifth grade students’ academic achievement
in Tehran. Information and Communication Technology in Educational
Sciences, 6(1), 55–70.
Shim, H. S., & Roth, G. L. (2008). Sharing tacit knowledge among expert
teaching professors and mentees: Considerations for career and technical
education teacher educators. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 44(4),
5–28.
Teo, T. (2010). A path analysis of pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward
computer use: Applying and extending the Technology Acceptance Model
in an educational context. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 65–79.
doi:10.1080/10494820802231327
TESOL/NCATE P-12 ESL teacher education program standards. (2008).
TESOL Organization. Retrieved July 2009 from www.tesol.org
Tsai, M. J. (2002). Do male and female students often perform better than
female students when learning computers?: A study of Taiwanese eight graders’
computer education through strategic and cooperative learning. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 26(1), 67–85. doi:10.2190/9JW6-VV1P-
FAX8-CGE0

150
EFL TPACK

Ur, P. (1997). Teacher training and teacher development: A useful dichotomy?

Retrieved from http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/97/oct/ur.html
Vandewaetere, M., & Desmet, P. (2009). Introducing psychometrical
validation of questionnaires in CALL research: The case of measuring attitude
towards CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 349–380.
doi:10.1080/09588220903186547
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology
Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science,
46(2), 186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Yadollahi, S. (2011). ICT use in teaching language skills and its relationship
with EFL teachers’ computer literacy and anxiety (Unpublished master’s
thesis). SRTTU.

151
152

Chapter 7
EFL TPACK:
Research Agenda

ABSTRACT
This chapter lists studies done on EFL TPACK in the last decade. The
empirical studies on the prototypical model of TPACK seem to boom in
the second decade of the twenty-first century, specifically from 2012. As a
new and still-evolving construct, some studies have focused on teachers’
(both in-service and pre-service) understanding of the construct itself and
its relationship with other variables (e.g., demographic, psychological,
technological). Another group of studies have emphasized the importance
of the way TPACK should be operationally defined. A few measures of EFL
TPACK have thus been developed by some researchers. They are discussed
in the current chapter and their samples are provided in the Appendix of the
book for further reference.

BACKGROUND

Research suggests that integrating ICT into education has become significantly
important for European and Western countries in the last decade. In the same
vein, the expansion of technological infrastructures has made ICT one of
the most important issues addressed in educational systems of developing
countries. One reason for this movement is to prepare the labor force of a
world in which technology is being normalized. As a result, the mainstream
education needs technologically literate teachers to handle classes of digital

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-6267-2.ch007

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
EFL TPACK

natives and direct them in the right path of using technology for their
academic and professional goals. Having said this fact, teacher professional
development is now considered a highly important resource in the field of
language teaching to help EFL teachers develop their knowledge base to catch
up the needs of today’s modern world (Avalos, 2011; Kleinsasser, 2013).
Professional development programs in the area of CALL are one example
(Hong, 2010). In the following the body of research done on EFL TPACK
is briefly reviewed.
All around the world, short term pre-service and in-service courses
have been prevalent ways enabling educators to develop their professional
capacities. Needless to say, these programs cannot be very fruitful without a
comprehensive needs analysis. A wise step to do so would be investigating
the needs of EFL teachers regarding ICT literacy. It would be useful to gain
comprehensive insights about EFL teachers’ current level of TPACK, and find
out accurate facts about their strong and weak points considering different
dimensions of TPACK knowledge base. In this way, the program would be
certainly more effective and lots of time, money and resources would be saved.

EFL-TPACK

Xiaobin, Wei, Huiwen and Lijun (2012) investigated practical application

status of Educology of Foreign Languages among English teachers involved in
National English Teachers Training Project in China. The results showed that
the participants knew a little about TPACK, while nearly 80% of the subject
said that they knew nothing about TPACK. The teachers were also found
to have low capabilities towards using technology in language instruction.
Fauzan Ansyari (2012) developed and evaluated a professional development
program for technology integration in English language teaching setting in an
Indonesian higher education. The study mainly explored the impact of such
program on English lecturers’ TPACK development. To gather data TPACK
survey, TAC survey, technology integration assessment rubric, interview, and
logbook were used. The findings suggested that all participants had positive
experiences with the professional development programs. The weaknesses
of the programs were viewed on limited time, technology exploration, and
students’ active engagement. TPACK was also enhanced after the professional
development program. The findings from lesson plan assessment demonstrated

153
 EFL TPACK

that the professional development program had a sound impact based on

the overall result of the lecturers’ lesson plan designs in all components of
TPACK, except in CK.
Rahmany, Sadeghi, and Chegini (2014) examined the effect of technology
integration in general and normalization of CALL in particular on Iranian
teachers’ technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK).
Teachers’ main opportunities and challenges with normalization of CALL
were also scrutinized. To reach these goals, 16 teachers taught a course
with the goal to integrate computer technology in instruction. The TPACK
questionnaire was administered among the participants before and after the
course and a semi-structured interview was held after the course. Observations
of the classes were carried out to gain a complementary understanding of the
process of CALL normalization and how teachers dealt with their new roles.
The results revealed that technology-related knowledge domains developed
significantly and that Iranian educational society is highly sensitive to
instructional technology and its use in education.
Liu et al. (2014) investigated the technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK) of English as foreign language (EFL) teachers. They
focused on how technology was connected with EFL teachers’ professional
knowledge and the importance of TPACK in EFL teaching. They also
discussed four points concerning EFL teachers’ challenge in developing
TPACK including the integration of technology into teachers’ present
knowledge system, the relationship between new and old knowledge, teachers’
willingness to accept new technology and teachers’ weaker position in using
new technology. They also justified the existence and development of the
construct EFL TPACK as a connection of two sources of knowledge, i.e. the
formal knowledge and skills provided and supported by schools and teaching
community and the practical knowledge in using technology.
In another study, Tseng (2014) assessed EFL students’ perceptions of their
teachers’ TPACK through a validated student-based TPACK instrument in
Taiwan. The results of the survey showed that the teachers were thought to
be more proficient in the three individual domains of core knowledge than
in the intersections between them. In particular, the students perceived that
their teachers demonstrated content knowledge more adequately than their
integrated TPACK.
Wu and Wang (2015) investigated the TPACK of in-service EFL teachers at
elementary schools in Taiwan. Also, the possible needs of these EFL teachers
for their future professional development were examined. The quantitative data
were gathered by a questionnaire to assess the EFL teachers’ performance on

154
EFL TPACK

the seven TPACK construct components and their synthesized TPACK was
grasped by interviews and observations. The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and
the pedagogic framework for computer-assisted language learning were used
to analyze the qualitative data. The results indicated that the EFL teachers
needed more technology knowledge to further develop their TPACK, and that
the EFL teachers’ TPACK focused much on motivating students, rather than
on using technology for creating opportunities for students to use English
language meaningfully and authentically
Liu and Kleinssaser (2015) did a mixed study and gathered both quantitative
and qualitative data on how EFL vocational high school teachers perceived
CALL knowledge and competencies in a yearlong technology-enriched
professional development program. The teachers’ developing TPACK and
perceived computer self-efficacy were examined from their use of technology
while participating in online EFL instruction. Data analysis revealed that the
participants’ TPACK and self-efficacy of using computer technology, their
application and infusion of technology in English instruction, and factors that
facilitated or hampered their (technology) professional developed.
Akcay, Mancilla, and Polat (2015) investigated EFL teachers’ perceptions
of their Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). The data
was collected from 54 EFL pre-service or/and in-service teachers using a
TPACK survey to identify if and how teachers interact with technology in
their classrooms. The preliminary results revealed no statistically significant
difference between those who were active EFL in-service teachers and
those who continued in pre-service education programs regarding the seven
technology acceptance measures.
Kwangsawad (2016) determined EFL pre-service Thai teachers’ TPACK
trough a wide range of approaches including self-report, lesson plan
assessment and classroom observations. This was done to examine EFL pre-
service teachers’ ability to apply and foster the interplay between content,
pedagogy and technology in their classrooms. The results of self-reported
data (as measured by TPACK survey), lesson plan assessment and classroom
observations showed high scores for all domains.
Rubadeau (2016) investigated English language teacher educators’
cognitions and practices related to pedagogical technology integration at a
South Korean university. Data collected over twenty weeks and included four
rounds of semi-structured interviews and two sets of classroom observations
for each of participants as well as interviews with program administrators,
written reflections, field notes, photographs, and document review. The
results revealed that the focal participants displayed high levels of TPACK

155
 EFL TPACK

and used Web 2.0 applications extensively to facilitate interactions in their

roles as teacher educators. It was also found that UTAUT (Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology) factors guided teacher educators’ (TE)
decisions and use behavior to varying degrees, but that the mediating factor
of age did not relate to TEs’ decisions in the manner predicted by the UTAUT.
Ersanli (2016) explored the effectiveness of a five-week workshop and
training sessions on Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
of pre-service English language teachers in Turkey. The data were gathered
through the TPACK Scale developed by Solak and Çakır (2014) and journal
entries of pre-service English language teachers before and after the procedure.
The results indicated a statistically significant improvement in TPACK
scores of both male and female pre-service English language teachers. The
journal entries clearly indicated an increase in several possible applications
or websites that can be used in the classroom with more effective and to the
point objectives. The pre-service English language teachers also displayed
better performance in manufacturing and tailoring language learning/teaching
materials with specific goals.
Cahyono, Kurnianti, and Mutiaraningrum (2016) examined how Indonesian
EFL teachers’ TPACK-oriented teaching practice course improved as a result of
improving the quality of their EFL instructional designs and teaching practices.
The teachers attended 16-session course in which they were introduced to
TPACK framework and were assigned to make instructional designs based
on TPACK framework. Moreover, they were asked to teach their colleagues
(peer teachers) using the TPACK-oriented instructional designs. At the end
of the course the teachers were given a questionnaire asking the benefit of the
TPACK-oriented teaching practice course in improving the quality of their
EFL instructional designs and their EFL teaching practices. The result of
the study showed that the teachers benefited a lot from the TPACK-oriented
teaching practice course and they have successfully prepared instructional
designs and performed the teaching practices by applying TPACK framework.
Rahimi and Pourshahbaz (2016) investigated Iranian EFL teachers’
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). The result of the
study showed that Iranian EFL teachers have a roughly high level of TPACK in
general. Their knowledge on four components of the scale was also assessed.
The result also revealed that EFL teachers’ had higher level of knowledge on
design (competencies in designing teaching to enrich the teaching process
with the help of their technological and pedagogical knowledge about the
content to be taught before the teaching process of the content) and exertion
(competencies in using technology for the execution of the teaching process

156
EFL TPACK

and for the measurement and evaluation of the effectiveness of the process)
in comparison to ethics (competencies in ethics regarding teaching profession
and ethical issues such as privacy, accuracy, property and accessibility)
and proficiency (leadership ability to integrate technology into content and
pedagogy by becoming experts in the teaching profession, to put forward
suggestions for solving problems related to the subject area, the teaching
process and technology, and to choose the most appropriate one among these
suggested solutions).
Rahimi and Pourshahbaz (2017) investigated the role of Technological
and Pedagogical Content Knowledge of language teachers in their use of
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in language classes.
The level of participants’ TPACK was assessed by TPACK-deep scale with
four dimensions including design, exertion, ethics, and performance. The
use of different types of technological affordances in teaching English as a
foreign language was also measured by ICT-use rating scale. The results of
correlation revealed significant and positive correlations between ICT use
in language classes and EFL TPACK in general and its four components
including design, exertion, ethics, and performance. Further, the result of
multiple regressions revealed that EFL TPACK is a significant predictor of
ICT use and can predict more than 26% of its variance.
Turgut (2017) addressed the issue of the longitudinal process to see if
PTs’ perceived development of TPACK skills followed an increasing linear
pattern through years as planned in four-year-long language teacher education
programs. Based on TPACK survey with open-ended questions, results of
the study indicated a nonlinear pattern of TPACK development over time.
Lailiyah and Cahyono (2017) investigated Indonesian EFL teachers’
self-efficacy towards technology integration and their use of technology in
EFL teaching. Data were collected by using a questionnaire and interview
protocols. Analysis of the data showed that there is a relationship between
the EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and their use of technology in EFL teaching.
Thooptong (2017) examined the implementation and evaluation a
professional development program for technology integration based on
communicative language teaching (CLT) among Thai in-service EFL teachers.
The study focused on evaluating in-service EFL teachers’ knowledge and
skills in CLT and technology integration in CLT and their experiences with
participating in the program. The results showed that the post-test scores
of the in-service teachers’ knowledge in CLT and technology integration in
CLT were significantly higher than the pre-test scores. However, their skills

157
 EFL TPACK

in CLT and technology integration in CLT were at the low level. Almost all
participants reported having positive experiences with the program.

Measure of EFL-TPACK

A number of instruments have been developed to assess TPACK. The

differences of these instruments lie in different TPACK frameworks that have
been developed to this date. The TPACK survey developed and validated by
Schmidt et al. (2009) is a widely used instrument to assess TPACK. This
scale assesses TPACK in terms of the seven distinct components of TPACK:
TK, CK, PK, TCK, PCK, TPK and TPACK.
The 24 item TPACK survey developed by Archambault and Crippen (2009)
is another example. The survey, like the previous one, examines TPACK by
the seven components of TPACK based on the prototypical model. What
these two instruments have in common is that they have been built on the
commonly used TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Mishra &
Koehler, 2006). The TPACK scale developed and validated by Yurdakul et
al., (2012) however is a little different from these two. The scale has been
built on the TPACK framework developed by Yurdakul et al., (2012) and
consists of four sub-scales including Design (10 items), Exertion (12 items),
Ethics (6 items), and Proficiency (5 items).
Some instruments have been specifically developed to measure language
teachers’ TPACK. The first one is an EFL-TPACK questionnaire that
investigates EFL students’ perceptions of their teachers’ TPACK (Tseng,
2014). In the process of developing the scale, the TPACK prototypical model
with seven components was put into test (TK, CK, PK, PCK, TCK, TPK,
and TPACK). The result showed that EFL teachers’ TPACK consists of five
factors, three of which were found to be TK, TPK, and PCK and two of which
were the combination of PK and CK; and TCK and TPACK respectively.
Baserab, Kopchac, and Ozdend (2016) also developed and validated a
self-assessment survey that examines TPACK of EFL teachers. The TPACK-
EFL survey, as it is called by the authors, aims to provide an assessment
tool for pre-service foreign language teachers and addresses subject-specific
pedagogies and technologies. The result of data analysis revealed a seven-factor
structure for TPACK including TK, CK, PK, PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK.
In another study, Hsu (2016) explored the psychometric property of measure
of EFL teachers’ TPACK. The research instrument was the TPACK-EFL and
the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with extraction method of Maximum

158
EFL TPACK

Likelihood and the rotation method of Promax with Kaiser Normalization, was
performed to extracted factors with factor loading above .50. Seven constructs
(Technological Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge, Content Knowledge,
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge, Technological Content Knowledge,
Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge) were retrieved. Afterwards, the Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA) was undertaken to examine the convergent and discriminant validity
of selected factors. Results showed that the constructs met the necessary
requirement and the items had convergent validity.
What is vitally important to mention here is that these scales showed that
EFL TPACK has the same factor structure as the general scale, verifying the
seven-component model of TPACK (Shahin, 2011; Shmidt, Baran, Thompson,
Koehler, Mishra, & Shin, 2009). However, what distinguishes these scales
from the original version is the way items are loaded on the extracted factors.
This means that the general model as a whole is valid to be used across subject
matters; however, context specific studies are required to explain the details
of the construct TPACK.

CONCLUSION

This chapter presented studies done in TPACK field. Some scales and
instruments were introduced for measuring the TPACK construct alongside
their validation models.

REFERENCES

Akcay, A. O., Mancilla, R., & Polat, N. (2015). An examination of EFL teachers’
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). In D. Rutledge
& D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2015-Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1-3). Las
Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing
in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org

159
 EFL TPACK

Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12

online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in
Technology & Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88.
Cahyono, B. Y., Kurnianti, O. D., & Mutiaraningrum, I. (2016). Indonesian
EFL teachers’ application of TPACK in in-service education teaching practices.
International Journal of English Language Teaching, 4(50), 16–30.
Ersanli, C. Y. (2016). Improving Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service English language teachers. International
Education Studies, 9(5), 5, 18–27. doi:10.5539/ies.v9n5p18
Fauzan Ansari, M. (2012). The development and evaluation of a professional
development arrangement for technology integration to enhance communicative
approach in English language teaching (Unpublished master’s thesis).
University of Twente, The Netherlands.
Kwangsawad, T. (2016). Examining EFL pre-service teacehrs’ TPACK
through self-report, lesson plans and actual practice. Journal of Education
and Learning, 10(2), 103–108.
Lailiyah, M., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2017). Indonesian EFL teachers’ self-
efficacy towards technology integration (SETI) and their use of technology
in EFL teaching. Studies in English Language Teaching, 5(2), 344–357.
doi:10.22158elt.v5n2p344
Liu, M. H., & Kleinssaser, R. C. (2015). Exploring EFL teachers’ CALL
knowledge and competencies: In-service program perspectives. Language
Learning & Technology, 19(1), 118–138.
Liu, S., Liu, H., Yu, Y., Li, Y., & Wen, T. (2014). TPACK: A New Dimension
to EFL Teachers’ PCK. Journal of Education and Human Development,
3(2), 681–693.
Rahimi, M., & Pourshahbaz, S. (2016). EFL Teachers’ Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A cross gender comparison.
Paper presented in The 8th National Conference on Education, Tehran, Iran.
Rahimi, M., & Pourshahbaz, S. (2016). In-service EFL teachers’ Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Paper presented the 3rd
International Conference on Applied Research in Language studies, Tehran,
Iran.

160
EFL TPACK

Rahmany, R., Sadeghi, B., & Chegini, A. (2014). Normalization of CALL

and TPACK: Discovering teachers’ opportunities and challenges. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research, 5(4), 891–900. doi:10.4304/jltr.5.4.891-900
Rubadeau, Z. (2016). An exploration of English language teacher educators’
cognitions and practices in relation to the pedagogical purposes and efficacies
of 21st-century digital technologies. Durham theses, Durham University.
Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/11506/
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., &
Shin, T. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK):
The development and validation of an assessment instrument for pre-service
teachers. Journal of Research on Tech, 42, 123–149.
Shahin, I. (2011). Development of survey of technological pedagogical
and content knowledge (TPACK). TOJET-The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 10(1), 97–105.
Thooptong, K. (2017). In-service EFL teacher development for technology
integration in communicative language teaching. Asian Journal of Education
and e-Learning, 5(2), 44-52.
Tseng, J. J. (2014). Investigating EFL teachers’ Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge: Students’ perceptions. Paper presented at the 2014
EUROCALL Conference, Groningen, The Netherlands. Retrieved from files.
ericed.gov/fulltext/ ED565135.pdf
Tseng, J. J. (2014). Investigating EFL teachers’ Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge: Students’ perceptions. Paper presented at the 2014
EUROCALL Conference, Groningen, The Netherlands. Retrieved from files.
ericed.gov/fulltext/ ED565135.pdf
Turgut, Y. (2017). Tracing pre-service English language teachers’ perceived
TPACK in sophomore, junior, and senior levels. Cogent Education,
4(1368612), 1–20.
Xiaobin, L., Wei, Z., Huiwen, Z., & Lijun, J. (2012). Chinese EFL teachers’
application of e-educology of foreign languages: An investigation based on
TPACK framework. Teaching English with Technology, 14(1), 49–75.

161
162

Appendix

1. TPACK-DEEP SCALE (YURDAKUL, ODABASI,

KILICER, COKLAR, BIRINCI, & KURT, 2012)

1. I can update an instructional material (paper based, electronic or

multimedia materials, and etc.) based on the needs (students, environment,
duration, and etc.) by using technology.
2. I can use technology to determine students’ needs to a content area in
the pre-teaching process.
3. I can use technology to develop activities based on students ‘needs to
enrich the teaching the teaching and learning process.
4. I can plan the teaching and learning process according to available
technological resources.
5. I can conduct a needs analysis for Technologies to be used in the teaching
and learning process to increase the quality of teaching.
6. I can optimize the duration of the lesson by using technologies (educational
software, virtual labs, and etc.
7. I can develop appropriate assessment tools by using technology.
8. I can combine appropriate methods, techniques and technologies by
evaluating their attributes in order to present the content effectively.
9. I can use technology to appropriately design materials to the needs for
and effective teaching and learning process.
10. I can organize the educational environment in an appropriate way to use
technology.
11. I can implement effective classroom management in the teaching and
learning process in which technology is used.
12. I can assess whether students have the appropriate content knowledge
by using technology.
13. I can apply instructional approaches and methods appropriate to individual
differences with the help of technology.
Appendix

14. I can use technology for implementing educational activities such as

homework, projects, and etc.
15. I can use technology for evaluating students’ achievement in related
content areas.
16. I can use technology for evaluating students’ achievement in related
content areas.
17. I can be an appropriate model for the students in following codes of
ethics for the use of technology in my teaching.
18. I can guide students in the process of designing technology based products
(presentations, games, films, and etc.
19. I can use innovative technologies (Facebook, blogs, twitter, podcasting,
and etc.) to support the teaching and learning process.
20. I can use technology to update my knowledge and skills in the area that
I will teach.
21. I can update my technological knowledge for the teaching process.
22. I can use technology to keep my content knowledge updated.
23. I can provide each student equal access to technology.
24. I can behave ethically in acquiring and using special/private information
–which will be used in teaching a subject area –via technology (audio
records, video records, documents, and etc.).
25. I can use technology in every phase of the teaching and learning process
by considering the copyright issues (e.g. license).
26. I can follow the teaching profession’s codes of ethics in online educational
environments (WebCT, Moodle, etc.).
27. I can provide guidance to students by leading them to valid and reliable
digital sources.
28. I can behave ethically regarding the appropriate use of technology in
educational environments.
29. I can troubleshoot problems that could be encountered with online
educational environments (WebCT, Moodle, etc.).
30. I can troubleshoot any kind of problem that may occur while using
technology in any phase of the teaching and learning process.
31. I can use technology to find solutions to problems (structuring, updating
and relating the content to real life, etc.).
32. I can become a leader in spreading the use of technological innovations
in my future teaching community.
33. I can cooperate with other disciplines regarding the use of technology
to solve problems encountered in the process of presenting content.

163
 Appendix

2. TPACK-EFL

Constructs Items

Technological Knowledge (TK)

1. I can use basic technological terms (e.g. operating system, wireless

connection, virtual memory, etc.) appropriately.
2. I can adjust computer settings such as installing software and establishing
an Internet connection.
3. I can use computer peripherals such as a printer, a headphone, and a
scanner.
4. I can troubleshoot common computer problems (e.g. printer problems,
Internet connection problems, etc.) independently.
5. I can use digital classroom equipment such as projectors and smart
boards.
6. I can use Office programs (i.e. Word, PowerPoint, etc.) with a high level
of proficiency.
7. I can create multimedia (e.g. video, web pages, etc.) using text, pictures,
sound, video, and animation.
8. I can use collaboration tools (wiki, edmodo, 3D virtual environments,
etc.) in accordance with my objectives.
9. I can learn software that helps me complete a variety of tasks more
efficiently.

Content Knowledge (CK)

10. I can express my ideas and feelings by speaking in English.

11. I can express my ideas and feelings by writing in English.
12. I can read texts written in English with the correct pronunciation.
13. I can understand texts written in English.
14. I can understand the speech of a native English speaker easily.

Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)

15. I can use teaching methods and techniques that are appropriate for a
learning environment.

164
Appendix

16. I can design a learning experience that is appropriate for the level of
students.
17. I can support students’ learning in accordance with their physical, mental,
emotional, social, and cultural differences.
18. I can collaborate with school stakeholders (students, parents, teachers,
etc.) to support students’ learning.
19. I can reflect the experiences that I gain from professional development
programs to my teaching process.
20. I can support students’ out-of-class work to facilitate their self-regulated
learning.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

21. I can manage a classroom learning environment.

22. I can evaluate students’ learning processes.
23. I can use appropriate teaching methods and techniques to support students
in developing their language skills.
24. I can prepare curricular activities that develop students’ language skills.
25. I can adapt a lesson plan in accordance with students’ language skill
levels.

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)

26. I can take advantage of multimedia (e.g. video, slideshow, etc.) to express
my ideas about various topics in English.
27. I can benefit from using technology (e.g. web conferencing and discussion
forums) to contribute at a distance to multilingual communities.
28. I can use collaboration tools to work collaboratively with foreign persons
(e.g. Second Life, wiki, etc.).

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)

29. I can meet students’ individualized needs by using information

technologies.
30. I can lead students to use information technologies legally, ethically,
safely, and with respect to copyrights.
31. I can support students as they use technology such as virtual discussion
platforms to develop their higher order thinking abilities.

165
 Appendix

32. I can manage the classroom learning environment while using technology
in the class.
33. I can decide when technology would benefit my teaching of specific
English curricular standards.
34. I can design learning materials by using technology that supports students’
language learning.
35. I can use multimedia such as videos and websites to support students’
language learning.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

36. I can use collaboration tools (e.g. wiki, 3D virtual environments, etc.)
to support students’ language learning.
37. I can support students as they use technology to support their development
of language skills in an independent manner.
38. I can use Web 2.0 tools (animation tools, digital story tools, etc.) to
develop students’ language skills.
39. I can support my professional development by using technological tools
and resources to continuously improve the language teaching process.

3. MEASURE OF EFL STUDENTS ON THE TPACK

OF THEIR TEACHERS (TSENG, 2014)

Technological Knowledge

1. My teacher knows about basic computer hardware (e.g. RAM, network

cable, and projector).
2. My teacher knows about basic computer software (e.g. media players,
word processing programs, and web page browsers).
3. My teacher knows how to solve technical problems associated with
hardware (e.g. setting up printers, using webcams, and changing hard
drives).
4. My teacher knows how to deal with technical problems related to software
(e.g. installing drivers, setting up Internet connection, and sharing files
in the cloud).
5. My teacher keeps up with important new technologies (e.g. e-books,
Facebook, and white board).

166
Appendix

Pedagogical Knowledge

1. My teacher uses a variety of teaching strategies in class (e.g. explanation,

raising questions, and group work).
2. My teacher uses different evaluation methods and techniques (e.g. quiz,
report, and role-playing).
3. My teacher understands students’ learning difficulties.
4. My teacher adjusts the ways he/she teaches according to student
performance and feedback.
5. My teacher knows how to manage his/her class (e.g. drawing up clear
class rules, creating friendly atmosphere in class, and developing a good
relationship between students and the teacher).

Content Knowledge

1. My teacher has sufficient knowledge of English grammar.

2. My teacher has good pronunciation.
3. My teacher teaches class naturally in English.
4. My teacher creates materials that can enhance my learning.
5. My teacher answers students’ questions about English.

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge

1. My teacher uses technologies to motivate me to learn.

2. My teacher uses technologies to explain clearly.
3. My teacher uses technologies to interact more with us.
4. My teacher uses technologies to facilitate teaching activities.
5. My teacher uses technologies appropriate for his/her teaching.

Technological Content Knowledge

1. My teacher uses digitalized teaching materials with which I can learn

vocabulary better.
2. My teacher uses digitalized teaching materials with which I can learn
grammar better.
3. My teacher uses digitalized teaching materials with which I can read
better.

167
 Appendix

4. My teacher uses digitalized teaching materials with which I can speak

better.
5. My teacher uses digitalized teaching materials with which I can understand
the target culture better.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

1. My teacher conducts lectures in which I can understand English better.

2. My teacher conducts quizzes in which I can practice English more.
3. My teacher conducts games in which I can practice English more.
4. My teacher conducts group activities in which I can use English more.
5. My teacher conducts discussion activities in which I can use English
more.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

1. My teacher represents content with appropriate strategies via the use of

various technologies.
2. My teacher provides us with the opportunity to practice English with
appropriate strategies via the use of various technologies.
3. My teacher provides us with the opportunity to use English with
appropriate strategies via the use of various technologies.
4. The way my teacher teaches English with the computer is engaging.
5. The way my teacher teaches English with the computer is of help to
English with the computer is of help to.

REFERENCES

Tseng, J. J. (2014). Developing an instrument for assessing technological

pedagogical content knowledge as perceived by EFL students. Computer
Assisted Language Learning. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.941369
Yurdakul, I. K., Odabasi, H. F., Kilicer, K., Coklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt,
A. A. (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-Deep: A
technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Computers & Education,
58(3), 964–977. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.012

168
 169

Related Readings

To continue IGI Global’s long-standing tradition of advancing innovation

through emerging research, please find below a compiled list of recommended
IGI Global book chapters and journal articles in the areas of online learning,
asynchronous learning experiences, and technological pedagogical content
knowledge. These related readings will provide additional information and
guidance to further enrich your knowledge and assist you with your own
research.

Abdelaziz, H. A. (2014). Creative Design of Interactive eLearning Activities

and Materials (IEAM): A Psycho-Pedagogical Model. International Journal
of Technology Diffusion, 5(4), 14–34. doi:10.4018/ijtd.2014100102
Abdelmalak, M. M., & Parra, J. L. (2016). Expanding Learning Opportunities
for Graduate Students with HyFlex Course Design. International Journal
of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 6(4), 19–37. doi:10.4018/
IJOPCD.2016100102
Abera, B. (2014). Applying a Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Framework in Ethiopian English Language Teacher Education. In T. Issa,
P. Isaias, & P. Kommers (Eds.), Multicultural Awareness and Technology
in Higher Education: Global Perspectives (pp. 286–301). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5876-9.ch014
Adegbenro, J. B., Gumbo, M. T., & Olugbara, O. O. (2015). Exploring
Technological Knowledge of Office Data Processing Teachers: Using Factor
Analytic Methods. In M. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 548–576). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4.ch021
 Related Readings

Amador, F., Nobre, A., & Barros, D. (2016). Towards a Model of a Didactics
of eLearning: An Application to Education for Sustainable Development.
In M. Pinheiro & D. Simões (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Engaging
Digital Natives in Higher Education Settings (pp. 396–415). Hershey, PA:
IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0039-1.ch019
Amador, J. M., Kimmons, R., Miller, B. G., Desjardins, C. D., & Hall, C.
(2015). Preparing Preservice Teachers to Become Self-Reflective of Their
Technology Integration Practices. In M. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 81–107).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4.ch004
Archambault, L. (2014). Teaching Virtually: Strategies and Challenges in the
21st Century Online Classroom. International Journal of Online Pedagogy
and Course Design, 4(1), 1–15. doi:10.4018/ijopcd.2014010101
Arinze, B., Sylla, C., & Amobi, O. (2016). Cloud Computing for Teaching
and Learning: Design Strategies. In L. Chao (Ed.), Handbook of Research
on Cloud-Based STEM Education for Improved Learning Outcomes (pp.
159–171). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9924-3.ch011
Aşık, A. (2016). Digital Storytelling and Its Tools for Language Teaching:
Perceptions and Reflections of Pre-Service Teachers. International Journal
of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 55–68.
doi:10.4018/IJCALLT.2016010104
Attard, C. (2015). Introducing iPads into Primary Mathematics Classrooms:
Teachers’ Experiences and Pedagogies. In M. Meletiou-Mavrotheris, K.
Mavrou, & E. Paparistodemou (Eds.), Integrating Touch-Enabled and Mobile
Devices into Contemporary Mathematics Education (pp. 193–213). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8714-1.ch009
Baert, H. (2015). Technology Tools, Proficiency, and Integration of Physical
Education Teacher Educators. In M. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook
of Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 223–254). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4.ch009
Banas, J. R., & York, C. S. (2014). The Impact of Authentic Learning
Exercises On Pre-service Teachers’ Motivational Beliefs towards Technology
Integration. International Journal of Information and Communication
Technology Education, 10(3), 60–76. doi:10.4018/ijicte.2014070105

170
Related Readings

Barakat, M., & Weiss-Randall, D. N. (2016). Through the Eyes of Students

and Faculty: A Conceptual Framework for the Development of Online
Courses. In V. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Learning Outcomes
and Opportunities in the Digital Age (pp. 557–584). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9577-1.ch025
Baran, M. L., & Jones, J. E. (2014). Online Learning: Guidelines for Team
Effectiveness. In C. Stevenson & J. Bauer (Eds.), Building Online Communities
in Higher Education Institutions: Creating Collaborative Experience (pp.
279–292). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5178-4.ch015
Barbour, M. K., Adelstein, D., & Morrison, J. (2014). The Forgotten Teachers
in K-12 Online Learning: Examining the Perceptions of Teachers Who Develop
K-12 Online Courses. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course
Design, 4(3), 18–33. doi:10.4018/ijopcd.2014070102
Boboc, M. (2014). Connecting Communication to Curriculum and Pedagogy
in Online Environments. In C. Stevenson & J. Bauer (Eds.), Building Online
Communities in Higher Education Institutions: Creating Collaborative
Experience (pp. 132–156). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-
4666-5178-4.ch007
Borasi, R., Fredericksen, E., & Miller, D. (2017). From 0 to 60: The Case Study
of a School of Education’s Successful “Online Start-Up”. In K. Shelton & K.
Pedersen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Building (pp. 60–83). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0877-9.ch004
Bowers, J., & Kumar, P. (2015). Students’ Perceptions of Teaching and Social
Presence: A Comparative Analysis of Face-to-Face and Online Learning
Environments. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching
Technologies, 10(1), 27–44. doi:10.4018/ijwltt.2015010103
Breen, P. (2014). Philosophies, Traditional Pedagogy, and New Technologies:
A Report on a Case Study of EAP Teachers’ Integration of Technology
into Traditional Practice. In P. Breen (Ed.), Cases on Teacher Identity (pp.
317–341). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5990-2.ch013
Brockmeier, F. (2017). Service Learning Online: Preparing to Work in Global
Societies with E-Service-Learning. In C. Crosby & F. Brockmeier (Eds.),
Student Experiences and Educational Outcomes in Community Engagement
for the 21st Century (pp. 150–172). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-5225-0874-8.ch007

171
 Related Readings

Brunvand, S. (2016). Facilitating Student Interaction and Collaboration in a

MOOC Environment. In R. Mendoza-Gonzalez (Ed.), User-Centered Design
Strategies for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) (pp. 1–14). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9743-0.ch001
Bull, P. H., & Patterson, G. C. (2016). Strategies to Promote Pedagogical
Knowledge Interplay with Technology. In J. Keengwe & G. Onchwari (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Active Learning and the Flipped Classroom Model
in the Digital Age (pp. 255–271). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-4666-9680-8.ch013
Bush, S. B., Driskell, S. O., Niess, M. L., Pugalee, D., Rakes, C. R., & Ronau,
R. N. (2015). The Impact of Digital Technologies in Mathematics Pre-Service
Teacher Preparation over Four Decades. In M. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp.
1–27). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4.ch001
Chen, C. (2016). Effective Learning Strategies for the 21st Century: Implications
for the E-Learning. In M. Anderson & C. Gavan (Eds.), Developing Effective
Educational Experiences through Learning Analytics (pp. 143–169). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9983-0.ch006
Chen, C., Chiu, P., & Huang, Y. (2015). The Learning Style-Based Adaptive
Learning System Architecture. International Journal of Online Pedagogy
and Course Design, 5(2), 1–10. doi:10.4018/IJOPCD.2015040101
Cheng, H. (2017). A TL-TPACK Model on CSL Pre-Service Teachers’
Competencies of Online Instruction. In C. Lin, D. Zhang, & B. Zheng (Eds.),
Preparing Foreign Language Teachers for Next-Generation Education (pp.
198–225). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0483-2.ch011
Çınar, M., & Tüzün, H. (2016). Web-Based Course Design Models. In M.
Pinheiro & D. Simões (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Engaging Digital
Natives in Higher Education Settings (pp. 374–395). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0039-1.ch018
Conrad, S. S., & Dabbagh, N. (2015). Examining the Factors that Influence
how Instructors Provide Feedback in Online Learning Environments.
International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 5(4), 47–66.
doi:10.4018/IJOPCD.2015100104

172
Related Readings

Courey, S., LePage, P., Blackorby, J., Siker, J., & Nguyen, T. (2015). The
Effects of Using Dynabook to Prepare Special Education Teachers to Teach
Proportional Reasoning. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and
Teaching Technologies, 10(1), 45–64. doi:10.4018/ijwltt.2015010104
Cranton, P., & Thompson, P. (2014). Creating Collaboration in Global
Online Learning: Case Studies. In V. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of Research
on Education and Technology in a Changing Society (pp. 92–103). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6046-5.ch007
de Groot, C., Fogleman, J., & Kern, D. (2015). Using Mobile Technologies to
Co-Construct TPACK in Teacher Education. In J. Keengwe & M. Maxfield
(Eds.), Advancing Higher Education with Mobile Learning Technologies:
Cases (pp. 195–219). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-
6284-1.ch011
Deyoe, M. M., Newman, D. L., & Asaro-Saddler, K. (2014). Moving from
Professional Development to Real-Time Use: How are we Changing Students?
In J. Keengwe, G. Onchwari, & D. Hucks (Eds.), Literacy Enrichment and
Technology Integration in Pre-Service Teacher Education (pp. 160–182).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4924-8.ch010
Dick, T. P., & Burrill, G. F. (2016). Design and Implementation Principles for
Dynamic Interactive Mathematics Technologies. In M. Niess, S. Driskell, &
K. Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Transforming Mathematics
Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 23–51). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0120-6.ch002
Dodd, B. J., Baukal, C. E. Jr, & Ausburn, L. J. (2016). A Post-Positivist
Framework for Using and Building Theory in Online Instructional Design.
International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 6(4), 53–70.
doi:10.4018/IJOPCD.2016100104
Driskell, S. O., Bush, S. B., Ronau, R. N., Niess, M. L., Rakes, C. R., &
Pugalee, D. K. (2016). Mathematics Education Technology Professional
Development: Changes over Several Decades. In M. Niess, S. Driskell, &
K. Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Transforming Mathematics
Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 107–136). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0120-6.ch005

173
 Related Readings

Dunston, Y. L., Patterson, G. C., & Bull, P. H. (2016). Faculty Perspectives of

Technology-Enhanced Course Redesign. In J. Keengwe & G. Onchwari (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Active Learning and the Flipped Classroom Model
in the Digital Age (pp. 150–176). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-4666-9680-8.ch008
Duvall, M., Matranga, A., Foster, A., & Silverman, J. (2016). Mobile
Learning: Technology as Mediator of Personal and School Experiences.
International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 6(1), 30–42. doi:10.4018/
IJGBL.2016010103
Edson, A. J., & Thomas, A. (2016). Transforming Preservice Mathematics
Teacher Knowledge for and with the Enacted Curriculum: The Case of Digital
Instructional Materials. In M. Niess, S. Driskell, & K. Hollebrands (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Transforming Mathematics Teacher Education in
the Digital Age (pp. 215–240). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-5225-0120-6.ch009
Fasso, W., Knight, C., & Knight, B. A. (2014). A Learner-Centered Design
Framework for E-Learning. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and
Course Design, 4(4), 44–59. doi:10.4018/ijopcd.2014100104
Felger, J., & Shafer, K. G. (2016). An Algebra Teacher’s Instructional
Decision-Making Process with GeoGebra: Thinking with a TPACK Mindset.
In M. Niess, S. Driskell, & K. Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook of Research
on Transforming Mathematics Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp.
493–518). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0120-6.ch019
Fife, E., Nelson, C. L., & Clarke, T. B. (2014). Online Technological Media
in the Higher Education Classroom: An Exploratory Investigation of Varied
Levels of Twitter Use. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course
Design, 4(2), 35–45. doi:10.4018/ijopcd.2014040103
Figg, C., & Jaipal-Jamani, K. (2015). Developing Teacher Knowledge about
Gamification as an Instructional Strategy. In M. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp.
663–690). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4.ch025

174
Related Readings

Finger, G. (2015). Improving Initial Teacher Education in Australia: Solutions

and Recommendations from the Teaching Teachers for the Future Project.
In N. Ololube, P. Kpolovie, & L. Makewa (Eds.), Handbook of Research on
Enhancing Teacher Education with Advanced Instructional Technologies (pp.
187–207). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8162-0.ch010
Flores, A., Park, J., & Bernhardt, S. A. (2016). Learning Mathematics and
Technology through Inquiry, Cooperation, and Communication: A Learning
Trajectory for Future Mathematics Teachers. In M. Niess, S. Driskell, & K.
Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Transforming Mathematics
Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 324–352). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0120-6.ch013
Fokides, E. (2016). Pre-Service Teachers, Computers, and ICT Courses:
A Troubled Relationship. International Journal of Information and
Communication Technology Education, 12(4), 25–36. doi:10.4018/
IJICTE.2016100103
Foster, A., & Shah, M. (2016). Knew Me and New Me: Facilitating Student
Identity Exploration and Learning through Game Integration. International
Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 8(3), 39–58.
doi:10.4018/IJGCMS.2016070103
Frazier, L. C., & Palmer, B. M. (2015). Effective Online Learning Begins with
Effective Teacher Preparation. In T. Heafner, R. Hartshorne, & T. Petty (Eds.),
Exploring the Effectiveness of Online Education in K-12 Environments (pp.
148–168). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6383-1.ch008
Gallagher-Lepak, S., & Vandenhouten, C. (2016). E-Learning and Faculty
Development in Higher Education: A Comprehensive Project. In B. Khan
(Ed.), Revolutionizing Modern Education through Meaningful E-Learning
Implementation (pp. 226–244). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-5225-0466-5.ch012
Gautreau, C. S., Stang, K. K., Street, C., & Guillaume, A. (2014). Making the
Move: Supporting Faculty in the Transition to Blended or Online Courses.
[IJOPCD]. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design,
4(1), 27–42. doi:10.4018/ijopcd.2014010103

175
 Related Readings

Gikandi, J. W. (2015). Towards a Theory of Formative Assessment in Online

Higher Education. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational
Technology Integration and Active Learning (pp. 292–316). Hershey, PA:
IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8363-1.ch014
Gikandi, J. W. (2017). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning and
Assessment: A Strategy for Developing Online Learning Communities in
Continuing Education. In J. Keengwe & G. Onchwari (Eds.), Handbook
of Research on Learner-Centered Pedagogy in Teacher Education and
Professional Development (pp. 309–333). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0892-2.ch017
Gillow-Wiles, H., & Niess, M. L. (2015). Engaging Google Docs to Support
Collaboration and Reflection in Online Teacher Education. In M. Niess &
H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education in the
Digital Age (pp. 635–662). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-
4666-8403-4.ch024
Gillow-Wiles, H., & Niess, M. L. (2016). A Reconstructed Conception of
Learner Engagement in Technology Rich Online Learning Environments.
In M. Niess, S. Driskell, & K. Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook of Research
on Transforming Mathematics Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp.
577–607). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0120-6.ch022
Golden, J. E., & Brown, V. (2017). A Holistic Professional Development
Model: A Case Study to Support Faculty Transition to Online Teaching. In
C. Martin & D. Polly (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education
and Professional Development (pp. 259–284). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1067-3.ch014
Goodson-Espy, T., & Poling, L. (2015). Interactive Whiteboards: Preparing
Secondary Mathematics Teachers to Avoid Catch-22. In D. Polly (Ed.), Cases
on Technology Integration in Mathematics Education (pp. 288–307). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6497-5.ch014
Guan, S. (2014). Internet-Based Technology Use in Second Language
Learning: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Cyber Behavior,
Psychology and Learning, 4(4), 69–81. doi:10.4018/ijcbpl.2014100106

176
Related Readings

Gupta, S., Taneja, S., & Kumar, N. (2015). Redefining the Classroom:
Integration of Open and Classroom Learning in Higher Education. In E.
McKay & J. Lenarcic (Eds.), Macro-Level Learning through Massive
Open Online Courses (MOOCs) (pp. 168–182). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8324-2.ch010
Hadjileontiadou, S. J., Dias, S. B., Diniz, J. A., & Hadjileontiadis, L. J. (2015).
Understanding Online Learning Environments (OLEs). In Fuzzy Logic-Based
Modeling in Collaborative and Blended Learning (pp. 18-50). Hershey, PA:
IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8705-9.ch002
Harkness, S. J. (2014). Program Administration and Implementation of an
Online Learning Initiative at a Historically Black College University. In
M. Orleans (Ed.), Cases on Critical and Qualitative Perspectives in Online
Higher Education (pp. 44–60). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-4666-5051-0.ch003
Harrington, R. A., Driskell, S. O., Johnston, C. J., Browning, C. A., & Niess,
M. L. (2016). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Preparation
and Support of Mathematics Teachers. In M. Niess, S. Driskell, & K.
Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Transforming Mathematics
Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 1–22). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0120-6.ch001
Hennessey, S., Olofson, M. W., Swallow, M. J., & Downes, J. M. (2015).
Evolving Pedagogy and Practice: The 1:1 Mathematics Classroom through a
TPACK Lens. In M. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of Research
on Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 577–603). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4.ch022
Hilbert, E., & Mierau, K. (2014). Efficiency and Quality Improvement in
Online Course Development. In M. Orleans (Ed.), Cases on Critical and
Qualitative Perspectives in Online Higher Education (pp. 435–451). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5051-0.ch022
Hsien, O. L., Eak, A. D., Vighnarajah, S., Huah, G. L., & Teik, O. C. (2016).
Qualitative Findings on the Dynamics of Online Facilitation in Distance
Education. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design,
6(4), 1–18. doi:10.4018/IJOPCD.2016100101

177
 Related Readings

Huang, C., & Liu, E. Z. (2015). E-Tutor Perceptions towards the Star Rural
Area E-Learning Project. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and
Course Design, 5(1), 20–29. doi:10.4018/ijopcd.2015010102
Hunter, J. L. (2015). High Possibility Classrooms: A New Model for
Technology Integration. In M. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 466–492). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4.ch018
Hurtado, I. G., & Llamas, J. M. (2014). Social Networks in University
Classrooms: An Experience of Teaching and Learning with Pre-Service
Teachers through Facebook. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and
Course Design, 4(3), 34–48. doi:10.4018/ijopcd.2014070103
Jang, J. E., & Lei, J. (2015). The Impact of Video Self-Analysis on the
Development of Preservice Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK). International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital
Competence, 6(4), 13–29. doi:10.4018/IJDLDC.2015100102
Jang, S., & Tsai, M. (2016). Exploring the Development of Pre-Service
Teachers’ ICT-TPACK using a Cognitive Stimulation Tool. In E. Railean,
G. Walker, A. Elçi, & L. Jackson (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Applied
Learning Theory and Design in Modern Education (pp. 380–404). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9634-1.ch018
Johnson, G. M., & Cooke, A. (2016). An Ecological Model of Student
Interaction in Online Learning Environments. In L. Kyei-Blankson, J.
Blankson, E. Ntuli, & C. Agyeman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on
Strategic Management of Interaction (pp. 1–28). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9582-5.ch001
Khan, K. P. (2017). Improving the Quality of Online Learning Environments:
The Value of an Online Specific Design Model. In K. Shelton & K. Pedersen
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Building (pp. 278–300). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0877-9.ch014
Knutas, A., Ikonen, J., Maggiorini, D., Ripamonti, L., & Porras, J. (2016).
Creating Student Interaction Profiles for Adaptive Collaboration Gamification
Design. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology
Professionals, 7(3), 47–62. doi:10.4018/IJHCITP.2016070104

178
Related Readings

Kumi-Yeboah, A. (2015). Learning Theory and Online Learning in K-12

Education: Instructional Models and Implications. In T. Heafner, R. Hartshorne,
& T. Petty (Eds.), Exploring the Effectiveness of Online Education in K-12
Environments (pp. 126–146). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-
4666-6383-1.ch007
Lee, K., & Brett, C. (2015). An Online Course Design for Inservice Teacher
Professional Development in a Digital Age: The Effectiveness of the Double-
Layered CoP Model. In M. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 55–80). Hershey, PA:
IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4.ch003
Limone, P., & Pace, R. (2016). Teacher Training and Digital Paths.
Revolution in the School: A Project for Lifelong Learning. International
Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 7(1), 1–18. doi:10.4018/
IJDLDC.2016010101
Linton, J., & Stegall, D. (2015). Common Core Standards for Mathematical
Practice and TPACK: An Integrated Approach to Instruction. In Standards
and Standardization: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp.
92-107). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8111-8.ch005
Liu, J. C., & Kaye, E. R. (2016). Preparing Online Learning Readiness with
Learner-Content Interaction: Design for Scaffolding Self-Regulated Learning.
In L. Kyei-Blankson, J. Blankson, E. Ntuli, & C. Agyeman (Eds.), Handbook
of Research on Strategic Management of Interaction (pp. 216–243). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9582-5.ch009
Lucas, K., & Murdock, J. (2014). Developing an Online Counseling Skills
Course. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 4(2),
46–63. doi:10.4018/ijopcd.2014040104
Lyublinskaya, I. (2015). Evolution of a Course for Special Education Teachers
on Integrating Technology into Math and Science. In M. Niess & H. Gillow-
Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age
(pp. 521–547). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4.
ch020
Mac Mahon, B., Grádaigh, S. Ó., & Ghuidhir, S. N. (2016). iTE: Student
Teachers using iPad on a Second Level Initial Teacher Education Programme.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 8(2), 21–34.
doi:10.4018/IJMBL.2016040102

179
 Related Readings

Maina, E. M., Wagacha, P. W., & Oboko, R. (2016). Enhancing Active

Learning Pedagogy through Online Collaborative Learning. In J. Keengwe
& G. Onchwari (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Active Learning and the
Flipped Classroom Model in the Digital Age (pp. 232–254). Hershey, PA:
IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9680-8.ch012
Marshall, A. M., & Callahan, K. M. (2016). Mathematics Teacher Educators’
TPACK and MKT Knowledge Domains: Designing Online Discussion Blogs.
In M. Niess, S. Driskell, & K. Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook of Research
on Transforming Mathematics Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp.
353–380). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0120-6.ch014
Matthews, A., & Kitchin, R. M. Jr. (2015). Examining Design Pattern Strategies
as a Means to Achieve Social Presence in the Online Classroom. In R. Wright
(Ed.), Student-Teacher Interaction in Online Learning Environments (pp.
22–49). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6461-6.ch002
McBroom, E. S., Jiang, Z., Sorto, M. A., White, A., & Dickey, E. (2016).
Dynamic Approach to Teaching Geometry: A Study of Teachers’ TPACK
Development. In M. Niess, S. Driskell, & K. Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook
of Research on Transforming Mathematics Teacher Education in the Digital
Age (pp. 519–550). Hershey, PA: IGI Glboal. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0120-
6.ch020
McGee, P. (2014). Blended Course Design: Where’s the Pedagogy?
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 6(1), 33–55.
doi:10.4018/ijmbl.2014010103
Medárová, V. (2014). E-Learning Tools Applied in Teaching English at the
University Level. In T. Issa, P. Isaias, & P. Kommers (Eds.), Multicultural
Awareness and Technology in Higher Education: Global Perspectives (pp.
156–175). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5876-9.ch008
Mellati, M., & Khademi, M. (2015). The Impacts of Distance Interactivity on
Learners’ Achievements in Online Mobile Language Learning: Social Software
and Participatory Learning. International Journal of Web-Based Learning
and Teaching Technologies, 10(3), 19–35. doi:10.4018/ijwltt.2015070102

180
Related Readings

Mishra, P., Henriksen, D., & Mehta, R. (2015). Creativity, Digitality, and
Teacher Professional Development: Unifying Theory, Research, and Practice.
In M. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher
Education in the Digital Age (pp. 691–722). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4.ch026
Modell, M. G. (2017). Learning to Lead Collaborative Student Groups to
Success. In C. Martin & D. Polly (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher
Education and Professional Development (pp. 187–209). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1067-3.ch010
Mulder, D. J. (2016). Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration:
International Cases and Generational Attitudes toward Technology in
Education. In J. Keengwe, J. Mbae, & G. Onchwari (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Global Issues in Next-Generation Teacher Education (pp.
83–103). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9948-9.ch005
Nicolete, P. C., Bento da Silva, J., Cristiano, M. A., Bilessimo, S. M., Ferreira
de Farias, G., & Filho, S. S. (2016). A Remote Mobile Experiment in Brazilian
Public Basic Education. In D. Parsons (Ed.), Mobile and Blended Learning
Innovations for Improved Learning Outcomes (pp. 121–142). Hershey, PA:
IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0359-0.ch007
Niess, M. L., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2016). Mathematics Teachers’ Knowledge-
of-Practice with Technologies in an Online Masters’ Program: Scoop Action
Research Experiences and Reflections. In M. Niess, S. Driskell, & K.
Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Transforming Mathematics
Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 463–492). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0120-6.ch018
Niess, M. L., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2017). Innovative Instructional Strategies
for an Online Community of Learners: Reconstructing Teachers’ Knowledge.
In C. Martin & D. Polly (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education
and Professional Development (pp. 499–526). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1067-3.ch028
Norris, S. E. (2016). Designing Online MBA Programs to Promote
Transformative Learning and Knowledge Creation through Project-Based
Learning Using the Job Characteristics Model. In V. Wang (Ed.), Handbook
of Research on Learning Outcomes and Opportunities in the Digital Age
(pp. 1–26). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9577-1.ch001

181
 Related Readings

Oh, E. G., & Reeves, T. C. (2015). Collaborating Online: A Logic Model

of Online Collaborative Group Work for Adult Learners. International
Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 5(3), 47–61. doi:10.4018/
ijopcd.2015070104
Okojie, M. C. (2014). Designing and Delivering Web-Based Instruction to
Adult Learners in Higher Education. In J. Keengwe, G. Schnellert, & K.
Kungu (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Online Learning in Higher Education and
Corporate Training (pp. 1–19). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-4666-5023-7.ch001
Orellana, A. (2017). A Framework to Assess Appropriate Interaction to
Meet Accreditation Quality Guidelines. In K. Shelton & K. Pedersen (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Building (pp. 253–276). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0877-9.ch013
Orrill, C. H., & Polly, D. (2016). Developing Teachers’ TPACK for Mathematics
through Professional Development: The Case of InterMath. In M. Niess, S.
Driskell, & K. Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Transforming
Mathematics Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 433–462). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0120-6.ch017
Ossiannilsson, E. (2015). Quality Enhancement for Mobile Learning in Higher
Education. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Promoting Active Learning through the
Integration of Mobile and Ubiquitous Technologies (pp. 167–182). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6343-5.ch010
Ouyang, F. (2016). Applying the Polysynchronous Learning to Foster the
Student-centered Learning in the Higher Education Context: A Blended Course
Design. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 6(3),
52–68. doi:10.4018/IJOPCD.2016070105
Owusu, K. A., Conner, L., & Astall, C. (2015). Contextual Influences on
Science Teachers’ TPACK Levels. In M. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 307–333).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4.ch012
Papanikolaou, K. A., Makrh, K., Magoulas, G. D., Chinou, D., Georgalas,
A., & Roussos, P. (2016). Synthesizing Technological and Pedagogical
Knowledge in Learning Design: A Case Study in Teacher Training on
Technology Enhanced Learning. International Journal of Digital Literacy
and Digital Competence, 7(1), 19–32. doi:10.4018/IJDLDC.2016010102

182
Related Readings

Patel, K. (2015). Planning, Designing, Implementing, and Managing Social

Presence in Online Programs and Online Classes. In R. Wright (Ed.), Student-
Teacher Interaction in Online Learning Environments (pp. 346–372). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6461-6.ch016
Petrucco, C., & Grion, V. (2015). An Exploratory Study on Perceptions and
Use of Technology by Novice and Future Teachers: More Information and
Less On-Line Collaboration? International Journal of Digital Literacy and
Digital Competence, 6(3), 50–64. doi:10.4018/IJDLDC.2015070104
Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., & Day, S. L. (2015). Online Learning in Illinois
High Schools: The Voices of Principals! In T. Heafner, R. Hartshorne, &
T. Petty (Eds.), Exploring the Effectiveness of Online Education in K-12
Environments (pp. 1–18). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-
4666-6383-1.ch001
Polly, D. (2015). Leveraging Asynchronous Online Instruction to Develop
Elementary School Mathematics Teacher-Leaders. In P. Ordóñez de Pablos,
R. Tennyson, & M. Lytras (Eds.), Assessing the Role of Mobile Technologies
and Distance Learning in Higher Education (pp. 78–99). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-7316-8.ch004
Polly, D., Binns, I. C., Putman, S. M., Rock, T. C., & Good, A. J. (2015).
Developing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Elementary
Education Programs. In M. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 493–520). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4.ch019
Polly, D., Martin, C., Wang, C., Lambert, R. G., Pugalee, D. K., & Middleton,
C. W. (2016). The Influence of Professional Development on Primary Teachers’
TPACK and Use of Formative Assessment. In M. Niess, S. Driskell, & K.
Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Transforming Mathematics
Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 382–405). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0120-6.ch015
Putman, S. M., Kissel, B., Vintinner, J., & Good, A. J. (2015). Online Learning
in K-College Classrooms: Students and Teachers Establish Social, Cognitive,
and Teaching Presences in Digital Spaces. In T. Heafner, R. Hartshorne, &
T. Petty (Eds.), Exploring the Effectiveness of Online Education in K-12
Environments (pp. 191–211). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-
4666-6383-1.ch010

183
 Related Readings

Pytash, K. E., & Testa, E. (2015). Access Denied: Preservice Teachers’

Integration of Technology for Teaching Writing. International Journal
of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 6(4), 49–63. doi:10.4018/
IJDLDC.2015100104
Ray, B. B., Hocutt, M. M., & Hooley, D. (2014). Use of an Online Simulation
to Promote Content Learning. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and
Course Design, 4(1), 43–57. doi:10.4018/ijopcd.2014010104
Razak, R. A., Yusop, F. D., Idris, A. Y., & Halili, S. H. (2016). A Proposed
Performance-Based System for Teacher Interactive Electronic Continuous
Professional Development (TIE-CPD). International Journal of Web-
Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 11(4), 35–45. doi:10.4018/
IJWLTT.2016100103
Reyes, V. C. Jr, Reading, C., Rizk, N., Gregory, S., & Doyle, H. (2016). An
Exploratory Analysis of TPACK Perceptions of Pre-Service Science Teachers:
A Regional Australian Perspective. International Journal of Information
and Communication Technology Education, 12(4), 1–14. doi:10.4018/
IJICTE.2016100101
Ritzhaupt, A. D., Poling, N., Frey, C., Kang, Y., & Johnson, M. (2016). A
Phenomenological Study of Games, Simulations, and Virtual Environments
Courses: What Are We Teaching and How? International Journal of
Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 8(3), 59–73. doi:10.4018/
IJGCMS.2016070104
Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and Teaching with
Technology in the Digital Age. In M. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 440–465).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4.ch017
Sankey, M., & Hunt, L. (2014). Flipped University Classrooms: Using
Technology to Enable Sound Pedagogy. Journal of Cases on Information
Technology, 16(2), 26–38. doi:10.4018/jcit.2014040103
Scheg, A. G. (2014). Examining Guidebooks as an Online Pedagogy Resource.
In Reforming Teacher Education for Online Pedagogy Development (pp.
77-99). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5055-8.ch004

184
Related Readings

Seals, C., Horton, A., Berzina-Pitcher, I., & Mishra, P. (2017). A New
Understanding of our Confusion: Insights from a Year-Long STEM Fellowship
Program. In C. Martin & D. Polly (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher
Education and Professional Development (pp. 582–604). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1067-3.ch032
Seifert, T. (2015). Pedagogical Applications of Smartphone Integration
in Teaching: Lecturers, Pre-Service Teachers and Pupils’ Perspectives.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 7(2), 1–16.
doi:10.4018/ijmbl.2015040101
Semingson, P., Hurlbut, A., Owens, D., & Robertson, M. (2017). Scaffolding
Digital Writing and Storytelling in Online-Only Teacher Education Courses.
In J. Keengwe & G. Onchwari (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learner-
Centered Pedagogy in Teacher Education and Professional Development (pp.
104–127). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0892-2.ch006
Seufert, S., & Scheffler, N. (2016). Developing Digital Competences of
Vocational Teachers. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital
Competence, 7(1), 50–65. doi:10.4018/IJDLDC.2016010104
Shah, M., & Foster, A. (2014). The Inquiry, Communication, Construction and
Expression (ICCE) Framework for Understanding Learning Experiences in
Games. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments,
5(2), 1–14. doi:10.4018/ijvple.2014040101
Sheffield, R., & Quinton, G. (2017). Case Studies of Scaffolded On-Line
Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Classrooms: Technology and Inquiry in
a Science Context. In N. Ostashewski, J. Howell, & M. Cleveland-Innes
(Eds.), Optimizing K-12 Education through Online and Blended Learning (pp.
240–255). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0507-5.ch013
Shelton, K., Mason, D., & Cummings, C. (2014). Strategies for Online Course
Development to Promote Student Success. In V. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of
Research on Education and Technology in a Changing Society (pp. 152–164).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6046-5.ch012
Skinner, L., Witte, M. M., & Wohleb, E. (2014). Defining Quality Standards,
Guidelines, and Strategies for the Delivery of Successful Online Education in
a Changing Society. In V. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Education
and Technology in a Changing Society (pp. 190–201). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6046-5.ch015

185
 Related Readings

Smith, N. J., & Bhattacharya, K. (2015). Practical Wisdom of Tool and Task:
Meeting the Demands of the Method with Digital Tools in Qualitatively
Driven Mixed Methods Studies. In S. Hai-Jew (Ed.), Enhancing Qualitative
and Mixed Methods Research with Technology (pp. 210–230). Hershey, PA:
IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6493-7.ch009
Sorensen, C. (2016). Online Learning at the K-12 Level: An Examination
of Teacher Technology Use by Subject Area and Grade Level. International
Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 6(2), 15–28. doi:10.4018/
IJOPCD.2016040102
Sprague, D. R., & Katradis, M. (2015). The Transference between Elementary
Preservice Teachers’ Courses and Technology Use in Teaching. In M. Niess
& H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education in
the Digital Age (pp. 108–134). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-4666-8403-4.ch005
Suh, J. M., Sprague, D. R., & Baker, C. K. (2016). Transforming Mathematics
Teacher Knowledge in the Digital Age through Iterative Design of Course-
Based Projects. In M. Niess, S. Driskell, & K. Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook
of Research on Transforming Mathematics Teacher Education in the Digital
Age (pp. 190–214). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0120-
6.ch008
Sun, Z., You, J., Song, W., Qu, Z., & Luo, L. (2017). Identifying the
Contributors to Improve Mobile-Based TPACK Competency of Elementary
School Teachers in China. In C. Lin, D. Zhang, & B. Zheng (Eds.), Preparing
Foreign Language Teachers for Next-Generation Education (pp. 74–91).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0483-2.ch005
Tammaro, R., & D’Alessio, A. (2016). Teacher Training and Digital
Competence: A Pedagogical Recommendation. International Journal
of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 7(2), 1–10. doi:10.4018/
IJDLDC.2016040101
Tankari, M. (2014). Cultural Orientation Differences and their Implications
for Online Learning Satisfaction. In J. Keengwe, G. Schnellert, & K. Kungu
(Eds.), Cross-Cultural Online Learning in Higher Education and Corporate
Training (pp. 20–61). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-
5023-7.ch002

186
Related Readings

Thomas, J. A., & Parkison, P. (2015). The Impact upon Comprehension and
Reading Tasks of Preservice Elementary Teachers Using a Web 2.0 Reading
Extension. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design,
5(4), 14–26. doi:10.4018/IJOPCD.2015100102
Trespalacios, J., & Rand, J. (2015). Using Asynchronous Activities to Promote
Sense of Community and Learning in an Online Course. International
Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 5(4), 1–13. doi:10.4018/
IJOPCD.2015100101
Tsai, C., Shen, P., & Lin, R. (2015). Exploring the Effects of Student-Centered
Project-Based Learning with Initiation on Students’ Computing Skills: A
Quasi-Experimental Study of Digital Storytelling. International Journal
of Information and Communication Technology Education, 11(1), 27–43.
doi:10.4018/ijicte.2015010102
Vasinda, S., Kander, F., & Redmond-Sanogo, A. (2015). University Reading
and Mathematics Clinics in the Digital Age: Opportunities and Challenges
with iPad Integration. In M. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 135–163). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4.ch006
Villagrasa, S., Fonseca, D., Redondo, E., & Duran, J. (2014). Teaching Case
of Gamification and Visual Technologies for Education. Journal of Cases on
Information Technology, 16(4), 38–57. doi:10.4018/jcit.2014100104
Wang, L., Wu, Y., & Hu, C. (2016). English Teachers’ Practice and Perspectives
on Using Educational Computer Games in EIL Context. International
Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 12(3), 33–46. doi:10.4018/
IJTHI.2016070103
Wang, W., & Feng, L. (2017). Technology Standards for Chinese Language
Teacher Education. In C. Lin, D. Zhang, & B. Zheng (Eds.), Preparing Foreign
Language Teachers for Next-Generation Education (pp. 38–54). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0483-2.ch003
Wiburg, K., Chamberlin, B., Trujillo, K. M., Parra, J. L., & Stanford, T.
(2016). Transforming Mathematics Teaching through Games and Inquiry.
In M. Niess, S. Driskell, & K. Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook of Research
on Transforming Mathematics Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp.
52–77). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0120-6.ch003

187
 Related Readings

Widjaja, A. E., Chen, J. V., & Hiele, T. M. (2016). The Effect of Online
Participation in Online Learning Course for Studying Trust in Information
and Communication Technologies. International Journal of Cyber Behavior,
Psychology and Learning, 6(3), 79–93. doi:10.4018/IJCBPL.2016070106
Wilson, N. S., Zygouris-Coe, V. V., & Cardullo, V. M. (2015). Teacher
Development, Support, and Training with Mobile Technologies. In J. Keengwe
& M. Maxfield (Eds.), Advancing Higher Education with Mobile Learning
Technologies: Cases (pp. 88–113). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-4666-6284-1.ch005
Woodley, X. M., Mucundanyi, G., & Lockard, M. (2017). Designing
Counter-Narratives: Constructing Culturally Responsive Curriculum Online.
International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 7(1), 43–56.
doi:10.4018/IJOPCD.2017010104
Wright, M. K. (2016). A Design Theory for Vigilant Online Learning Systems.
International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector, 8(1),
13–33. doi:10.4018/IJISSS.2016010102
Wright, N. (2015). Vignettes of Pedagogical Practices with iPads: Reinforcing
Pedagogy, Not Transforming It. International Journal of Online Pedagogy
and Course Design, 5(3), 62–73. doi:10.4018/ijopcd.2015070105
Wright, V. H., & Davis, A. (2016). Integrating Technology in Nurse Education:
Tools for Professional Development, Teaching, and Clinical Experiences.
In V. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Advancing Health Education
through Technology (pp. 23–38). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-4666-9494-1.ch002
Wu, H., Shen, P., Chen, Y., & Tsai, C. (2016). Effects of Web-based Cognitive
Apprenticeship and Time Management on the Development of Computing
Skills in Cloud Classroom: A Quasi-Experimental Approach. International
Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 12(3),
1–12. doi:10.4018/IJICTE.2016070101
Xia, B. S. (2017). A Pedagogical Review of Programming Education Research:
What Have We Learned. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and
Course Design, 7(1), 33–42. doi:10.4018/IJOPCD.2017010103

188
Related Readings

Yarnall, L., & Fusco, J. (2015). A Framework for Supporting In-Service

Teachers to Use Domain-Specific Technologies for Instruction. In M. Niess
& H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education in
the Digital Age (pp. 604–634). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-4666-8403-4.ch023
Zhang, B. (2015). Bridging the Social and Teaching Presence Gap in Online
Learning. In R. Wright (Ed.), Student-Teacher Interaction in Online Learning
Environments (pp. 158–182). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-
4666-6461-6.ch008

189
190

About the Authors

Mehrak Rahimi is an associate professor of Applied and Computational

Linguistics. She has been working in English Department of Shahid Rajaee
Teacher Training University in Tehran, Iran since 2003. Dr. Rahimi has
published research papers in international journals such as Computers in
Human Behavior and Curriculum Journal. She has been the editor of the
Handbook of Research on Individual Differences in CALL. Her main field
of study is CALL.

Shakiba Pourshahbaz is an experienced English teacher. She has received

her MA in TEFL from English Department of Shahid Rajaee Teacher Train-
ing University, Tehran, Iran. Her main field of interest is teacher education.
 191

Index

C I
CALL 1-17, 19, 22-24, 29-31, 39, 45, 68, ICT 19, 24, 29-30, 34-35, 38-39, 42-45,
123-124, 127, 146, 153-155 68, 70, 79, 85-87, 91, 93, 104-106,
communication 14, 17, 43, 59-60, 64, 80, 108-109, 115-116, 129-132, 140, 146,
86-87, 104, 116, 130, 132-135, 157 152-153, 157
Computer 1-3, 5-6, 9, 14, 19, 21-22, 31, 92, ill-structured discipline 78
108, 115, 125-126, 128-129, 131-132, in-service 82, 106, 119-120, 130-131, 140,
140, 144, 154-155 152-155, 157
Computer Assisted 2-3, 22
content knowledge 34, 53, 55, 57, 60, 62, K
78, 81-84, 89, 95, 103-105, 107-108,
136, 141, 144, 154-157, 159 knowledge 4, 11, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 45,
53-58, 60-70, 78-84, 86-90, 92, 95,
E 103-111, 115-123, 126, 128-130, 132-
137, 140-141, 144, 146, 153-157, 159
EFL 29, 33, 35, 42, 45, 53, 59-60, 64-69,
112, 115-116, 119, 122-124, 132, L
146, 152-159
English 19, 59-61, 116, 124, 132, 134, language 1-6, 8-10, 12, 14, 17-19, 22-
136-139, 141, 144, 153-157 24, 29-36, 38-41, 44, 53-54, 58-66,
English language 59-61, 124, 132, 137, 68-70, 79-80, 92, 95, 116, 118-119,
139, 153, 155-156 122-125, 128, 131-132, 134-140, 144,
English-speaking teacher 116 146, 153-158
Language Learning 1-4, 8, 10, 18, 22, 30-
F 31, 36, 38-39, 63, 79, 133, 136, 138,
155-156
foreign language 19, 29-34, 38, 58-60, 64,
124-125, 136, 154, 157-158 P
frameworks 1-2, 22, 53, 64-66, 78, 81-82,
95, 115, 126, 146, 158 pre-service 43, 82, 107-109, 111, 119-120,
full-fledged discipline 2 140, 152-153, 155-156, 158
 Index

S 85-92, 95, 104-111, 115-116, 119,

123-130, 132, 139-141, 144, 146,
studies 2, 16-17, 19, 24, 34, 38, 40-41, 44, 152-158
56, 67, 78, 82, 90-91, 95, 103-105, 107, technology-mediated instruction 30, 34
109-110, 112, 128, 130, 132, 152, 159 tools 12, 19, 22, 38, 42-44, 68, 70, 79-80,
86-87, 89-91, 105, 116, 128, 140
T TPACK 70, 78, 81-85, 88-93, 95, 103-112,
115-116, 123-124, 129, 132, 146,
Teaching 1-6, 8-11, 17, 19, 22, 24, 29, 31- 152-153, 155-159
33, 35-36, 38-45, 53-54, 57-65, 67-70,
78-81, 83, 87-88, 90-93, 103-104, 106- W
109, 115-120, 123-124, 131-132, 134,
136-141, 144, 146, 153-154, 156-157 Western countries 152
Technology 1-5, 10, 14, 16, 18, 23-24, 29-
31, 33-34, 38-45, 53, 68-70, 79-82,

192