Asia-Pacific Edu Res

DOI 10.1007/s40299-015-0240-7

REGULAR ARTICLE

Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge in Teaching

English as a Foreign Language: Representation of Primary
Teachers of English in Taiwan
Ying-Tien Wu1 • Amber Yayin Wang2

 De La Salle University 2015

Abstract The importance of teachers’ technological, technology for creating opportunities for students to use
pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) in con- English language meaningfully and authentically.
ducting effective technology-enhanced instruction has been
recognized; however, the understanding of teachers’ Keywords Technological pedagogical and content
TPACK when teaching English as a Foreign Language knowledge (TPACK)
TPACK in English language arts

(EFL), as well as the need for their further TPACK de- English as foreign language (EFL)

velopment, has not been properly addressed. To fill the gap Technology integrated in English instruction

in TPACK research in the EFL domain, this study aims to Elementary school teachers of English

explore the TPACK among 22 in-service EFL teachers at Teacher professional knowledge
elementary schools in Taiwan. Also, the possible needs of
these EFL teachers for their future professional develop-
ment were investigated. In order to better portray the Introduction
TPACK of the EFL teachers, both their synthesized
TPACK and performance on the seven TPACK construct In view of the rapid advancement of technology, a great
components were evaluated in this study. A quantitative deal of attention is being paid to researching and devel-
questionnaire was used to assess the EFL teachers’ per- oping TPACK to ensure that teaching is effective. In the
formance on the seven TPACK construct components. past decade, there have been many discussions on TPACK,
Their synthesized TPACK was revealed by means of in- and it has been extensively studied. Areas of discussion and
terviews and classroom observations. The Revised research have included establishing a conceptual frame-
Bloom’s Taxonomy and the pedagogic framework for work (e.g., Mishra and Koehler 2006), conducting pre-
computer-assisted language learning were used to analyze liminary enquiries (e.g., Ferdig 2006), creating assessment
the qualitative data collected from the interviews and class tools (e.g., Koh et al. 2010), and exploring TPACK in
observations. The results indicated that the EFL teachers specific domains (e.g., Graham et al. 2009; Niess et al.
needed more technology knowledge to further develop 2009). It is clear that the importance of TPACK in
their TPACK, and that the EFL teachers’ TPACK focused preparing effective teachers for this technological age has
much on motivating students, rather than on using been recognized.
Domain-specific TPACK studies have flourished. Ac-
cording to the ISI database, research on TPACK in the
& Amber Yayin Wang English domain was not as robust as in the fields of
amberyy@mail.ntcu.edu.tw Mathematics and Science (Wu 2013). However, with
1 computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and tech-
Graduate School of Network Learning Technology, National
Central University, 300 Jhongda Rd., Jhongli District, nology-enhanced language learning (TELL), there has been
Taoyuan City 32001, Taiwan increased interest; research on TPACK in the English
2
Department of English, National Taichung University of language domain (e.g., Hughes and Scharber 2008; Sch-
Education, 140 MinSheng Road, Taichung 403, Taiwan midt and Gurbo 2008) has been conducted to help prepare

123
 Y.-T. Wu, A.Y. Wang

effective English teachers. Despite this increased interest, provide in-depth insights of the use of TPACK among EFL
most of the related research has investigated TPACK in teachers.
native-language English (e.g., George 2011; Parr et al.
2013; Robin 2008). Studies on TPACK in teaching English
as a second or other language (TESOL) or as a foreign Evaluating TPACK
language (EFL) appear to be scarce.
As EFL teachers also need to incorporate CALL and There is a common consensus that TAPCK is the inter-
TELL in their classrooms, there has been an increasing sectional mixture of three knowledge bases, TK, PK, and
need for educators to understand EFL teachers’ TPACK. CK (e.g., Angeli and Valanides 2009; Archambault and
Among the few TPACK studies in the EFL domain, van Barnett 2010; Cox and Graham 2009; Graham 2011). Most
Olphen (2008) examined TPACK in teaching English as researchers and educators have studied TPACK with two
a world language, suggesting that cultural and linguistic major ways. Some (e.g., Chai et al. 2011; Sahin 2011) tend
aspects need to be considered. Also, Kurt et al. (2013) to explore all the seven TPACK construct components (i.e.,
investigated how TPACK was developed among Turkish CK, PK, TK, PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK), while others
teachers. Van Olphen (2008) provided a conceptual (e.g., Angeli and Valanides 2009) focus on the intersec-
guide, and Kurt et al. 2013 indicated that EFL teachers tional mixture TPACK, the synthesized knowledge. In fact,
showed progress on TPACK scores in a measurement the two ways could be complementary, rather than being an
after completing a reflective project. However, none of either-or dichotomy. As the nature of TPACK is ‘‘complex,
these studies described the nature of TPACK in an EFL multifaceted, and situated’’ (Mishra and Koehler 2006,
setting. p. 1017), adopting both ways help present a clearer and
In Taiwan, an EFL setting, research on the use of fuller picture of TPACK. For example, the first way eval-
TPACK in the English language domain is not common. uates the status of various knowledge bases that are
Among the few, Tseng (2008) and Cheng (2011) record essential in nurturing the TPACK, and the second examines
how EFL teachers reflected on their TPACK. Tseng (2008) synthesized TPACK with in-depth exploration to acquire
investigated TPACK in the reflective journals of four insights regarding how a teacher uses his or her TPACK.
teachers during their 12-week CALL workshop, and Cheng To portray a detailed picture of the participants’ TPACK,
(2011) examined the teaching patterns of two teachers on both the two ways of exploring TPACK were used in the
the E-Mentor online system. Tseng (2008) analyzed four current study.
teachers’ TPACK by synthesizing their statements in forum Recently, the need to use multi-faceted evaluation
discussions, interviews responses, and lesson plans with the methods in assessing teachers’ TPACK has been advocated
Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, and found that their use of (e.g., Doering et al. 2009). In most relevant studies, teacher
TPACK showed significant development. Cheng (2011) performance on the seven TPACK components is most
described how the TPACK components, including frequently assessed by using self-reported quantitative
pedagogic knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK), and surveys. These TPACK surveys are designed to quantita-
technology knowledge (TK), form a complex interplay tively evaluate teachers’ confidence in using various
during the process. TPACK components, including CK, PK, TK, PCK, TCK,
Their research did shed some light on the nature of TPK, and TPACK (e.g., Lee and Tsai 2010; Chai et al.
TPACK in an EFL setting. However, it should be noted 2011). Moreover, to get deeper insights into how teachers’
that the two studies only used self-reported data from a use technology in their teaching, the synthesized TPACK
very small number of teachers. Besides, although the Re- was usually evaluated by analyzing the data collected from
vised Bloom’s Taxonomy used by Tseng (2008) appeared qualitative interviews (e.g., Maeng et al. 2013) or by
to be able to analyze TPACK and observe its growth, the evaluating teachers’ demonstrated performance in instruc-
knowledge of English teachers, specifically, to create an tional practices, such as lesson plans (e.g., Koh 2013) or
optimal CALL classroom has not been explored. There- classroom observation (e.g., Maeng et al. 2013).
fore, building on these previous studies, the current study
aims to explore TPACK among in-service EFL teachers at
elementary schools in Taiwan, and to provide Asian EFL Method
teachers and educators with insights for future Professional
Development (PD) programs. It adopts a mixed-method Attempting to more accurately portray the TPACK of the
approach to examine a larger number of EFL teachers with EFL teachers, this study investigated their self-perceived
three different data sources, including questionnaire, in- performance on the seven TPACK components with a
terview, and classroom observation. Also, the Revised quantitative instrument, and explored their synthesized
Bloom’s Taxonomy and the CALL frameworks are used to TPACK by means of interviews and class observations.

123
Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge in Teaching English as a Foreign Language…

Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected in- measurements were reported to have high validity and
cluding the transcripts of semi-structured interviews, notes credibility (see Koh et al. 2010; Sahin 2011). As they were
from class observations, and TPACK survey results. geared for the general domain, the assessments were
combined, rephrased to focus specifically on the English
Participants language domain, and were pretested by ten student Eng-
lish teachers at a university in central Taiwan. The TPACK
Of the 25 teachers approached to be part of this study, 22 survey included 42 statements about the TPACK compo-
in-service English teachers from 18 different elementary nents. The respondents self-evaluated on a 7-point Likert
schools in central Taiwan participated voluntarily in the scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). For
research. These teachers were approached because of their example, there were statements such as ‘‘I can teach
accessibility and proximity to the researcher, and they were English using different instructional strategies and com-
all agreed to be interviewed and video-taped or observed in puter applications,’’ and ‘‘I can use computer applications
their classes. specifically for English teaching and learning.’’ The re-
All of these teachers had taken a two-credit course, spondents would not know they were rating their TPACK
Multimedia-assisted English Instruction, when they were for the first statement and TCK for the second statement.
pre-service teachers. The course is designed to help The results of the TPACK survey would provide seven
teachers become familiar with using instructional tech- scores: CK, PK, TK, TPK, TCK, PC, and TPACK.
nology in English classrooms. However, the conceptual For the semi-structured interviews, the interview ques-
framework of TPACK has not been explicitly taught in tions were based on Grossman (1990). They were aimed at
their teacher education or PD programs. Table 1 shows the inquiring specifically into the PCK in English, with an
demographics of the participants. added technology dimension. There were about 25 ques-
tions, covering the following five categories: (1) back-
Procedure ground information: academic biography, entry into
teaching and the teaching context; (2) conceptions about
After gaining the consent of the participants, dates for in- teaching English: teaching goals, the role of the teacher,
terviews and videotaping were scheduled. Each participant expected learning outcomes, and English teaching strate-
was interviewed for between 50 and 90 min, and video- gies; (3) preferred approaches to teaching: roles of the
taped or observed in the English class for between 40 and students and teachers, teaching procedures, means of de-
80 min. At the end of the school year, they were asked to termining the levels of students, how to teach a class with
complete a TPACK survey, as a self-perceived evaluation mixed abilities, any difficulties or challenges with students,
of their performance in TPACK components. the social-cultural aspect of teaching; (4) a selection of
English teaching materials, teaching aids, instructional
Instruments technologies, and assessments; (5) reasons for the necessity
for integrating technology in English instruction: any
The TPACK survey was taken from a combination of the technology used, how to decide when to use technology,
work of Koh et al. (2010) and that of Sahin (2011). Both and any examples from teaching experience.

Table 1 Participant demographics

Data Analysis

N = 22 No. % To assess the teachers’ performance on the TPACK com-

Gender ponents, the quantitative data collected from the survey
Male 4 18.18 were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Also, to evaluate
Female 18 81.82 the quality of teachers’ synthesized TPACK, all the
Age qualitative data collected from the interviews and obser-
Below 25 2 9.09 vations of the class videos were analyzed by means of two
26–30 5 22.73 conceptual frameworks: (1) Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy,
31–35 6 27.27
established by Krathwohl (2002) and (2) pedagogic
Above 36 9 40.91
framework for CALL proposed by Egbert and Hanson-
Teaching experience
Smith (1999).
The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy has often been used in
1–5 years 4 13.64
analyzing instruction. In the literature, Tseng (2008) used
6–10 years 6 31.82
the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to assess the development
More than 10 years 12 54.55
of TPACK and to observe the teaching or learning goals

123
 Y.-T. Wu, A.Y. Wang

the participants set for their lessons and students. The derived from interviews; and (3) teacher synthesized
Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl 2002) includes TPACK derived from classroom observations.
six categories: (1) remembering, (2) understanding, (3)
applying, (4) analyzing, (5) evaluating, and (6) creating. Teacher Performance in TPACK Components:
These categories help teachers evaluate whether their Survey
teaching covers both lower- and higher-order thinking
skills. From the results of the TPACK survey (Table 2), the EFL
On the other hand, the CALL framework deals directly teachers believe that they have acquired considerable
with integrating technology into language learning by TPACK. According to Table 2, the mean scales of the
means of eight optimal conditions. According to Egbert component knowledge bases were much higher than the
and Hanson-Smith (1999), in the best CALL lessons, average scale (3.5) of seven. Scales of each component
learners area were very close. The teachers scored the highest on
PK (M = 5.99, SD = 0.72), and the lowest was on TK
(1) have opportunities to interact and decipher meaning,
(M = 5.01, SD = 0.96). The second lowest score was on
(2) interact in the target language with an authentic
TPACK (M = 5.35, SD = 0.93). Generally, the mean for
audience,
each area was above average, meaning that the teachers
(3) are involved in authentic tasks,
were highly satisfied with their TPACK. From the quanti-
(4) are exposed to, and encouraged to produce, varied
tative evidence, these EFL teachers appeared to be satisfied
and creative language,
with their overall TPACK and most confident in their PK.
(5) are given enough time and feedback,
They do, however, consider that their TK requires further
(6) are helped to attend mindfully to the learning process,
development.
(7) work in an atmosphere with ideal stress levels, and
(8) are allowed autonomy and supportive behavior. (pp.
Teacher Synthesized TPACK: Interviews
1–2)
Based on these criteria, an ideal CALL lesson, which In the interviews, the teachers described their TPACK from
requires a teacher to make most use of his or her sophis- many different aspects, including (1) instructional tech-
ticated synthesized TPACK, would have the following key nology used for their English teaching, (2) objectives for
components: interactivity, meaningfulness, authenticity, their English teaching, and (3) purposes for using tech-
creativity, feedback, be learning-focused, be stress-free, nology in their English teaching.
and offer autonomy. The eight optimal conditions were
used to evaluate the teachers’ synthesized TPACK when Instructional Technology Used for English Teaching
analyzing the interviews and the class observations.
The qualitative TPACK data, including interview tran- Listed here are the technological tools the teachers men-
scripts and notes from class observations, were stored in a tioned or described in their interviews: computers and
WORD file. Interview transcripts were coded as I-(ID) projectors, interactive whiteboard (IWB), audio-files or
(date), e.g., I-A0101, and observation notes, as O-(ID) CDs, DVD or videos, electronic books, iPads, online re-
(date), such as O-B0102. The search function (Ctrl-F) was sources (YouTube, blogs, news, or websites), audio- or
performed to locate certain repeated words. Two re- video-recording devices (for radio plays or Reader Thea-
searchers examined, discussed, and interpreted the ter), and applications on computers, iPads or tablets, or
qualitative data. Finally, the quantitative and qualitative mobile devices, including WORD, PowerPoint (PPT), and
TPACK were compared in an attempt to delineate a ClassDojo. Of these, all the teachers (N = 22, 100 %)
relatively clear picture of TPACK among these EFL
teachers. Table 2 Descriptive statistics of TPACK scores
N = 22 M SD

TK 5.01 0.96
Results and Discussion CK 5.54 0.98
PK 5.99 0.72
As discussed previously, the three approaches used to un- PCK 5.54 0.83
derstand TPACK include surveys, interviews, and perfor- TPK 5.61 0.94
mance assessments. Thus, the results presented here are
TCK 5.51 1.07
divided into three sections: (1) teachers’ performance in
TPACK 5.35 0.93
TPACK components; (2) teacher synthesized TPACK

123
Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge in Teaching English as a Foreign Language…

knew how to use a computer and a projector, and made the Purposes for Using Technology in Their English Teaching
most use of videos and PPT. Some (N = 9, 40.90 %)
mentioned using an IWB. Only one (N = 1, 4.55 %) used When the teachers talked about using technology in Eng-
an iPad, one (N = 1, 4.55 %) considered using blogs and lish instruction, most of their reasons corresponded to their
one (N = 1, 4.55 %) mentioned audio- or video-recording main purpose for teaching English, motivation. The ma-
devices. It is apparent that the technology tools most used jority (N = 14, 64 %) of the teachers said that the use of
by the teachers were those for providing English input or technology in teaching English could attract the children’s
for displaying information. attention (e.g., Is-G0819/S0824/N1013/L1114/J1124/
D0314/T0528), create an interesting and stress-free learn-
Objectives for Their English Teaching ing environment (e.g., Is-G1114/J1124/T1124), and moti-
vate them to learn (e.g., Is-K0906/G1114/J1124).
The teachers described the main purposes of their teaching Other recurring themes included efficiency, novelty, and
as being to motivate, i.e., to develop an interest in learning authenticity. Some stated their reasons for incorporating
English, or to help children develop a love for learning technology in English instruction as convenience or effi-
English (N = 19, 86 %). Another purpose was to use ciency (N = 11, 50 %), novelty or the trend (N = 5,
English to communicate well enough to explore the world 23 %), authenticity (N = 4, 18 %), and individuality
(N = 16, 73 %). Two (N = 2, 9 %) stated that their main (N = 2, 9 %). Convenience or efficiency was attained be-
purpose for teaching English was to give children strategies cause the online resources help teachers prepare their ma-
for learning English (Is-G0819, K0906), while only one terials, or present the target language efficiently. For
(N = 1, 5 %) said the goal was to help students to develop example, the teachers said that technology could ‘‘increase
thinking skills (I-H0909). teaching or learning effects’’ (I-P0817), ‘‘saved much of
Two words were also repeatedly heard in their detailing the preparation time’’ (I-H0909), ‘‘simply put everything,
the purposes for English teaching, communication including images, videos, words, and links to webpages, on
(N = 20, 91 %) and interaction (N = 13, 59 %). These a PPT’’ (I-S0820), ‘‘quickly present lesson content’’ (I-
words were mentioned not only when talking about N1013), and is ‘‘very convenient to use’’ (I-C0125).
teaching objectives, but also in their teaching procedures. It was apparent that the main purpose of teaching
Since the purpose of language is communication, almost all English with or without technology has always been to
the teachers (N = 20, 91 %) expressed the understanding motivate children to learn English. This probably has much
that English was a tool for communication, rather than a to do with the EFL context. In an EFL setting, because
subject to be mastered. children do not have many opportunities to naturally use
When considering the educational goals for English English in their daily lives, one of the most important tasks
instruction according to the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, it for EFL teachers is probably to develop an interest in
was clear that the goals were mostly distributed according learning English.
to the responding level of the affective domain and the first However, although the words ‘‘interaction’’ or ‘‘com-
three levels of the cognitive domain: (1) remembering, (2) munication’’ were regularly used in connection with the
understanding, and (3) applying. As mentioned earlier, the focus for English instruction, these two words were used
goal of 86 % of the teachers (N = 19) was to enhance the less frequently in connection with integrating technology in
children’s interest so that they actively participated in the English instruction. Only one teacher (N = 1, 5 %) thought
process of learning English. This main focus on motivation technology created more interaction between the teacher
falls into the responding level of the affective domain. and the class (I-T0528). According to many of the teachers’
When describing their teaching objectives, 77 % (N = 17) statements, technology helped with presenting the language
of the teachers noted that students should be able to un- but could not encourage interaction (e.g., Is-J1223/Y1201).
derstand and remember what was taught, and 86 % One even stated that it was not really necessary to incor-
(N = 19) stressed the importance of children applying porate technology into English teaching because the tech-
what they had learned to their daily lives. Only one teacher nology at school then made interaction difficult (I-S0328).
(5 %) emphasized the need to develop thinking skills and According to one of the teachers, technology ‘‘cannot be
help children to analyze and evaluate ideas (I-H0909). used all the time in a lesson, because when students all
Although none of the teachers had specified creativity as concentrate on the activity using technology, the opportu-
one of their teaching objectives, two teachers (9 %) de- nities for individual interactions with other students are
scribed how their teaching activities may develop chil- decreased’’ (I-J1223). Many agreed that technology did
dren’s creativity (Is-J1212/D0314). The three teachers who provide much authentic language input, but not much
mentioned higher-order thinking skills were all senior language output (e.g., Is-J1223/Y1201). It is necessary for
teachers. students to create language output, be it spoken or written,

123
 Y.-T. Wu, A.Y. Wang

in the English classroom in an EFL setting. Therefore, used a blackboard and textbooks. One of the teachers
technology was added only when it helped students to fo- brought realia (O-S0328), one used a big book (O-J1124),
cus on learning the target language of the lesson (Is-J1124/ another gave worksheets (O-T1220), and the fourth teacher
J1212/J1223/H0909). These comments seem to imply that (O-S0924) threw balls to help the beginners learn the
to date, technology used in the classroom has not helped alphabet.
with the oral or written interactions among the students. Apart from the four classes that did not integrate tech-
Some teachers even pointed out that technology could be a nology, technology in the classes had three main purposes:
‘‘distraction’’ to learning (Is-G0819/L1114/T1220/J1212/ (1) displaying information; (2) managing instruction; and
C0125). (3) learning subject matter. Most of the teachers used
When the self-reported teaching concepts were exam- technology (computers and projectors, IWBs, or iPads) for
ined according to the CALL framework, they matched at displaying information, such as e-books or textbook con-
least five key components of the optimal CALL conditions: tent (e.g., Os-P1014/G1114/T0410), PPT files (e.g., Os-
interactivity, authenticity, feedback, learning-focused, and S0921/H1004), or videos (e.g., Os-N1029/L1117/W1118).
stress-free. The components of meaningfulness, creativity, Some teachers used technology for managing instruction,
and autonomy were relatively less frequently mentioned. In such as demonstrating how to complete a worksheet (e.g.,
total, nine teachers mentioned the word ‘‘meaning,’’ but Os-T0410/N1123), explaining rules for an activity (Os-P/
only six (27 %) used it when describing how to make 1014/N1123), or using Class Dojo on an iPad for managing
learning activities meaningful to children (Is-S0820/S0824/ the class and awarding participation (O-T0410). For sub-
K0906/J1212/C0125/S0328). Five teachers talked about ject-matter learning, technology was used to provide au-
creativity, but most of them described teaching as an art thentic language input (e.g., Os-G1005/S0928), enhance
that required the creativity of the teacher. Only two (9 %) listening skills (e.g., O-S0921), increase phonemic aware-
described how creativity could be developed by means of ness by matching sounds, or to practice sentence structure
certain activities (Is-J1212/D0314). Approximately four by dragging and dropping words (e.g., O-P1014/G1214).
teachers (18 %) mentioned ‘‘autonomy’’: of these, two
teachers (Is-S0820/T1124) talked directly about developing Objectives of the English Lessons
learner autonomy, and the other two (Is-G0819/K0906)
emphasized that helping children acquire learning strate- According to the self-reported objectives for English
gies promoted autonomy. It is uncertain whether most of teaching, motivation and communication were the main
the teachers simply thought that meaningfulness, creativity, focus. In reality, the teachers obviously made great effort to
and autonomy were automatically part of an English les- motivate their students and there was clear interaction
son, or whether they considered them to be unimportant between the teacher and the whole class, between the
and not worth mentioning in their narration. teacher and individual students, among groups of students,
and also among individual students (e.g., Os-P0817/S0820/
Teacher Synthesized TPACK: Classroom J1212/J1223). Unfortunately, interaction is not necessarily
Observation an indication that individual students are deciphering
meaning and communicating in English. Only nine teach-
Three aspects were noted during the observation of the ers (41 %) provided opportunities for children to use the
teaching practices: (1) instructional technology used in the target language to communicate. In addition, many of the
English lessons, (2) objectives for the English lessons, and teachers (N = 13, 59 %) tended to use questions, including
(3) aims of using technology in the lessons. asking comprehension questions, to interact with the class
or individual students (e.g., Os-H1005/G1005/K0930).
Instructional Technology Used in the English Lessons Opportunities for individual students to really use the target
language to decipher meaning, communicate with others,
In the classes observed, almost all classrooms were or express their personal opinions were relatively less
equipped with instructional technology, such as a computer frequently observed in the classrooms.
and projector (N = 10, 45.45 %), an IWB (N = 9, 40.90 In these classrooms, students practiced more lower-
percent), a CD player (N = 1, 4.55 %), or a television order thinking skills than higher-order skills. Most of the
(N = 1, 4.55 %). Only one classroom (N = 1, 4.55 %) did students imitated the teacher (e.g., Os-S0328/Y1201/
not have any visible technology tools. In well-equipped S0924), repeated after the CD (e.g., Os-L1117/S0921),
classrooms, most of the participants made use of tech- used dialog in role-playing (e.g., Os-G1005/L1114/
nology. Four teachers (N = 4, 18.18 %) (including the D0314), answered comprehension questions (e.g., Os-
teacher in the classroom with no technology equipment) P1014/N1029), practiced sounds (e.g., Os-G1214/W1118),
did not incorporate any technology into their classes and used a sentence in context (e.g., Os-K0930/G1214), and

123
Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge in Teaching English as a Foreign Language…

asked for and exchanged information (e.g., Os-C1025/ in English. It was also in these teachers’ classes that stu-
M1118). From the above tasks, it is clear that students dents were given opportunities to be involved in authentic
practiced lower-order thinking skills a great deal: (1) re- tasks, interact in the target language with an authentic
membering; (2) understanding; and (3) applying. In fact, audience, and produce varied and creative language.
students were assigned more remembering and under-
standing tasks than application tasks. Only a very few Summary
students had the chance to work on analyzing tasks, such as
organizing animals and mind-mapping (O-J0408), and It is apparent that the multi-faceted TPACK evaluation
creating tasks, such as creating an ending for a story and adopted in this study has helped to better understand the
illustrating it (O-J1124). Again, it was senior teachers who different faces of TPACK. The self-reported questionnaire
assigned more applications, analyzing, and creating tasks, showed that the EFL teachers perceived their TK to be the
although no evaluation tasks were observed. weakest among the seven TPACK components. The ana-
lysis on interviews and classroom observations reflected
Aims of Using Technology in the Lessons that the teachers’ synthesized TPACK had not made the
most use of the technology in language learning: tech-
The use of technology in the observed classes served three nology was most often used by the EFL teachers to moti-
main purposes: (1) displaying information; (2) managing vate learning, provide language input or display
instruction; and (3) learning subject matter. None of these information. Moreover, although interaction and commu-
aims encouraged interaction among students, increased nication were considered important in English instruction,
student cooperation, or promoted student creativity. Even technology tools had not been used as a means to increase
in the class of the teacher who believed that technology meaningful communication among students. Components
created more interaction (I-T0528), the interactions, like such as meaningfulness, creativity, autonomy, and higher-
those in many other classes (e.g., Os-G1005/L1117/S0924/ order thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating, and creating)
T1124/Y1201), consisted of asking and answering display were less frequently observed in the classrooms than lower-
questions (O-T0410). Therefore, all the interaction was order skills. An overview of these findings is summarized
actually between the teacher and the whole class, rather in Table 3.
than any real communication among students. It was also
noted that when using an IWB, which has an interactive
function, any interaction was limited to the few students Conclusion
who were called up to the front to use the IWB and practice
the target language (O-P1014/G1114). Using technology Using multiple TPACK evaluations, this study described
for students to interact with each other, by individually or TPACK among a group of Taiwanese EFL teachers,
cooperatively creating a project, an e-book, digital story- evaluated the status quo and diagnosed the need for further
telling, or voice-recordings, was not observed in these development. According to the evaluation on the par-
classrooms. ticipants’ performance on the TPACK construct compo-
In analyzing the findings according to the CALL nents, it was apparent that the EFL teachers’ knowledge
framework, only three key components were consistently related to technology (TK and TPACK) required im-
noted: feedback, learning-focused, and stress-free. Again, provement. From their prior experiences in the educational
the components of meaningfulness, creativity, and au- program, the EFL teachers in this study did not seem to
tonomy were relatively less frequently observed. Interest- have sufficient opportunities to acquire TK or reflect on
ingly, the teacher who did not mention autonomy in the their own TPACK. The only TK-related course was a two-
interview did encourage students’ autonomy by teaching credit elective course with no explicit instruction on the
reading strategies (O-P1014). concepts of TPACK. Although the increase of TK may not
It was puzzling that the repeatedly mentioned compo- directly contribute to the growth of TPACK, the lack of it
nents of interactivity and authenticity were not evident in would definitely prevent providing essential nurture for
the classrooms. Any interactions that did occur were not TPACK. Future teacher education or PD programs need to
opportunities for students to interact and decipher meaning, provide more opportunities for teachers to learn about in-
but rather were mostly controlled by the teachers to drill structional technologies and to practice how to make
the target language (e.g., O-G1005), ask display questions proper and effective use of technology in a language
(e.g., O-W1118), discipline students (e.g., O-M118), or classroom.
check comprehension (e.g., O-H1005). A few of the senior Second, in accordance with findings from the quantita-
teachers (e.g., Os-J0408/J1124/K0930/P1014/C0125) cre- tive data, it is most probably because of these limitations—
ated opportunities for students to interact and communicate the lack of enough TK and opportunities to reflect on

123
 Y.-T. Wu, A.Y. Wang

Table 3 Overview of the data collection, data analyses, and major findings
TPACK aspects Data Data analytical Major findings
collection framework

Performance on the TPACK Survey Seven components (1) TK scored the lowest, PK the highest
components of TPACK
Synthesized TPACK Interviews CALL and Bloom (1) Most used technology: videos and PPT (input and display)
(2) Key word for English instruction: ‘‘interaction’’ or
‘‘communication’’
(3) Main purpose for technology: motivation
Classroom CALL and Bloom (1) Most used technology: e-book and PPT (input and display)
observations (2) Many interactions but few meaningful communications
(3) Less-observed components: meaningfulness, creativity,
autonomy, and higher-order thinking skills

TPACK—that technology in these classrooms was rarely on a solid foundation of lower-order thinking skills, but it
employed to help students use the language meaningfully, would still be a good idea for EFL teachers to consider
promote their creative use of the language, encourage their higher-order thinking skills in their TPACK.
autonomy in language learning, or develop any higher- The implications for teachers, based on these three areas
order thinking skills. Some elements in the Bloom and requiring further TPACK development, are provided by
CALL frameworks have been absent in their synthesized this study in terms of designing teacher education or PD
TPACK. It is apparent that much attention has been de- programs. At least three aspects need to be incorporated
voted to motivating learners when integrating technology into any program. First, introducing new technology and its
in English instruction, but less has been directed to how instructional functions in language classes is still neces-
technology can help in using English in a meaningful sary. Second, teacher education programs need to help
context with an authentic audience. Children seem to be student teachers learn how to use technology to create real
more engaged with the technology (or things displayed interactions, increase cooperation, and promote creativity
through the technology) than in using the target language to among students. Educators of teachers need to bring ele-
communicate. If the teachers were provided with oppor- ments such as meaningfulness, creativity, and autonomy
tunities to learn about the TPACK, Bloom, and CALL into the teacher education courses or PD programs. To this
frameworks and reflect on their TPACK, the technology in end, educators of teachers should provide technology-en-
a language classroom will not merely serve only as an hanced professional learning environments for teachers to
innovative attention-getter, but also provide more oppor- engage in as students, and help them experience TPACK
tunities for students to use the language meaningfully, on their own. Third, teachers’ reflections on how tech-
creatively, and autonomously. Most importantly, it is also nology is used in a language class should be highlighted in
suggested that EFL teachers be asked to reflect on their TPACK courses. Student teachers should be directed to
TPACK practices using the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy reflect on their TPACK concerning the use of technology
and CALL frameworks. If the teachers were explicitly and the incorporation of higher-order thinking skills.
taught the different ways to understand their TPACK and
reflect on it, they would notice what was missing from their Acknowledgment This study was funded by research grants from
Ministry of Science and Technology, (former National Science
TPACK. Council), Taiwan (NSC 99-2410-H-142-011- and NSC 101-2628-S-
Third, higher-order thinking skills need to be incorpo- 008-001-MY3). We are most grateful for the support.
rated into teaching English using technology. In the EFL
setting, motivation and communicative abilities are stres-
sed in English instruction. It is possible that the reason for
this is that, in the EFL settings, English language is studied References
as a compulsory subject and EFL students do not have an
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and method-
immediate need for communication in English outside the ological issues for the conceptualization, development, and
classroom. This is very different from native English assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogi-
teachers, who emphasize and demand higher-order think- cal content knowledge (TPCK). Computers and Education, 52,
154–168.
ing skills from their students (Grossman 1989, 1990;
Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological
Gudmundsdottir 1991). Certainly, for higher-order thinking pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK frame-
skills to be effectively developed, the skills must be based work. Computers and Education, 55, 1656–1662.

123
Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge in Teaching English as a Foreign Language…

Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Exploring the factor Kurt, G., Mishra, P., & Kocoglu, Z. (2013). Technological
structure of the constructs of technological, pedagogical, content pedagogical content knowledge development of Turkish pre-
knowledge (TPACK). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, service teachers of English. In 2013 Society for Information
20(3), 595–603. Technology and Teacher Education (SITE) conference proceed-
Cheng, C. C. (2011). An examination of EFL e-mentor’s teaching ings. http://www.academia.edu/4326347/.
patterns through the perspective of TPCK. Unpublished Master’s Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self
Thesis, National Sun Yat-Sun University, Kaohsiung. efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with
Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPCK in practice: respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional
Using an elaborated model of the TPCK framework to analyze Science, 38, 1–21.
and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60–69. Maeng, J. L., Mulvey, B. K., Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2013).
Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using Preservice teachers’ TPACK: Using technology to support
the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge frame- inquiry instruction. Journal of Science Education and Tech-
work to design online learning environments and professional nology, 22, 838–857.
development. Jorual of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical
319–346. content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.
Egbert, J., & Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.). (1999). CALL environments: Teacher College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Research, practice, and critical issues. Alexandria, VA: Teach- Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S.
ers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. R., Johnston, C., et al. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK
Ferdig, R. E. (2006). Assessing technologies for teaching and standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in
learning: understanding the importance of technological peda- Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4–24.
gogical content knowledge. British Journal of Educational Parr, G., Bellis, N., & Bulfin, S. (2013). Teaching English teachers for
Technology, 37(5), 749–760. the future: Speaking back to TPACK. English in Australia,
George, M. A. (2011). Preparing teachers to teach adolescent 48(1), 9–22.
literature in the 21st century. Theory Into Practice, 50, 182–189. Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool
Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding for the 21st century classroom. Theory Into Practice, 47,
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Com- 220–228.
puters and Education, 57, 1953–1960. Sahin, I. (2011). Development of survey of technological pedagogical
Graham, R. C., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., & and content knowledge (TPACK). The Turkish Online Journal of
Harris, R. (2009). Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice Educational Technology, 10(1), 97–105.
science teachers. TechTrends, 53, 70–79. Schmidt, D., & Gurbo, M. (2008). TPCK in K-6 literacy education:
Grossman, P. L. (1989). A study in contrast—sources of pedagogical It’s not that elementary! In AACTE Committee on Innovation
content knowledge for secondary English. Journal of Teacher and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical
Education, 40(5), 24–31. content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 61–85). New
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge York: Routledge.
and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Tseng, J. J. (2008). A study on English teachers’ professional
Gudmundsdottir, S. (1991). Ways of seeing are ways of knowing: The development in a reflection-based computer assisted language
pedagogical content knowledge of an expert English teacher. learning workshop. Doctoral Dissertation, National Taiwan
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(5), 409–421. Normal University, Taiwan.
Hughes, J. E., & Scharber, C. M. (2008). Leveraging the development http://ir.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/ir/handle/309250000Q/81449.pdf.
of English TPCK within the deictic nature of literacy. In AACTE Van Olphen, M. (2008). TPCK: An integrated framework for
Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of educating world language teachers. In AACTE Committee on
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of techno-
educators (pp. 87–106). New York: Routledge. logical pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators.
Koh, J. H. L. (2013). A rubric for assessing teachers’ lesson activities New York: American Association of Colleges of Teacher
with respect to TPACK for meaningful learning with ICT. Education and Routledge.
Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(6), 887–900. Wu, Y.-T. (2013). Research trends in technological pedagogical
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Examining the content knowledge (TPACK) research: A review of empirical
technological pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre- studies published in selected journals from 2002 to 2011. British
service teachers with a large-scale survey. Journal of Computer Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), E73–E76.
Assisted learning, 26, 563–573.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An
overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–260.

123