Examining the Impact of Instructional Technology and Material Design Courses on Technopedagogical Education Competency Acquisition According to Different Variables

Abstract

The need to integrate technology into education has made necessary a thorough examination of teachers’ technopedagogical competencies. While training preservice teachers, it is of particular importance that they acquire technopedagogical education competences during their preservice education. Practical and theoretical course content and Instructional Technology and Material Design (ITMD) courses are thought to be essential for preservice teachers’ technopedagogical education competency acquisition. However, the role of ITMD courses in preservice teachers’ technopedagogical education competency acquisition has remained obscure in the literature. As such, the study aims to describe the effect that ITMD courses have on technopedagogical education competency acquisition. The research was conducted with a total of 186 preservice teachers studying in the departments of classroom teaching and preschool teaching in a Faculty of Education in Turkey. The research data were gathered using the Technopedagogical Education Competency Scale (TPACK-deep), developed by Kabakci Yurdakul, Odabasi, Kilicer, Coklar, Birinci, and Kurt. This five-point Likert type scale consists of a total of four factors, i.e. design, proficiency, ethics, and exertion. The internal reliability coefficient of the 33-item scale was .95. The scale was applied by faculty members in-line with the course description designated by the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) as a pre- and post-test at the beginning and end of the semester that the course was given. A paired samples t-test and CHAID (Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection) analysis were incorporatedly employed to analyze the data. The research showed that ITMD courses influenced preservice teachers’ acquisition of technopedagogical education competencies. The following were observed to be critical predictor variables in technopedagogical education competency acquisition: having received computer training prior to taking the ITMD courses and the average time one spends using a computer per day.

Full text

Received: May 14, 2016
Revision received: November 12, 2016
Accepted: July 16, 2017
OnlineFirst: August 20, 2017
Copyright © 2017 EDAM
www.estp.com.tr
DOI 10.12738/estp.2017.5.0322  October 2017  17(5)  1733–1758
Research Article
KURAM VE UYGULAMADA EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Abstract
The need to integrate technology into education has made necessary a thorough examination of teachers’
technopedagogical competencies. While training preservice teachers, it is of particular importance that
they acquire technopedagogical education competences during their preservice education. Practical and
theoretical course content and Instructional Technology and Material Design (ITMD) courses are thought
to be essential for preservice teachers’ technopedagogical education competency acquisition. However,
the role of ITMD courses in preservice teachers’ technopedagogical education competency acquisition
has remained obscure in the literature. As such, the study aims to describe the effect that ITMD courses
have on technopedagogical education competency acquisition. The research was conducted with a total
of 186 preservice teachers studying in the departments of classroom teaching and preschool teaching in a
Faculty of Education in Turkey. The research data were gathered using the Technopedagogical Education
Competency Scale (TPACK-deep), developed by Kabakci Yurdakul, Odabasi, Kilicer, Coklar, Birinci, and
Kurt. This five-point Likert type scale consists of a total of four factors, i.e. design, proficiency, ethics, and
exertion. The internal reliability coefficient of the 33-item scale was .95. The scale was applied by faculty
members in-line with the course description designated by the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) as a
pre- and post-test at the beginning and end of the semester that the course was given. A paired samples
t-test and CHAID (Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection) analysis were incorporatedly employed
to analyze the data. The research showed that ITMD courses influenced preservice teachers’ acquisition of
technopedagogical education competencies. The following were observed to be critical predictor variables
in technopedagogical education competency acquisition: having received computer training prior to taking
the ITMD courses and the average time one spends using a computer per day.
Keywords
Technopedagogical education competency • Instructional technology • Material design • Preservice
teachers • Technology integration
Ibrahim Gokdas1
Adnan Menderes University
Fulya Torun2
Adnan Menderes University
Examining the Impact of Instructional Technology and
Material Design Courses on Technopedagogical Education
Competency Acquisition According to Different Variables*
* The reviewed form of the paper was presented at the 8th International Symposium on Computer and Instructional Technologies,
September 18-20, 2014, Trakya University – Turkey.
1 Correspondence to: Ibrahim Gokdas (PhD), Department of Computer and Instructional Technologies Education, Adnan
Menderes University, Efeler Aydın 09100 Turkey. Email: igokdas@gmail.com
2 Department of Computer and Instructional Technologies Education, Adnan Menderes University, Efeler Aydın 09100 Turkey.
Email: ftorun60@gmail.com
Citation: Gokdas, I., & Torun, F. (2017). Examining the impact of instructional technology and material design courses
on technopedagogical education competency acquisition according to different variables. Educational Sciences: Theory &
Practice, 17, 1733–1758. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.5.0322

1734
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
The rapid developmental of information and communication technologies (ICT) and
their social impact have reected onto education and have resulted in changes in the
teaching-learning process (Neal & Miller, 2006). Again, the roles of teachers have been
amended when faced with the change-provoking impact of ICT (Archambault, Wetzel,
Foulger, & Williams, 2010). These changes have provided an ample scope for learners’
learning, have created an opportunity for students to obtain more feedback, and have
introduced a more student-centered approach in the teaching process. In this context, the
contribution of ICT to the education process and its eligibility for certain content areas
and teaching methods have rendered the integration of technology into teacher training
programs a priority (Archambault et al., 2010; Chai, Ling Koh, Jessie Ho, & Tsai, 2012).
ICT’s contributions to the educational process are frequently mentioned in the literature. To
illustrate, teachers have been provided with the following opportunities: social interaction
platforms through web based technologies and social networking tools (Grosseck, 2009),
teacher-student interaction and communication development (Cheon, Song, Jones, &
Nam, 2010; Hartshorne & Ajjan, 2009), learning community development, shareable
educational resources, learning context development in accordance with colloborative
learning approaches (Grosseck, 2009; Purdy, 2010), and improved interactions with
colleagues and students (Cheon et al., 2010; Hartshorne & Ajjan, 2009).
Despite all these opportunities, the integration process of ICT into education is
considered a long term procedure since it primarily requires vast array of sources and
creates certain teacher based obstructions and challenges (Goktas, Yildirim, & Yildirim,
2009; Murray & Campbell, 2000; Sabaliauskas & Pukelis, 2004). For instance, purchasing
opportunities and the variety of products and their benets/restrictions caused by the
constantly changing and developing nature of ICT have been shown among the main
difculties that teachers experience while using ICT (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). However,
despite all of these challenges, ICT has continued to spread exponentially, developing at
such a rapid pace that national education systems have been affected and teacher training
institutions have had to make changes in their professional competencies (Ferdig, 2006).
What is more, it has acquired an aspect that individuals actively employ at almost every
level. This change and development now compel teachers to espouse teaching strategies
enriched by ICT and use them in learning environments (Kuşkaya-Mumcu, Haşlaman, &
Koçak-Usluel 2008; Mazman & Usluel, 2011).
Various models for integrating technology into schools have been suggested today
out of necessity. Among these, the following are of note: Pierson’s Improved Model
(Pierson, 2001), the Technology Integration Model (Roblyer, 2006), the Systematic
ICT Integration Model (Wang & Woo, 2007), the Social Model (Wang, 2008),
and Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK) model, based on Shulman’s (1986) PCK or pedagogical content knowledge
to help teachers analyze how to integrate technology into teaching effectively.

1735
Gokdas, Torun / Examining the Impact of Instructional Technology and Material Design Courses on Technopedagogical Education...
Koehler and Mishra’s (2009) TPACK model provides teachers with a useful conceptual
framework to dene the types of information that they have to teach in eld-specic topics
through technology. However, those information elds need to be discussed holistically
– not separately – for an effective integration of technology (Koehler, Mishra, & Cain,
2013; McKenney & Voogt, 2017). TPACK, the main components of TPACK, and data
components at the points of interface are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Main Components of TPACK and Data Components
Content Knowledge (CK) Includes the information taught and the information about the subject focus to be
learned.
Pedagogical Knowledge
(PK)
Includes information about the teaching-learning process and such practices as
fostering student learning, the learning process, classroom management, lesson plan
development, various teaching practices, strategies and methods, and evaluation.
Technological
Knowledge (TK)
Includes the use of information technologies, hardware, software, and tools by
teachers.
Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (PCK) Includes pedagogical information to be applied to teach particular content.
Technological
Pedagogical
Knowledge(TPK)
Includes information about appropriate pedagogical approaches toward
technological tools and how to change teaching and learning through the technology
employed by teachers.
Technological Content
Knowledge(TCK)
Includes information about how to employ instructional technologies for content
development and display or in research conduct and what eld-specic technologies
take place.
Technological
Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPCK)
Includes information about complex relationships between the technology,
pedagogy, and content that enable teachers to develop content specic special
teaching strategies.
Reference: (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Koehler, Mishra, Kereluik, Shin, & Graham, 2014).
While TPACK classies the knowledge and skills necessary to integrate
technological knowledge under eld knowledge, it classies professional teaching
knowledge under the educational process. This classication that gives rise to
the concept of technopedagogical education, which is dened as the instructional
planning, practice, and evaluation based on technopedagogical content knowledge
in an attempt to increase the effectiveness of the teaching process (Kabakçı Yudakul,
& Odabaşı, 2013). Technopedagogical education emphasizes the incorporated
employment of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge in the teaching
process in addition to a close relationship between technology, pedagogy, and content
knowledge in order not only to use appropriate technologies but also to integrate
different technologies into classroom environments.
Techno-pedagogical education consists of four factors: (i) design, (ii) prociency,
(iii)ethics, and (iv) exertion (Figure 1) (Kabakçı Yurdakul & Odabaşı, 2013).

1736
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Figure 1. Factors of technopedagogical education competencies (Kabakçı Yurdakul & Odabaşı, 2013).
Table 2
Factors of Technopedagogical Education Competencies and Denitions (Kabakçı Yurdakul & Odabaşı, 2013)
Factor Content
Design Teacher competency in designing enriched learning environments by using technological and
pedagogical knowledge.
Prociency Teacher competency in employing technology in order to pursue the designated teaching
process and to assess its effectiveness.
Ethics Teacher competency in employing technology in accordance with technological and
professional ethical principles.
Exertion
Teacher competency in leading the environment by using eld knowledge and problem
solving skills for issues faced in the teaching process and competency in using technology and
content knowledge.
Preservice teacher training programs are one of the most critical ways to facilitate
teachers’ acquisition of technopedagogical education competency. TPACK acquisition,
especially for preservice teachers to be employed in preschools and primary schools, is
of particular educational interest since such education is considered to compose the basis
of all further education. Helping learners adapt to technologically supported learning
environments and enabling them to access information through technologies are associated
with teacher TPACK competencies. In the literature, it is mentioned that e-stories, educative
computer games, and the integration of technologically rich learning environments
support the development of early literacy skills in preschools (Belo, McKenney, Voogt, &
Bradley, 2016; Verhallen, Bus, & Jong, 2006) and may contribute to technological literacy
(McKenney & Voogt, 2017). Again, ICT has been employed in teaching and learning in
various early childhood curricula (Wang & Hoot, 2006; Yurt & Cevher-Kalburan, 2011).
Research has shown that the use of technology, including computers, might support
children’s memory development, communication, and problem solving skills (Haugland,
1992) as well as their natural musical abilities (Panagiotakou & Pange, 2010).
With this being said however, several studies (Enochsson & Rizza, 2009; McKenney
& Voogt, 2017; Tondeur, Pareja Roblin, Braak, Fisser, & Voogt, 2013) have revealed

1737
Gokdas, Torun / Examining the Impact of Instructional Technology and Material Design Courses on Technopedagogical Education...
that preservice teachers do not feel ready to use instructional technology. It has further
been observed that educational institutions do not have sufcient technological resources
during the preservice teacher training process and that application examples, role models,
and motivation for the effective use of technology is lacking (McKenney & Voogt,
2017). Moreover, it has been suggested in the literature that teachers cannot effectively
employ ICT unless they are trained (Önkol, Zembat, & Balat, 2011) and therefore they
need to be trained in terms of the use and integration of such technologies (Gialamas
& Nikolopoulou, 2010; Liang, Chai, Ling Koh, Yang, & Tsai, 2013; McKenney &
Voogt, 2017; Yurt & Cevher-Kalburan, 2011). When the increased amount of time in
front of screens spent by children is considered, the training of teachers able to employ
technology in such a way that children may benet from it is now much more important
than ever. Again, the ndings reveal that teachers’ increased ICT knowledge increases
their feelings of self-efcacy in integrating technology (McKenney & Voogt, 2017),
highlighting the need for and the importance of teacher training. It has been suggested
that since technology in particular has an inuential role in every sphere of daily life and
plays an inarguable role in children’s life (Liang et al., 2013), teachers need to be able to
use technology effectively for educational purposes in order to integrate technology into
educational practices (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). All things considered, just as integrating
technology into education at the preschool and primary school levels has gained critical
importance, so too so too has teachers’ acquisition of TPACK, especially in the preservice
training process, gained vital signicance. Taking into consideration such a need in
Turkey, policies for integrating ICT into education have been initiated. Such policies
include providing technological infrastructure and updating the education system to meet
the contemporary needs and practices (e.g. digital course content development) (Tekin &
Polat, 2014). The FATİH project (Movement to Enhancing Opportunities and Improving
Technology) is remarkable it its being the most comprehensive project aiming to integrate
technology into education. However, the integration of technology into education means
not only technology in classrooms involved in the teaching process but also ensuring
the appropriate curriculum, pedagogy, theoretical background, nancial support, and
teacher competencies (Tinio, 2003). In this context, with renewed teacher training
programs, Turkey’s Council of Higher Education (1997), also known as YÖK in Turkish,
introduced curriculum including Instructional Technology and Material Development
(ITMD) courses during the 1998-1999 academic year and was renamed Instructional
Technology and Material Design in 2006 in the restructured curriculum that structured
course content (course denition) within the framework of theoretical and practical
integrity (e.g. the theoretical basis of instructional technology, the use of instructional
technology for educational purposes, the denition of technological needs, 2D/3D and
computer based material development, educational software reviews and assessment, and
distance education) (Yükseköğretim Kurulu [YÖK], 2007). In the curriculum guideline,
the Council of Higher Education highlights the fact that those who are supposed to carry

1738
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
out ITMD courses need to be specialized in instructional technology (YÖK, 2007) and
in a sense, denes competencies of the instructors in charge. However, with regard to
today’s technology, it must be understood that many teachers do not feel ready to employ
technology in classrooms and that because there is no single technological resolution
appropriate for every teacher, course, or teaching approach, it is not surprising that they
do not consider the contributions of instructional technologies to teaching and learning
signicant. However, teachers’ abilities to exibly sift through elds dened by content,
pedagogy, and technology and to provide complex interactions between these in certain
contexts might beget solutions. Disregarding the peculiar complexity of every piece
of information or complex relationships between components may cause simplied
resolutions or failure. For this reason, teachers need to develop cognitive exibility
not only in each of the key disciplines (Technology, Pedagogy and Content) but also in
grasping how these elds and contextual parameters are inter-connected so that they may
be able to come up with efcient resolutions. As a result, there is no “best way” to integrate
technology into curricula. Contrarily, the attempts for integrity need to be creatively
designed or structured for specic issues at particular class levels and in classroom
environments (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). When considered in this context, it could be
suggested that since ITMD courses not only establish relationships between technology,
pedagogy, and content but also facilitate the development of content specic teaching
strategies and outcome oriented content, they bear a prominent role in preservice teacher
training programs aiming for to help future teachers acquire TPACK competencies.
Upon review of the literature, it is clear that certain issues have been addressed
both in the ITMD course applications in accordance with course objectives and in
the implementation of the FATİH project. For example, the following facts have
been observed: the environmental aspect of instructional technology during ITMD
courses has become prominent and practices are rather performed on the basis of
material development (Alım, 2007; Kolburan Geçer, 2010; Yaman, 2007) and the
technopedagogical aspect has, at least in the past, been lacking (Çoklar, Kılıçer,
& Odabaşı, 2007), teachers are unable to use technologies in accordance with
objectives although learning environments are gradually becoming technologically
equipped (Akıncı, Kurtoğlu, & Seferoğlu, 2012; Akgün, Yılmaz, & Seferoğlu, 2011;
Ekici & Yılmaz, 2013; Kayaduman, Sırakaya, & Seferoğlu, 2011; Pamuk, Çakır,
Ergun, Yılmaz, & Ayas, 2013), they do not have the basic competencies necessary
to integrate technology into education nor do they display enthusiastic attitudes
in employing technologies (Collis & Moonen, 2008). In terms of content, ITMD
seems to be a course in which technopedagogical education competencies could
be acquired. Nonetheless, there no tangible data has been collected on the effect of
ITMD courses on technopedagogical education competency acquisition under the
current course description. Thus, under the current course description, these two
questions have remained unanswered: (i) “What effects do ITMD courses have on

1739
Gokdas, Torun / Examining the Impact of Instructional Technology and Material Design Courses on Technopedagogical Education...
technopedagogical education competency acquisition?” and (ii) “Do the following
variables of department, personal computer ownership, ownership period and daily
computer use, Internet usage time, ICT training background, and the use of web
2.0 tools predict such an inuence, if there is any?” For this reason, the current
study has been designed to determine whether ITMD courses have an effect on
technopedagogical education competency acquisition under the current course
description and to explore its predictors.
Purpose
The general purpose of the study is to show the effect of the ITMD courses
included in the professional teaching knowledge courses of education faculties on
technopedagogical competency acquisition. While keeping this main purpose in
mind, answers to the following questions have been sought:
i. In the pre-course and post-course periods,
a. Do technopedagogical education competency levels of those who attend ITMD
courses vary signicantly?
b. Are there signicant differences between the technopedagogical education
competency factors?
ii. Do the independent variables of the study (i.e. department, personal computer
ownership, length of ownership and daily computer usage time, time spent on
the Internet, computer training, the use of e-mail, social networking, blogs and
web site ownership) predict technopedagogical education competency acquisition
when these same variables as well as technopedagogical education competencies
of those who attend ITMD courses are considered for each factor?
Method
The current study employs the casual comparative method, one of the survey methods,
as it aims to explore the effect of ITMD courses in-line with the Council of Higher
Education’s course description on technopedagogical education competency acquisition
and its predictors (YÖK, 2007). The casual comparative method attempts to determine
the reasons and outcomes for differences between groups without any interventions with
conditions and participants (Büyüköztürk, Kılıç, Akgün, Karadeniz, & Demirel, 2009).
Research Group
The research was conducted with those who attended ITMD courses in Adnan
Menderes University’s Faculty of Education during the spring semester. The main

1740
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
criteria used to dene the research group were (i) accessibility and (ii) courses
sharing similar content and systematic proceedings in terms of theoretical and
practical integrity. Another signicant reason for dening the research group in this
way was the critical importance and need for preschool and primary school teachers
to be competent in technopedagogical educational areas, as these levels constitute
the very foundation of the educational process. Therefore, the study was conducted
with a total of four sections (N = 186) consisting of preservice teachers from the
Department of Preschool Teaching (n = 42, %22.6) and from the Department of
Classroom Teaching (n = 144, %77.4) who had taken ITMD courses during the same
semester under the supervision of the author preservice. All of the students who had
taken and regularly attended the ITMD courses during the semester in question were
included in the research process.
Data Gathering Instrument
The ve-point Likert type Technopedagogical Education Competencies Scale
(TPACK-deep) developed by Kabakci Yurdakul et al. (2012) was to collect data gathering
in the current study with the consent of the researchers. Composed of four factors related
to technopedagogical competencies (i.e. Design, Prociency, Exertion, and Ethics) and
composed of 33 items, the internal reliability coefcient scale was found to be .95.
Data Collection
The TPACK-deep Scale was distributed to preservice teachers at the beginning
of the course. Following the course description published by the Council of Higher
Education (YÖK, 2007), the course consisted of one two-hour theoretical segment
and one two-hour practical segment that were carried out by the current researcher
as part of the content scheduled to be taught. Due to laboratory restrictions however,
the practical part of the course was completed in classrooms. During the course, the
technologies to be employed in learning environments were introduced to the students
in consideration with the eld specic qualities of the departments in which they
were studying.. The related technologies were modeled by the instructor in classroom
settings using tablet PCs, interactive boards, and students’ own mobile phones. At
the end of the course, the students were assigned tasks in which they were to design
instructional materials to be employed for the content area of their choice that took into
consideration their prospective educational levels, student levels, and probable student
qualities. The tasks assigned were completed either individually or in groups depending
on the features of the related technologies and content scope. Tasks included in the
practical segment were assigned concerning the available technological changes. In
this context, current technologies, such as web 2.0, were employed for material design
and production because innovative web based technologies (e.g. Web 2.0 tools) could

1741
Gokdas, Torun / Examining the Impact of Instructional Technology and Material Design Courses on Technopedagogical Education...
be applied in different teaching contexts by developing interactive communications
supporting teacher-student learning communities, shareable educational resources, and
constructivist collaborative learning approaches (Purdy, 2010). With such approaches,
not only students were more actively involved in the search for related sources,
cognitive structure constructions, the exchange of information, and access to feedback,
they were able to perform tasks in collaboration (Chai et al.). The development of 3D
Table 3
ITMD Course Syllabus
Week Theory Practice Task Type of work
I
Basic concepts of instructional
technology, historical
process, trends in educational
technology
TPACK-DEEP
/ Introduction
of Learning
Management
System (LMS)
(Whiteboard)
Whiteboard
membership of students
II
Instructional technology,
Communication and
Instructional Analysis.
LMS experience,
Lesson plan
development
File downloading
through LMS, le
uploading, writing
messages,
lesson plan
development
Team work
III
Learning situations;
The role and importance of
equipment in the teaching-
learning process, selection and
effective usage of equipment.
Interactive board,
Document camera
Effective use of
interactive board and
document camera
Hands on practice
during courses in a
group setting
IV
Learning situations;
The role and importance of
equipment in the teaching-
learning process, selection and
effective usage of equipment.
Camera,
Video camera,
Projection devices
Video camera recorded
instructional material
design
Team work
VAudio-visual materials design,
development and evaluation.
PowerPoint,
Emaze,
Powtoon
Presentation design Individual work
VI Audio-visual materials design,
development and evaluation
Inspiration,
Pooplet,
Padled
Concept mapping
(Inspiration),
knowledge mapping
and mind mapping
(Pooplet), Wallboard
design (Padled)
Team work
VII Audio-visual materials design,
development and evaluation Webquest Webquest design Team work
VIII Audio-visual materials design,
development and evaluation
Video editoruse
(Moviemaker)
Video based study case/
Digital story design Team work
IX Audio-visual materials design,
development and evaluation
Programmed
instruction
Programmed
instructional material
design
Team work
X Internet and distance education Social networking
and blog starting Blog starting Individual work
XI Internet and distance education Online classroom Course participation in
online classrooms Individual work
XII Course Evaluation TPACK-DEEP

1742
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
materials based on manual skills, however, was not included. Theoretical and practical
issues discussed during the course, the tasks assigned to students, and the ways these
tasks were performed are listed in Table 3. Since an ethical aspect was not covered
in the ITMD course description, it was not mentioned as a main topic in the research
process, although it was briey explained in necessary cases.
Data Analysis
Both the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests were incorporatedly
employed to examine the normal distribution in the data analysis. As a result of the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the values were calculated to be p > .05 for the pre-test
and p > .05 for the post-test. The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed normal distribution of
the data with the following values: p > .05for the pre-test and p > .05 for the post-test.
Kabakci Yurdakul et al. (2012) suggest the following criteria for the evaluation of
scores obtained from the Technopedagogical Education Competency Scale (TPACK-
deep): (i) a general mean score between 1.00-2.33 is considered low level, (ii) between
2.34-3.67 is considered moderate level, and between 3.68-5.00 is considered high level.
A paired sample t-test was employed to determine whether a signicant difference
existed between preservice teachers’ views before and after the course, resulting in a
.05 level of signicance. In the study, a CHAID (Chi-squared Automatic Interaction
Detection) analysis was used to dene predictor variables that inuenced preservice
teachers’ views about technopedagogical education competencies and the type
of hierarchical structure that was built by the variables according to the level of
signicance. A CHAID analysis is a technique that repeatedly splits distributions
into clusters or subclasses (Kayri & Boysan, 2007; Zırhlıoğlu, 2011). This method
splits the target into detailed homogenous subclasses in a fashion best able to explain
the data set of categorical variables and the dependent variable. These subclasses
consist of smaller predictive subgroups. For optimum estimation, initial variables are
independently re-categorized (Zırhlıoğlu, 2011).
Findings
In this section, the data obtained from the study in accordance with the research
aims have been transformed into ndings, placed into tables, and interpreted.
As seen in Table 4, participants’ TPACK education competency levels prior to
the course were x = 3.59, increasing to x = 3.74 at the end of the course. The applied
paired sample t-test revealed the difference to be statistically signicant in favor of
the post-test. Examination of the table reveals that there is a statistically signicant
difference in favor of the post-test for three (i.e. design, prociency, and exertion)

1743
Gokdas, Torun / Examining the Impact of Instructional Technology and Material Design Courses on Technopedagogical Education...
of the four factors on the TPACK-deep Scale. For the forth favor, ethics, the mean
scores were similar both prior to and following the course, suggesting that the course
did not have any effect on ethics.
Figure 2. CHAID analysis results of predictor variables of TPACK education competencies: Pre-course.
Figure 2 illustrates that the technopedagogical education competencies of those
who had received ICT training as a result of their own personal efforts in addition
to higher education and out-of-school courses before attending ITMD courses were
higher (x = 3.88) than those who had not, whereas the mean scores of those without
any training were lower (x = 3.44). Thus, it could be concluded that computer training
before attending ITMD courses seems to be a signicant predictor variable of
technopedagogical education competencies. Figure 3 reveals that the time one spends
using a computer was the most signicant predictor for those who attended ITMD
Table 4
Paired Sample t-Test Results of TPACK Education Competency Levels: Pre/Post Course Periods
XN ss df t
Design (pre) 3.70 186 .483 185 -5.594*
Design (post) 3.87 186 .463
Prociency (pre) 3.,58 186 .504 185 -3.988*
Prociency (post) 3.71 186 .472
Ethics (pre) 3.37 186 .570 185 -.067
Ethics (post) 3.37 186 .569
Exertion (pre) 3.68 186 .568 185 -7.064*
Exertion (post) 3.97 186 .515
Pre course 3.59 186 .465 185 -4.972*
Post course 3.74 186 .448
*p <.05.

1744
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
courses. At this point, daily ICT usage for more than an hour was the most inuential
factor on post-test scores. Again, in the scores of those who used ICT for more than
Figure 3. CHAID analysis results of predictor variables of TPACK education competencies: Post-course.
Node 0
Mean: 3,704
Std Dev: 0,483
n: 186; %100
Predicted 3,704
ICT train ing
Adj. P va lue=0,000; F=15,316,
df1=1, df2=183
No previous computer
training
Computer training courses
during secondary school years;
Through o ut-of-school courses
Node 2
Mean: 3,519
Std Dev: 0, 416
n: 75; %40,3
Predicted 3,519
Node 3
Mean: 3,774
Std Dev: 0, 457
n: 95; %51,1
Predicted 3,774
Pre-desig n
Through p ersonal
effor ts
Node 1
Mean: 4,149
Std Dev: 0, 550
n: 16; %8,6
Predicted 4,149
Figure 4. Predictors of TPACK education competencies in the “Design” factor: Pre-course.

1745
Gokdas, Torun / Examining the Impact of Instructional Technology and Material Design Courses on Technopedagogical Education...
an hour, ICT training was found to be a signicant predictor variable. ICT training
background appeared to be a signicant predictor variable in more ICT usage.
Figure 5. Predictors of TPACK education competencies in the “Design” factor: Post-course.
Figure 6. Predictors of TPACK education competencies in the “Prociency” factor: Pre-course.

1746
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Examination of Figures 4 and 5 above reveals that previous ICT training was the
most signicant variable predicting preservice teachers’ mean scores for the TPACK-
deep design factor prior to attending ITMD courses (Figure 4). Nevertheless, after
attending ITMD courses, blog use was found to be the most signicant predictor
variable for the TPACK-deep design factor (Figure 5).
Figure 7. Predictors of TPACK education competencies in the “Prociency” factor: Post-course.
The most signicant predictor variable for the TPACK-deep prociency factor was
found to be having received ICT training as a result of one’s personal efforts and
out-of-school courses (x = 3.83) before attending ITMD courses. Whereas one’s eld
of study (i.e. department) was a signicant predictor variable in the mean scores of
those who had not previously received ICT training and of those who had received
computer training courses during secondary school (Figure 6), e-mail use was found
to be a signicant variable affecting the mean scores of those who were studying to
be classroom teachers (Figure 6). For the TPACK-deep prociency factor, the high
amount of daily ICT usage appeared to be a signicant predictor variable inuencing

1747
Gokdas, Torun / Examining the Impact of Instructional Technology and Material Design Courses on Technopedagogical Education...
the mean scores of the prociency factor after attending ITMD courses. Webpage
ownership and active use of webpages (x = 4,30) was found more signicant predictor
variable (Figure 7) for the mean scores of those using ICT for more than an hour per
day for the TPACK-deep prociency factor,.
Node 0
Mean: 3,374
Std Dev: 0,570
n: 186; %100
Predicted 3,374
ICT train ing
Adj. P va lue=0,001; F=10,322,
df1=1, df2=183
No previous computer
training
Computer training
courses during
secondary school
years
Node 2
Mean: 3,203
Std Dev: 0,535
n: 75; %40,3
Predicted 3,203
Node 3
Mean: 3,393
Std Dev: 0,544
n: 80; %43
Predicted 3,398
Pre ethics
Through pe rsonal
efforts; T hrough out-
of-school courses
Node 1
Mean: 3,727
Std Dev: 0,533
n: 31; %16,7
Predicted 3,727
Figure 8. Predictors of TPACK education competencies in the “Ethics” factor: Pre-course.
Node 0
Mean: 3,377
Std Dev: 0,570
n: 186; %100
Predicted 3,377
Blog
Adj. P va lue=0,002; F=13,462,
df1=1, df2=184
Available but disused; No
Available a nd in use
Node 1
Mean: 3,333
Std Dev: 0,552
n: 171; %91,9
Predicted 3,333
Node 2
Mean: 3,878
Std Dev: 0,544
n: 15; %8,1
Predicted 3,878
Post Ethics
Computer ownership
Adj. P value=0,021; F=7,491,
df1=1, df2=169
No
Yes
Node 3
Mean: 3,177
Std Dev: 0,647
n: 37; %19,9
Predicted 3,177
Node 4
Mean: 3,393
Std Dev: 0,510
n: 134; %72
Predicted 3,393
Department
Adj. P value=0,009; F=7,090,
df1=1, df2=131
Classroom teaching
Preschool teaching
Node 5
Mean: 3,458
Std Dev: 0,471
n: 101; %54,3
Predicted 3,458
Node 2
Mean: 3,192
Std Dev: 0,576
n: 33; %17,7
Predicted 3,192
Figure 9. Predictors of TPACK education competencies in the “Ethics” factor: Post-course.

1748
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Whether or not one had received ICT training as a result of his personal efforts
and out-of-school courses predicted preservice teachers’ mean scores (Figure 8) for
the TPACK-deep ethics factor prior to attending ITMD courses. After attending the
ITMD courses (Figure 9), blog use was found to be a signicant predictor variable
for the mean scores of the ethics factor. However, computer ownership was a more
signicant variable (x = 3.39) for the mean scores of both those with active but non-
updated blogs and those without blogs. Participants’ eld of study (i.e. department)
appeared to be a signicant predictor variable for the mean scores of computer owners
for the ethics factor, whereas the mean scores of those who studying in the classroom
teaching department were found to be higher (x = 3.45).
Node 0
Mean: 3,689
Std Dev: 0,569
n: 186; %100
Predicted 3,689
Blog
Adj. P va lue=0,036; F=8,010,
df1=1, df2=184
Available but disused; No
Available a nd in use
Node 1
Mean: 3,655
Std Dev: 0,556
n: 171; %91,9
Predicted 3,655
Node 2
Mean: 4,080
Std Dev: 0,580
n: 15; %8,1
Predicted 4,080
Pre exerti on
Department
Adj. P value=0,003; F=9,133,
df1=1, df2=169
Classroom teaching
Preschool teaching
Node 3
Mean: 3,722
Std Dev: 0,528
n: 133; %71,5
Predicted 3,722
Node 4
Mean: 3,420
Std Dev: 0,594
n: 38; %20,4
Predicted 3,420
Blog
Adj. P va lue=0,047; F=4,021,
df1=1, df2=131
Available but disused
No
Node 5
Mean: 3,564
Std Dev: 0,516
n: 33; %17,7
Predicted 3,564
Node 2
Mean: 3,774
Std Dev: 0,525
n: 100; %53,8
Predicted 3,774
Figure 10. Predictors of TPACK education competencies in the “Exertion” factor: Pre-course.

1749
Gokdas, Torun / Examining the Impact of Instructional Technology and Material Design Courses on Technopedagogical Education...
Node 0
Mean: 3,977
Std Dev: 0,515
n: 186; %100
Predicted 3,997
ICT Usage Time
Adj. P va lue=0,005; F=13,205,
df1=1, df2=184
Less than an ho ur;
1-3 hrs; 4 hrs a nd above
I do not use at all
Node 1
Mean: 4,006
Std Dev: 0, 497
n: 178; %95,7
Predicted 4,006
Node 2
Mean: 3,350
Std Dev: 0, 563
n: 8; %4,3
Predicted 3,350
Post exerti on
Figure 11. Predictors of TPACK education competencies in the “Exertion” factor: Post-course.
Blog use (x = 4.08) was found to be the most signicant variable inuencing
preservice teachers’ mean scores for the TPACK-deep exertion factor (Figure 10)
prior to participating in the ITMD courses. Participants’ department of study was a
signicant predictor variable for the mean scores of those individuals who either had
never used a blog or who although owning a blog did not use it for the TPACK-deep
exertion factor. The mean score of those who were studying in the classroom teaching
department was x = 3.72, whereas that of the preservice teachers studying in the
preschool teaching department was x = 3.42. ICT usage was found to be a signicant
variable inuencing the post-test mean scores for the TPACK-deep exertion factor
(Figure 10) after participating ITMD courses.
Discussion
The gradual active role and spread of ICT in the learning process has led to the
need for technology to be integrated into schools throughout Turkey. However,
the integration of technology does not mean to overload schools with technology.
Beyond this, technology needs to be employed on a pedagogical basis in the following
aspects: (i) design, (ii) practice, and (iii) evaluation of the instructional process. Since
technological literacy competencies have become an indispensable part of teacher
training and since TPACK ensures an infrastructure for the effective and meaningful
integration of technology into classrooms on behalf of teachers, it is necessary that
teachers develop competencies in technopedagogical education. For such competency
acquisition, ITMD courses have been included in preservice training programs for
teachers. ITMD courses, due to their theoretical content and practical aspect, seem
to contribute the most to training those who will be in the position of supporting the
integration of technology into the teaching-learning process. In their study, Gündüz
and Odabaşı (2004) also highlighted the signicance of the courses in this context.

1750
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
However, in the current practices, ITMD is largely perceived to be restricted to
material development. Conducted taking into consideration the latest technologies
following the Council of Higher Education’s description for ITMD, the current study
found that the applied instructional process was inuential on technopedagogical
education competency acquisition, with the sole exception of the TPACK-deep ethics
factor. Since the course description by the Council of Higher Education mentions
no topics or units on ethical aspects (YÖK, 2007), ethics was not covered as a main
topic during the course. It was however occasionally mentioned in the context of
other subjects. Yet, such mention was insufcient for competency acquisition in the
area of. Nevertheless, as a result of an experimental application of technopedagogical
education for preservice teachers by Ersoy, Kabakçı, Yurdakul, and Ceylan (2016),
it was seen that competencies for all of the TPACK-deep factors increased. It could
be suggested that a specic experimental structure for TPACK-deep competency
acquisition in the study denitely led to such a result. Unlike the study by Ersoy et al.
(2016), the current research did not employ a special experimental ction, focusing
instead on the pre-dened content of the course. Nevertheless, the latest technologies
and technological opportunities were all covered in the applications.
As a result of the CHAID analysis conducted to explore the signicance range of
the predictors of the TPACK-deep factors, having received prior ICT training was
found to be the most signicant variable predicting preservice teachers’ TPACK-
deep levels prior to attending the ITMD courses. In this context, ICT training through
one’s personal efforts and out-of-school courses was the primary predictor variable,
whereas training during secondary school years was next. It was found that the
most signicant predictor variable inuencing preservice teachers’ TPACK-deep
competencies after attending the ITMD courses was computer use. TPACK-deep
increased as the time preservice teachers spent using computers increased. However,
it was concluded that preservice teachers’ competencies for all of the TPACK-deep
factors increased following the experimental application of the technopedagogical
education by Ersoy et al. (2016).
During the study, when the four factors included in the TPACK-deep scale (i.e.
design, prociency, ethics, and exertion) were considered separately and the predictor
variables included in the study were examined, it was seen that the predictor variables
for each factor partially varied.
Concerning the design factor, results revealed that prior ICT training was the most
signicant variable predicting competency acquisition during the pre-test whereas
blog ownership and use was the most important predictor variable during the post-test.
The difference is thought to be a result of the effective blog starting practices gained
during the course. Jang and Chen (2010) suggested that TPACK based technology

1751
Gokdas, Torun / Examining the Impact of Instructional Technology and Material Design Courses on Technopedagogical Education...
usage and experience was important in improving TPACK competencies. It was
concluded that those able to use ICT efciently were more successful in technology
supported activities (Polly, 2008; 2014).
On the other hand, prior ICT training before attending the ITMD courses was found
to be the most signicant predictor variable for the exertion factor of the TPACK-deep
scale. While examining the predictors of ICT training methods in a hierarchical structure,
it was found that ICT training through one’s personal efforts and out-of-school courses
constituted the most signicant predictor variable. One’s area of study (i.e. department)
was the most signicant predictor variable for those who had not received prior ICT
training and for those who had ICT training during secondary school. Ownership of
an e-mail account was an important predictor among the preservice teachers who were
studying in the classroom teaching department. The TPACK-deep competencies of those
who had and actively used an e-mail account were found to be higher. However, daily
time spent using ICT was the most signicant predictor variable for preservice teachers’
TPACK-deep competencies after attending the ITMD courses, with preservice teachers’
TPACK-deep levels increasing as their time spent using ICT increased. The most
signicant predictor of TPACK-deep for those who spend more than one house per day
using ICT was webpage membership. The TPACK-deep levels of preservice teachers
who had and used webpages were higher than those who did not have and use them.
The results obtained from the exertion factor clearly reveal that one’s personal efforts in
seeking computer training and out-of-school courses played a crucial role in preservice
teachers’ acquisition of technopedagogical skills. This case might have been caused
both by preservice teachers’ voluntary participation and by their belief that ICT was an
essential aspect both in daily life and in terms of their professional skills. In other words,
it could be suggested that the preservice teachers’ high levels of intrinsic motivation
were a signicant predictor of TPACK-deep competency acquisition. The importance
of ICT competency levels in technopedagogical education competency acquisition was
also emphasized in the studies conducted by Chai, Ng, Li, Hong, and Koh (2013) and
Koh, Chai, and Tsai (2013). Again, in their study, Kabakci Yurdagul, and Coklar (2014)
concluded that time spent using ICTs positively inuenced TPACK competencies.
What is more is that the literature contains research ndings showing that ICT skills are
inuential on preservice teachers’ teaching practices (Inan, Lowther, Ross, & Strahl,
2010; Khan, 2011; Orlando, 2009). In studies conducted by Lee and Tsai (2010) and Jang
and Tsai (2012), preservice teachers’ TPACKs varied signicantly according to teaching
experience. Lee and Tsai (2010) concluded not only that TPACK competencies of those
who had more web experience were higher compared to those with less experience, but
that they had attitudes toward using web tools were generally more positive.
The CHAID analysis of the TPACK-deep ethics factor found, that previous
computer training was the most signicant predictor variable during the pre-test

1752
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
phase. Furthermore, it was seen that training through one’s personal efforts and out-
of-school courses constituted a more signicant predictor variable than other types of
prior ICT training upon examination of the hierarchical structure. Nonetheless, during
the post-test phase, blog ownership and managing an active blog were found to be
a more signicant predictor variable. An examination of the resulting hierarchical
structure revealed that personal computer ownership appeared to be a more signicant
predictor variable for those who had started and who continued to actively use blogs.
The TPACK-deep levels of computer owners were higher, for whom eld of study
(i.e. department) was found to be the most signicant predictor variable. The TPACK-
deep levels of those studying in the classroom teaching department were found to be
higher. This change was thought to be a result of the courses’ mention of copyrights
in regard to content development in blog and website design. In a study conducted
with preservice teachers in which the low number of studies on ethics in Turkey
was emphasized, Beycioglu (2009) studied views on non-ethical computer usage in
Turkey, concluding that although individuals were not concerned about the issue of
ethics, they were sensitive to the ethical usage of computers.
On the other hand, while daily time spent using ICT was the most signicant predictor
variable during the post-test phase, blog ownership and use was the most signicant
during the pre-test phase for the exertion factor of TPACK-deep prior to attending the
ITMD courses. It is obvious that work needs to be given exertion in certain matters.
When considered in this context, experience using ICT and an increase in time spent
using were found to be a signicant predictor variable for acquiring competency
for areas in the TPACK-deep exertion factor. In their experimental application of
technopedagogical education with preservice teachers, Ersoy et al. (2016) concluded
that TPACK competency levels increased as their use of ICT increased. In addition
to higher education, the time preservice teachers spent using ICT and their prior ICT
training were the most signicant variables inuencing TPACK-deep competency
acquisition. Having received prior computer training through one’s personal efforts
and out-of-school courses played a crucial role in technopedagogical education
competency acquisition and was thought to be a result of preservice teachers’
voluntary participation in the process, their belief that ICT was indispensable in both
their daily and profession lives, and their intrinsic motivations. The importance of
ICT competency levels in technopedagogical education competency acquisition was
also emphasized in the studies conducted by Chai et al. (2013) and by Koh et al.
(2013). Again, in their study, Kabakci Yurdakul, and Coklar (2014) concluded that
ICT usage levels positively inuenced TPACK competencies.
The accelerated integration of technology into schools, as part of the FATİH
Project in particular, entailed a strong need for digital content development. While
the Ministry of Education (MoNE) has been trying to meet the need via its Education

1753
Gokdas, Torun / Examining the Impact of Instructional Technology and Material Design Courses on Technopedagogical Education...
Information Network (EBA), it expects teachers to support the system since the
system is open to digital contents prepared by teachers. It is essential to carry out
ITMD courses, included in professional teaching knowledge courses, on the basis
of technopedagogical education in order to meet these expectations in the long term.
The results of the project implemented by Kabakçı Yurdakul, Çoklar, Birinci, and
Kılıçer (2012) have also supported this nding (as cited in Kabakçı Yurdakul &
Odabaşı, 2013). Again, Ersoy et al. (2016) have highlighted that teacher training
programs need to be updated, suggesting not only a new format that supports learner
skills with the rearrangement of ITMD course content included in the curricula used
by the departments that make up Turkey’s Faculties of Education but also a review of
the content of particular technology based courses and applications based on TPACK.
Technopedagogical education competency acquisition during preservice training
and in-service training programs for teachers has become increasingly crucial due to
the development of ICT and its integration into education. It is obvious that teacher
training programs need to be renewed to ensure competency acquisition, particularly
in the preservice training period. Moreover, great importance has been given to ICT
competency acquisition before higher education and, in this context, the exploration and
integration of intrinsic motivation supporting units in learning environments. It is thought
that carrying out ICT courses during preservice training programs will contribute greatly
to technopedagogical education competency acquisition. This is considered especially
true for curricula supporting the scheduled ITMD practices. Again, designing special
learning environments for ITMD courses is considered signicant in that it will lead to
more effective and productive proceedings during in-class practices.
References
Akgün, E., Yılmaz, E. O., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2011, Şubat). Vizyon 2023 strateji belgesi ve fırsatları artırma
ve teknolojiyi iyileştirme hareketi (FATİH) projesi: Karşılaştırmalı bir inceleme [Vision 2023 Strategy
Document and Increasing Opportunities and Improvement of Technology Project: A Comparative
Analysis]. Paper presented at the XIIIth Academic Informatics Conference (pp. 115–122). İnönü
Üniversitesi, Malatya, Turkey. Retrieved from http://ab.org.tr/ab11/kitap/akgun_yilmaz_AB11.pdf
Akıncı, A., Kurtoğlu, M., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2012, Şubat). Bir teknoloji politikası olarak FATİH projesinin
başarılı olması için yapılması gerekenler: Bir durum analiz çalışması [How can FATIH project achieve
its goals? A situation analysis study]. Paper presented at the XIVth Academic Informatics Conference.
Uşak Üniversitesi, Uşak, Turkey. Retrieved from http://ab.org.tr/ab12/bildiri/160.doc
Alım, M. (2007). Öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme (ÖTMG) dersinin önemi ve öğretim
sürecine ilişkin öneriler [The importance of teaching technologies and material development
course and suggestion on the teaching process]. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, 17, 243–262. Retrieved
from http://e-dergi.atauni.edu.tr/ataunidcd/article/view/1021006902
Archambault, L., Wetzel, K., Foulger, T. S., & Williams, M. K. (2010). Professional development
2.0: Transforming teacher education pedagogy with 21st century tools. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 27(1), 4–11.

1754
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Belo, N., McKenney, S., Voogt, J., & Bradley, B. (2016). Teacher knowledge for using technology
to foster early literacy: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 372–383. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.053
Beycioglu, K. (2009). A cyber philosophical issue in education: Unethical computer using behavior
– The case of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 201–208.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2011). Bilimsel
araştırma yöntemleri (8. basım) [Scientic research methods]. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Yayınları.
Chai, C. S., Ling, K. J. H., Jessie Ho, H. N., & Tsai, C-C. (2012). Examining preservice teachers’
perceived knowledge of TPACK and cyber wellness through structural equation modeling
[Special issue]. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1000–1019. http://
dx.doi.org/10.14742/ajet.807
Chai, C. S., Ng, E. M. W., Li, W., Hong, H. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2013). Validating and modelling
technological pedagogical content knowledge framework among Asian preservice teachers.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1), 41–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.14742/ajet.174
Cheon, J., Song, J., Jones, R. D., & Nam, K. (2010). Inuencing preservice teachers’ intention
to adopt Web 2.0 services. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(2), 53–64.
Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/store/product.aspx?ID=1727
Çoklar, A. N., Kılıçer, K., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2007). A critical view to technology usage in education:
Technopedagogy. In 7th International educational technology conference proceedings book,
(pp. 69–75). Near East University, North Cyprus.
Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2008). Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: Quality
perspectives. Educational Media International, 45(2), 93–106.
Ekici, S., & Yılmaz, B. (2013). FATİH projesi üzerine bir değerlendirme [An evaluation on FATIH
project]. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 27(2), 317–339. Retrieved from http://www.tk.org.tr/index.php/
TK/article/view/261/254
Enochsson, A., & Rizza, C. (2009). ICT in initial teacher training: Research review. OECD
Education Working Papers, 38, 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/220502872611
Ersoy, M., Kabakçı Yurdakul, I., & Ceylan, B. (2016). Öğretmen adaylarının bit becerileri ışığında
teknopedagojik içerik bilgisine ilişkin yeterliklerinin incelenmesi: Deneysel bir araştırma
[Investigating preservice teachers’ TPACK competencies through the lenses of ICT Skills: An
experimental study]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 41(186), 119–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.6345
Ferdig, R. E. (2006) Assessing technologies for teaching and learning: Understanding the
importance of technological pedagogical content knowledge. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 37(5), 749–760.
Gialamas, V., & Nikolopoulou, K. (2010). In-service and pre-service early childhood teachers’ views
and intentions about ICT usage in early childhood setting: A comparative study. Computers &
Education, 55(1), 333–341. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0360131510000333
Goktas, Y., Yildirim, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible enablers of ICTS
integration into pre-service teacher education programs. Educational Technology & Society,
12(1), 193–204.
Grosseck, G. (2009). The use or nor to use Web 2.0 in higher education? Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 478–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.087

1755
Gokdas, Torun / Examining the Impact of Instructional Technology and Material Design Courses on Technopedagogical Education...
Gündüz, Ş., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2004). Bilgi çağında öğretmen adaylarının eğitiminde öğretim
teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme dersinin önemi [The importance of instructional technologies
and material development course at pre-service teacher education in information age]. The
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1), 43–48.
Hartshorne, R., & Ajjan, H. (2009). Examining student decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies:
Theory and empirical tests. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 183–198. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9023-6
Haugland, S. W. (1992). Effects of computer software on early childhood children’s developmental
gains. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 3(1), 15–30.
Inan, F. A., Lowther, D. L., Ross, S., & Strahl, J. D. (2010). Pattern of classroom activities during
students’ use of computers: Relations between instructional strategies and computer applications.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 540–546.
Jang, S. J., & Chen, K. C. (2010). From PCK to TPACK: Developing a transformative model for
pre-service science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 553–564.
Jang, S. J., & Tsai, M. F. (2012). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science
teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 59(2), 327–338.
Kabakci Yurdakul, I., & Coklar, A. N. (2014). Modeling preservice teachers’ TPACK competencies
based on ICT usage. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 363–376.
Kabakçı Yurdakul, I., & Odabaşı, F. (2013). Teknopedagojik eğitim modeli [Technopedagogical
education model]. In I. Kabakçı Yurdakul (Ed.), Teknopedagojik eğitime dayalı öğretim
teknolojileri ve materyal tasarımı [Techno-Pedagogical education based on instructional
technologies and material design]. Ankara, Turkey: Anı Yayıncılık.
Kabakci Yurdakul, I., 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.
Kayaduman, H., Sırakaya, M., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2011, Şubat). Eğitimde FATİH projesinin
öğretmenlerin yeterlik durumları açısından incelenmesi [Investigation of “increasing opportunities
and improvement of technology” project in terms of teacher competencies]. Paper presented at the
XIIIth Academic informatics conference] (pp.123–129). İnönü Üniversitesi, Malatya, Turkey.
Kayri, M., & Boysan, M. (2007). Araştırmalarda CHAİD analizinin kullanımı ve baş etme stratejileri
ile ilgili bir uygulama [Using CHAID analysis in researches and an application pertaining to
coping strategies]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(2), 133–149.
Khan, S. (2011). New pedagogies on teaching science with computer simulations. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215–232.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(23), 13–19. Retrieved from https://www.
bu.edu/journalofeducation/les/2014/02/BUJoE.193.3.Koehleretal.pdf
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The technological pedagogical
content knowledge framework. In J. M. Spector, M. David Merrill, Jan Elen, M. J. Bishop (Eds.),
Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101–111). New York,
NY: Springer Science+Business Media. Retrieved from http://www.punyamishra.com/wp-content/
uploads/2013/08/TPACK-handbookchapter-2013.pdf. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_9

1756
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Examining practicing teachers’ perceptions of
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) pathways: A structural equation
modelling approach. Instructional Science, 41(4), 793–809. Retrieved from http://link.springer.
com/article/10.1007/s11251-012-9249-y/fulltext.html
Kolburan Geçer, A. (2010). Teknik öğretmen adaylarının öğretim teknolojisi ve materyal geliştirme
dersine yönelik deneyimleri [Experience of technical teacher candidates towards teaching
technologies and material development course]. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 7(2), 1–25.
Kuşkaya-Mumcu, F., Haşlaman, T., & Koçak-Usluel, Y. (2008). Teknolojik pedagojik içerik bilgisi
modeli çerçevesinde etkili teknoloji entegrasyonunun göstergeleri [Indicators of effective
technology integration based on technological pedagogical content knowledge model]. In 8.
Uluslararası Eğitim Teknolojileri Konferansı Bildiri Kitabı [8th International educational
technology conference proceedings book] (pp. 396–400). Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey.
Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self-efcacy and technological
pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web.
Instructional Science, 38, 1–21.
Liang, J-C., Chai, C. S., Ling Koh, J. H., Yang, C-J., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Surveying in-service
preschool teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 29(4), 581–594. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1017826
Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2011) Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin öğrenme-öğretme süreçlerine
entegrasyonu: Modeller ve göstergeler [ICT integration into learning-teaching process: models
and indicators]. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 1(1), 62–79. Retrieved from http://
dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/etku/article/view/5000055480/5000052785
McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2017). Expert views on TPACK for early literacy: Priorities for
teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 1–14. http://dx.doi.
org/10.14742/ajet.2502
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Retrieved from http://
punya.educ.msu.edu/publications/journal_articles/mishra-koehler-tcr2006.pdf
Murray, D., & Campbell, N. (2000). Barriers to implement it in some New Zealand schools.
Computers in New Zealand Schools, 12(1), 3–6.
Neal, L., & Miller, D. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
teacher knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108(6), 117–1054.
Önkol, F. L., Zembat, R., & Balat, G. U. (2011). Computer use attitudes, knowledge and skills,
habits and methods of preschool teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 343–51.
Orlando, J. (2009). Understanding changes in teachers’ ICT practices: A longitudinal perspective.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(1), 33–44.
Pamuk, S., Çakır, R., Ergun, M., Yılmaz, H. B., & Ayas, C. (2013). The use of tablet PC and
interactive Bboard from the perspectives of teachers and students: Evaluation of the FATİH
Project. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(3), 1799–1822. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/
estp.2013.3.1734
Panagiotakou, C., & Pange, J. (2010). The use of ICT in preschool music education. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3055–3059. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S1877042810005045

1757
Gokdas, Torun / Examining the Impact of Instructional Technology and Material Design Courses on Technopedagogical Education...
Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology ıntegration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413–430.
Polly, D. (2008). Modeling the inuence of calculator use and teacher effects on rst grade students’
mathematics achievement. Journal of Technology in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(3),
245–263.
Polly, D. (2014). Deepening pre-service teachers’ knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and content
(TPACK) in an elementary school mathematics methods course. Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 33(2), 233–250.
Purdy, P. J. (2010). The changing space of research: Web 2.0 and the integration of research and
writing environments. Computers and Composition, 27(1), 48–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
compcom.2009.12.001
Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Sabaliauskas, T., & Pukelis, K. (2004, September). Barriers to integration of information and
communication technologies into the teaching and learning process. Paper presented at
the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Crete, Vytautas Magnus
University, Lithuania. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003861.htm
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Retrieved from http://www.sica.uniud.it/URDF/masterDidSciUD /
materiali/pdf/Shulman_1986.pdf
Tekin, A., & Polat, E. (2014). Technology policies in education: Turkey and several other countries.
Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10(5), 1254–1266. Retrieved from http://dergipark.
gov.tr/download/article-le/63443
Tinio, V. (2003). ICT in education. New York, NY: ICT for development, United Nations Development
Programme. Retrieved from http://liste.bilisimsurasi.org.tr/egitim/eprimer-edu.pdf
Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., Braak, J., van, Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2013). Technological
pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education: In search of a new curriculum. Educational
Studies, 39(2), 239–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2012.713548
Verhallen, M., Bus, A., & de Jong, M. (2006). The promise of multimedia stories for kindergarten
children at-risk. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 410–419.
Wang, Q. (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 411–419.
Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Systematic planning for ICT integration in topic learning.
Educational Technology and Society, 10(1), 148–156. Retrieved from http://ifets.info/journals
/10_1/14.pdf
Wang, X. C., & Hoot, J. L. (2006). Information and communication technology in early childhood
education. Early Education & Development, 17(3), 317–322. Retrieved from http://www.
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15566935eed1703_1
Yaman, H. (2007). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının “öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme”
dersi bağlamında Türkçe öğretiminde teknoloji kullanımına ilişkin yeterlilik ve algıları
[Qualications and perceptions of Turkish teacher candidates regarding the use of technology
in teaching Turkish in the context of “Instructional Technologies and Material Development”].
Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7, 57–71.

1758
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (2007). Eğitim fakültesi öğretmen yetiştirme lisans programları [Education
faculty teacher education degree programs]. Ankara, Turkey: Author.
Yurt, Ö., & Cevher-Kalburan, N. (2011). Early childhood teachers’ thoughts and practices about
the use of computers in early childhood education. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 1562–1570.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050911000512
Zırhlıoğlu, G. (2011). Internet bağımlılığının CHAID analizi ile incelenmesi: Van ili örneği
[Examination of internet dependency by CHAID analysis: Van province example]. Eğitimde ve
Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 2(2), 182–190. Retrieved from http://dergipark.
ulakbim.gov.tr/epod/article/view/5000045518/5000042870