Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Aumann, A.; Schnebel, S.;
Weitzel, H. Teaching Biology Lessons
Using Digital Technology: A
Contextualized Mixed-Methods Study
on Pre-Service Biology Teachers’
Enacted TPACK. Educ. Sci. 2024,14,
538. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci14050538
Academic Editors: Laurie
Brantley-Dias and Yi Jin
Received: 7 March 2024
Revised: 9 May 2024
Accepted: 15 May 2024
Published: 16 May 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
education
sciences
Article
Teaching Biology Lessons Using Digital Technology: A
Contextualized Mixed-Methods Study on Pre-Service Biology
Teachers’ Enacted TPACK
Alexander Aumann 1, *, Stefanie Schnebel 2and Holger Weitzel 1
1Department of Biology Education, University of Education Weingarten, 88250 Weingarten, Germany
2Department of Educational Science, University of Education Weingarten, 88250 Weingarten, Germany
*Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: Pre-service biology teachers must apply Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
(TPACK) acquired at university in real classroom situations to utilize the instructional potential
of digital technologies for teaching biology. So far, there is little evidence on how pre-service
biology teachers translate TPACK into teaching practice. The present study addresses this gap
by accompanying 42 pre-service biology teachers in planning, implementing, and reflecting on a
biology lesson as part of their internship semester at school. Data were collected via written lesson
plans, videotaped lesson observations, and stimulated-recall reflection interviews and evaluated by
applying a sequential explanatory mixed-method design. The results indicate that pre-service biology
teachers enact their TPACK by focusing on technology with the content of the subject receding into
the background. In addition, pre-service biology teachers focus particularly on aspects that serve to
structure the lesson, rather than on aspects of student activation. The use of emerging technologies in
the classroom seems to lead to insecurity among pre-service biology teachers for various reasons,
whereby surface characteristics and structuring lesson aspects are focused. Within the sample, we can
distinguish between two types of TPACK enactment: the split-focus type separates between content
and technology, whereas the novelty-focus type systematically links content and technology, utilizing
the technology as a tool for subject teaching.
Keywords: TPACK; science teaching; teaching with ICT; teacher professional development; classroom
teaching
1. Introduction
Teaching scientific content requires visualizing invisible or abstract and complex con-
cepts [
1
,
2
]. Utilizing digital technology such as animations or simulations can contribute
to overcoming this challenge [
2
,
3
]. In addition, digital technologies initiate higher-quality
learning processes by shifting the students’ learning activity from passive to interactive [
4
].
Combining extended representational opportunities with student-oriented and interac-
tive learning enables the development of advanced learning scenarios [
5
] and implies
the relinquishment of control by encouraging student collaboration and exploration [
6
].
However, teachers widely use digital technology (in science teaching) for presentation
purposes [5,7–10].
One reason for the limited deployment of digital technology is the lack of digitalization-
related competencies among teachers [11,12] and difficulties in identifying instructionally
meaningful technology implementation [
13
]. These skills must be developed within teacher
education [
14
], for example by utilizing authentic hands-on experiences with digital tech-
nology in the classroom [
15
]. In Germany, pre-service teachers have limited opportunities
to experiment with digital technology during their school internships. This limits their
ability to develop technology-related skills, which is why teacher educators recommend
systematic integration into the internship [
16
]. This systematic integration of digital skills
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14050538 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 2 of 27
into teacher education requires conceptualization within a framework such as the Techno-
logical Pedagogical and Content Knowledge framework (TPACK; [
17
]), which is widely
used internationally [18].
1.1. TPACK Framework and TPACK Measurement
The TPACK framework conceptualizes the knowledge a teacher needs to successfully
use (digital) technology for teaching subject content in seven domains. Technological
Knowledge (TK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and Content Knowledge (CK) form the
basic domains. Intersections of the basic domains lead to the blended domains of Tech-
nological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), and
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). The seventh domain, Technological Pedagogical
And Content Knowledge (TPACK), represents the interface of all knowledge domains [
17
].
In TPACK research, two different theoretical perspectives on the epistemological
nature of the construct have emerged: the integrative view and the transformative view.
According to the integrative view, the framework is composed entirely and exclusively
of its subdomains and their intersections in the TPACK Venn diagram or, in practical
terms, their interplay in teaching [
1
,
19
]. In this regard, growth in TK implies the growth
of TPACK as a whole. According to the transformative view, TPACK is developed from
its subdomains but constitutes a distinct and unique knowledge domain [1,19]. Empirical
results demonstrating an indirect influence of the basic domains on TPACK via the blended
domains support the transformative perspective [20–23].
Results could be more consistent concerning the concrete interplay of the blended
knowledge domains. While Pamuk et al. [
21
] identified all blended domains influencing
TPACK, other studies found that only a combination of selected blended domains such as
TPK and TCK [
20
,
24
], PCK and TPK [
22
], or PCK and TCK [
25
] influenced TPACK. One
possible reason for these inconsistent results could lie in the respective studies’ contextual
conditions [
22
], such as the emergence of the selected digital technology or the focus
of the intervention [
26
]. Another key contextual factor represents pre-service teachers’
attitudes, influencing how the pre-service teachers experience individual methods for
TPACK development [27].
The integrative and transformative views on TPACK presuppose different method-
ological approaches in measuring the construct [
1
]. Most TPACK self-assessments measure
TPACK on its subdomains [
28
], corresponding to an integrative TPACK construct. In con-
trast, performance assessments predominantly collect TPACK as an overall construct [
29
],
corresponding to the transformative TPACK perspective.
To date, the majority of what we know about TPACK is based on
self-reports [30,31]
.
However, self-reports do not necessarily correspond to the results of more objective as-
sessment methods, such as knowledge tests [
32
] or enacted TPACK measures [
23
,
33
,
34
].
There are indications that the pre-service teachers’ ability for self-assessment decreases
with increasing task complexity (e.g., with increasing reference to teaching practice) [
35
].
Additionally, there remains a gap between TPACK acquired at the university and enacted
TPACK in practice [15].
1.2. Enacted TPACK
In the past decade, different models of TPACK enactment have emerged, such as
TPACK-in-action [
36
], TPACK-Practical [
2
], TPACK-in-practice [
37
], and TPACK-in-situ [
38
].
These models differ in their domain-specific focus and their degree of concretization. For
example, some models focus on selected data sources (didactic designs; [
38
]) or TPACK
domains (blended TK domains; [37]).
In the following, the term enacted TPACK addresses the practical application of
TPACK as a knowledge domain. In this context, enacted TPACK is defined as a dynamic,
highly contextual [
2
,
39
], and content-centered [
37
] construct developed by and guiding
lesson planning, implementation, and reflection [
2
,
31
]. This definition aligns with expertise
research and teacher professionalization models, describing a gradual development of
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 3 of 27
competence through practical experience such as reflective lesson planning and implemen-
tation [40–42].
Through continuous practical experience over time and influenced by beliefs, values,
as well as affective dispositions, novices develop their declarative knowledge acquired at
university into routinized procedural teaching scripts, enabling spontaneous reactions in
complex and dynamic classroom situations [42].
Studies examining TPACK as enacted in the classroom while considering contextual
factors are relatively rare [
31
,
43
–
45
]. More knowledge is needed to understand how TPACK
is implemented in real classrooms [
46
,
47
]. From a methodological perspective, studies in
this field rely mainly on rubrics, scarcely considering contextual factors. Moreover, they are
often based on a single data source [
29
]. These assessment instruments usually focus on the
(blended) TK domains (TK, TPK, TCK, and TPACK) while overlooking the PCK domain [
48
].
Consequently, it is recommended to combine different data sets to comprehensively assess
enacted TPACK by comparing teachers’ decision-making processes with their ability to
implement plans [
49
]. This is particularly important because the enactment of TPACK
represents a complex and dynamic process involving bidirectional relationships between
theory and practice [9].
Table 1provides an overview of the current state of research on the enactment of
TPACK in classroom practice.
Table 1. Overview of the sample and data sets of the enacted TPACK references used. Abbreviations:
S = Science Subject/U = Undefined Subject/PST = Pre-Service Teachers/IST = In-Service Teachers/LP
= Lesson Planning/LI = Lesson Implementation/LR = Lesson Reflection.
Reference Sample Data Sets
Size S/U PST IST LP LI LR
Akta¸s and Özmen (2020) [50]6 S X X X X
Akyuz (2023) [43] 4 S X X X X
Aumann and Weitzel (2023) [51] 3 S X X X X
DeCoito and Richardson (2018) [
7
]
17 U X X
Janssen et al. (2019) [52] 73 U X X
Kapici and Akcay (2023) [53] 38 S X X
Nielsen et al. (2015) [54] 2 S X X X X
Ocak and Baran (2019) [55] 4 S X X X X
Pringle et al. (2015) [8] 525 S X X
Stinken-Rösner et al. (2023) [48] 31 S X X
Szeto and Cheng (2017) [9] 23 U X X X
Valtonen et al. (2020) [56] 86 U X X
Walan (2020) [45] 2 S X X X
von Kotzebue (2022) [23] 82 S X X
Yeh et al. (2015) [57] 7 S X X X
The ability of pre-service teachers to integrate TPACK into their teaching practice
varies widely [
57
]. Some feel anxious about using digital technology in the classroom [
53
]
due to limited resources or a lack of readiness to use digital technology [7].
While teachers often describe how they use digital technology in terms of TK or TPK [
7
],
they struggle to understand how to effectively use it to teach subject
content [7,52,53,56]
. The
perceived usefulness of digital technology in teaching may predict how well pre-service
teachers integrate TPACK into their teaching practice [23].
Since teaching using digital technology implies challenges in classroom management
and guiding students [
45
,
55
], it seems reasonable that implementing technology-enriched
lessons will lead to growth in these areas [
50
], as well as to conflicts between student
learning and classroom management [
54
]. There is evidence that pre-service teachers with
low technology-related self-efficacy or low TPACK enactment are predominantly concerned
with practical matters regarding the use of digital technology, such as classroom and time
management, leading to less consideration of the blended PK domains or content-related
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 4 of 27
aspects [
43
,
51
]. One reason could be that unfamiliarity with digital technology preoccupies
the pre-service teachers’ concentration capacity [43,51–53].
As a result, pre-service teachers, as well as experienced and innovative in-service
teachers, use digital technology predominantly in a teacher-centered way [
54
,
55
] with low
levels of student autonomy [
23
]. Accordingly, presentation software represents one of the
most commonly used technologies in the classroom [7–9].
Moreover, pre-service teachers conduct the selection of subject contents in technology-
enriched lessons based on familiarity or easiness [
56
], and reduce the content-related
cognitive demand to a low level, such as the reproduction of information [
8
,
23
]. However,
results are inconsistent concerning PCK. While in Akyuz’ [
43
] study, PCK represented
one of the overall lowest enacted knowledge domains in pre-service teachers’ TPACK
enactment, in Ocak and Baran’s [
55
] study, PCK represented the central reference domain
for in-service teachers’ technology selection and decisions. The different contextual factors
of the studies mentioned may have caused inconsistencies in the data. These include
sample characteristics and the intervention or the selected digital technology [
56
]. Based
on the research conducted by Valtonen et al. [
56
], it seems that PK has a significant impact
on the development of TPACK. It is viewed as both a challenging area and an area of
confidence that encourages pre-service teachers to think critically. Stinken-Rösner et al. [
48
]
suggest incorporating PCK-focused TPACK interventions in existing science programs
to address PCK aspects by utilizing the potential of digital technology. One way to do
this is by providing digital technology enabling inquiry-based learning [
8
,
45
,
50
]. This
approach can help pre-service teachers gain experience using digital technology effectively,
facilitating a transition to more student-centered scenarios [50].
1.3. Scope of the Study
We require further evidence to understand how TPACK can be applied in actual teach-
ing practices. The data provide an incoherent and partly contradictory picture of TPACK
enactment. Demonstrating good enacted TPACK in terms of lesson planning does not guar-
antee corresponding results in lesson implementation, as pre-service teachers partly under-
estimate technology preparation and misjudge the technology-related skills of students [
57
].
Furthermore, it is crucial to consider contextual factors thoroughly. However, existing
studies have some limitations in this regard. Firstly, many studies do not include contextual
factors in their assessment instruments [
29
]. Secondly, some studies only focus on selected
phases of teaching, such as lesson planning or
implementation [7,8,23,48,52,53,56]
. Lastly,
some studies represent case studies that rely on very small samples [
43
,
50
,
51
,
54
,
55
]. Even
when data sets from different teaching phases such as lesson planning and implementation
are examined, they are only occasionally related.
To understand the complex process of TPACK enactment in lesson planning, imple-
mentation, and reflection, a more comprehensive measurement [
9
,
48
], using larger sam-
ples [
55
], is required. The present study addresses the need for research on enacted TPACK
by examining pre-service biology teachers’ technology-infused lesson plans, implementa-
tions, and reflections in authentic classroom situations in a subject- and technology-specific
manner. The objective is to identify patterns in the enactment of TPACK in a particular
context. Our research question is as follows:
RQ: To what extent do pre-service biology teachers apply their TPACK acquired at
university in authentic lesson planning, implementation, and reflection?
2. Materials and Methods
This study adopts the transformative perspective on TPACK development [
1
]. This
perspective makes the following assumptions: (1) TPK, PCK, and TCK directly influence
TPACK. (2) TPACK is a distinct body of knowledge conceptually differing from the mere
combination of the blended domains.
Therefore, and based on the defined contextual conditions of the present study, we
focus on the blended PK domains (TPK and PCK) and TPACK as a distinct knowledge
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 5 of 27
domain. Since (enacted) TPACK represents a fuzzy construct, a detailed description of the
sample, context, data structure, instruments, and data analysis process becomes mandatory.
2.1. Sample
The sample of this study consists of 42 pre-service biology teachers
(11 (26.19%) = male;
31 (73.81%) = female) in their internship semester. An internship semester occurs during
the second semester of a master’s degree. According to the module handbook of the study
program, the pre-service biology teachers had attended subject didactic courses to the ex-
tent of nine credits. During their studies, the pre-service biology teachers discussed media
instruction topics but did not refer to the use of digital technology in teaching biology. We
conducted the study over three consecutive semesters, and all pre-service biology teachers
participated with informed consent. Of the total 61 pre-service biology teachers, 42 agreed
to participate in data collection.
2.2. Research Design and Context
During the course of the 14-week internship semester, the pre-service biology teachers
were accompanied to gain insights into their technology-enhanced classroom teaching.
In this context, they were mentored by in-service teachers who determined the lesson
content that the pre-service teachers had to teach. Since the assignment of pre-service
teachers to internship classes and mentors is the responsibility of the respective internship
school, it was not possible to ensure consistent class levels or lesson contents in this study.
Accordingly, the lessons covered a wide range of topics, from human biology and cell
biology to ecology, genetics, and evolution.
To ensure instructional consistency, the study focused on the use of student-generated
explainer videos as a specific use of digital technology. Student-generated explainer videos
represent a novel learning experience for the pre-service biology teachers [58].
The pre-service biology teachers were provided with a workshop to equip themselves
with the necessary TPACK for the use of digital technology. We developed the workshop
using Tondeur’s et al. [
15
,
59
] SQD model [
60
]. The workshop followed the flipped class-
room concept and consisted of one session (90 min), including preparation and a follow-up
task. Its structure and duration ensured ecological validity. The workshop content was
developed in line with the measurement instrument (see Section 2.4) to confirm that the
intervention and evaluation were aligned.
Initially, pre-service biology teachers compiled the necessary TPACK online during
self-study. The learning materials comprised information on the quality criteria for student-
generated explainer videos in the biology classroom, provided as interactive explainer
videos, textual summaries, audio sessions, and links to more in-depth sources of informa-
tion. Next, the pre-service biology teachers took part in an on-site workshop of 90 min, in
which they discussed the content of the online course and analyzed exemplary lesson plan
outlines. Furthermore, a range of technological options regarding hardware and software
were introduced, compared, and discussed during the workshop. The pre-service biology
teachers then made a justified decision in favor of one technological option, formed small
groups, and created a short explainer video on a given biological subject content using
the selected technology. Subsequently, they were asked to briefly reflect on their selected
hardware and software relating to the implementation in their internship classes.
Following the workshop, the pre-service biology teachers planned, implemented, and
reflected on a lesson of 90 min at their internship schools. In these lessons, their students
created explainer videos regarding a biological subject content. The pre-service biology
teachers were allowed to freely select hardware and software and borrow equipment from
the university if there was a need for more reliable access to technology at the internship
school. Figure 1depicts the research design of the study. It relates the individual aspects of
the TPACK workshop at university to the TPACK enactment at the internship school in
terms of their chronological sequence (x-axis) and their alignment to practice (y-axis).
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 6 of 27
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 27
on their selected hardware and software relating to the implementation in their internship
classes.
Following the workshop, the pre-service biology teachers planned, implemented,
and reflected on a lesson of 90 min at their internship schools. In these lessons, their stu-
dents created explainer videos regarding a biological subject content. The pre-service bi-
ology teachers were allowed to freely select hardware and software and borrow equip-
ment from the university if there was a need for more reliable access to technology at the
internship school. Figure 1 depicts the research design of the study. It relates the individ-
ual aspects of the TPACK workshop at university to the TPACK enactment at the intern-
ship school in terms of their chronological sequence (x-axis) and their alignment to prac-
tice (y-axis).
Figure 1. The research design of the study.
2.3. Data Collection Procedure
We collected the following data via the pre-service biology teachers: (1) lesson plans,
(2) lesson implementation, and (3) lesson reflection. More details about the data sets are
explained below:
(1) Lesson Plans
The lesson plans consisted of around 8–10 pages. They included subject analysis, in-
structional and methodological planning, lesson outlines, and materials. The instruc-
tional planning laid out and justified instructional considerations, while the method-
ological planning explained the specific procedure for the lesson in causal terms.
(2) Videotaped Lesson Observations
During lesson implementation (90 min), one of the researchers accompanied and vid-
eotaped the lesson on-site. The researcher also took field notes during the visits. As
the study focused solely on the pre-service biology teachers, the camera was posi-
tioned so that only the pre-service biology teachers (the desk and the blackboard)
were visible. As the lesson was particularly interactive, a wireless microphone ena-
bled audio recordings of the teacher at all times.
(3) Semi-Structured Stimulated Recall Interviews
Immediately after lesson implementation, the researcher conducted semi-structured
stimulated recall reflection interviews with the pre-service biology teachers. In this
procedure, the researcher and the pre-service biology teachers viewed 3–4 sequences
of the videotaped lesson observations based on a conversation guideline and used
them as reflection stimuli. The selected sequences are related to certain aspects of the
Figure 1. The research design of the study.
2.3. Data Collection Procedure
We collected the following data via the pre-service biology teachers: (1) lesson plans,
(2) lesson implementation, and (3) lesson reflection. More details about the data sets are
explained below:
(1)
Lesson Plans The lesson plans consisted of around 8–10 pages. They included subject
analysis, instructional and methodological planning, lesson outlines, and materials.
The instructional planning laid out and justified instructional considerations, while
the methodological planning explained the specific procedure for the lesson in causal
terms.
(2)
Videotaped Lesson Observations During lesson implementation (90 min), one of the
researchers accompanied and videotaped the lesson on-site. The researcher also took
field notes during the visits. As the study focused solely on the pre-service biology
teachers, the camera was positioned so that only the pre-service biology teachers (the
desk and the blackboard) were visible. As the lesson was particularly interactive, a
wireless microphone enabled audio recordings of the teacher at all times.
(3)
Semi-Structured Stimulated Recall Interviews Immediately after lesson implementa-
tion, the researcher conducted semi-structured stimulated recall reflection interviews
with the pre-service biology teachers. In this procedure, the researcher and the pre-
service biology teachers viewed 3–4 sequences of the videotaped lesson observations
based on a conversation guideline and used them as reflection stimuli. The selected
sequences are related to certain aspects of the lesson (e.g., the feedback phase). This
approach provided the pre-service biology teachers with a defined focus of reflec-
tion and encouraged them to reflect upon instruction-related and student-centered
topics beyond aspects of classroom management [
61
]. Additionally, the approach
allowed the pre-service biology teachers to address the issues that concerned them
the most [
56
]. The interviews lasted around 40 min on average and were transcribed.
2.4. Research Instrument
In 2023, we developed a rubric to analyze how pre-service science teachers enacted
TPACK based on lesson planning, implementation, and reflection (EnTPACK rubric) [
29
].
Thus, the rubric allows us to compare TPACK enactment across these different data sets
and identify discontinuities between them. In line with the preceding TPACK workshop
(see Section 2.1), the rubric was specified regarding TK, PK, and CK (student-generated
explainer videos in the science classroom).
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 7 of 27
The development of the instrument and the corresponding definition of the TPACK
domains followed a contextualized, theory-guided, and literature-based approach. In this
approach, theoretical models (subcategories) were selected according to the application
context and assigned to the TPACK domains (categories). In a further step, observable
indicators from empirical studies were identified using a literature review and, in turn,
assigned to the subcategories. As a result, the TPACK domains were defined on the basis
of empirical data regarding the quality criteria of student-generated explainer videos in
science teaching.
According to the application context, the transformative view of TPACK, and empirical
data on TPACK enactment, the EnTPACK rubric comprises the blended PK domains (PCK
and TPK) and the distinct TPACK domain. These domains form the categories of the
rubric [
29
]. To enable an independent measurement of these categories, they were defined
distinctly. In other words, indicators in the TPACK category are in no direct relation to
indicators within the TPK or PCK category. Appendix Aprovides an overview of the
categories, subcategories, criteria, and indicators of the EnTPACK rubric.
Thus, the rubric represents a particular and contextualized instrument for assessing
how pre-service science teachers enact their TPACK in terms of lesson planning, implemen-
tation, and reflection. Construct validity of the rubric was ensured through the literature-
based development process [
62
]. Subsequently, expert judgments were collected to assure
content validity. In addition, inter-rater reliability was assessed by two independent raters,
resulting in a good overall reliability of the instrument (Intraclass correlation coefficient
(ICC) = 0.873).
Table 2presents an exemplary insight into applying the EnTPACK rubric to pre-
service teachers’ lesson plans. In this example, one of the pre-service biology teachers
defines central aspects of content in the lesson plan that are essential for achieving the
content-related lesson objective (Indicator: PCK cs2-c). These are further distinguished from
the secondary aspects of the content (Indicator: PCK cs2-c). Accordingly, the indicators
PCK cs2-a and PCK cs2-c can be assigned to this lesson plan excerpt. Both of these
indicators are located in the second criterion of the content structuring subcategory within
the PCK category.
Table 2. Example of applying the EnTPACK rubric to a lesson plan excerpt.
“The identification of all organs involved as well as the two hormones adrenaline and
noradrenaline, which trigger biological stress reactions, is elementary for the application of special
strategies of stress management. [. . .] The HPA axis and glucocorticoid functions are not part of
the required expertise for this topic” (Lesson Plan RA25NR).
Indicator
(PCK cs2-a) The pre-service teacher (PST) emphasizes key aspects of content
(e.g., emphasizes their importance).
(PCK cs2-c) The PST distinguishes the key aspects from non-essential aspects.
Criterion (PCK cs2) The PST focuses specifically on central key aspects of the subject
content.
Subcategory (PCK cs) Content structuring
Category PCK
2.5. Data Analysis and Evaluation
In the first step of the data analysis, the three data sets (lesson plans, videotaped
lesson observations, and transcribed reflection interviews) were deductively coded using
the observable indicators of the EnTPACK rubric. Subsequently, the criteria were rated
on a four-point Likert scale (0–3) depending on the quantity of coded indicators. The
subcategories were then rated based on the criteria means, and the categories were rated
based on the subcategory means.
As a result, the data were available in both numerical and textual form. This allowed
the combination of quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods using a sequential
explanatory mixed-methods design [
63
]. In this approach, qualitative methods are applied
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 8 of 27
to explain quantitatively identified patterns. Specifically, in the present study, numerical
data regarding lesson planning and implementation enabled insights into patterns of pre-
service biology teachers’ teaching, whereas textual data regarding lesson planning and
reflection provided pedagogical reasonings.
The numerical data were examined in increasing depth for patterns. This involved
first focusing on the categories, then the subcategories, and finally the coded indicators. We
first analyzed the lesson planning and implementation data exploratively at the category
level (TPACK, PCK, and TPK) to gain an overview of the TPACK domains in the data
sets. Mean values and standard deviations were calculated, using IBM SPSS (version
29.0.0.0), and compared within the categories to analyze the extent to which the TPACK
domains were implemented in lesson planning and implementation. The same procedure
was then applied at the subcategory level. In addition, subcategories were merged into
higher-level variables of teaching quality (student activation and lesson structuring) using
transformation via SPSS. After examining the higher-level variables for normal distribution,
we calculated differences in central tendencies by applying the non-parametric Wilcoxon
signed-rank test.
In order to gain a deeper insight into the decisive differences between and within
the data sets, we then analyzed the data sets for discontinuities at the indicator level.
To identify discontinuities between lesson planning, implementation, and reflection, we
compared the data sets (lesson plans, videotaped lesson observation, and semi-structured
stimulated recall interviews) at the level of the coded indicators. For this purpose, we
compared the occurrence of individual indicators to other indicators and between lesson
planning, implementation, and reflection. To visualize these patterns more clearly, we
used heatmaps of the indicators, which were colored in grayscale according to the number
of total occurrences among the sample (white = 0; black = 42) within the data sets. This
provided us with detailed information about which concrete aspects differ between pre-
service biology teachers’ planning, implementation, and reflection of technology-enhanced
biology teaching.
Next, the observed patterns were examined qualitatively using the lesson planning and
reflection data. For this purpose, cases assigned to quantitatively observed patterns were
analyzed via a comparative thematic analysis [
63
] using VERBI MAXQDA 2020 (version
20.4.1). In this process, the data sets of the respective cases were coded inductively to
identify similarities, differences, and co-occurrences within and between the pattern groups.
This qualitative deepening provided the basis for an interpretation of the observed patterns.
3. Results
We present the study results in two parts. First, we provide the arithmetic mean values
of the lesson planning and lesson implementation data sets on category, subcategory, and
indicator levels to identify patterns and discontinuities. Second, we deepen the results
qualitatively using lesson planning and lesson reflection data.
3.1. Category Level: TPACK, PCK, and TPK
Table 3shows the arithmetic mean values of the categories regarding the lesson
planning and implementation of pre-service biology teachers. There is a high level of
variation within the TPACK domain in lesson planning and implementation. TPACK and
TPK exhibit higher values than PCK, which remains below the scale average (1.50) across
both data sets. In lesson implementation, the TPACK domain records the highest mean
value. In the transition from lesson planning to implementation, PCK decreases while
TPACK and TPK increase.
Results from the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (see Table 4) show that in lesson planning,
there is a significant difference in the central tendencies between TPK and PCK, as well as
between TPK and TPACK, at an alpha level of 0.05. In lesson implementation, significant
differences in central tendency were observed between PCK and TPACK and between PCK
and TPK.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 9 of 27
Table 3. Arithmetic mean values at category level (TPACK, PCK, and TPK) in terms of lesson planning
(LP) and lesson implementation (LI) on a Likert scale from 0 to 3. (For detailed indicator descriptions,
see Appendix A).
TPACK
(LP)
TPACK
(LI)
PCK
(LP)
PCK
(LI)
TPK
(LP)
TPK
(LI)
Mean 1.42 1.88 1.27 1.18 1.77 1.85
Standard
Deviation 0.66 0.62 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.41
Table 4. Wilcoxon signed-rank test results of the TPACK domains regarding lesson planning (LP)
and lesson implementation (LI). (For detailed indicator descriptions, see Appendix A).
PCK (LP)
and
TPACK (LP)
PCK (LP)
and
TPK (LP)
TPK (LP)
and
TPACK (LP)
PCK (LI)
and
TPACK (LI)
PCK (LI)
and
TPK (LI)
TPK (LI)
and
TPACK (LI)
Z−9.70 −5.07 −2.50 −4.72 −5.55 −0.11
Asymptotic
Significance
(Two-Sided)
0.33 <0.001 0.012 <0.001 <0.001 0.91
3.2. Subcategory Level: Lesson Structuring and Student Activation
Table 5shows the results of descriptive statistics at the subcategory level of the En-
TPACK rubric. The statistics reveal a high value of dispersion, especially in the TPACK
subcategories and the TPK subcategory of time management. In this regard, the PCK sub-
category cognitive activation and the TPK subcategory scaffolding cognitive load show the
lowest standard deviation (below 0.60) in both lesson planning and lesson implementation.
Table 5. Arithmetic mean values at subcategory level in terms of lesson planning (LP) and lesson
implementation (LI) on a Likert scale from 0 to 3. Abbreviations: TPACK alo = alignment of the use
of digital technology with lesson objectives/TPACK asc = alignment of the use of digital technology
with subject content/TPK il = interactive learning/PCK ca = cognitive activation/PCK cs = content
structuring/TPK tm = time management/TPK scl = scaffolding cognitive load. (For detailed indicator
formulations, see Appendix A).
TPACK Student Activation Lesson Structuring
TPACK
alo
(LP)
TPACK
alo
(LI)
TPACK
asc
(LP)
TPACK
asc
(LI)
TPK
il
(LP)
TPK
il
(LI)
PCK
ca
(LP)
PCK
ca
(LI)
PCK
cs
(LP)
PCK
cs
(LI)
TPK
tm
(LP)
TPK
tm
(LI)
TPK
scl
(LP)
TPK
scl
(LI)
Mean 2.00 1.69 0.83 2.07 1.10 1.12 1.07 0.89 1.46 1.46 2.62 2.40 1.59 2.04
Standard
Deviation 0.80 0.72 0.88 0.89 0.76 0.71 0.42 0.33 0.72 0.70 0.73 0.89 0.53 0.38
Subcategories related to lesson structuring record higher mean values than subcate-
gories related to student activation. To test the difference between student activation and
lesson structuring for significance, the student activation subcategories (PCK cognitive
activation, and TPK interactive learning), as well as the lesson structure subcategories
(PCK content structuring, TPK scaffolding cognitive load, and TPK time management),
were each transformed into one variable within the data sets of lesson planning and lesson
implementation. Wilcoxon signed-rank test results show significant differences between
student activation and lesson structuring in lesson planning and implementation (see
Table 6).
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 10 of 27
Table 6. Wilcoxon signed-rank test results of student activation and lesson structuring regarding
lesson planning (LP) and lesson implementation (LI).
Student Activation (LP)
and Lesson Structuring (LP)
Student Activation (LI)
and Lesson Structuring (LI)
Z−4.91 −5.62
Asymptotic Significance
(Two-Sided) <0.001 <0.001
3.3. Indicator Level: Discontinuities between the Data Sets
The following section presents selected indicators exhibiting noticeable discontinu-
ities between the data sets of lesson planning, implementation, and reflection. Within
the TPACK domain, the alignment between the use of digital technology and the subject
content is discrepant among the data sets. Table 7depicts selected indicators of the subcate-
gory explicitly dealing with the characteristics defining the subject content as particularly
suitable for the use of digital technology. The pre-service biology teachers addressed these
indicators in lesson implementation but frequently omitted them in lesson planning or
lesson reflection.
Table 7. Discontinuities within the data sets in the TPACK subcategory of alignment between
digital technology and subject content. Abbreviations: TPACK asc-a = Selected subject content is
self-contained/TPACK asc-b = Selected subject content is limited in scope/TPACK asc-c = Selected
subject content is complex/TPACK asc-d = Selected subject content is dynamic (for detailed indicator
formulations, see Appendix A). Cells indicate the number of pre-service biology teachers for which
the respective indicator (columns) was coded within the respective data set (rows).
TPACK asc-a TPACK asc-b TPACK asc-c TPACK asc-d
LP 1 13 12 3
LI 33 39 24 27
LR 3 7 6 12
= 0–5 = 6–10 = 11–15 = 16–20 = 21–25
= 26–30 = 31–35 = 36–40 = 41–45
Within the PCK subcategory cognitive activation, the pre-service biology teachers
predominantly thematize the relevance of the subject content in the students’ lives during
lesson planning. In contrast, this aspect is seldom addressed in lesson implementation or
reflection (see Table 8).
Table 8. Discontinuities within the data sets in the PCK subcategory of cognitive activation. Abbrevia-
tions: PCK ca2-a = The relevance of the subject content is discussed/PCK ca2-b = A relevant question
or problem constitutes the basis of the video creation/PCK ca2-c = A context (e.g., phenomenon)
is provided (for detailed indicator formulations, see Appendix A). Cells indicate the number of
pre-service biology teachers for which the respective indicator (columns) was coded within the
respective data set (rows).
PCK ca2-a PCK ca2-b PCK ca2-c
LP 23 5 10
LI 5 5 9
LR 5 2 5
= 0–5 = 6–10 = 11–15 = 16–20 = 21–25
= 26–30 = 31–35 = 36–40 = 41–45
Table 9presents the TPK subcategory scaffolding cognitive load divided into three
criteria: supporting students on demand (1) in using hardware and software, (2) in video
planning, and (3) in self-organizing group work. The pre-service biology teachers offered
demand-oriented support as a “guide by the side” among all three criteria to a greater extent
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 11 of 27
in lesson implementation than was mentioned in lesson planning and reflection. In lesson
planning and reflection, most attention is paid to the demand-oriented support of students
regarding hardware and software usage, while supporting students in self-organized group
work is considered to a lesser extent.
Table 9. Discontinuities within the data sets in the TPK subcategory of scaffolding cognitive load.
Abbreviations: TPK scl1-d = Support for handling the digital technology/TPK scl2-d = Support
for video planning and design/TPK scl3-c = Support for self-organized group work (For detailed
indicator formulations, see Appendix A). Cells indicate the number of pre-service biology teachers
for which the respective indicator (columns) was coded within the respective data set (rows).
TPK scl1-d TPK scl2-d TPK scl3-c
LP 22 14 6
LI 32 41 33
LR 9 10 1
= 0–5 = 6–10 = 11–15 = 16–20 = 21–25
= 26–30 = 31–35 = 36–40 = 41–45
3.4. Qualitative Deepening
The qualitative data from lesson planning and reflection are analyzed in depth to
better understand the underlying reasons for the results presented in the previous sections.
Initially, we summarize the quantitatively identified types, patterns, and discontinuities in
TPACK enactment.
Although high TPK and low PCK values remain relatively constant across the sample
and data sets, TPACK represents a highly variable domain (Section 3.2). Therefore, cases
were merged into two types: pre-service biology teachers with (1) high TPK but low
blended CK domains (PCK and TPACK), and (2) high blended TK domains (TPK and
TPACK) but low PCK.
Additionally, an overarching pattern was identified between the level of student
activation and lesson structure between lesson planning and implementation. Furthermore,
discontinuities were found between the data sets among all domains (PCK, TPK, and
TPACK) (Section 3.3).
Cases were selected for qualitative deepening if they fulfilled the type, pattern, or
discrepancy criteria. For example, cases were selected for type (1) if they recorded com-
paratively high TPK but low PCK and TPACK values. Appendix Bdepicts the values for
the relevant variables of all cases (n = 42) as a heatmap. The variables were arranged ac-
cording to the identified patterns to enable comparison. In addition, the cells were colored
according to the corresponding value to ensure more intuitive readability. We classified the
cases into low (red: 0–0.99), middle (yellow: 1–1.99), and high (green: 2–3) performer based
on their values on the Likert scale. Appendix Bis intended to provide transparency with
regard to the distribution of cases on the individual variables. This aims to increase the
traceability and reproducibility of the present qualitative results.
The following sections discuss the characteristics of the identified types (Sections 3.4.1
and 3.4.2), commonalities of those types (Section 3.4.3), overarching patterns (Section 3.4.4),
and discontinuities (Section 3.4.5) based on pre-service biology teachers’ lesson planning
and reflection. We provide a citation at the beginning of each section to explain its respective
characteristics.
3.4.1. Type 1: High TPK but Low Blended CK Domains
Cases assigned to this type are characterized by (1) a separation between content
and the use of digital technology, (2) perceived overwhelming demands with the use of
technology, and (3) a focus on surface characteristics of the lesson.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 12 of 27
(1)
Separation between Digital Technology and Content
“Because it [the use of technology] is simply added on or in between, I didn’t know where
to focus and what the priority in the classroom should be. Is it more the work with digital
media in general or is the content at least as important.”
(LR KE04JG).
Several pre-service biology teachers regard digital technology as an autonomous
learning content to be taught independently of the subject content. Moreover, they rate the
learning objectives regarding the use of technology as equal to or even more important
than the content-related learning objectives. For example, they state the use of tablets as
their primary learning objective, address explainer videos as a separate form of content,
and prioritize the design quality of the explainer videos. In some lesson plans, the focus
is explicitly not on the subject content “but on the use of digital media” (LP WE30VJ),
which is why pre-service biology teachers reduce content deliberately to provide capacity
for technologically complex tasks. In this context, it is sometimes more critical to the
pre-service biology teachers “that they [the students] develop media skills, [and] that they
use the tablet accordingly” (LR TE09SM).
(2)
Pre-Service Biology Teachers Overload with Technology Use
“I didn’t get to grips with shooting this video and all that. I was also initially overwhelmed
by the whole task.”
(LR LI13VB).
Pre-service biology teachers often describe themselves as worried about or over-
whelmed by using digital technology in the classroom. They usually explain their self-
perception with low confidence in the use of digital technology, describing themselves as
“not a technology person” (LR SA27LK), “not a technology freak” (LR KE04JG), or articu-
lating “too much respect for [
. . .
] working with the iPads” (LR ÜB02SB). In addition, they
report some difficulties in estimating the technology-related skills of the students, a lack of
guidance in the form of literature or curricular guidelines, and insufficient preparation.
(3)
Focus on the Surface Characteristics of the Lesson
“That is why it was important to me that everything runs smoothly, that when I want to
use the laptop, it works straight away or is already switched on so that it doesn’t have to
boot first. It was important to me that I could create a smooth transition because I know
that if it’s not working, it will lead to disruption, and at the same time, the teacher will
also get nervous. It’s a vicious circle.”
(LR TE09SM).
Overall, the perceived overload due to the use of technology encourages the pre-
service biology teachers to prioritize undisturbed teaching before students’ content-related
learning. Concerns about time management lead to omitting relevant PCK aspects, such
as feedback in favor of the students’ technological preparation. Some pre-service biology
teachers of this type leave their students on their own in content acquisition by selecting
lesson content that is new to them without further content preparation.
3.4.2. Type 2: Low PCK but High Blended TK Domains
Pre-service biology teachers with low PCK but high TPK and TPACK (1) link the use of
technology more purposefully with the learning objectives and the subject content structure,
describing digital technology as a supportive tool in subject teaching. Nevertheless, (2) due
to the novelty of the use of technology, they are concerned about the students’ cognitive
overload, leading them to focus on scaffolding the use of technology.
(1)
Connection between Content and Technology
“So I always look a bit for benefits. (
. . .
) You have to see how it [the use of technology]
works in a targeted way and where it might turn into something negative.”
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 13 of 27
(LR RA27JR).
Most pre-service biology teachers assigned to this pattern draw a link between subject
content and the use of technology. For example, the use of technology is “examined for its
added value” (LR EB09GG) in lesson planning. Pre-service biology teachers describe the
usefulness of digital technology mostly towards lesson objectives and occasionally for the
characteristics of the subject content. Regarding the lesson objectives, pre-service biology
teachers often describe the deepening or consolidation of the subject content through
students’ active or intensive engagement with the subject content during instructional
video planning and creation, but also the structuring property of planning an explainer
video in the content-related learning process. Regarding the characteristics of the respective
biological subject content, some emphasize the added value of the use of technology for
the (multimodal) illustration of complex biological relationships or abstract concepts and
dynamic processes in lesson planning and reflection.
(2)
Novelty of the Technology Use
“I could not estimate how fast they would be because I had never done it before. [
. . .
]
However, I did not know whether the fact that I had prepared so much material meant
that it might be too much and that it perhaps would take away a bit of their imagination
to think ahead themselves.”
(LR RA27JR)
Some pre-service biology teachers assume during lesson planning that the students
have already internalized or mastered the subject content and do not consider it further
relevant to the lesson. In contrast, pre-service biology teachers describe concerns about
students’ cognitive overload in the lesson due to the novelty of the teaching method or
the software application. In this respect, content-related aspects are only occasionally
considered as a learning challenge and generally in combination with technological aspects.
In lesson reflection, concerns are also attributed to a lack of experience in using digital
technology in class, which results in difficulties with estimating students’ technological
skills. In this regard, the pre-service biology teachers express concern, for example, that
“the students might press something wrong and are overwhelmed” (LR EB09GG) as they
are “overwhelmed with everything new” (LR FI13CS). As a result, they regard it as crucial
“to prepare the students for the creation of the explainer videos” (LP FI13CS) and to provide
them with (mainly technological) support to counteract this excessive demand.
3.4.3. Commonalities between the Two Types
In both types, the selection of the specific hardware and software for video creation
is based on the pre-service biology teachers’ confidence regarding the respective digital
technology rather than instructional considerations regarding the subject content. Pre-
service biology teachers select software they already know and can implement without
further preparation. Many of them consider the engagement with digital technology to
be too complex for students. Thus, they deliberately reduce the subject content to free up
resources for engagement with digital technology.
3.4.4. Low Student Activation but High Lesson Structuring
Pre-service biology teachers that emphasize lesson structuring while neglecting stu-
dent activation are characterized by the following points:
(1)
Concerns with the use of technology regarding potential lesson failure;
(2)
Concerns with a loss of control regarding the high level of students’ autonomy;
(3)
An orientation towards the creation of high-quality explainer videos instead of the
creation process.
The cases allocated to this pattern can essentially be assigned either to type 2, to neither
of the two types, or occasionally to type 1. Accordingly, a heterogeneous constellation of
pre-service biology teachers shares this overarching pattern.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 14 of 27
(1)
Concerns with the Technology Use
“I found it extremely difficult to estimate how skilled they [the students] are in dealing
with digital media (. . .). I was extremely unsure of how much help and explanation was
needed, whether a work phase would even occur or whether it would simply be too much
work and everyone would just press the buttons in a muddle.”
(LR KE04JG).
Concerns regarding the lesson failure became apparent in lesson planning and reflec-
tion. The pre-service biology teachers found it challenging to estimate students’ content-
and technology-related skills (predominantly type 2; see Section 3.4.3). Moreover, they
were overwhelmed by the challenges of the use of technology or missed guidance from
role models or clear guidelines at the internship school (mainly type 1; see Section 3.4.3).
In addition, they expressed concerns with time management regarding the video creation
due to overburdening the students with digital technology and content. Consequently, pre-
service biology teachers emphasized providing sufficient time, systematic instruction, and
clear guidelines for video creation to ensure “that every single step is clear” (LR WE06CM).
(2)
Concerns about Loss of Control
“I was very nervous because I also find it difficult to hand over responsibility. (
. . .
) it’s
always like 60:40 whether it works out or not when you hand over responsibility or not.
And it usually doesn’t work out.”
(LR MA07CG).
Many pre-service biology teachers expressed concern with the increased degree of
students’ autonomy and the associated loss of control throughout the lesson. They worry
that this loss of control and lack of structure will lead to a failure of the lesson. As a result,
a small-step lesson structuring is derived and preferred over student activation. In some
cases, pre-service biology teachers assume that student activation results from the use
of technology itself and therefore does not require action on their part. As this aspect is
frequently associated with pre-service biology teachers’ difficulties in estimating students’
skills, it was predominantly met by type 2 and partly by type 1.
(3)
Product Orientation instead of Process Orientation
“So, my most important issue, the most important aspects, where I hoped that something
would emerge, or rather that each group would definitely produce a video.”
(LR WE30VJ).
When asked about the central objective of a lesson, the pre-service biology teachers
often focus on the product and less on the process of video creation. This product-oriented
focus is also evident in lesson planning, where the pre-service biology teachers concentrate
mainly on the quality of the explainer videos in terms of instruction and content. To
ensure this quality, the pre-service biology teachers set clear guidelines for the video, which
restrict students’ autonomy. This aspect tends to be associated with focusing on surface
characteristics of the lesson and was observed more frequently in pre-service biology
teachers from type 1.
3.4.5. Discontinuities between the Data Sets
In the following section, the discontinuities between lesson planning, implementation,
and reflection on the (1) TPACK, (2) PCK, and (3) TPK domains identified in Section 3.3 are
analyzed based on the qualitative data.
(1)
Discontinuities in the TPACK Domain
“The mentor said, okay, that’s where we are in the book. That’s actually the only thing
that comes to mind in this context.”
(LR RA27JR).
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 15 of 27
In lesson reflection, pre-service biology teachers mainly justified the selection of the
subject content on the basis that it fits into their mentor’s current teaching unit. In addition,
several pre-service biology teachers reported a lack of influence on the selection of subject
content during the internship semester. Instead, they were bound to their mentor’s subject
distribution plans.
(2)
Discontinuities in the PCK Domain
The pre-service biology teachers consider the relevance of the subject content fre-
quently in lesson planning but rarely in lesson implementation. They explicate this aspect
mostly in the theoretical parts of the lesson plan (e.g., instructional planning or subject
analysis) or in curricular reference. Only one of the pre-service biology teachers addresses
the relevance of the subject content again in the methodological planning and the outline of
the concrete lesson. Indicators regarding the relevance of the subject content in the students’
lives, which are addressed in these rather concrete parts of the lesson plan, are mainly
implemented within lessons.
(3)
Discontinuities in the TPK Domain
Most pre-service biology teachers consider the support for students regarding content-
related and technological issues in lesson planning. Many pre-service biology teachers
solely focus on addressing technological problems in lesson planning and stress the chal-
lenges that arise from the complexity of the video creation tasks. They emphasize that
unclear instructions “can lead to the group working only with difficulty or not at all” (LP
BL13MR). However, pre-service biology teachers frequently mention providing demand-
oriented support without explicitly assigning it to one of the areas mentioned, stating that
the teacher is available in the classroom to answer any questions that arise. These cases
were coded according to all three indicators.
4. Discussion
This study aimed to investigate how pre-service biology teachers apply their TPACK
in teaching using digital technology. For this purpose, a comparatively large sample of
pre-service biology teachers (n = 42) was accompanied in the field following an ecologically
valid intervention at the university based on empirical criteria for TPACK development [
15
].
TPACK was collected taking into account the context and by triangulation of lesson plan-
ning, implementation, and reflection. This approach enabled authentic and comprehensive
insights into the enactment of pre-service biology teachers’ theoretical TPACK in real
classroom situations.
The findings revealed that pre-service biology teachers are able to apply certain aspects
of PCK, TPK, and TPACK in classroom practice. However, they tend to focus more on
specific domains while neglecting others. Specifically, in lesson planning, pre-service
biology teachers emphasized PCK less than TPK. In lesson implementation, pre-service
biology teachers had less emphasis on PCK compared to both TPK and TPACK. Similar to
the findings of DeCoito and Richardson [
7
], the pre-service biology teachers in this study
predominantly implemented digital technology from a technological perspective and need
to consider PCK more holistically.
Some of the pre-service biology teachers tend to select hardware and software based
on the required preparation rather than considering their potential for teaching complex,
abstract, and/or dynamic biological subject content. Moreover, they reduce content-related
complexity deliberately to reserve students’ cognitive capacity for using digital technol-
ogy. These results indicate that the respective pre-service biology teachers struggle with
drawing a link between teaching the subject content and the use of digital technology.
Pringle et al. [8]
, Valtonen et al. [
56
], and von Kotzebue [
23
] report similar findings. Ocak
and Baran [
55
] came to different results regarding in-service teachers. The in-service teach-
ers in their study particularly emphasized the subject content and PCK aspects when
making decisions related to the use of technology. This may be explained by their extensive
experience, enabling them to draw upon more sophisticated PCK. Although they had
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 16 of 27
previously taken part in an intervention that emphasized benefits of digital technology in
science teaching, the pre-service biology teachers participating in our study did not address
PCK aspects accordingly. One possible reason for this could be that the specified emerging
new use of technology could have stimulated a technology focus among them. Although
the alignment between selected subject content and digital technology is comparatively
high in lesson implementation, this is rarely justified in lesson planning or lesson reflection.
Accordingly, different explanations for this can be considered as follows: (1) the character-
istics of the selected subject content coincidentally align with the use of digital technology,
or (2) the mentors at the internship school strongly influenced the alignment process.
The study identified two types of pre-service biology teachers’ TPACK enactment, dis-
continuities between the data sets, and an overarching pattern. The following subsections
discuss these results in detail and relate them to the current state of research.
4.1. Types of Technology Use among Pre-Service Biology Teachers
The split-focus type generally subordinates the content-related domains (PCK and
TPACK) to TPK. This group systematically separates the subject content from the use
of technology and, in this respect, regards the use of technology as an independent and
equivalent learning content of the lesson sequence. Consistent with the findings of Kapici
and Akcay [
53
], the respective pre-service biology teachers report concerns regarding
technology usage and justify their concerns by stating that they did not feel ready for
the use of technology [
7
]. This is primarily linked to their low confidence in using digital
technology, as pre-service biology teachers describe themselves as not technologically savvy.
Accordingly, they focus on surface characteristics (e.g., time management and technological
preparation of the students) to guarantee that the lesson runs without disruptions on
the surface. This focus on surface characteristics when using digital technology in the
classroom has been observed particularly among pre-service teachers with low enacted
TPACK [43].
The novelty-focus type focuses on the technology-related categories (TPK and TPACK)
while subordinating PCK. Compared to the split-focus type, this type demonstrates a pur-
poseful link between digital technology and subject content. Pre-service biology teachers
describe digital technology as a valuable instructional tool for consolidating the subject
content and emphasize the added value of digital technology regarding characteristics of
their selected subject content. Nevertheless, these pre-service biology teachers perceive
the use of technology as a primary challenge to students’ learning due to the novelty
of the instructional method or the software used. They find it challenging to estimate
students’ technological competencies and are concerned with students’ cognitive overload.
Supporting the findings of several studies in the field of enacted TPACK, the pre-service
biology teachers’ unfamiliarity with the use of technology results in a focus on technological
guidance for the students and neglecting PCK aspects accordingly [
43
,
51
–
53
]. In contrast
to the results of Akyuz [
43
], this also applies to pre-service teachers who have already
achieved an understanding of TPACK as a distinct domain.
4.2. Identified Pattern
In both lesson planning and lesson implementation, subcategories dealing with stu-
dent activation are significantly less pronounced than subcategories dealing with lesson
structure. Correspondingly, von Kotzebue [
23
] reports low levels of students’ cognitive ac-
tivation (predominantly levels of reproduction and reorganizing) and self-determination in
pre-service science teachers’ technology-enhanced lesson plans. However, a shift towards
teacher-centered instead of student-activated teaching was also observed among experi-
enced in-service teachers using novel digital technology in class for the first time [
54
,
55
].
This pattern is described as overarching since pre-service biology teachers from both the
split-focus and novelty-focus types and pre-service biology teachers assigned to none of
these types share it.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 17 of 27
Overall, however, there are comparatively more cases of the novelty-focus type than
the split-focus type assigned to the pattern. Figure 2depicts the identified pattern con-
necting the two types. Pre-service biology teachers assigned to this pattern shared three
aspects: (1) concerns with the use of technology, (2) concerns with loss of control, and
(3) high product orientation. While (1) occurred equally in both types, (2) was observed
comparatively more frequently in the novelty-focus type and (3) more frequently in the
split-focus type. Accordingly, pre-service biology teachers are insecure in using technology
for various reasons, seeking to maintain control of the lesson and focusing rather on the
product (explainer video) than on the students’ learning process. To counteract insecurities
and to gain control over the lesson, pre-service biology teachers provide comprehensive
support structures and clear instructions while avoiding self-directed student activity.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 27
biology teachers describe digital technology as a valuable instructional tool for consoli-
dating the subject content and emphasize the added value of digital technology regarding
characteristics of their selected subject content. Nevertheless, these pre-service biology
teachers perceive the use of technology as a primary challenge to students’ learning due
to the novelty of the instructional method or the software used. They find it challenging
to estimate students’ technological competencies and are concerned with students’ cogni-
tive overload. Supporting the findings of several studies in the field of enacted TPACK,
the pre-service biology teachers’ unfamiliarity with the use of technology results in a focus
on technological guidance for the students and neglecting PCK aspects accordingly
[43,51–53]. In contrast to the results of Akyuz [43], this also applies to pre-service teachers
who have already achieved an understanding of TPACK as a distinct domain.
4.2. Identified Paern
In both lesson planning and lesson implementation, subcategories dealing with stu-
dent activation are significantly less pronounced than subcategories dealing with lesson
structure. Correspondingly, von Koebue [23] reports low levels of students’ cognitive
activation (predominantly levels of reproduction and reorganizing) and self-determina-
tion in pre-service science teachers’ technology-enhanced lesson plans. However, a shift
towards teacher-centered instead of student-activated teaching was also observed among
experienced in-service teachers using novel digital technology in class for the first time
[54,55]. This paern is described as overarching since pre-service biology teachers from
both the split-focus and novelty-focus types and pre-service biology teachers assigned to
none of these types share it.
Overall, however, there are comparatively more cases of the novelty-focus type than
the split-focus type assigned to the paern. Figure 2 depicts the identified paern con-
necting the two types. Pre-service biology teachers assigned to this paern shared three
aspects: (1) concerns with the use of technology, (2) concerns with loss of control, and (3)
high product orientation. While (1) occurred equally in both types, (2) was observed com-
paratively more frequently in the novelty-focus type and (3) more frequently in the split-
focus type. Accordingly, pre-service biology teachers are insecure in using technology for
various reasons, seeking to maintain control of the lesson and focusing rather on the prod-
uct (explainer video) than on the students’ learning process. To counteract insecurities
and to gain control over the lesson, pre-service biology teachers provide comprehensive
support structures and clear instructions while avoiding self-directed student activity.
Figure 2. Illustration of the identified types and paern in interaction.
Figure 2. Illustration of the identified types and pattern in interaction.
4.3. Identified Discontinuities within the Data Sets
Like Yeh et al. [
57
], we also found discontinuities between the data sets. These discon-
tinuities could be attributed to the different demands of the teaching phases. For example,
the lesson plan provides clear directives as stipulated by the educational institution, while
lesson implementation involves spontaneous practical obstacles, and lesson reflection
requires the ability to introspect.
Thus, pre-service biology teachers tend to apply superficial rule-based approaches in
the theoretical parts of lesson planning, which are not transferred to lesson implementation
or taken into account in lesson reflection. Conversely, indicators that were previously
considered in lesson planning or reflection were not identified in lesson implementation.
This could be due to the guidance of the mentors during the internship semester and/or
the pre-service biology teachers’ ability to react spontaneously to unexpected practical
challenges.
4.4. Limitations
The sample size (n = 42) limits the study results. However, increasing the sample
size was impossible due to the high complexity of the data collection and analysis process,
the underlying data itself, and the EnTPACK rubric. The study was situated in specific
contextual conditions, leading to context-specific definitions of the TPACK domains. Nev-
ertheless, the results are transferable to similar application contexts. In addition, this study
represents a field study, and it was impossible to create identical conditions. For instance,
pre-service biology teachers were mentored by in-service teachers of varying competence in
using digital technology who accompanied them in lesson planning, implementation, and
reflection during the internship semester. As a result, decisions relevant to the study (e.g.,
the selection of subject content) may have been influenced by this mentoring. However, the
study thus fulfills the requirement of ecological validity.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 18 of 27
4.5. Implications for Practitioners
In line with the findings of Tondeur et al. [
26
], the results of this study indicate that
TPACK development represents a highly individual process that a one-size-fits-all approach
cannot facilitate. The present study provides new insights into pre-service biology teachers’
TPACK enactment. The results contribute to a systematization in the diverse field of TPACK
enactment, thus providing the basis for deriving individual support strategies.
However, further research using qualitative data to explain quantitatively identified
patterns is needed to investigate the complex interactions between intrinsic variables
(attitudes, values, epistemic beliefs), environmental conditions (role models, values, school
facilities), and TPACK enactment.
The study reinforces recommendations on TPACK development from previous studies.
Accordingly, emerging digital technologies need to be integrated into PCK programs with
a focus on the blended PK domains [
13
,
43
,
48
], explicitly emphasizing the supporting role
of digital technology as a tool in teaching subject content [56].
4.6. Implications for Scientists
The discontinuities within the data sets show that TPACK enactment needs to be
triangulated based on the combination of different data sets, including lesson planning,
implementation, and reflection [31,49,51].
Since enacted TPACK expresses differently concerning various contextual conditions
on site [
44
], it is mandatory to consider contextual factors and qualitative data to identify
causal relationships beyond speculative assumptions. In this respect, the consideration of
cognitive and affective dispositions of pre-service science teachers could be particularly
informative [42].
As professional knowledge may occur tacitly in interactive decision-making during
lesson implementation [
42
], it might also be helpful to collect data on pre-service teachers’
reflection in action as an additional assessment method in TPACK enactment research.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.A. and H.W.; methodology, A.A. and H.W.; formal
analysis, A.A.; investigation, A.A.; resources, A.A.; data curation, A.A.; writing—original draft
preparation, A.A.; writing—review and editing, A.A., H.W. and S.S.; visualization, A.A.; supervision,
H.W. and S.S.; funding acquisition, H.W. and S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
(BMBF), grant number 01JA2036.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethic review and approval were waived for this study since
it was conducted within established educational settings, focusing solely on normal educational
practices. Participation in data collection was voluntary and did not introduce an additional risk.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data sets used and/or analyzed during the current study are
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 19 of 27
Appendix A. The Categories, Subcategories, Criteria, and Indicators of the
EnTPACK Rubric
Categories Subcategories Criteria Indicators (Weight)
TPACK
(TPACK alo)
Alignment of the use of digital technology with the
lesson objective(s)
The pre-service teacher (PST) focuses on content-related
learning objectives, that are appropriately facilitated
through the use of digital technology
(student-generated explainer videos).
(TPACK alo-a)
The video creation task focuses on the explanation of
a biological or scientific process/content by the
students. (2)
(TPACK alo-b)
The lesson serves to consolidate/deepen a subject
content that has previously been taught. (3)
(TPACK alo-c)
The PST relates their content-related learning
objective to using digital technology. (3)
(TPACK alo-d)
The PST emphasizes content-related learning
objectives over the promotion of media literacy. (2)
(TPACK alo-e)
(Planning and Reflection) The PST considers
alternative methodological-medial options to
achieve the content-related learning objectives. (1)
(TPACK alo-f)
There is a discontinuity between the content-related
learning objective(s) and the teaching. The teaching
contradicts the content-related learning objective.
(−2)
(TPACK alo-g)
The PST focuses more on the product than on the
process of video creation. (−1)
(TPACK asc)
Alignment of the use of digital technology with the
subject content
The PST selects a subject content that particularly
benefits from the use of digital technology.
(TPACK asc-a)
The selected subject content is self-contained. An
understanding of the subject content is possible with
the available materials without the inclusion of
additional content. (1)
(TPACK asc-b)
The PST limits the scope of the selected subject
content so that it can be presented in a short
explainer video. (2)
(TPACK asc-c)
The selected subject content is sufficiently complex
(content needs to be related/connected). (3)
(TPACK asc-d)
The selected subject content exhibits spatial and/or
temporal changes (dynamics). (3)
(TPACK asc-e)
The PST connects the selected subject content and
the use of digital technology. (1)
(TPACK asc-f)
The subject content is so rich in detail and
complexity that visual representation is impeded.
(−2)
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 20 of 27
Categories Subcategories Criteria Indicators (Weight)
PCK (PCK cs)
Content structuring
(PCK cs1)
The PST ensures
appropriate transparency
(clarity) of the
content-related lesson
objectives for the students
(PCK cs1-a)
The learning objective and/or the assignment are
communicated to the students comprehensibly
(appropriate to the addressees). (2)
(PCK cs1-b)
The learning objective and/or the assignment are
visibly fixed for the students. (1)
(PCK cs1-c)
The PST formulates content-related requirements for
the explainer video. (2)
(PCK cs1-d)
The PST formulates an individual objective or
arbitrary requirements for the students (“Do your
best”). (If not given, then the other indicators are
evaluated. If given, then 0.)
(PCK cs2)
The PST focuses
specifically on central key
aspects of the subject
content.
(PCK cs2-a)
The PST emphasizes key aspects of content (e.g.,
emphasizes their importance). (2)
(PCK cs2-b)
The focused key aspects are of central importance
for the content-related learning objective/for
understanding the subject content. (2)
(PCK cs2-c)
The PST distinguishes the key aspects from
non-essential aspects. (1)
(PCK cs2-d)
The PST connects the key aspects with the rest of the
course. (1)
(PCK cs2-e)
The PST incorporates aspects into the lesson that are
incidental to the content-related learning objective.
(−1)
(PCK cs3)
The PST uses technical
language appropriately in
the lesson.
(PCK cs3-a)
The PST defines the technical terms to be used in the
explainer video and/or to be consolidated during
video creation. (2)
(PCK cs3-b)
The selected technical terms are necessary to achieve
the lesson objective(s) and/or to understand the
subject content. (2)
(PCK cs3-c)
The video creation task requires a verbal explanation
of the subject content. (2)
(PCK cs3-d)
The PST refrains from using technical terms that are
not required to achieve the lesson objective(s)
and/or to understand the subject content. (1)
(PCK cs3-e)
The PST misuses technical terms in the lesson. (−2)
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 21 of 27
Categories Subcategories Criteria Indicators (Weight)
(PCK cs4)
The PST ensures that the
students receive
appropriate
content-related feedback.
(PCK cs4-a)
The PST defines criteria for feedback. (2)
(PCK cs4-b)
The feedback is based on the defined criteria. (2)
(PCK cs4-c)
Students have access to the criteria during video
creation. (2)
(PCK cs4-d)
The feedback and/or the criteria focus on the
content-related learning objective(s). (2)
(PCK cs4-e)
The feedback and/or criteria include informative as
well as practical advice for further learning or
editing. (1)
(PCK cs4-f)
The feedback is appreciative. (2)
(PCK cs4-g)
The criteria are formulated unclearly. (−2)
(PCK ca)
Cognitive activation
(PCK ca1)
The PST provides an
authentic setting for the
video creation
(PCK ca1-a)
The explainer videos are directed at a realistic
audience. (1)
(PCK ca1-b)
The PST provides authentic stimuli for video
creation. (2)
(PCK ca2)
The PST ensures that the
students engage with the
relevance of the subject
content.
(PCK ca2-a)
The relevance of the subject content (e.g., individual,
societal, or vocational) is discussed. Either by the
teacher or as part of the video creation task by the
students themselves. (1)
(PCK ca2-b)
A (e.g., individually, societally, or vocationally)
relevant question or problem constitutes the initial
basis of the video creation task. (1)
(PCK ca2-c)
The PST provides a context (e.g., phenomenon or
history) to the subject content. (1)
(PCK ca3)
The PST enables the
students to transfer their
previously acquired
knowledge appropriately
via the video creation task.
(PCK ca3-a)
The PST activates the students’ relevant prior
knowledge. (1)
(PCK ca3-b)
The PST provides (at least) one prototypical example
for the explainer video. (1)
(PCK ca3-c)
The video creation task allows the students to
determine the content structure of their explainer
videos independently. (1)
(PCK ca3-d)
The PST supports the students in structuring the
content according to their individual needs. (1)
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 22 of 27
Categories Subcategories Criteria Indicators (Weight)
(PCK ca3-e)
The PST guides the students in reproducing defaults.
(−1)
(PCK ca3-f)
The task does not require the students to use their
content knowledge. (−1)
TPK
(TPK scl)
Scaffolding cognitive
load
(TPK scl1)
The PST reduces the
students’ cognitive load
induced by the handling
of digital technology.
(TPK scl1-a)
The PST considers the technology-related (pre-)
experiences of the students. (2)
(TPK scl1-b)
The PST selects an appropriate software for the
video creation task. (1)
(TPK scl1-c)
The PST introduces the students to the essential
functions of digital technology that are mandatory
for the video creation task. (2)
(TPK scl1-d)
The PST supports and advises the students on
questions regarding digital technology as needed.
(3)
(TPK scl1-e)
(Planning and Reflection) The selected digital
technology is reflected in instructional and/or
cognitive psychological aspects. (1)
(TPK scl2)
The PST reduces the
students’ cognitive load
induced by the planning
and design of the
explainer video.
(TPK scl2-a)
The PST points out that the explainer videos’ design
quality is not the lesson sequence’s focus. (2)
(TPK scl2-b)
The PST provides the students with exemplary
production materials for content presentation. (2)
(TPK scl2-c)
The PST introduces the students to the selected
production method. (2)
(TPK scl2-d)
The PST supports and advises the students with
planning or design problems and/or questions as
needed. (1)
(TPK scl2-e)
The PST provides the students with a structural
basis for planning their video. (2)
(TPK scl2-f)
The PST formulates a variety (>4) of design criteria
and/or established design criteria are irrelevant to
understand the subject content. (−2)
(TPKscl3)
The PST reduces the
students’ cognitive load
induced by the
self-organized group
work.
(TPK scl3-a)
The PST structures the video creation task into
subtasks and provides them to the students. (1)
(TPK scl3-b)
The PST regulates the group size to small groups
(max. 3–4 students per group). (1)
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 23 of 27
Categories Subcategories Criteria Indicators (Weight)
(TPK scl3-c)
The PST supports the groups in case of questions
and/or problems concerning the group organization.
(2)
(TPK scl3-d)
(Planning and Reflection) The PST justifies the
constellation of the group formation. (1)
(TPK il)
Interactive learning
The PST promotes an active, constructive and
interactive use of digital technology by the students.
(TPK il-a)
The PST encourages students to engage in content
discussions on and beyond the subject content. (3)
(TPK il-b)
The PST integrates phases of co-construction and
intra-group discussion on content firmly into the
lesson. (3)
(TPK il-c)
The PST regulates the use of digital technology in
order to achieve a constructive and productive
handling of the students. (1)
(TPK il-d)
The PST identifies the activation and collaboration of
the students as a key potential of the use of digital
technology. (2)
(TPK il-e)
The PST asks the students to argue for their
statements. (2)
(TPK tm)
Time management
The PST ensures that the lesson is appropriately timed.
(TPK tm-a)
Time allocation is appropriate to the learning
objective(s). (2)
(TPK tm-b)
The students are given enough time to plan and
create the video (at least 40 min). (3)
(TPK tm-c)
The PST considers alternative approaches in the
absence of time. (1)
Appendix B. Heatmap of the Rubric Values for the Total Sample on a Likert Scale from
0 to 3
Cases Student Activation Lesson Structuring PCK TPK TPACK
LP LI LP LI LP LI LP LI LP LI
SA27LK 1.50 0.83 1.69 1.86 0.88 0.96 2.11 1.78 0.50 1.00
BL05PW 2.00 1.17 1.83 1.94 1.25 0.92 2.33 2.11 1.00 1.00
RA25NR 0.83 1.00 2.31 2.53 1.46 1.63 1.89 2.11 3.00 2.50
FR07SS 1.33 1.17 2.53 2.56 1.96 2.17 2.11 1.89 1.00 2.50
KA04GT 0.67 1.50 1.25 2.28 1.04 1.25 1.00 2.44 0.00 2.00
EH15SE 1.67 1.00 2.28 1.72 1.42 1.25 2.44 1.56 0.50 0.50
LI13VB 1.00 0.83 1.67 1.75 1.00 0.46 1.67 2.00 1.00 0.50
SA03TD 0.83 1.33 2.11 2.25 1.83 1.71 1.44 2.00 2.00 2.00
TE09SM 1.83 1.50 2.06 2.03 1.58 1.38 2.22 2.11 1.50 1.50
ÜB02SB 1.50 1.00 2.61 2.61 1.75 1.75 2.44 2.11 1.00 1.50
SA08AP 1.50 0.83 2.47 2.61 1.88 1.58 2.22 2.11 0.50 1.50
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 24 of 27
Cases Student Activation Lesson Structuring PCK TPK TPACK
LP LI LP LI LP LI LP LI LP LI
RI06SB 1.83 1.50 1.56 1.86 1.83 1.63 1.56 1.78 1.50 1.50
RE04SP 1.17 0.33 1.08 0.86 0.29 0.46 1.67 0.78 0.50 1.50
KE04JG 0.83 0.17 1.42 2.17 0.96 0.92 1.33 1.67 1.00 1.50
FR07AH 1.33 1.00 2.19 1.67 1.46 1.00 2.11 1.67 1.00 2.00
SI10MG 1.83 0.83 2.25 2.19 1.71 0.96 2.33 2.11 2.00 2.50
SI27AA 1.17 1.50 0.86 1.17 0.79 0.75 1.11 1.67 2.00 2.00
TU23KP 1.00 1.00 2.28 2.31 1.75 1.63 1.78 1.89 0.50 1.00
WA16AA
0.50 1.33 1.81 2.08 0.88 0.96 1.56 2.33 1.50 2.50
WE02NA
1.67 1.00 0.53 1.53 0.79 1.13 1.11 1.44 2.00 1.00
WE06CM
1.00 1.33 2.11 1.75 1.50 0.96 1.78 2.00 1.50 2.50
WE30VJ 1.67 0.33 2.06 2.28 1.42 1.08 2.22 1.78 1.50 1.00
FR05MH
0.33 0.83 1.89 1.39 0.83 0.58 1.56 1.56 2.50 2.50
LE03SE 1.17 0.50 0.50 0.53 0.92 0.63 0.67 0.44 2.00 2.00
WE08EB 0.67 1.17 2.06 2.31 1.42 1.29 1.56 2.22 0.50 2.00
BA16PM 1.67 1.67 2.50 2.69 1.92 2.04 2.33 2.44 1.50 2.50
BL13MR 1.00 1.83 2.14 2.44 1.38 1.83 1.89 2.44 1.00 2.00
HO03AH
1.00 0.83 2.22 2.17 1.50 1.08 1.89 2.00 1.50 2.00
IL03LG 0.50 1.50 2.50 2.61 1.75 1.75 1.67 2.44 1.00 2.50
MA07CG
0.33 1.33 1.36 1.67 0.71 0.83 1.11 2.00 1.00 2.50
OF25SS 1.00 0.83 1.97 1.67 1.13 0.83 1.89 1.67 2.50 1.50
RA11SC 0.83 0.83 2.17 2.53 1.08 1.46 2.00 2.11 1.50 2.00
RA22XG 1.00 0.67 1.86 2.17 1.13 1.42 1.78 1.67 1.00 2.00
RA27JR 0.83 1.50 1.69 1.86 0.71 1.13 1.78 2.11 2.50 2.50
SI15CH 0.17 0.33 1.97 2.17 0.79 1.08 1.56 1.67 1.50 2.50
WE05PG
0.33 0.83 1.78 1.69 1.33 1.21 1.11 1.44 1.50 3.00
BA15MW
1.67 0.33 2.39 1.83 1.92 0.58 2.22 1.67 2.00 1.50
EB09GG 1.00 1.33 2.17 1.83 1.25 1.08 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50
FI13CS 0.00 0.00 1.58 1.67 0.38 0.50 1.33 1.33 2.00 2.50
KO20ST 0.83 0.83 2.53 2.00 1.46 1.33 2.11 1.67 2.00 2.50
OC15AF 1.50 1.50 2.25 1.94 1.38 1.25 2.33 2.11 1.50 1.50
WE13IR 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.56 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.56 1.50 2.50
= low performer
(0–0.99) = middle performer (1.00–1.99) = high performer (2.00–3.00)
References
1.
Angeli, C.; Valanides, N. Epistemological and Methodological Issues for the Conceptualization, Development, and Assessment of
ICT–TPCK: Advances in Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). Comput. Educ. 2009,52, 154–168. [CrossRef]
2.
Hsu, Y.-S.; Yeh, Y.-F.; Wu, H.-K. The TPACK-P Framework for Science Teachers in a Practical Teaching Context. In Development of
Science Teachers’ TPACK; Hsu, Y.-S., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2015; pp. 17–32. ISBN 978-981-287-440-5.
3.
Höffler, T.N.; Leutner, D. Instructional Animation versus Static Pictures: A Meta-Analysis. Learn. Instr. 2007,17, 722–738.
[CrossRef]
4.
Chi, M.T.H.; Wylie, R. The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educ. Psychol. 2014,
49, 219–243. [CrossRef]
5.
Kramer, M.; Förtsch, C.; Aufleger, M.; Neuhaus, B.J. Der Einsatz digitaler Medien im gymnasialen Biologieunterricht. Z. Didakt.
Naturwissenschaften 2019,25, 131–160. [CrossRef]
6.
Barak, M. Science Teacher Education in the Twenty-First Century: A Pedagogical Framework for Technology-Integrated Social
Constructivism. Res. Sci. Educ. 2017,47, 283–303. [CrossRef]
7.
DeCoito, I.; Richardson, T. Teachers and Technology: Present Practice and Future Directions. Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ.
2018,18, 362–378.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 25 of 27
8.
Pringle, R.M.; Dawson, K.; Ritzhaupt, A.D. Integrating Science and Technology: Using Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge as a Framework to Study the Practices of Science Teachers. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2015,24, 648–662. [CrossRef]
9.
Szeto, E.; Cheng, A.Y.N. Pedagogies Across Subjects: What Are Preservice Teachers’ TPACK Patterns of Integrating Technology in
Practice? J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2017,55, 346–373. [CrossRef]
10.
Uluyol, Ç.; ¸Sahin, S. Elementary School Teachers’ ICT Use in the Classroom and Their Motivators for Using ICT. Br. J. Educ.
Technol. 2016,47, 65–75. [CrossRef]
11.
Hämäläinen, R.; Nissinen, K.; Mannonen, J.; Lämsä, J.; Leino, K.; Taajamo, M. Understanding Teaching Professionals’ Digital
Competence: What Do PIAAC and TALIS Reveal about Technology-Related Skills, Attitudes, and Knowledge? Comput. Hum.
Behav. 2021,117, 106672. [CrossRef]
12.
Lomos, C.; Luyten, J.W.; Tieck, S. Implementing ICT in Classroom Practice: What Else Matters besides the ICT Infrastructure?
Large-Scale Assess. Educ. 2023,11, 1. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
Valtonen, T.; Sointu, E.; Kukkonen, J.; Mäkitalo, K.; Hoang, N.; Häkkinen, P.; Järvelä, S.; Näykki, P.; Virtanen, A.; Pöntinen, S.;
et al. Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as Evolving Knowledge Domains: A
Longitudinal Approach. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2019,35, 491–502. [CrossRef]
14.
Becker, S.; Meßinger-Kopelt, J.; Thyssen, C. Digitale Basiskompetenzen. Orientierungshilfe und Praxisbeispiele für die Universitäre
Lehramtsausbildung in den Naturwissenschaften; Joachim Herz Stiftung: Hamburg, Germany, 2020.
15.
Tondeur, J.; van Braak, J.; Sang, G.; Voogt, J.; Fisser, P.; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. Preparing Pre-Service Teachers to Integrate
Technology in Education: A Synthesis of Qualitative Evidence. Comput. Educ. 2012,59, 134–144. [CrossRef]
16.
Weidlich, J.; Kalz, M. How Well Does Teacher Education Prepare for Teaching with Technology? A TPACK-Based Investigation at
a University of Education. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2023, 1–21. [CrossRef]
17.
Mishra, P.; Koehler, M.J. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teach. Coll. Rec.
2006,108, 1017–1054. [CrossRef]
18.
Njiku, J.; Mutarutinya, V.; Maniraho, J.F. Developing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Survey Items: A Review of
Literature. J. Digit. Learn. Teach. Educ. 2020,36, 150–165. [CrossRef]
19.
Angeli, C.; Ioannou, I. Developing Secondary Education Computer Science Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge. Eur. J. Educ. Sci. 2015,2, 9–30. [CrossRef]
20.
Dong, Y.; Chai, C.S.; Sang, G.; Koh, J.H.L.; Tsai, C.-C. Exploring the Profiles and Interplays of Pre-Service and In-Service Teachers’
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in China. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2015,18, 158–169.
21.
Pamuk, S.; Ergun, M.; Cakir, R.; Yilmaz, H.B.; Ayas, C. Exploring Relationships among TPACK Components and Development of
the TPACK Instrument. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2015,20, 241–263. [CrossRef]
22.
Schmid, M.; Brianza, E.; Petko, D. Developing a Short Assessment Instrument for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK.Xs) and Comparing the Factor Structure of an Integrative and a Transformative Model. Comput. Educ. 2020,157, 103967.
[CrossRef]
23.
von Kotzebue, L. Beliefs, Self-Reported or Performance-Assessed TPACK: What Can Predict the Quality of Technology-Enhanced
Biology Lesson Plans? J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2022,31, 570–582. [CrossRef]
24.
Santos, J.M.; Castro, R.D.R. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in Action: Application of Learning in the
Classroom by Pre-Service Teachers (PST). Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2021,3, 100110. [CrossRef]
25.
Celik, I.; Sahin, I.; Akturk, A.O. Analysis of the Relations among the Components of Technological Pedagogical and Content
Knowledge (TPACK): A Structural Equation Model. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2014,51, 1–22. [CrossRef]
26.
Valtonen, T.; Eriksson, M.; Kärkkäinen, S.; Tahvanainen, V.; Turunen, A.; Vartiainen, H.; Kukkonen, J.; Sointu, E. Emerging
Imbalance in the Development of TPACK—A Challenge for Teacher Training. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023,28, 5363–5383. [CrossRef]
27.
Tondeur, J.; Howard, S.K.; Yang, J. One-Size Does Not Fit All: Towards an Adaptive Model to Develop Preservice Teachers’
Digital Competencies. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021,116, 106659. [CrossRef]
28.
Chai, C.S.; Koh, J.H.L.; Tsai, C.-C. A Review of the Quantitative Measures of Technological, Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK). In Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators; Herring, M.C., Koehler, M.J., Mishra,
P., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 87–106.
29.
Aumann, A.; Schnebel, S.; Weitzel, H. The EnTPACK Rubric: Development, Validation, and Reliability of an Instrument for
Measuring Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Enacted TPACK. Front. Educ. 2023,8, 1190152. [CrossRef]
30.
Wang, W.; Schmidt-Crawford, D.; Jin, Y. Preservice Teachers’ TPACK Development: A Review of Literature. J. Digit. Learn. Teach.
Educ. 2018,34, 234–258. [CrossRef]
31.
Willermark, S. Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge: A Review of Empirical Studies Published from 2011 to 2016. J.
Educ. Comput. Res. 2018,56, 315–343. [CrossRef]
32.
Drummond, A.; Sweeney, T. Can an Objective Measure of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Supplement
Existing TPACK Measures? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2017,48, 928–939. [CrossRef]
33.
Mourlam, D.; Chesnut, S.; Bleecker, H. Exploring Preservice Teacher Self-Reported and Enacted TPACK after Participating in a
Learning Activity Types Short Course. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2021,37, 152–169. [CrossRef]
34.
So, H.-J.; Kim, B. Learning about Problem Based Learning: Student Teachers Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content
Knowledge. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2009,25, 101–116. [CrossRef]
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 26 of 27
35.
Max, A.; Lukas, S.; Weitzel, H. The Relationship between Self-Assessment and Performance in Learning TPACK: Are Self-
Assessments a Good Way to Support Preservice Teachers’ Learning? Comput. Assist. Learn. 2022,38, 1160–1172. [CrossRef]
36.
Ling Koh, J.H.; Chai, C.S.; Tay, L.Y. TPACK-in-Action: Unpacking the Contextual Influences of Teachers’ Construction of
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Comput. Educ. 2014,78, 20–29. [CrossRef]
37.
Jaipal-Jamani, K.; Figg, C. The Framework of TPACK-in-Practice: Designing Content-Centric Technology Professional Learning
Contexts to Develop Teacher Knowledge of Technology-Enhanced Teaching (TPACK). In Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge; Angeli, C., Valanides, N., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 137–163. ISBN 978-1-4899-8079-3.
38.
Pareto, L.; Willermark, S. TPACK In Situ: A Design-Based Approach Supporting Professional Development in Practice. J. Educ.
Comput. Res. 2019,57, 1186–1226. [CrossRef]
39.
Phillips, M. Processes of Practice and Identity Shaping Teachers’ TPACK Enactment in a Community of Practice. Educ. Inf. Technol.
2017,22, 1771–1796. [CrossRef]
40. Anderson, J.R. Acquisition of Cognitive Skill. Psychol. Rev. 1982,89, 369–406. [CrossRef]
41.
Baumert, J.; Kunter, M. The COACTIV Model of Teachers’ Professional Competence. In Cognitive Activation in the Mathematics
Classroom and Professional Competence of Teachers; Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M., Eds.;
Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2013; pp. 25–48. ISBN 978-1-4614-5148-8.
42.
Stender, A.; Brückmann, M.; Neumann, K. Transformation of Topic-Specific Professional Knowledge into Personal Pedagogical
Content Knowledge through Lesson Planning. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2017,39, 1690–1714. [CrossRef]
43.
Akyuz, D. Exploring Contextual Factors for Pre-Service Teachers Teaching with Technology through Planning, Teaching, and
Reflecting. Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ. 2023,18, em0721. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44.
Rosenberg, J.M.; Koehler, M.J. Context and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A Systematic Review. J. Res.
Technol. Educ. 2015,47, 186–210. [CrossRef]
45.
Walan, S. Embracing Digital Technology in Science Classrooms—Secondary School Teachers’ Enacted Teaching and Reflections
on Practice. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2020,29, 431–441. [CrossRef]
46.
Mouza, C. Developing and Assessing TPACK Among Pre-Service Teachers. A Synthesis of Research. In Handbook of Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators; Herring, M.C., Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA,
2016; pp. 169–190. ISBN 978-1-138-77939-6.
47.
Ning, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Wijaya, T.T.; Chen, J. Teacher Education Interventions on Teacher TPACK: A Meta-Analysis Study. Sustainability
2022,14, 11791. [CrossRef]
48.
Stinken-Rösner, L.; Hofer, E.; Rodenhauser, A.; Abels, S. Technology Implementation in Pre-Service Science Teacher Education
Based on the Transformative View of TPACK: Effects on Pre-Service Teachers’ TPACK, Behavioral Orientations and Actions in
Practice. Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 732. [CrossRef]
49.
Harris, J.B.; Grandgenett, N.; Hofer, M. Testing a TPACK-Based Technology Integration Assessment Rubric. In Proceedings of the
SITE 2010—Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 29 March
2010; Gibson, D., Dodge, B., Eds.; AACE: Chesapeake, VA, USA, 2010; pp. 3833–3840.
50.
Akta¸s, ˙
I.; Özmen, H. Investigating the Impact of TPACK Development Course on Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Performances.
Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2020,21, 667–682. [CrossRef]
51.
Aumann, A.; Weitzel, H. Exploring a Theory-Practice Gap: An Investigation of Pre-Service Biology Teachers’ Enacted TPACK.
In Shaping the Future of Biological Education Research; Korfiatis, K., Grace, M., Hammann, M., Eds.; Contributions from Biology
Education Research; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 311–323. ISBN 978-3-031-44791-4.
52.
Janssen, N.; Knoef, M.; Lazonder, A.W. Technological and Pedagogical Support for Pre-Service Teachers’ Lesson Planning. Technol.
Pedagog. Educ. 2019,28, 115–128. [CrossRef]
53.
Kapici, H.O.; Akcay, H. Improving Student Teachers’ TPACK Self-Efficacy through Lesson Planning Practice in the Virtual
Platform. Educ. Stud. 2020,49, 76–98. [CrossRef]
54.
Nielsen, W.; Miller, K.A.; Hoban, G. Science Teachers’ Response to the Digital Education Revolution. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2015,24,
417–431. [CrossRef]
55.
Ocak, C.; Baran, E. Observing the Indicators of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Classrooms: Video-Based
Research. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2019,51, 43–62. [CrossRef]
56.
Valtonen, T.; Leppänen, U.; Hyypiä, M.; Sointu, E.; Smits, A.; Tondeur, J. Fresh Perspectives on TPACK: Pre-Service Teachers’
Own Appraisal of Their Challenging and Confident TPACK Areas. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020,25, 2823–2842. [CrossRef]
57.
Yeh, Y.-F.; Chien, S.-P.; Wu, H.-K.; Hsu, Y.-S. Rubrics of TPACK-P for Teaching Science with ICTs. In Development of Science Teachers’
TPACK: East Asian Practices; Hsu, Y.-S., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2015; pp. 54–70.
58.
Kadıo˘glu-Akbulut, C.; Cetin-Dindar, A.; Acar-¸Se¸sen, B.; Küçük, S. Predicting Preservice Science Teachers’ TPACK through ICT
Usage. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023,28, 11269–11289. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59.
Tondeur, J.; Aesaert, K.; Prestridge, S.; Consuegra, E. A Multilevel Analysis of What Matters in the Training of Pre-Service
Teacher’s ICT Competencies. Comput. Educ. 2018,122, 32–42. [CrossRef]
60.
Aumann, A.; Weitzel, H. Fostering Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Enacted TPACK. Presentation of a Comprehensive Intervention
in Terms of a Specific Media Use. In EDULEARN22 Proceedings; IATED: Palma, Spain, 2022; pp. 5400–5406.
61.
Rosaen, C.L.; Lundeberg, M.; Cooper, M.; Fritzen, A.; Terpstra, M. Noticing Noticing: How Does Investigation of Video Records
Change How Teachers Reflect on Their Experiences? J. Teach. Educ. 2008,59, 347–360. [CrossRef]
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 538 27 of 27
62.
Döring, N. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften; 6., vollst. überarb., akt. u. erw. Auflage
2023; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; ISBN 978-3-662-64761-5.
63.
Guest, G.; MacQueen, K.; Namey, E. Applied Thematic Analysis; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012;
ISBN 978-1-4129-7167-6.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
