英語教師如何在臺灣偏遠地區將平板電腦應用於教學―以TPACK理論架構為例

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩. 士. 論. 文. Master’s Thesis Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. 英語教師如何在臺灣偏遠地區將平板電腦應用於教學―以 TPACK 理論架構為例 How English Teachers Apply Tablet PCs to Their Teaching in the Context of Remote Schools: A TPACK Approach. 指導教授：林至誠博士 Advisor: Dr. Chih-Cheng Lin 研究生：周玟廷 Graduate: Wen-Ting Chou. 中華民國一百零八年七月 July 2019.

(2) 中文摘要近年來，科技教學學科知識（Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge， TPACK）的理論架構被用於探討教師對學科內容、教學法和科技間相互作用的決策。然而，科技融入教學是一個棘手的問題。當一個教師有策略地應用科技來強化教學內容時，他們所展現的 TPACK 會因為當下的情境而有所不同。在面對行動科技的發展趨勢時，較少研究關注於將行動科技融入教學背後的理由。本研究的目的是探討偏遠地區的情境如何影響三位臺灣以英語為外語（English as a Foreign Language，EFL）之教師的 TPACK 展現。本研究採用混合方法。首先，偏遠學校的情境因素主要透過訪談取得。教師所展現的 TPACK 則透過量化的學生問卷及質性的教案、課堂觀察和半結構化訪談收集資料。結果顯示，偏遠學校的情境，包含兩個參與者（即教師和學生）和一個範圍（即中觀 meso）因素會影響教師的 TPACK 展現。中觀情境因素顯示了這些偏遠學校因應少子化和資源缺乏等問題所採取的轉型措施。教師也會根據學生的需求、先前知識和操作科技的能力來考量是否將科技融入於教學之中。相較於其他情境因素，教師的角色情境因素對其 TPACK 的展現有著決定性的影響。而比起平板融入教學的經驗，教師將平板融入於教學的方式也與他們對科技的態度較為相關。. 關鍵字：行動科技輔助語言學習、科技教學學科知識、平板電腦、偏遠地區、情境因素. i.

(3) ABSTRACT The theoretical framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) has been used to explore teachers’ decision-making on the interplay of content, pedagogy, and technology in recent years. However, teaching with technology is a wicked problem. As teachers apply technology to reinforce certain content strategically, their TPACK enactments are situated and dependent on the context. When the trend of mobile technologies came into play, scant attention has been given to the reasons for integrating these technologies. The purpose of this research is to deepen our understanding of the TPACK enactment of three professional English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers in the context of remote areas in Taiwan. A mixed-method was adopted. The contextual factors of remote schools are based on semi-structured interviews. Various data sources are collected to shape Teachers’ TPACK enactment, including quantitative student survey, qualitative lesson plans, classroom observation field notes, and semi-structured interviews. The results showed that two actors (i.e., teacher and student) and one scope (i.e., meso) contextual factors of remote schools influenced the teachers’ TPACK enactment. The meso dimension indicates the transformational measures these remote schools take to cope with the difficulties such as decline in birth rate and lack of resources. Teachers consider the use of technology according to students’ needs, prior knowledge, and technical skills. Teacher-centric dimension precedes other contextual factors in determining and demonstrating teachers’ TPACK enactment. It seems that the ways the teachers integrate technologies have more to do with their attitudes toward technology than their experience in applying tablet-based instruction.. Keywords: Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL), Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) enactment, tablet PCs, remote area, contextual factors. ii.

(4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis was completed with the assistance and support from numerous people. I would like to express my greatest appreciation and attribute this work to them. First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Dr. ChihCheng Lin. Not only did he provide me with a job of MOE research assistant, but gave me continuous guidance and encouragement to make a balance between the work and the study. He was very considerate and patient at all time. Had it not been for his help, I wouldn’t have made it. I would always be thankful for him. Next, my sincere thanks go to the committee members, Dr. Chin-Chi Chao and Dr. Jun-Jie Tseng for their careful reading of my thesis. Their critical comments and constructive suggestions helped me improve as well as refine the present study. Third, my grateful thanks also go to the three teacher participants, Eve, Jean, and Lilian, in the present study. They unselfishly opened their classes for observation, had frequent interviews with me, and demonstrated expertise in integrating tablet PCs into their teaching for a whole semester. Without their cooperation and collaboration, this thesis could have been impossible. Last but not least, I must express my special thanks to my dear parents, sisters, and friends Chloe Wu and PT Lee. Always having faith in me, they supported every decision of mine. It was their ardent love that served as a shot in the arm, accompanying me through the ups and downs in this long journey. Thank you all again and this thesis was dedicated to every one of you!. iii.

(5) TABLE OF CONTENTS 中文摘要......................................................................................................................... i ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ vi LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................vii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 1.1 Background and Motivation .......................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of the Study...................................................................................... 3 1.3 Significance of the Study .............................................................................. 4 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 7 2.1 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) .......................... 7 2.2 TPACK and Language Learning ................................................................. 13 2.2.1 General Overview of TPACK Studies ............................................. 13 2.2.2 TPACK and Empirical Studies on Language Learning ................... 17 2.3 TPACK and Mobile Technology ................................................................ 20 2.3.1 Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) ................................ 22 2.3.2 TPACK and MALL .......................................................................... 25 2.4 TPACK and Context ................................................................................... 29 2.4.1 The Influences of Contexts on TPACK Enactments ........................ 29 2.4.2 Empirical Studies.............................................................................. 32 2.5 The Present Study........................................................................................ 36 CHAPTER THREE METHODS ................................................................................. 38 3.1 Research Design .......................................................................................... 38 3.2 Participants .................................................................................................. 39 3.3 Data Collection ............................................................................................ 40 3.3.1 Instruments ....................................................................................... 41 3.3.2 Procedure .......................................................................................... 43. iv.

(6) 3.4 Data Analysis .............................................................................................. 44 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS ..................................................................................... 46 4.1 Results of Teachers’ TPACK Enactment in the Remote Schools ............... 46 4.1.1 Eve’s TPACK Enactment ................................................................. 46 4.1.2 Jean’s TPACK Enactment ................................................................ 53 4.1.3 Lilian’s TPACK Enactment ............................................................. 60 4.2 Results of Contextual Factors in Remote Schools ...................................... 67 4.2.1 Contextual Factors for Eve ............................................................... 68 4.2.2 Contextual Factors for Jean .............................................................. 70 4.2.3 Contextual Factors for Lilian............................................................ 75 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 78 5.1 TPACK Enactment in Remote Schools....................................................... 78 5.2 Contextual Factors of Remote Schools that Influenced Teachers’ TPACK Enactment ........................................................................................................... 80 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 84 6.1 Summary of Major Findings ....................................................................... 84 6.2 Pedagogical Implications ............................................................................ 85 6.3 Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Future Research ..... 87 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 88 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 95 Appendix 1: A Summary of TPACK Review Papers ........................................ 95 Appendix 2: A Summary of Studies on TPACK & Language Learning ........... 97 Appendix 3: A Summary of Studies on TPACK & MALL ............................. 102 Appendix 4: A Summary of Studies on TPACK & Context ............................ 104 Appendix 5: Student Survey............................................................................. 106 Appendix 6: Teacher Interview Questions ....................................................... 108 Appendix 7: Student Interview Questions ........................................................ 109 Appendix 8: Consent Form .............................................................................. 110. v.

(7) LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Contextual Clues in Data Collection ...................................................... 36 Table 3-1 Demographic Information of the Participating Teachers ....................... 40 Table 3-2 Details of Data Collection ...................................................................... 41 Table 3-3 Details of Data Analysis ......................................................................... 45 Table 4-1 Results of Student Survey on Eve’s TPACK Enactment .......................... 48 Table 4-2 Summary of Eve’s Lesson Plan ............................................................... 50 Table 4-3 Results of Student Survey on Jean’s TPACK Enactment......................... 55 Table 4-4 Summary of Jean’s Lesson Plan ............................................................. 57 Table 4-5 Results of Student Survey on Lilian’s TPACK Enactment....................... 62 Table 4-6 Summary of Lilian’s Lesson Plan ........................................................... 64 Table 5-1 Summary of Contextual Factors in the Present Study ............................ 82. vi.

(8) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. The Framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) ................................................................................................ 8 Figure 3.1. Data Collection Procedure.................................................................... 44. vii.

(9) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION. 1.1 Background and Motivation Technologies in any form have pervaded into modern people’s everyday lives in the 21st century. According to the annual Global Mobile Market Report by a Dutch company Newzoo in September 2018, the penetration of mobile devices for more than thirty countries exceeded half of the countries’ inhabitants. The number of smartphone users globally reached 3 billion by the end of 2018, with Asia-Pacific countries accounting for over half of the number (Newzoo, 2018). Specifically, in Taiwan, every four out of five teenagers owned a smartphone and would use it for at least four hours per day (National Development Council, 2018). It is undoubtedly that mobile technology has become a daily necessity nowadays. With the prevalence of wireless networks and mobile devices, learning with technology evolved from mainly formal instruction within the classroom to formal and informal mobile learning. To keep up with the trend of mobile technology integration, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan has promoted mobile technology learning projects from elementary to senior high schools since 2014. As a consequence, technological competence can be key expertise for young generations to adapt to the fast-changing world (Ansyari, 2015; Chai, Chin, Koh, & Tan, 2013). Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) has become an increasingly important theme of investigation in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) over the past twenty years (Burston, 2015; Kukulska-Hulme, 2009). Wellknown journals such as Computer Assisted Language Learning, Language Learning and Technology, Computers and Education, and ReCALL have collected state-of-theart studies to examine the effectiveness of learning with mobile technologies on 1.

(10) students’ learning proficiency and outcomes. It is believed that appropriate and effective mobile technology integration could make language learning more authentic and meaningful for students since it could provide strong motivation and interest for all learners, especially lower-achievement learners, to improve learning performance and attitude (McKnight, O’Malley, Ruzic, Horsley, Franey, & Bassett, 2016; Shadiev, Hwang, & Huang, 2017). Besides the influence of mobile technology on students, the other way around is intriguing—not only teachers’ reactions and attitudes toward mobile technology, but how mobile technology affected teachers’ professional development and reflective practices (Shadiev et al., 2017; Willermark, 2018). Little has been known about what a professional English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instructor thought about the unstoppable trend of mobile technology: the necessity of technology integration into language learning and its effects. The process and the mode of development without the intervention of a particular program remained obscure. If mobile technology integration was under the drive from a series of lessons, teachers’ beliefs and attitudes may not be as genuine as they should have been. The theoretical framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) was used to crystalize teachers’ knowledge of technology integration. What teachers actually enacted in the classroom, however, may be different from their ideal conceptualizations of TPACK knowledge (Willermark, 2018). TPACK enactment was an integral part of teacher action, which must be continuously ameliorated through designing, implementing, and evaluating. Such performances and considerations were also influenced by the stakeholders intertwined within the particular context (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). As a matter of fact, teachers play a significant role in providing students with a technology-supported learning environment, especially in a rural context. Although teachers in remote areas seemed to accept new technologies slowly (Herro, 2.

(11) Kiger, & Owens, 2013; Howley & Howley, 2008), online and mobile technologies help students in remote communities to understand and adapt to changes in the environment. Successful implementation of technology integration has been a process of overcoming context-entrenched barriers. It is important to draw the relationships between the context of remote areas and teachers’ reflective practices. If the current study succeeds in deciphering how language teachers in remote schools implement tablet-based instruction in actual classroom settings, the reasons and influence of mobile technology integration on language teaching and learning can be visualized and apprehended.. 1.2 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to deepen our understanding of how mobile technology integration influences English language learning from the perspectives of the EFL teachers in the context of remote areas in Taiwan. The introduction of mobile technology has given language teaching and learning a variety of possibilities (Burston, 2013; Kukulska‐Hulme & Viberg, 2018). Mobile technology integration can contribute to a communicative and interactive scenario for students to strengthen linguistic outputs (Burston, 2015; Shadiev et al., 2017). Technological competence consequently plays a growingly important role for both students and teachers to accommodate themselves to the ever-changing future (Ansyari, 2015; Chai et al., 2013). Recognizing the importance of mobile technology, researchers resorted to the professional development program to see its effects on teachers’ use of technologies (Liu & Kleinsasser, 2015; Tai, 2015; Tseng, Cheng, & Lin, 2011). However, under the intervention, teachers were passively introduced to mobile technology. Their attitudes and decisions were swayed by the awareness of such programs. The true perceptions and opinions of a language educator were omitted. In order to focus on the direct influence of mobile technology on a language teacher, a deliberate training program is 3.

(12) excluded in the present study. The reason for choosing teachers in remote areas is because the effects of mobile technology on language learning could be prominent and thought-provoking. Previous studies examined pre-service teachers or in-service teachers in most of the schools since they may be willing to accept the potential brought by technologies (Herro et al., 2013; Salemink, Strijker, & Bosworth, 2017). When it comes to the difficulties in remote areas, instability of qualified teachers, low expectations for students, parenting education, and scarcity of resources (Howley, Wood, & Hough, 2011), it is hard for teachers to embrace mobile technology as technology integration may not be more effective but sometimes distracting and labor-intensive (Howley & Howley, 2008; Salemink et al., 2017). In Howley et al. (2011), however, teachers in rural schools in Ohio tend to have a positive attitude. The potential of mobile technology awaited further exploration. More effort should be made to understand what influence the perspectives of teachers in remote areas, especially in an EFL context.. 1.3 Significance of the Study The current study aims to present how EFL teachers apply mobile technologies to their teaching (i.e., TPACK enactment) in the context of remote schools in Taiwan. TPACK enactment was what Willermark (2018) called “TPACK as a competence,” regarding teachers’ performance on teaching activities. What teachers thought of TPACK was different from what they actually reacted and practiced the knowledge according to different considerations grounded in the context. Indeed, previous studies seldom dealt with TPACK in relation to contexts (Kelly, 2010). With the evidence of TPACK enactment, it captured teachers’ reasoning, decision-making, and intention on miscellaneous contextual variables. As the younger generation is entering a world which is changing in all spheres with technological and scientific advancement, 4.

(13) children in remote schools require special attention to support their learning, including learning resources, facilities, and human resources. It is then essential to equip them with the ability of “21st century skills” in order to manage new technologies and make use of information for better accommodation. Teachers are the primary key to facilitate students in associating positive learning experiences with technologies. Teachers should be acute and critical when contemplating relevant ICT enabled solutions for the context where they were situated. To measure and explicate teachers’ TPACK in practice, the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002) and Innovation-Decision Process (Rogers, 2003) were adopted. In unrevealing the level of process where the teacher was and integration purposes set by different order thinking skills, the protocols intended to draw connections between the influence of contextual factors on shaping teachers’ TPACK enactment. For example, teachers at the recognizing level seldom incorporated technologies in their teaching. They were not fully aware of the affordance of technologies. Teachers who practiced with technology once in a while were at the accepting level. They only sometimes acknowledged the influences and benefits of technologies. Teachers at the adapting level usually integrated technologies into their teaching, but only in a rather teacher-directed way for lower order thinking activities. Teachers who taught the content with technologies in different ways were at the exploring level. They provided students with more opportunities to explore with technologies. When teachers willingly used technologies to develop the content ideas and purposefully encouraged students to experiment with technologies, they were at the advancing level. As a facilitator, they often used student-centered approaches that students dominated their own learning and demonstrated autonomy in completing the task on their own (Niess, van Zee, & Gillow-Wiles, 2010). With regard to shedding light on the connections between the context and teachers’ enactment of mobile technology integration, it is hoped the results of the present study 5.

(14) can reflect the underlying meanings of mobile technology integration. Teachers would consider the necessity and the benefits of integrating mobile technology from the needs and objectives of language learning rather than merely for fun and novelty.. 6.

(15) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW. The primary goal of the present study is to see how in-service EFL teachers in remote areas in Taiwan react to the trends and tides of mobile technologies. This chapter first presents the background and underpinning notions of TPACK. Next, the relationships between TPACK and three major factors are introduced: (1) language learning, (2) mobile technology, and (3) context. Finally, the last section illustrates the present study and addresses the research questions.. 2.1 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) The term “TPACK” made its debut and later gained growing popularity after Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) seminal presentation to describe it as a “framework for teacher knowledge”. It was not until 2008 that some researchers proposed to change “TPCK. (Technological. Pedagogical. Content. Knowledge)”. (Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge)”. into. “TPACK. for its easier pronunciation. (Graham, 2011; Thompson & Mishra, 2007). This TPACK framework is a conceptual model rooted in Shulman’s (1986) construct of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), which refers to teachers’ competence in strategically delivering concepts for students to understand easily. In addition to PCK, TPACK added the factors of technological knowledge into consideration due to the potential influence of technologies on education. TPACK manifests the complex interactions and teachers’ decision-making among three essential knowledge bodies: technology, pedagogy, and content (Abbitt, 2011; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The TPACK framework is mostly visualized with a Venn diagram of three overlapping circles, and each corresponds to the particular teacher knowledge (see 7.

(16) Figure 2.1.). In this model, TPACK is composed of not only three core domains: Technological Knowledge (TK), Pedagogical Knowledge, and Content Knowledge (CK), but four blended categories: Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK).. Figure 2.1. The Framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Source: http://tpack.org/). TPACK conceptualization emerged as a tool and theoretical foundation for researchers and teachers alike to examine and reflect on how teachers made “intelligent pedagogical uses of technology” (Koh, Chai, & Tsai, 2010, p.563). In other words, when a teacher considered the use of a certain technology from the aspect of his/her own pedagogical profession in order to strengthen the content of a topic, he/she can successfully integrate technologies into teaching practices effectively and efficiently,. 8.

(17) and the presentation of activity is a product of “learning with technology” rather than “learning from technology” (Howland, Jonassen, & Marra, 2012). Learning with technology is a transformational process, conceptualizing teaching from seeing technology as a separate component to an integrated one. To analyze the instructional use of technology, the purpose of using technology, and objectives for teaching, the Revised Bloom’ Taxonomy (2002) can be employed to measure the degree and maturity of technology integration (Tseng, 2008; Wu & Wang, 2015). An ideal synthesis of technological use is more than presenting the content for lower order thinking skills such as remembering and understanding; instead, it should encourage interaction and communication for higher order thinking skills such as applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. The notions and concepts of each knowledge construct are illustrated as follows. Technological Knowledge (TK) Technological knowledge is “a continually changing and evolving knowledge” regarding computer hardware and software for information processing, communication, and problem-solving (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The connotation of technological knowledge is always at the verge of becoming outdated since technologies are in a state of flux. For instance, in a classroom setting, “technology” used to refer to the tools or resources such as laptops, projectors, and PowerPoints. Nowadays, the Internet, tablet PCs (e.g., Chromebooks and iPads), mobile phones, apps, virtual reality (VR), and augmented reality (AR) can also be incorporated into teaching. It is essential for teachers to acknowledge the importance of adapting themselves to changes in the information technology by productively applying it into teaching and real lives. It is also crucial for teachers to recognize when such technology can assist or impede the achievement of a goal so that technology is not served for random playfulness.. 9.

(18) Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) Pedagogical knowledge is “teachers’ deep knowledge about the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), which encompasses multitude dynamic interactions between the teacher and students in a classroom setting. The educational purposes, values, and aims are ultimate goals that influence how a teacher teaches and how students learn. This form of knowledge is applied along with the nature of the target audience and strategies. For example, an EFL teacher knows how to teach and assess four basic language skills, use various teaching methods catering for different students, develop and implement a lesson plan, maintain classroom management, and make student evaluation.. Content Knowledge (CK) Content knowledge is “the knowledge about the actual subject matter that is to be learned or taught (e.g., earth science, mathematics, history, etc.)” (Herring, Koehler, & Mishra, 2008, p. 13), which contains facts, concepts, theories, ideas, methods, organizational frameworks, and rules of evidence and proof (Shulman, 1986). The content knowledge of “language” may involve established practices and approaches toward developing such knowledge as well as the cultural backgrounds and underlying meanings. For example, listening, writing, speaking, reading, vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, formulaic expressions, discourse, syntactic structure, morphology, phonology, semantics, and pragmatics.. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) Technological Pedagogical Knowledge is the knowledge of using technology to improve instructional strategies or fulfill pedagogical purposes (Baser, Kopcha, & Ozden, 2016; Tseng, Lien, & Chen, 2016). It is an understanding of how the particular 10.

(19) use of certain technologies can influence teaching and learning. Therefore, teachers are supposed to know the pedagogical qualities and constraints of different technological resources in order to come up with appropriate pedagogical designs and strategies. For example, knowing which technological tools to use, knowing which teaching process to use, and knowing how to properly use technologies for pedagogical purposes (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) Technological Content Knowledge refers to teachers’ knowledge of the affordance and constraints of content-based technology (Baser et al., 2016). For example, selecting technologies to support and embody the delivery of subject-specific concepts (Ansyari, 2015). It also requires an understanding of recognizing how certain technology and content can contribute to or influence each other (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Therefore, teachers may need to master more than the subject matter they teach. They need to be aware of the manner in which technology and content ebb and flow with each another in order to best present the content via the application of suitable technology.. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) Pedagogical Content Knowledge refers to “one’s knowledge of subject-specific curriculum and strategies” (Baser et al., 2016), which centers on how to make use of various instructional methods to enhance the learning of target content material (Harris & Hofer, 2011; Tseng, 2015). Specifically, PCK denotes an effective combination of the essential elements in a classroom, i.e., teaching, learning, curriculum, assessment, and reporting. This form of knowledge is similar to Shulman’s conceptualization of PCK. According to Shulman (1986), teachers with PCK may undergo a transformative process through thinking and evaluating. They interpret the subject matter, find multiple 11.

(20) ways to represent it, and adapt and tailor the instructional materials to alternative conceptions and students’ prior knowledge so as to make the subject matter more comprehensible and easier for students. In language learning, for example, teachers can use a graphic organizer to support students’ reading comprehension of the outline, structure, twists, and details of a story.. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, combining the above-mentioned knowledge, is at the nexus of the three main circles. It represents the “meaningful” uses of technologies to support instructional practices within a particular content area (Baser et al., 2016; Tseng et al., 2016). For example, TPACK requires knowledge of how prior and existing knowledge can be strengthened or scaffolded into developing new epistemologies via proper uses of technologies (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). It is also an understanding of the intricate relationships between teachers, students, content, practices, and technologies interweaved in a classroom context. For instance, teachers can use online forums or apps that provide students with opportunities to express opinions and interact with others using the target language. Hence, any of the three knowledge components should not be viewed in isolation from each other; rather, they should be considered as a whole because teaching and learning with technology exist in a dynamic transactional relationship. In addition, according to the Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators (Herring et al., 2008), it is important to note that teachers should not ignore the complexity inherent in each principle knowledge construct. The neglect can result in oversimplified solutions or failure, since there is no single method or solution that can apply for every teacher, student, course, or content. Teachers are suggested to cultivate fluency and flexibility toward miscellaneous 12.

(21) situations not merely in each key knowledge domain, but also in the manner where these domains interrelate. That is to say, teachers need to have a deep and nuanced understanding of teaching with technology so that they can flexibly navigate between content, pedagogy, and technology as well as the interactions among them. Teachers play significant roles in determining the time, place, and manner technologies are utilized and engaged in the classroom (Herring et al., 2008). While undergoing the process of TPACK development, teachers continually create, maintain, re-establish and strike a dynamic balance between each component for reaching a TPACK equilibrium (Herring et al., 2008).. 2.2 TPACK and Language Learning 2.2.1 General Overview of TPACK Studies There have been four review journal articles of TPACK studies to date (Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2013; Voogt, Fisser, Roblin, Tondeur, & van Braak, 2013; Willermark, 2018; Wu, 2013). Although these studies differed in scope and their focus, they all contributed to our understanding of a general overview of TPACK research conducted until 2016 (see Appendix 1): Chai et al.’s (2013) study collected 74 journal papers, published until May 2011. With an aim to identify the current gaps of TPACK, they analyzed the papers in terms of study background (e.g., author, year of publication, locality, and publication outlet), research method (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-approach), content analysis (e.g., how researchers or teachers designed their programs or lessons according to the TPACK framework), and discussion (e.g., future directions and personal comments). (1) The results showed that the number of TPACK studies was continually growing. These studies were mostly conducted in the North America (n = 49, 65%), followed by Europe and Mediterranean (16.7%), and Asia Pacific (17.6%). (2) The TPACK 13.

(22) framework seemed to be more accepted by education technologists than content specialists since educational technology journals published 64% of the articles than 9.5% in subject-based journals. (3) Among the 74 papers, 19 were non-data driven and 55 were data driven. The 19 non-data driven research can be divided into 9 theoretical papers, 9 worked examples, and 1 editorial paper. The other 55 data driven research can be classified into 31 qualitative methods, 13 quantitative methods, 11 mixed-method. Three of the most frequent sub categories were intervention study (n = 32), case study (n = 10), and instrument validation (n = 5). (4) Chai et al. (2013) proposed a revised TPACK framework to emphasize the influence of contextual factors such as availability of technological solutions. Voogt et al.’s (2013) study examined 55 journal articles (44 empirical and 11 theoretical) and one book chapter (“Introducing TPCK” in Handbook of TPCK for educators), published from 2005 to 2011. Their review aimed to investigate the theoretical basis (e.g., development of the concept, views on TK, development of TPACK in subject domains, and the relationship between TPACK and teacher beliefs) and practical use of TPACK (e.g., measuring TPACK and strategies for developing TPACK). (1) The results showed there were three views of TPACK concept development: extended PCK (Cox & Graham, 2009), unique and distinct body of knowledge (Angeli & Valanides, 2009), and interplay between three knowledge domains and their intersections in a specific context (Koehler & Mishra, 2006). (2) There were also various views on TK definitions: all kinds of technologies, digital technologies only, procedural knowledge, and a combination of conceptual, procedural and meta-cognitive knowledge. (3) Only a few studies (n = 7) addressed specific subject domains: 2 math, 2 science, 2 multiple subjects, and 1 social studies. (4) TK was a predictor of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs toward technology. Teachers may have the knowledge and skills to use technology (espoused TPACK) but aren’t able enough to 14.

(23) use it in practice (enacted/in use TPACK). (5) Most studies measured teachers’ TPACK from self-assessment surveys, but a few from demonstrated performance or classroom observation. (6) The major strategy for teachers to develop TPACK is to be actively involved in the technology-enhanced lessons or course designs. (7) From the findings above, Voogt et al. (2013) suggested further research on subject-specific domain and the need for valid and reliable instruments to measure TPACK. Wu’s (2013) review consisted of a rather small scale of 24 empirical studies published between 2002 and 2011. Only those explicitly stated to explore teachers’ TPACK in SSCI databases were included. This research focused on the general characteristics of TPACK studies via the number of articles released each year, target sample groups, subject domains, and applied methods. (1) The results showed that TPACK research increased at a fast speed after 2009. The number of TPACK studies from 2007 to 2011 (n = 22) far exceeded that from 2002 to 2006 (n = 2). (2) Pre-service teachers were the most studied sample groups (54.2%), followed by in-service teachers of high schools (20.8%), elementary schools (16.7%), and colleges/universities (8%). (3) The majority of the studies investigated teachers’ domain-general TPACK (66.7%). Among the relatively fewer domain-specific TPACK studies, science (20.8%) and math (12.5%) won first and second place. (4) During 2002 to 2006, only qualitative methods were used to conduct TPACK studies, while during 2007 to 2011, quantitative methods (50%) were utilized the most, followed by qualitative methods (36.4%) and mixedmethod (13.6%). (5) From the findings above, Wu (2013) suggested further research on in-service teachers’ TPACK and domain-specific TPACK. Willermark’s (2018) study, in order to fill the recent gap after the three reviews mentioned above, comprised 107 empirical journals from 2011 to 2016. In addition to the general characteristics of TPACK studies like Wu’s (2013), her study also explored the approaches adopted to identify teachers’ TPACK through their self-reporting 15.

(24) (TPACK-Knowledge) or performance on teaching activities (TPACK-Competence). (1) The results indicated an increased interest in TPACK research. (2) Most of the articles (57%) were found in educational technology journals than subject-based journals (4%). (3) Pre-service teachers (52.3%) were slightly more studied than in-service teachers (41.1%). (4) Almost half of the studies (47.7%) were subject-general. Science (16%), language (12%), and math (7%) accounted for the three main specific subjected being explored. (5) There was a distinct increase in mixed-method (41%) at the expense of qualitative methods (12%). (6) Studies investigated teachers’ TPACK via self-reporting (71.8%) outnumbered those via performance on teaching activities (28.2%). (7) From the findings above, Willermark (2018) suggested further research on examining teachers’ TPACK from their performance in practice (TPACK-Competence). A clear description of the instrument should be provided. To summarize the four review articles, first, the number of studies published each year indicated an increasing interest in TPACK research (Chai et al., 2013; Willermark, 2018; Wu, 2013). Second, most of the studies were conducted in English-speaking countries such as the North America (Chai et al., 2013; Voogt et al., 2013). Third, preservice teachers ranked the highest among the distribution percentages of the sample groups (Willermark, 2018; Wu, 2013). Fourth, journals of educational technology seemed to accept the TPACK framework more than other content or subject-based journals (Chai et al., 2013; Willermark, 2018). Similar results were found in the content analysis, with half of the studies not specifying the target domain (Voogt et al., 2013; Willermark, 2018; Wu, 2013). As for domain-specific studies, science and math usually ranked top two on account of their similar usage scenario with technology, while almost none aimed exclusively at language learning before 2011 (Chai et al., 2013). Fifth, as shown in Willermark (2018), there was a sharp increase in studies applying mixedmethod, compared to Chai et al. (2013) and Wu (2013). Willermark (2018) explained 16.

(25) this may imply a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches can lead to an understanding of different facets of teachers’ TPACK representation. Sixth, as indicated by Chai et al. (2013) and Voogt et al. (2013), a large percentage of studies would use an intervention or experiment to collect data. Teachers’ TPACK development without the intervention of a program or training could be further examined. Last, studies usually assessed teachers’ TPACK from their self-report surveys. A few studies reported teachers’ TPACK from their planning, implementing, and evaluating performance on teaching activities (Voogt et al., 2013; Willermark, 2018).. 2.2.2 TPACK and Empirical Studies on Language Learning In the previous section, almost no study investigated the relationships between TPACK and language learning before 2011. It may be because the use of technology was similar to that of science or math context (Chai et al., 2013; Wu, 2013). Despite the differences embedded in technology and language learning scenario, researchers were curious about the sparks and influence of modern technologies on language teachers. A growing number of studies have been conducted in recent years (Willermark, 2018). The general characteristics and methodological approaches of the studies were analyzed to understand the trend and relationships between TPACK and language learning. First, localities and the languages being learned of the research were inspected. Among the thirteen empirical studies published after 2013 (see Appendix 2), eight put the focus on English, three on Chinese, and the other two on Dutch. Nearly half of the languages were regarded as a mother tongue or second language of the research site. The other half was under foreign language context, with one Chinese and six English studies. Second, the target sample groups of only four inquiries were pre-service teachers. In-service teachers’ TPACK were of great interest. Four studies were set in elementary schools, followed by two preschools, two universities, one secondary, and 17.

(26) one vocational high school. Third, as for the methodology adopted, there were two studies for each of the qualitative and quantitative methods. To complement the drawbacks of the other method, the majority, nine cases, employed a mixed-method. Researchers used different methodological approaches to assess language teachers’ TPACK development. Firstly, Ansyari (2015), Liu and Kleinsasser (2015), and Tai (2015) designed a series of technology-integration lessons, using the intervention to compare the before-and-after performances of the teachers’ TPACK. In Ansyari’s (2015) study, twelve university lecturers reported an overall increase of 19% in every selfreport TPACK domain, with the highest improvement in TK after the professional development program. They also had positive experiences with micro-teaching where they can apply new knowledge by designing concrete tasks to specific language context. Liu and Kleinsasser’s (2015) and Tai’s (2015) research showed a CALL workshop benefited the teachers in developing CALL competency. Teachers demonstrated CALL competency in their teaching, such as selecting appropriate technology (e.g., app Spelling City) to scaffold content teaching, using Text-to-Speech for students to practice speaking at their own pace (Tai, 2015), and employing Hot Potatoes online tests in a repetitive and self-contained way (Liu & Kleinsasser, 2015). Similarly, Sancar-Tokmak and Yanpar-Yelken (2015) found teachers’ TPACK self-confidence raised significantly after the digital story creation. These teachers described their creations as instructive, consistent with aims, appropriate for target students, thought-provoking and creative. Secondly, in order to quantify teachers’ TPACK and also create a valid assessment tool, Baser et al. (2016) developed a TPACK survey tailored for EFL context. Koh (2013) came up with a rubric for assessing meaningful learning with information and communication technologies (ICT) lesson activities. Thirdly, teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, especially constructivist-oriented (student-centered), were associated with their espoused use of ICT (Chai et al., 2013). Teachers’ espoused beliefs and practices 18.

(27) usually appeared to be well aligned and their self-efficacy improved for technology integration (Saudelli & Ciampa, 2016). Kavanoz, Yüksel, and Özcan (2015) discovered pre-service teachers’ level of general self-efficacy was positively correlated with their attitudes and frequent use of Web-based instruction. Fourthly, Tseng et al. (2016) investigated how a teacher support group helped Mandarin as a foreign language (MFL) teachers develop their TPACK of web conferencing teaching. Results revealed that these teachers became more knowledgeable about applying technology into teaching. They discussed and solved instructional or technical problems together, and they felt inspired by one another’s innovative teaching. For example, one teacher used a stroke order website with animations to teach the writing of Chinese characters slowly and thoroughly. Another teacher was eager to imitate using images to illustrate contexts after observing the other teacher’s instruction. Lastly, some researchers explored teachers’ TPACK from their teaching presentation and manifestation. For instance, design-talk reflected moments in which teachers reached deeper levels of inquiry such as collaborative engagement and critical discussion (Boschman, McKenney, & Voogt, 2015; Boschman, McKenney, Pieters, & Voogt, 2016). Wu and Wang (2015) used the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to analyze teachers’ instruction as well as teaching or learning goals. Although interaction and communication were associated with the focus of English instruction, the two words were less mentioned with technology integration in language teaching. Most of the technologies were used for displaying information, managing instruction, and learning subject matter rather than for promoting higher-order thinking skills such as cooperation and creativity.. 19.

(28) 2.3 TPACK and Mobile Technology With the burgeoning development of modern technologies for the past two decades, technology devices have become mobilized (Baran, 2014; Duman, Orhon, & Gedik, 2015). The mobile technology has pervaded people’s daily lives for not only its portability and flexibility, but its availability and affordability (Baran, 2014; Ditzler, Hong, & Strudler, 2016). The notion of “mobile learning” can be interpreted as either learning with mobile technologies (Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008), or a general concept of learner mobility (Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula, 2005). For the former, learning with mobile technologies enables users to access instructional resources, tools, and materials at anytime from anywhere using a mobile device that is portable, individual, adaptable, situated, authentic, formal or informal (Herro et al., 2013; Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008). For the latter, learner mobility demonstrates both synchronous and asynchronous interaction in the context of online and distance learning regardless of time and space (Kukulska-Hulme, 2009). In fact, both aspects are important and strongly intertwined. The combination of learning with mobile technology and learner mobility was stressed (Burston, 2014a; Palalas, 2011). Mobile technology integration gave rise to diverse possibilities and dynamics in the classroom, welcoming interaction and creativity. Mobile technology can remove time and space constraints, contributing to a personalized and learner-centered environment (Burston, 2017; Kukulska-Hulme, 2018). It also allowed for seamless communication, collaboration, and knowledge exchange anytime and anywhere, further realizing ubiquitous and lifelong learning (Hashim, 2014; Kearney, Schuck, Burden, & Aubusson, 2012; Kukulska-Hulme, 2015). Upon taking the waves of mobile technology, studies swarmed into digging the pros and cons of the application in classroom settings, most of which focused on the benefits of students’ learning attitudes and progress (Burston, 2015; Viberg & Grönlund, 2012). Mobile learning, for instance, 20.

(29) increased students’ motivation and may contribute to incidental learning when students were exposed to meaningful contexts (Kukulska-Hulme, 2009; Ogata & Yano, 2003). However, rather few studies associated mobile technology with and from the perspectives of educators (Baran, 2014; Bates & Martin, 2013). The relationships between mobile technology and teachers were more discussed in the field of teacher education and teacher professional development. According to Baran’s (2014) review of mobile learning in teacher education, similar to the research trend of general TPACK studies, thirty-eight percent were conducted in ESL countries. More than half of the studies (n = 19) focused on cross content areas, followed by a small portion of science (n = 5), math (n = 3), literacy (n = 3), physical education (n = 2), and English language teaching (n = 1). The majority employed mixed method or case studies. The most commonly used mobile devices were mobile phones (42.5%), tablet PCs (17.5%), and PDAs (17.5%). Only five studies used a theoretical framework to implement their research: m-learning and social-cultural theory (Kearney et al., 2012), professional learning community and community of practice (Schuck, Aubusson, Kearney, & Burden, 2013), self-regulated learning (Järvelä, Näykki, Laru, & Luokkanen, 2007), motivation theory (Ciampa, 2014), and cognitive development theory (McCaughtry & Dillon, 2008). It seemed that the potential of TPACK and mobile learning still welcomed researchers to explore further. In the four review journal articles of TPACK studies listed in section 2.2.1, a large percentage of studies used an intervention or experiment to explain the development of teachers’ TPACK (Chai et al., 2013; Voogt et al., 2013). Few reported teachers’ TPACK from their practical use of mobile technology, especially tablet PCs. In the context of mobile learning and TPACK, science and math again were one step ahead of language learning. In Hardy’s (2010) research, he developed an X-Tech project to enhance twelve pre-service secondary teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness to teach mathematics 21.

(30) with technology. These teachers enrolled in a methods course aimed at teaching strategies for math with and without technology. Various technologies were instructed, such as tablet PC, Blackboard (a tool for posting course documents and communicating with students), PowerPoint presentation, Geo sketchpad, graphing, and spreadsheet. Tablets enabled instructors to not only use special pens to insert examples, diagrams, or solutions, but save and upload the files so that students can access easily and conveniently. Despite the affordance of tablet PCs, it was surprising that no participant made reference to the use of tablet technology. The researcher suggested it may be because the unique features of tablets were not used in every class meeting and there was limited time to explain for every technology. Ke and Hsu’s (2015) research examined the effects of AR and other mobile collaborative learning activities on pre-service teachers’ TPACK and their science knowledge retention. Results showed the AR creation group appeared to be more active in participating in peer discussions. They focused more on how to best present or explain the content under what kinds of representation formats. As a result, they showed better componential competencies of TPK and integrative development of TPACK.. 2.3.1 Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL), an emerging subcategory within Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL), was an innovative and evolving practice of integrating the personalized and spontaneous mobile technology into language learning and teaching (Burston, 2015; Kukulska-Hulme, 2018; Viberg & Grönlund, 2012). The mobile technologies such as handheld computers, tablet PCs, mobile phones, PDAs, and MP3 players were utilized to create a learner-centered and constructivist environment where mobile learning provided flexibility and attractions for motivation (Burston, 2014a; Kim & Kwon 2012). MALL can be defined as using 22.

(31) portable handheld devices to enable language learning and learner mobility (Burston, 2014a; Burston, 2014b). MALL studies in the literature reported mainly beneficial but based on content delivery within a traditional behaviorist, teacher-centered framework (Burston, 2014a; Shadiev et al., 2017). Applied and design-based research usually dominated the field (Duman et al., 2015; Viberg & Grönlund, 2012). Most of the studies focused on students’ perceptions and learning proficiency (Duman et al., 2015; Shadiev et al., 2017). Within the studies aimed at learners’ linguistic performance, almost half of them centered on vocabulary. The rest included listening, speaking, reading, grammar, literacy, writing, pronunciation, and culture. (Burston, 2014b; Duman et al., 2015; Shadiev et al., 2017). Mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDA), and smartphones were the most researched devices (Burston, 2014b; Shadiev et al., 2017). Although iPad and other tablet computers began to raise interests, only a handful of MALL studies have experimented with them (Burston, 2014b; Duman et al., 2015). There was a need for exploring communicative MALL practices to support constructivist, collaborative, and learner-centered learning. (Burston, 2014b; Duman et al., 2015). In Burston’s (2015) twenty years of MALL review, nineteen application studies were selected to report reliable assessments of learning outcomes from implementations. These studies lasted at least for a month and involved more than ten participants. Eleven studies (58%) focused on vocabulary acquisition with the use of SMS/MMS (8/11) or PDA/Smartphones (3/11). Results of eight L2 vocabulary learning studies based on SMS/MMS had positive advantages. In Motallebzadeh and Ganjali (2011), SMS group showed significantly better vocabulary retention than those in the printed paper group. In Seferoglu and Cagiltay (2012), students in the MMS group learned more words than those who studied the web- and paper-based materials. Other vocabulary learning studies with PDA/smartphones showed mixed results, with only two reporting 23.

(32) significant difference (Chen & Chung, 2008; Hwang & Chen, 2013). All of the PDAbased studies with reading (4/19) revealed positive results. Students spent less time and demonstrated greater learning gains with less teacher support (Zurita & Nussbaum, 2004). Studies used mobile devices to enhance listening/speaking skills (3/19) also had positive feedbacks. The iPod-supported activity in Papadima-Sophocleous et al. (2012) helped students significantly increase the accuracy of the segmental and the prosodic features of their oral reading. The last study was on writing skills (1/19) by Hwang, Chen, and Chen (2011). Students using a situated learning system on the mobile device performed better in terms of the number of sentences produced, reasoning, communication, and organization. A more recent review by Kukulska-Hulme and Viberg (2018) contained thirtythree mobile collaborative second and foreign language learning studies published from 2012 to 2016. They tried to identify elements contributing to collaborative learning via affordance, general pedagogical approaches, second language acquisition (SLA) principles, and affective designs. There were numerous collaborative affordance of mobile technologies such as timely feedback, socialization, active participation, and cultural authenticity. It was suggested that teachers understand how these affordance in what ways support collaborative language learning. Hwang, Shih, Ma, Shadiev, and Chen (2016) highlighted the importance of real situations for students to practice frequently for meaningful learning. Hsu (2016) applied negotiation of meaning to combine learning and peer feedback. In addition, learners can also be co-designers of mobile collaborative language learning. Despite the compact and portable merits of small handheld devices such as mobile phones, these instruments were likely to impede learning on account of their small screen and also limited memory and data processing speed. Tablet PCs then emerged as an alternative to complement these inconveniences (Hutchison, Beschorner, & 24.

(33) Schmidt-Crawford, 2012; Yang, 2013). Tablets PC also made language teaching and learning transform in many ways (Hutchison et al., 2012). In reading, for instance, texts with audio support, word-by-word tracking, and picture animation were provided to enhance connections between word, sound, and image. Overall, empirical evidence supporting the benefits of tablet PCs in the classroom was insufficient. Although some studies examined iPads and apps for their educational value (Falloon, 2013; Kim & Kwon, 2012), these works often lacked the perspectives of educators or the effectiveness of the technology. Ditzler et al. (2016) examined how teachers viewed the 1:1 iPad program from interviews and classroom observation. Results showed that iPads sometimes were a distraction from teaching and learning. How the teacher used the iPad (e.g., teachers’ knowledge, comfort level, and familiarity with the device) influenced how comfortable students were with the iPad. Students engagements also depended largely on the atmosphere of the classroom. They participated in activities with and without the iPad more actively with the engaged teachers.. 2.3.2 TPACK and MALL Most of the previous literature has put the emphasis on students’ perspectives and its effects on students’ learning outcomes since the trend of integrating mobile technology into schooling (Burston, 2014b; Shadiev et al., 2017). Yet, learning a subject matter with technology is nothing more than just learning to teach that subject matter with technology. It involves an interplay between the sophisticated nature of the three knowledge constructs (i.e., technology, pedagogy, and content). Barely has any teacher been taught to teach their subject matter with technology, and even fewer would appreciate a technology framework to review their pedagogical strategies for teaching their subject matter (Saudelli & Ciampa, 2016). The TPACK framework was introduced 25.

(34) to satisfy the need of adding technology to teaching and learning in meaningful ways. Among the limited literature about TPACK and MALL (see Appendix 3), Saudelli and Ciampa’s (2016) explored the role of TPACK and teachers’ self-efficacy via a qualitative ethnographic case study. They investigated three elementary school teachers, with pseudo names as Diane, Natasha, and Katie, in southern Canada in order to understand what were their attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs about TPACK, and how were the beliefs enacted in their teaching. Data were collected through classroom observation field notes, video recordings of iPad lessons, teacher semi-structured interviews, and educational blogs. Results showed that teachers’ beliefs about mobile technology integration strongly influenced their decisions and teaching practices. Diane’s espoused beliefs and practices appeared to be well aligned. She was eager to change the nature of teaching to support students’ learning. Aware of her weakness in how to use the iPad, she even sometimes turned to students for technological assistance. Diane usually gave students tasks to learn how to use different apps to create texts or stories. For instance, in one creative writing class, students were required to use an app ToontasticTM to brainstorm a storyline and make it a cartoon. Her inquiry-based teaching involved a high degree of student collaboration, thinking, and reasoning skills. In Diane’s case, iPads were used as mechanisms for learning to demonstrate meaningmaking rather than merely for reading texts and responding. Natasha’s espoused and enacted beliefs appeared to be aligned but evolving. She viewed the iPad from just a new tool to a panacea for designing highly student-engaged activities emphasizing creativity and output. She used the iPad in both conventional ways (e.g., assistance and skill development for reading comprehension) and student-centered manner for design and production. Natasha noted that when students used iMovie to make genre or context-specific movie trailers, they demonstrated confidence, imagination, and ownership in learning. She also reiterated even a troubled student felt comfortable with 26.

(35) mobile technology. He was so confident in navigating the iPad that no one seemed to notice him struggling. Katie’s espoused and enacted beliefs appeared to be well aligned, too. But iPad was used in fairly traditional ways as a supplemental tool, reward, addon, and time-filler. She used ChicktionaryTM for word reinforcement and eBooks Reading A-ZTM for text comprehension. The iPad served the function to support teacherdirected curricula rather than replace her instructional methods. It seemed that professional development alone may not necessarily result in improved use of technology-enhanced instruction. Instead, teachers should be given ample opportunities to critically think, choose, learn, and apply technologies that best meet their needs. Tseng’s (2015) case study aimed to examine how an EFL teacher found suitable technological solutions to contextual problems such as mixed-level classes, chaotic language games, ineffective class routines, and technological challenges. The target teacher Nancy taught in an elementary school for 22 years, and was the first one to use iPad in the classroom of her school. Data were gathered not only through Facebook reflection posts, classroom observations, and interviews, but through survey questionnaire and interviews with students. The teacher’s TPACK was developed and presented via taking advantage of iPad to improve L2 learner engagement with the features of remote-controlling, multi-based supplementary materials, and rewarding system. For example, with the aid of iPad and Apple TV, Nancy can walk around the classroom and attend to each individual while displaying the content remotely. She used Explain Everything with annotated snapshots of students to practice sentence patterns, making the context closer to real life. On the other hand, students also agreed tabletbased teaching became more lively, interesting, and participation-matter. They kept eyes on the teacher when she was moving around them. They felt motivated and encouraged by ClassDojo in accomplishing meaningful tasks.. 27.

(36) Wu and Wang (2015) tried to explore TPACK among twenty-two in-service EFL primary school teachers in Taiwan and provide insights for future professional development programs. A mixed-method was employed with qualitative semistructured interviews and classroom observation of synthesized TPACK as well as a quantitative self-report questionnaire about teachers’ performance on TPACK components. The results were not as promising as other studies implied. From the survey, these EFL teachers seemed to be satisfied with their overall TPACK (M > 5 for every construct). But TK (M = 5.01, SD = 0.96) and TPACK (M = 5.35, SD = 0.93) ranked the lowest two, suggesting further development in technological knowledge. As for the synthesized TPACK, they examined the kinds of technologies used, objectives for English teaching, and purposes of using technology. Only one teacher used an iPad, while four teachers didn’t incorporate any technology into classes. Although teachers in interviews described the objectives for learning English is to communicate and interact, only nine of them actually provided opportunities for students to use the target language for communication. Most teachers asked students to practice lower-order thinking skills such as imitating, repeating, answering comprehension questions, and practicing sentence patterns in context. Few teachers required students to do higherorder tasks as mind-mapping and creating an end for a story. The purposes of using technology for teachers were to provide input or display information, fulfill motivation, novelty, efficiency, and authenticity. However, some teachers stated it wasn’t necessary to incorporate technology into teaching because it sometimes made interaction difficult and could not help with oral or written interactions. The opportunities for individual interactions with other students decreased when student concentrated on technologybased activities. From the above three studies, it was suggested that teaches’ beliefs about technology would affect the ways teachers incorporate it into language teaching 28.

(37) (Saudelli & Ciampa’s, 2016; Tseng, 2015). Although teachers in Wu and Wang’s (2015) research appeared not to have positive attitude toward technology infusion as those in the other two studies, it might be because they weren’t fully informed of the affordance of technology, especially mobile technology. More effort should be devoted to exploring the factors influencing teachers’ beliefs and decision-making on accepting the new technology.. 2.4 TPACK and Context 2.4.1 The Influences of Contexts on TPACK Enactments TPACK is teachers’ knowledge demonstrated by the interplay among technology, pedagogy, and content bounded in a specific context. However, teaching with technology is a wicked problem. Many professional development trainings may offer a one-size-fits-all approach to technology integration, omitting the fact that teachers operate in diversified educational contexts (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). As teachers apply technology to reinforce certain content strategically, their TPACK enactments are situated and dependent on the contextual factors such as student background, grade level, and the kinds of technologies available (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Context is an important aspect in the TPACK framework, but there is no consensus on the specific meanings of context. Two versions of context definitions were favored in the literature. One was proposed by Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2013) and the other was constructed by PorrasHernández and Salinas-Amescua (2013). Chai et al. (2013) categorized contextual factors into four dimensions, particularly, physical/technical, cultural/institutional, intrapersonal, and interpersonal.. 29.

(38) Physical/Technical Physical/Technical dimension relates to the school physical environment and availability of resources (e.g., hardware, software, and technology support staff) to facilitate teachers and students’ technology integration.. Cultural/Institutional Cultural/Institutional dimension relates to the factors dealing with the influences of nationwide institution and culture, educational policies, school guidelines and leadership, as well as curriculum and syllabus.. Intrapersonal Intrapersonal dimension relates to the epistemological and pedagogical beliefs of teachers about teaching, learning, students, and themselves as a teacher.. Interpersonal Interpersonal dimension relates to the interaction or collaboration with colleagues or parents through problem-solving and innovation.. Originated from Bronfenbrenner’s (1999) ecological system theory of human development, Porras-Hernández and Salinas-Amescua (2013) framework of context comprised five dimensions, including three scopes (macro, meso, and micro) and two actors (teacher and student).. Macro Macro context entails factors in the societal level, whose technology integration is “defined by social, political, technological, and economic conditions” as well as 30.

(39) influenced by national and global policies. This scope is similar to Chai et al.’s (2013) cultural/institutional context.. Meso Meso context entails social, cultural, political, economic, and organizational factors established in the school or community level. Different dynamics of power structures such as principals, supportive colleagues, and parents in the local community or educational institution may affect teachers’ willingness to use technology. This scope contains Chai et al.’s (2013) physical/technical and interpersonal context.. Micro Micro context entails factors in the classroom or learning environment level where in-class conditions for learning such as available technology resources for learning activities and norms, classroom setting, and student-teacher interactions may influence the ways which technologies are incorporated into teaching.. Teacher Teachers with different beliefs and motivations view and practice technology infusion in various ways. The variables in teachers may include self-efficacy, pedagogical beliefs, conceptualization of contemporary education, attitudes toward technology, and familiarity with technology. This actor is similar to Chai et al.’s (2013) intrapersonal context.. Student All of the characteristics of learners are student factors, inclusive of their prior knowledge, attitudes, interests, preconceptions, and learning difficulties. 31.

(40) Based on Porras-Hernández and Salinas-Amescua’s (2013) framework of context, Rosenberg and Koehler (2015) conducted a content analysis of 193 peer-reviewed publications between 2005 and 2013 to investigate what aspects of context were included in the TPACK research. They found only 70 empirical journal articles (36%) provided contextual descriptions, with micro category (84%) dominating the scene, followed by meso (61%), teacher (57%), student (44%), and macro (14%). This result suggested that context was not explored enough in the literature. Researchers can pay more attention to collect data from contextual factors, eliciting contextual information aside from micro scope in order to examine how teachers and contexts reciprocally affect each other.. 2.4.2 Empirical Studies A growing number of researchers have shown interest in the influence of contexts on teachers’ TPACK enactment in recent years (see Appendix 4). Koh, Chai, and Tay (2014) as well as Owusu, Conner, and Astall (2015) adopted Chai et al. (2013) version of context classification. Koh et al. (2014) scrutinized what contextual factors influenced teachers’ pedagogical decisions in their lesson plans. Three groups of elementary school teachers in Singapore were investigated. The discussions of Primary 1 teachers focused on logistics of implementing lesson activities (cultural/institutional contextual factors). Fewer ICT pedagogical issues were discussed due to concerns about students’ ICT literacies. A teacher, for example, changed a computer-based tangram activity into hardcopy since students couldn’t undo the tangram pulled in a wrong way. The discussions of Primary 4 teachers were content/pedagogical focused. They shared beliefs about using technologies and collaboration with colleagues (intrapersonal and interpersonal contextual factors). Primary 5 teachers discussed issues mainly related to TPACK. For instance, they may deeply rationalize ICT strategies or 32.

(41) discuss CK owing to preparation for exams. Overall, fifty-five percent of all the teachers’ discussions centered on logistical issues (cultural/institutional contextual factors) such as the scheduling and organizing of class tests and field trips. This result suggested that the need to meet institutional demands was a key contextual factor reducing the emergence of TPACK. In contrast, although teachers’ beliefs and experienced peer facilitator exerted positive influence on their practice of ICT integration, they seldom naturally expressed beliefs in design discussions unless being elicited intentionally. Owusu et al. (2015) investigated how the contextual factors of class level affected teachers’ TPACK. The multiple-case study was conducted on five science teachers in two junior and senior high schools in New Zealand. Data were collected through semistructured interviews and direct observations. The results showed that both assessmentdriven and concerns about students’ needs influenced the teachers’ use of technologies. Teachers demonstrated different levels of TPACK (Niess, van Zee, & Gillow-Wiles, 2010) in different classes. Three teachers, for example, were at “exploring” TPACK level in year 10 classes. They consciously and actively made students search information and present outcomes at their own choice. Moreover, this study also showed that contextual factors such as teachers’ expectations of themselves (intrapersonal) and the expectations of students (interpersonal) influenced teachers’ TPACK enactment. Blackwell, Lauricella, and Wartella (2016), Swallow and Olofson (2017), and Tseng, Cheng, and Yeh (2019) adopted Porras-Hernández and Salinas-Amescua (2013) version of context classification. Blackwell et al. (2016) surveyed 411 preschool educators teaching children aged 3 to 5 in the America. They used survey data to see how contextual factors such as teacher attitudes, student background, and school support influenced teachers’ TPACK enactment. They also delved into what apps and 33.