ArticlePDF Available

Development of the Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale for Pre-Service Teachers: The Validity and Reliability Study

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The aim of this study is to develop a scale to determinate pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. The research was carried out with the 768 pre-service teachers in different universities in Turkey. The study consists of five parts including a literature review, an item pool, experts’ opinions, administration of scale and computing the reliability and validity. While constituting the pool of items, an interview was carried out with 15 pre-service teachers regarding pedagogical content knowledge and 20 teachers were asked to write an essay related to this topic. The draft scale obtained was administered to 768 pre-service teachers and the result of factor analysis, the number of items was reduced to 38. Besides, the Cronbach-Alpha internal integrity coefficient of the final version of the scale was found to be 0.967. After computing the reliability of PCKS, the scale is ready to be used. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p1365
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
1365
Development of the Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale for Pre-Service Teachers:
The Validity and Reliability Study
Assistant Prof. Dr. Zeki Aksu
Faculty of Education, Artvin Coruh University, Artvin
zekiaksu25@hotmail.com
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Metin
Faculty of Education, Bozok University, Yozgat
mustafametinae@hotmail.com
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Alper Cihan KonyalÖoølu
Faculty of Education, Atatürk University, Erzurum
ackonyali@yahoo.com
Doi:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p1365
Abstract
The aim of this study is to develop a scale to determinate pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. The research
was carried out with the 768 pre-service teachers in different universities in Turkey. The study consists of five parts including a
literature review, an item pool, experts’ opinions, administration of scale and computing the reliability and validity. While
constituting the pool of items, an interview was carried out with 15 pre-service teachers regarding pedagogical content
knowledge and 20 teachers were asked to write an essay related to this topic. The draft scale obtained was administered to
768 pre-service teachers and the result of factor analysis, the number of items was reduced to 38. Besides, the Cronbach-
Alpha internal integrity coefficient of the final version of the scale was found to be 0.967. After computing the reliability of
PCKS, the scale is ready to be used.
Keywords: Content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, ,scale development.
1. Introduction
Teacher proficiencies are described as necessary knowledge skill and attitudes for instructors to fulfil the teacher
profession effectively and efficiently (MNE, 2008). The qualifications which teachers are required to obtain have been the
issues of many researches for a long time. According to studies related to teachers’ proficiencies it was deduced that
teachers were expected to do more than simply transmitting knowledge to students quickly. Nonetheless “teacher
knowledge” is described in different ways and the necessary characteristics have been denoted differently.
Shulman (1986) investigated the necessary content knowledge that teachers are required having under three
components. These were content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and curriculum knowledge in 1986.
Afterwards, Shulman (1987) stated that seven categories given below constitute the teacher profession’s base.
1. Content Knowledge
2. General pedagogical knowledge including classroom management and classroom organisation
3. Curriculum knowledge including materials and programmes.
4. Knowledge of learners and their characteristics.
5. Knowledge of educational contexts
6. Knowledge of educational ends, purposes, values and their philosophical and historical grounds
7. Pedagogical content knowledge
Shulman is the first person who proved pedagogical the content knowledge as necessary characteristics for
teachers to possess. Shulman believes that simply understanding a subject well is not enough to teach this subject.
The field of education as a large body of the research conducted within 20 years has focused on teachers’ and pre-
service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (An, Kulm & Wu, 2004; Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson & Carey, 1988).
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
1366
In these studies, the component of pedagogical content knowledge defined by Shulman (1987) and Grossman (1990)
was investigated.
Combination of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge constitutes pedagogical content knowledge.
Figure 1. Pedagogical Content Knowledge
1.1
Content Knowledge
This contains the knowledge of the subject which is taught or learnt (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). Teachers and pre-
service teachers must understand all the knowledge in their subjects. Content knowledge is a type knowledge which
covers concepts related to the teaching topic, operations, evidence and proof and problem solving skills (Shulman, 1986).
The idea that having exact and good knowledge on the teaching subject is very important with regard to teachers and
necessary comprehensive knowledge is necessary to quality education is generally accepted (Begle, 1979; akt: Akkoc,
Ozmantar & Bingolbali, 2008; Kahan, Cooper & Bethea, 2004; Ball, 1988; akt: Akkoc, Ozmantar & Bingolbali, 2008). The
fact that teacher do not have enough content knowledge may impede students learning the subject well. Therefore,
students may learn incorrect knowledge and have misconceptions (National Research Council, 2000; Pfund & Durt,
2000).
1.2 Pedagogical Knowledge
This is concerned with the teaching process and methods also include knowledge about classroom management,
developing a lesson plan, evaluation in order that students are able to learn. Pedagogical knowledge can be seen as
necessary knowledge for teachers to have to know in depth the application of teaching and learning methods. This
knowledge contains knowledge about understanding how students learn, planning an instruction, assessing students and
general classroom management skills. Pedagogical knowledge includes knowledge about methods and strategies used
in the classroom. It is also accepted as essential formation of the knowledge to understand learners’ qualities and
evaluate their learning (Koehler and Mishra, 2009).
1.3 Pedagogical Content Knowledge
This applies the content knowledge concerned with the teaching process. Shulman (1986a, 1986b, 1987) emphasised
that content knowledge is not enough for effective teaching solely and pedagogical content knowledge is necessary.
Shulman described pedagogical content knowledge as knowledge going beyond subject matter instruction. According to
Shulman, pedagogical content knowledge includes:
‘The most regularly taught topics in one’s subject area, the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most
powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations-in a word, the ways of representing and
formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others… pedagogical content knowledge also includes an
understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult: the conceptions and preconceptions that
students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning of those most frequently taught topics and
lessons.’(s.9)
Pedagogical content knowledge contains either content knowledge or general pedagogical content knowledge.
Shulman (1986) defined pedagogical content knowledge as the representations and teaching form which are the most
useful representations, the strongest simulations, paint, samples and illustrations.
1.4 Importance of the Study
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) has risen as an important factor for teachers to conduct effective instruction,
because powerful PCK is correlated with students’ success in a positive way (Carpenter, Feeneme, Peterson, Chiang &
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
1367
Loef, 1989; Rovegno, 1992). Teachers with strong PCK focus on their students’ thinking/understanding make appropriate
explanations for the cognitive level of students, present content which consider students’ need with samples, metaphors
and many teaching strategies more accurately (Gudmundsdottir, 1990; Wilson & Winwberg, 1989). Teachers possessing
better pedagogical content knowledge understand that setting problems and explanations for students are as important
as asking questions (Griffin, Doods & Rovegno, 1996). Use of simple reminding questions requiring knowledge can be
accepted as the indicator of the low level of pedagogical content knowledge (Carlsen, 1987; Cochran, 1997). Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (PCK) ensures opportunities for teachers with knowledge about teaching activities, the programme
standard, teaching strategy and schools, students and society transfer to students (Griffin, Doods & Rovegno, 1996).
PCK provides knowledge about how subject titles, problems and their results are organised, presented and adapted into
students’ skills and interest (Clermont, Krajcik & Borko, 1993). When PCK is investigated in depth, it is an important
precursor for teachers to improve themselves from an apprentice executive to a professional executive (Clermont, Krajcik
& Borko, 1994).
There are numerous studies related to pedagogical content knowledge in international literature (Chick, H. L.,
2009; Cochran, DeRuiter & King, 1993; Dershimer & Kent, 2003; Fernandez-Balboa & Stiehl, 1995; Gess-Newsome,
1999; Grossman, P.L., 1990; Magnusson, Krajcik & Borko, 1999; Marks, 1990; Smith & Neale, 1989; Thoren, Kellner,
Gullberg, Attorps, 2008; Zembylas, 2007). However, in Turkey there are only a few studies regarding this topic. The
number of studies on teacher competency development has been increasing gradually in the field of mathematics (Akkoc,
Yesildere & Ozmantar, (2007); Akkoc, Ozmantar & Bingolbali, 2008; Boz, 2004; Türnüklü, 2005; Yesildere, 2008) and
especially science teaching (Canbazoglu, 2008; Gödek, 2002; Usak, 2005). Several survey studies have been conducted
about technological pedagogical content knowledge in this field. Schmidt et al. (2009) developed scales on technological
pedagogical knowledge. Timur & Tasar (2011) conducted a study on adaptation of the scale of technological pedagogical
content knowledge self-confidence, which was developed by Graham, Burgoyne, Cantrell, Smith & Harris (2009). Sahin
(2011) carried out a survey research on technological pedagogical content knowledge. A survey research is thought to
make a remarkable contribution to the literature so as to research teachers’ and pre-service teachers’ PCK competency.
Although there are many studies to determinate pre-service teachers and teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge, only a few studies (Bukova-Güzel, E., Cantürk-Günhan, B., Kula,S., Özgür,Z. & Nüket Elçi, A. (2013))
developing the scale related this area was carried out. Therefore, in this study we decided to develop a pedagogical
content knowledge scale for pre-service teachers. It is believed that this study provides an important contribution to
studies on pedagogical content knowledge.
2. Method
In this study, an instrument was developed to determine pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. This
instrument development study was carried out with the participation of 768 pre-service teachers selected from different
universities in Turkey.
2.1 Sample
The sample of study consists of 768 undergraduates in the Faculty of Education at five different universities in Turkey.
Demographic information of the sample is given in table 1.
Table 1. Demographic information of the sample
Frequencies (f) Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 380 49.5
Female 388 50.5
Grade
3
rd
year 512 66.7
4
th
year 239 31.1
5
th
year 17 2.2
Department
Primary Teacher Education 202 26.3
Science Teacher Education 247 32.2
Mathematics Teacher Education 285 37.1
Social science Teacher Education 34 4.4
The research sample consists of 380 male and 388 female pre-service teachers. It was determined that 512 of them were
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
1368
3
rd
year; 239 were 4
th
year and 17 were 5
th
year students. In addition, it was seen that 202 of the pre-service teachers
were in Primary Teacher Education, 247 were in Science Teacher Education, 285 were in Mathematics Teacher
Education and 34 were in Social science Teacher Education department education.
2.2
Instrumentation
The pedagogical content knowledge scale is a five point rating scale used to collect data from pre-service teachers. It
followed five stages in the development of the scales.
In the first stage, before the scale was developed, we carried out a literature review regarding pedagogical content
knowledge by way of document analysis to determine statements of the pedagogical content knowledge scale and how to
develop an attitude scale (An, Kulm & Wu, 2004; Carpenter et al., 1988; Carpenter et al, 1989; Schmidt et al, 2009;
Graham et al., 2009; Cochran, DeRuiter & King, 1993; Magnusson, Krajcik & Borko, 1999;
ù
ahin 2011; Fernandez-
Balboa & Stiehl, 1995; Gess-Newsome, 1999; Griffin, Doods & Rovegno, 1996; Cochran, 1997; Gudmundsdottir, 1990;
Clermont, Krajcik & Borko, 1993; Clermont, Krajcik & Borko, 1994; Marks, 1990; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Metin, 2010).
Later, we interviewed 15 pre-service teachers in the 3
rd
year and 4
th
year in different universities. During the interview, we
asked the teachers open-ended questions about what they thought about content knowledge, their understanding of
pedagogical knowledge, what they thought about having knowledge related to pedagogical content knowledge by
teachers to determine their perceptions on pedagogical content knowledge. In addition, we asked 20 teachers to write an
essay about content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge.
In the second stage, bene¿ting from knowledge gained from the literature, answers from the pre-service teachers
and data inferred from the essays written by the teachers, we prepared a draft scale consisting of 55 statements about
pedagogical content knowledge. These statements were placed together and seemed to reflect an underlying theme, a
process which resulted to three sets each comprising 60 items, preliminary indicators of possible scales. Afterwards, an
initial item pool was generated consisting 60 items on a five point rating scale such as “strongly disagree”, “disagree”,
undecided”, “agree” and “strongly agree”.
In the third stage, for the purpose of content validation, an initial draft of the attitude scale with 60 items on a five
point rating scale was given to a group of six experts in pedagogical content knowledge, educational psychology and
educational measurement to obtain their opinions about whether the selected items were valid items for assessing pre-
service teachers’ views related to pedagogical content knowledge. The experts were asked to examine items with regard
to their relevance to content coverage, understandability and consistency to one another. In addition, the experts
examined the scale and suggested that some items be omitted because they were unsuitable for unclear item and
students’ level and some be added. According to these suggestions, the researchers omitted 13 items from the scale and
added 3 items, made some corrections and prepared a 50 item scale. We carried out a pilot study of this 50 item scale
with 15 pre-service teachers. In this stage, we examined all the items in the scale by conducting a group interview with 15
pre-service teachers. In scale development, what the researcher means when using the items in the scale and how the
participant interprets these items should be coherent. In addition, the meaning conferred upon these items by other
participants should not change (Tourangeau, Rips & Rasinski, 2000). Furthermore, pre-service teachers controlled the
comprehensibility level of the items and whether they were interpreted in the same way by everybody. Then, the
researchers arranged all the items on the scale again according to the results so that the participants would interpret
them in the same way. As a conclusion, the scale towards pedagogical content knowledge consists of 50 items on a five
point rating scale.
In the fourth stage, the final draft of the scale with 50 items was administered to 768 pre-service teachers for
calculating the validity (particularly constructing validity) and reliability of the attitude scale. Pre-service teachers
responses were entered into an excel file created for further analyses.
In the last stage, the data collected from pre-service teachers was analysed by means of factor analysis and
reliability analysis through the use of SPSS 11.5 and LISREL. Firstly, for the validity of the PCKS, means and standard
divisions of upper 27% (207) and lower 27% (207) points and t-tests between items’ means of upper 27% and lower 27%
points was calculated. In addition, the data was subjected to factor analysis with the principle component method in order
to examine the factor structure behind the attitude scale. The principal components factor analysis was followed by
varimax rotation (rotated component matrix). We believed that the variance explained by one factor would be
independent of the variance in the other factors. Besides, the factor construction determined through Exploratory Factor
Analysis was exposed to con¿rmatory factor analysis. For con¿rmatory factor analysis, which helps to determine the
relations between items and factors and the relationship among factors, the LISREL 8.51 packet programme was
administered. Chi-Square Fit, GFI (Fit Index), AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index), RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
1369
of Approximation), CFI (Comparative Fit Index), NFI (Normed Fit Index) and RMR (Root Mean Square Residual)
¿
t
indexes have been used to evaluate the validity of the model in con
¿
rmatory factor analysis. Lastly, reliability analysis
was performed for each of the emerged sub-scales and Cronbach alpha correlation coefficients were used. Then,
Croanbach alpha correlation coefficients were calculated among these factors.
3. Findings
The suitability of the current data gather from the scale for factor analysis was checked through several criteria. First, 768
participants were found to be sufficient for factor analysis according to several resources (Field, 2000; Pallant, 2001).
Second, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) and Barlett’s test was checked. The Kaiser–
Meyer Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) and Barlett’s test were calculated to evaluate whether the
sample was large enough to apply a satisfactory factor analysis and examine to define appropriateness of factor analysis
(Büyüköztürk, 2003). The KMO value varies between 0 and 1. A value close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations
are compact and factor analysis will yield reliable factors (Akbulut, Sahin & Eristi, 2010; Kline, 1994). KMO values of .60
or above are acceptable (Pallant, 2001; Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1998, George & Mallery, 2001). The KMO value
of the initial analysis was .977, which is considered perfect by Hutcheson and Sofroniou (1999). The Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity reached a significant value supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix obtained from the items
[Approx. Chi-Square: 18571.071 (p<0.01)]. The results Barlett’s test of Spherincity statistic was significant. The results of
KMO and Barlett’s test appear to support the validity of the factor analysis usage for this study. Thirdly, item analysis of
the scale was carried out. Means and standard divisions of upper 27% and lower 27% points and P value and t-tests
between items’ means of upper 27% and lower 27% points in item analysis of the scale for validity of the PCKS items
was calculated. Unsuitable items in the scale were determined. After these applications, item analysis, exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to date gathers from the scale.
3.1 Item Analysis of the Scale
Before the exploratory factor analysis, means and standard divisions of upper 27% and lower 27% points and P value
and t-tests between items’ means of upper 27% and lower 27% points in item analysis of the scale in order to validity of
the PCKS items were calculated. Table 2 presents means and standard divisions, P value and t-tests between items’
means of upper 27% and lower 27% points in item analysis of the scale
Table 2. Means, standard divisions, P value and t-tests means of upper and lower points
Number of Items Uppe
r
Lowe
r
SD
SD t p
1 I have knowledge about the context of my lesson 4.13 .659 2.92 1.021 14.298 .000
2 I know the critical points of my lessons 4.26 .602 3.12 1.069 13.477 .000
3 I pursue the last improvement regarding teaching lessons 3.99 .893 2.84 .908 12.963 .047
4 I want to participate in a seminar, symposium, workshop related to my scope 3.75 1.011 2.51 .985 12.618 .243
5 I pursue publication related to my scope 3.23 .991 2.36 .918 9.247 .113
6 I can identify familiar national and international scientists 3.34 1.034 2.62 .946 7.337 .250
7 I can recognise lacking areas related to my lessons 4.39 .650 3.41 1.038 11.521 .000
8 I know the basic definitions in my lesson 4.28 .656 3.15 .963 13.923 .000
9 I have knowledge about relation, rule and formula in my lessons 4.34 .641 3.11 .878 16.177 .001
10 I know theory, axiom, theorems etc. in my lesson 4.06 .780 2.89 .902 14.046 .001
11 I can realise and meet the difficulties of students during my lesson 4.35 .619 3.28 1.010 12.908 .000
12 I can determine that the students may be pressured in my lessons in advance 4.23 .669 3.26 .943 12.055 .000
13
I can prepare an appropriate lesson plan in accordance with the point that students may
be pressured in my lessons
4.41 .601 3.18 1.015 15.075 .000
14 I can notice misconceptions of students in the course of teaching a new topic 4.17 .742 3.16 .853 12.836 .006
15 I can determine misconceptions of students while teaching new topics 4.20 .674 3.09 .868 14.500 .001
16 I can select problems suitable for teaching contexts in my lesson 4.49 .590 3.31 .972 14.915 .000
17 I use teaching methods and techniques suitable for the topic 4.46 .563 3.23 .966 15.853 .000
18 I can contact among topics in the lesson 4.60 .510 3.35 1.018 15.749 .000
19 I can develop measurements and assessment tools suitable for the topics 4.39 .605 3.16 .929 15.976 .000
20 I can contact between explaining the topic and other topics 4.45 .563 3.29 .956 15.155 .000
x
x
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
1370
Number of Items Uppe
r
Lowe
r
SD
SD t p
21 I can determine the aim in the course plan 4.22 .638 3.19 .923 13.204 .000
22 I can use different presentation techniques appropriate for the topic 4.38 .594 3.17 .943 15.597 .000
23 I can decide how to connect between old and new topics 4.43 .569 3.28 .965 14.768 .000
24 I consider the pre-knowledge of students regarding cognitive thinking 4.59 .558 3.35 1.022 15.222 .000
25
I can present a course to satisfy the demand of students in different grade levels in
teaching topics
4.36 .615 3.02 .983 16.612 .000
26 I can connect the topic with daily life 4.65 .518 3.37 1.093 15.214 .000
27 I try to understand concepts that exemplify with daily life for students in the lesson. 4.68 .496 3.38 1.112 15.368 .000
28 I know which teaching method and techniques to use for the topic 4.34 .594 3.05 .907 17.153 .003
29 I can select the appropriate teaching method for standards 4.36 .573 3.14 .872 16.756 .000
30 I can take precautions determining the individual differences of students 4.36 .589 3.11 .951 16.024 .000
31 I know how to assess students’ performance in the classroom 4.39 .588 3.25 .888 15.464 .000
32 I can organise a suitable learning environment for students 4.36 .591 3.15 .905 16.073 .000
33 I can control negative situations while teaching 4.38 .619 3.25 .966 14.247 .000
34 I know how be connection with students outside of the classroom 4.63 .532 3.33 .981 16.698 .000
35 I can begin different activities which to motivate students for lessons 4.63 .503 3.30 .985 17.282 .000
36 I can effectively use awards, punishments and reinforcers 4.53 .629 3.35 1.003 14.262 .000
37 I can construct a democratic environment that enables the self-expression of students 4.59 .530 3.30 1.023 16.170 .000
38 I can use time effectively in the lesson 4.40 .607 3.08 .939 16.957 .000
39 I can determine insufficiency related to vocation and overcome it 4.54 .605 3.19 1.069 15.786 .000
40 I can use suitable learning and teaching instruments 4.47 .556 3.24 .974 15.869 .000
41 I can effectively use my voice in the lesson 4.51 .696 3.37 1.061 12.979 .000
42 I can correct as necessary in accordance with students feedbac
k
4.56 .545 3.31 1.067 14.909 .000
43 I have knowledge about the instructional programme 4.26 .644 3.05 .916 15.532 .005
44
I can present systematically in contexts of lessons (from concrete to abstract or from easy
to hard
4.59 .566 3.32 .973 16.234 .000
45 I can control my emotions during lessons 4.29 .738 3.16 .964 13.334 .006
46 I have knowledge about learning theories 4.37 .609 3.11 .910 16.460 .000
47 I can consist a useable platform during lesson 4.41 .607 3.07 .960 16.887 .000
48 I can use question-answers activities during lesson 4.63 .514 3.38 1.130 14.451 .000
49
I can teach concepts using multi representation such as tables, diagrams, graphic and
equation…etc.
4.62 .534 3.28 .951 17.593 .000
50 I can prepare lesson plans covering the important points of topics 4.71 .468 3.34 1.090 16.521 .000
: Means, SD: Standard divisions, P<0.05
As seen from table 1, the t-test results showed significant differences between each item’s means of upper 27% and
lower 27% points experts from items 4, 5, and 6. According to this result, 47 items of PCKS are appropriate to measure
undergraduates’ pedagogical content knowledge.
3.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Scale
The aim of exploratory factor analysis is to find the number of separate components that may exist for a group of items
(Kline, 1994; Büyüköztürk, 2003). The purpose of exploratory factor analysis was to investigate the factors underlying the
PCKS in this study. We began analysis of the data obtained from this study by examining the dimensions obtained from
factor analysis of the data. Therefore, exploratory factor analysis was administered to the 50 items. The principle
components factor analysis was used on all the data in order to extract the appropriate number of factors. The initial
solution revealed that six factors had an eigen value greater than 1. These factors altogether explained 59.092% of the
variance of results. Overall, three of six factors were represented by just one item per each factor with loading higher than
0.4. Therefore, the one remaining factor was considered uninterpretable. Nine items were deleted because their factor
loadings were lower than 0.4 (Kline, 1994; Büyüköztürk, 2003). Nine out of 50 items were deleted and the factor analysis
for rotation was run again over the data set with 38 items. The varimax rotation was then used. After using the varimax
rotation, the factor loadings for each item were examined. Loadings of less than 0.4, a commonly-used cut-off, were
eliminated. Thus, the factor analysis resulted in independent factors with factor loadings greater than 0.4. Besides, an
alternative approach was used to determine the appropriate number of factors to examine the scree plot produced by the
analysis in the study. The scree plot was seen to determine the number of factors (Kline, 1994).
x
x
x
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
1371
Figure 2 Scree plot of scale
The scree plot shows that three factors were in sharp descent and then started to level off. This was evidence that
rotation was necessary for three factors. Two methods of determining the number of factors revealed that the scale
regarding pedagogic content knowledge consists of three factors. Table 3 present the eigen values, variances and total
variances of the three factors
Table 3 Eigen values, variances and total variances of the five factors
Factors Eigenvalues Percentages of variances Percentages of total variances
Factor 1 17.614 46.353 46.353
Factor 2 1.854 4.879 51.232
Factor 3 1.380 3.631 54.863
As seen from table 3, there are three factors in the scale. Eigen values of the factors are 1.380, 1.854 and 17.614. Factor
1 explained 46.353% of total variance, factor 2 explained 4.879% of total variance and factor 3 explained 3.631% of total
variance. These three factors explained 54.864% of total variance and were named according to the common
characteristics of the items loaded on the same factor. This value is appropriate considering that other works focused on
attitudes showed lower explained variance (Spinner and Fraser 2005: 42%, Kline 1994: 41%). According to the results of
item loading and Eigen values of the factors, it can be said that this attitude scale is appropriate to assess pre-service
teachers’ pedagogic content knowledge.
After factor numbers of PCKS were determined, distribution of 38 items to three factors was seen. Table 4
presents the factor loadings and factor structures of the items.
Table 4 Factor Structures and Loadings of the 38 Items in PCKS
Number of
Items
Pedagogic
Content
Knowledge
Pedagogic
knowledge
Content
knowled
g
e
42 I can correct as necessary in accordance with students’ feedbac
k
.715
48 I can use question-answers activities during lessons .707
32 I can organize a suitable learning environment for students .681
35 I can begin different activities to motivate students for lessons .678
44 I can present systematically in contexts of lessons (from concrete to abstract-.. etc.- ) .677
47 I can consist a useable platform during lessons .677
34 I know how to connect with students outside of the classroom .676
50 I prepare lesson plans considering the important points of topics .674
40 I can use suitable learning and teaching instruments .670
37 I can construct a democratic environment that provides self-expression of students .667
49 I can teach concepts using multi-representation as tables, diagrams, graphic equation .664
33 I can control negative situations while teaching lessons .653
36 I can effectively use award, punishment and reinforcers .646
30 I can take precautions determining the individual differences of students .643
27 I try to understand concepts that exemplify with daily life for students in the lesson. .638
38 I can use time effectively in the lesson .629
31 I know how to assess students’ performance in the classroom .625
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
1372
Number of
Items
Pedagogic
Content
Knowledge
Pedagogic
knowledge
Content
knowled
g
e
41 I can effectively use my voice in the lesson .617
39 I can determine insufficiency related to vocation and overcome it .613
46 I have knowledge about learning theories .588
29 I can select appropriate teaching methods for standards .584
43 I have knowledge about the instructional programme .574
45 I can control my emotions during lessons .544
28 I know which teaching methods and techniques to use for the topic .502
14 I can notice misconception of students in the course of teaching a new topic .719
15 I can determine misconceptions of students during teaching new topics .713
13
I can prepare appropriate lesson plans in accordance with the point that the students may be
pressured in my lessons
.657
11 I can meet the difficulties of students during my lesson .638
12 I can determine the point that the students may be pressured in my lessons in advance .626
16 I can select problems suitable for teaching contexts in my lesson .595
18 I can contact among topics in the lesson .480
9 I have knowledge about relation, rule and formula in my lessons .712
1 I have knowledge about the context of my lesson .686
2 I know the critical points of my lessons .684
10 I know theory, axiom, theorems etc in my lesson .648
8 I know the basic definitions in my lesson .618
3 I pursue the last improvement regarding teaching lessons .601
7 I can recognize lacking areas related to my lessons .409
As seen in table 4, factor loading of items in the scale changes between 0.409 and 0.719. Kline (1994) said that the value
of factors load between 0.30 and 0.60 is medium and between 0.6 and 1.0 is high quality. This situation indicated that 38
of the item are qualified enough in the scale.
As seen in the distribution of 38 items to three factors, factor 1 includes twenty four items: 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,
33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50. These items explicitly measure pre-service
teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in lessons. This factor was therefore named “pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK)”. Factor 2 includes seven items: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18. These items explicitly measure pre-service
teachers’ pedagogical knowledge in lessons. This factor was named “pedagogical knowledge (PK)”. Factor 3 includes
seven items: 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10. These items explicitly measures pre-service teachers’ content knowledge in lesson.
This factor was therefore named ‘‘content knowledge (CK)”.
3.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Scale (with 662 pre-service teachers)
The aim of confirmatory factor analysis is examining how much a construct or explanation previously established can be
con¿rmed through the gathered data (Büyüköztürk et al. 2004). For this purpose, the three-factor construct obtained
through exploratory factor analysis has been analysed and the ¿tness of the construct has been analysed according to
the results of ¿tness statistics and the modi¿cation index.
The fit of the model was evaluated with various measures (Sörbom & Jöreskog, 1982). Kelloway (1998) has
suggested that the use of the chi-square test is reasonable when the study involves a large sample. However, as the chi-
square is very sensitive to sample size, the degree of freedom can be used as an adjusting standard by which to judge
whether the chi-square is large or small (Jöreskog, & Sörbom, 1989). Other types of goodness-of-fit measures include
Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Root Mean Square Residual (RMR), Standardised RMR (SRMR),
Normed Fit Index (NFI), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), and
the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI). RMSEA and RMR values close to zero show a near perfect fit. The NFI,
NNFI, CFI, GFI, AGFI are always between zero and one, with any value above 0.9 indicating a good fit and one
suggesting a perfect fit.
Results of goodness-of-fit measurements were: Ȥ2 =2367.46 (df=662, p<0.000), (Ȥ2/df)=3.576, Goodness of Fit
Index (GFI)=0.86, Normed Fit Index (NFI)= 0.88, Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) = 0.91, Root Mean Square Residual
(RMSEA)=0.057, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI)= 0.85, Comparative Fit Index (CFI)= 0.91, Root Mean Square
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
1373
Residual (RMR)= 0.027 and Standardized RMR (SRMR) = 0.038. All of the t-values of items showed statistical
significance at the 0.05 level. The ratio of the model was 3.576, indicating a fairly good fit. The model had a RMSEA of
0.0057, SRMR of 0.038, and NFI, NNFI, and CFI values over 0.88, showing that the model had a highly satisfactory fit.
According to the results of the confirmatory factor analysis, it is seen that the model is reasonably good. The
results can be interpreted thus: The GFI value seems to be 0.86 in the analyses. When this value is close to 1, the
¿
tness
degree of the model becomes closer to excellent. According to obtained value, the model has achieved an almost
excellent harmony to the data. Similar to GFI are the values of AGFI, CFI and NFI, while other assessment
measurements close to 0.90 indicate excellent
¿
tness (Hair et al. 1998). It can be said that the three-factor model is in
consistence with this. When all these results are analysed, it has been determined that the scale consisting of 38 items is
suitable to the measurements in the con
¿
rmatory factor analysis. The path diagram, which shows the standardised
coefficients between item latent variable and latent variables, are shown in figure 3.
Figure 3. Path diagram of the scale
3.4 Reliability of the scale
Reliability analysis was administered for each factor and Cronbach alpha correlation coefficients were used. Then,
Croanbach alpha correlation coefficients were calculated among these factors. Table 5 summarises factor names,
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
1374
number of the items and reliability of each factor.
Table 5 Factor names, number of the items and Cronbach alpha value of each factor
Factors name Number of items
Coefficient items
Cronbach Alpha
Content knowledge (CK) 7 0.849
Pedagogical knowledge (PK) 7 0.885
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) 24 0.961
Total Scale 38 0.967
As seen in table 5, it was determined that Cronbach alpha value of CK is 0.849, PK is 0.885 and PCK is 0.961. Also, it
was found that the Cronbach alpha value of total scale is 0.967. According to these results, it can be said that the scale
regarding pedagogical content knowledge valuable and reliable.
4. Discussions and Conclusions
Last two decade many studies have been performed related to pedagogical content knowledge (Fernandez-Balboa and
Stiehl, 1995; Griffin, Dodds, and Rovegno, 1996; Magnusson, Krajcik and Borko, 1999; Capraro, Margaret, Parker, Kulm
and Raulerson, 2005; Baker and Chick, 2006, Bukova-Güzel, E., Cantürk-Günhan, B., Kula,S., Özgür,Z. & Nüket Elçi, A.
2013). While it is possible to obtain an opinion about this subject with appropriate actions, it is very difficult to determine
the level of teachers or pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. So, it is important that the scale determine
the level of pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is developed. For this reason, the aim of this study is to
develop a scale in order to determinate pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge.
In this study, the pedagogical content knowledge scale was developed through the use of five stage model
proposed. Subsequent to a review of literature and carried out interview with pre-service teachers, composed item pool,
validated the item pool across the experts and then initial draft of the instrument was constructed. Later, this initial draft
was reviewed by the experts, PCKS was administered to 768 pre-service teachers in different University to the factorial
structure of the scale, provide validity and further reliability evidences. Lastly validity and reliability of the attitude scale
were calculated.
Factor analysis with principle component methods and item analysis result revealed three factors behind PCKS
which explain 54.864% of the total variance together. This value is appropriate considering that other works focused on
attitudes showed lower explained variance (Spinner and Fraser 2005: 42%, Kline 1994: 41%). According to results of
item loading of the factors, it is said that the scale is appropriated to assess pre-service teachers’ pedagogic content
knowledge. These factors determined by exploratory factor analysis are such as content knowledge (7 items),
pedagogical knowledge (7 items) and pedagogical content knowledge (24 items).
First factor of scale entitle content knowledge is described as one of the major components of PCK. Shulman
(1987) and Grossman (1990) were expressed that content knowledge is the foundation knowledge or component of PCK.
Content knowledge includes knowledge of the subject and its organizing structures (Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman,
1989; Shulman, 1986b, 1987; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987). Shulman (1986) defined; this knowledge would include
knowledge of concepts, theories, ideas, organizational frameworks, knowledge of evidence and proof, as well as
established practices and approaches toward developing such knowledge. Content knowledge is a technical knowledge
key to the establishment of teaching as a profession. Namely, an effective teaching will occur when the subject is taught
by teachers with the appropriate specialization. Besides, while teacher content knowledge is crucially important to the
improvement of teaching and learning, attention to its development and study has been irregular. In other words, it is not
possible to perform teaching activities without having good content knowledge. Teachers need to have all the information
about what they teach the students can reach the true information. Pre-service teacher also need to be aware of their
case about the content knowledge and to develop this direction permanently. It is thought that content knowledge factor is
important to developing this scale because of these features of content knowledge.
Second of scale entitle on pedagogic knowledge is described the other components of PCK. Teachers having
content knowledge don’t mean that they can teach very well. Teachers and pre-service teacher need to have mastership
knowledge including teaching and learning methods. It means they need to be endowed with good pedagogy knowledge.
Again as in content knowledge, pre-service teachers also need to be aware of their case about the pedagogy knowledge
and they should provide what’s necessary. Pedagogical Knowledge is deep knowledge about the processes and
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
1375
practices or methods of teaching and learning and how it encompasses overall educational purposes, values and aims
(Koehler & Mishra, 2008). Besides pedagogic knowledge that is involved in all issues of student learning, classroom
management, lesson plan development and implementation, and student evaluation. It includes knowledge about
techniques or methods to be used in the classroom; the nature of the target audience; and strategies for evaluating
student understanding (Koehler &Mishra, 2009). Teachers with deep pedagogical knowledge understand how students
construct knowledge and acquire skills; develop habits of mind and positive dispositions towards learning. As such,
pedagogical knowledge requires an understanding of cognitive, social and developmental theories of learning and how
they apply to students in their classroom (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Because of these properties of pedagogic knowledge,
this factor is necessary in the scale in order to measure whether pre-service have these qualifications or not.
Third of scale entitle on pedagogical content knowledge is defined as an important constituent of PCK. PCK
involves the essential occupations of teaching, learning, curriculum, assessment and reporting, such as the case that
promote learning and the links among curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Besides PCK
comprises to an awareness of common misconceptions and ways of looking at them, the importance of forging
connections among different content-based ideas, students’ prior knowledge, alternative teaching strategies, and the
flexibility that comes from exploring alternative ways of looking at the same idea or problem are all essential for effective
teaching. So, teachers and pre-service teacher need pedagogical content knowledge including the items of pedagogy
and content knowledge. PCK, when analyzed deeply, can deal out as an important premise in the process which
teachers turn into an experienced practitioner from an apprentice (Clermont, Krajcik & Borko, 1994). Therefore it is really
important for teachers to be aware of the level of their pedagogical content knowledge. Thus they can detect their missing
directions and make efforts to develop themselves about this topic. Because of these properties of pedagogic knowledge,
this factor is necessary in the scale in order to measure whether pre-service have these qualifications or not.
After factor analysis and naming of factors, con¿rmatory factor analysis has been performed with 662 pre-service
teachers different from the sample using explanatory factor analysis In order to confirm the construct obtained through
exploratory factor analysis, According to this analysis results, the calculated values are thus: Ȥ2 =2367.46 (df=662,
p<0.000), (Ȥ2/df) =3.576, CFI=0.91, GFI=0.86, NFI= 0.88, NNFI = 0.91, RMSEA=0.057, AGFI= 0.85, CFI= 0.91, RMR=
0.027 and SRMR = 0.038. It has been understood that all factor loads in the model are meaningful (p\0.05). It can be said
that the three-factor model is compatible with the data in terms of the defined criteria. In addition to alpha correlation,
coefficients of five factors were calculated using Croanbach alpha reliability of the factors and ranged from 0.849 to
0.961, indicating acceptable reliability range (Kline, 1994; Fraser, 1989). The overall scale reliability was calculated as
0.967. According to the results, it must be emphasized that the PCKS, which allows researchers to study pre-service
teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge level, was developed.
References
Akbulut, Y., Sahin, Y.L., and Eristi, B. (2010) Development of a scale to investigate cybervictimization among online social utility
members. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1 (1), 46-59.
Akkoc, H., Yesildere, S., & Ozmantar, F. (2007). Prospective Mathematics Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Definite
Integral: The Problem of Limit Process. British Society of Research in Mathematics Learning (BSRLM), University of
Northampton, ENGLAND
Akkoc, H., Ozmantar, F. ve Bingolbali, E. (2008). “Developing a program for pre-service mathematics teachers which aims to develop
technological pedagogical content knowledge”, Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBøTAK) project
number 107K531
An, S., Kulm, G. & Wu, Z. (2004) The pedagogical content knowledge of middle school, mathematics teacher in China and the U.S.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 145–172.
Baker, M., & Chick, H. L. (2006). Pedagogical content knowledge for teaching primary mathematics: A case study of two teachers. In
29th Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 60-67).
Boz, N. (2004). Determinate student’ mistakes and investigate reasons of these mistakes XIII. National Education Sciences Conference,
06-09 July, ønönü University, Malatya
Bukova-Güzel, E., Cantürk-Günhan, B., Kula,S., Özgür,Z. & Nüket Elçi, A. (2013). Scale development for pre-service mathematics
teachers’ perceptions related to their pedagogical content knowledge. South African Journal of Education 33(2).
Büyüköztürk, ù. (2003) Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabÕ: østatistik, araútÕrma deseni, SPSS uygulamlarÕ ve yorum (Geliútirilmiú
3.BaskÕ). Ankara: Pegema YayÕnlarÕ.
Büyüköztürk, ù., Akgün, O., Kahveci, Ö. & Demirel, F. (2004). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the motivated
strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 4(2), 207–239.
Canbazo÷lu, S. (2008). Assessment Of Pre- ServÕce Elementary ScÕence Teachers’ PedagogÕcal Content Knowledge RegardÕng The
Structure Of Matter. Unpublished
Master Thesis, Gazi University, Educations Science Institute, Department of Elementary
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
1376
Science Education, Ankara.
Carlsen, W. S., (1987) ‘Why Do You Ask? The Effects of Science Teacher Subject-Matter Knowledge on
Teacher Questioning and Classroom Discourse’, Eric document: ED293181.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P., & Carey, D. A. (1988). Teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of students' problem
solving in elementary arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(5), 385-401.
Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Peterson, P., Chiang, C., Loef, M., (1989). Using knowledge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom
teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Journal, 26, 499-531.
Chick, H. L. (2009). Choice and use of examples as a window on mathematical knowledge for teaching. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 29 (3), 26-30
Clermont, C. P., Krajcik, J. S. & Borko, H. (1993). The influence of an intensive inservice workshop on pedagogical content knowledge
growth among novice chemical demonstrators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(1), 21-43.
Clermont, C. P., Krajcik, J. S. & Borko, H. (1994). Comparative study of the pedagogical content knowledge of experienced and novice
chemical demonstrators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4), 419-441.
Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical Content Knowing: An øntegrative Model for Teacher Preparation. Journal
of Teacher Education, 44, 263–272.
Cochran, K. F. (1997). Pedagogical content knowledge: Teachers’ integration of subject matter, pedagogy, students, and learning
environments [online]. Research matters-to the science teacher, No. 9702, Jan. 14.
Dershimer, G. M., Kent, T. (2003). The Complex Nature and Sources of Teacher’s Pedagogical Knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome and
N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge. (21–50). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Fernandez-Balboa, J.-M., Stiehl, J. (1995). The Generic Nature of Pedagogical Content Knowledge Among College Professors.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 293-306.
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows, London: Sage Publications.
George D. and Mallery, P (2001) SPSS for Windows: Step by Step. Allyn & Bacon, USA.
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: An Introduction and Orientation, In J. Gess-Newsome and N.G. Lederman
(Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge. (51-93). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gödek, Y., (2002). The development of science student teachers’ knowledge base in England. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Nottingham, England.
Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK Development in Science Teaching:
Measuring the TPACK Confidence of Inservice Science Teachers, TechTrends, Special Issue on TPACK, 53(5), 70-79.
Griffin, L., Dodds, P. & Rovegno, I. (1996). Pedagogical content knowledge for teachers: Integrative everything you know to help
students learn. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 67(9), 58-61
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gudmundsdottir, S. (1990). Values in pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 44-52
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C., (1998) Multivariate data analysis (5th edition), New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Hutcheson, G., and Sofroniou, N. (1999) The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 8: Users references guide (2nd Ed.). Lincolnwood, IL: SSI.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Kline, P. (1994) An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis, London: Routledge
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., Borko, H. (1999). Nature, Sources and Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Science
Teaching. In J. Gess- Newsome and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge. (95–132). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: from a Mathematical Case to A Modified Conception. Journal of Teacher Education,
41 (3), 3-11.
MNE, (2008), Teachers proficiency: general and private content adequacies of teaching profession, Ankara, Management of
Government Books.
Metin, M. (2010) A Study on Developing a General Attitude Scale about Environmental Issue for Students in Different Grade Level, Asia-
Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11, (2), 3.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teachers’
knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
National Research Council. (2000) How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual, Maidenhead, PA: Open University Press.
Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (2000). Bibliography: Student's alternative frameworks and science education (5th ed.). Kiel, Germany: University
of Kiel.
Rovegno, I. C. (1992). Learning to teach in a field-based methods course: the development of pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 8(1), 69-82.
Sahin, ø. (2011). Development of Survey of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology (TOJET), 10 (1), 97-105
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
1377
Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Koehler, M.J., Shin, T, & Mishra, P. (2009, April). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK): The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument for Preservice Teachers. Paper presented at the 2009
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April 13-17, San Diego, California.
Shulman, L. S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In Wittrock, M.C. (ed).
Handbook of research on teaching. pp.3-36. Macmillan, New York
Shulman, L. S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Smith, D. C, & Neale, D. C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 5, 1-20.
Sörbom, D., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1982). The use of structural equation models in evaluation research. In C. Fornell (Ed.), Measurement
and Evaluation: Vol. 2. A second generation of multivariate analysis (pp.381–418). New York: Praeger.
Spinner H, and Fraser B. J, (2005) Evaluation of an innovative mathematics program in terms of classroom environment, student
attitudes, and conceptual development, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 267–293
Tabachnick, B., and Fidell, L. (2007) Using multivariate statistics, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Thoren, I., Kellner, E., Gullberg, A., Attorps, I. Developing Transformative Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science and Mathematics
Teacher Education. www.hig.se/pdf/n-inst/Slutrapport0501F3.pdf> (14.05.08).
Timur, B, & Taúar, M,F,(2011), The Adaptation of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Confidence Survey into Turkish,
Gaziantep University, Social Sciences Education, 10(2), 839-856.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turnuklu, B. E. (2005). Matematik Ö÷retmen AdaylarÕnÕn Pedagojik Alan Bilgileri ile Matematiksel Alan Bilgileri ArasÕndaki øliúki. Eurasian
Journal Of Educational Research, 21, pp.234 - 247.
Usak, M, (2005), Prospective Elementary Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge about Flowering Plants, Unpublishing
Doctoral Thesis, Gazi University, Educations Science Institute, Department of Elementary Science Education, Ankara.
Yesildere, S. (2008). Pre-Service Elementary Mathematics Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge about Number Patterns, VIII,
International Sciences and Mathematics Education Conference, Bolu
: Abant øzzet Baysal University.
Wilson, S.M, Winwberg, S.S. (1989) Peering at history through different lenses: The role of disciplinary perspectives in teaching history.
Teaching College Record, 89, 525-39
Zembylas, M. (2007). Emotional ecology: The intersection of emotional knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in teaching.
Teacher and Teacher Education, 23:355-367
... The study carried out by Shulman 1987 is centered on pedagogical knowledge (PK). It involves an understanding of the teaching processes and preparation, classroom management, formulating lesson plans, methods and strategies, students' characteristics, as well as designing learning evaluation (Aimah, Ifadah, & Bharati, 2017;Aksu, Metin, & Konyalioğlu, 2014;Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This is consistent with the study carried out by , which stated that PK is based on the organization and management of teaching models and strategies, including communication and discourse in the classroom. ...
... It encompasses an understanding of the students' learning process, lesson plan, assessment, and classroom management. Teachers that possess indepth knowledge of PK tend to understand their students, as well as encourage them to learn (Aksu et al., 2014). Therefore, to strengthen this quality, teachers need to understand cognitive, social, and developmental theories of learning and apply and integrate them in the classroom (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). ...
... Content knowledge is regarded as a core element in the development of the teaching profession (Ballmart & Kunter, 2006). According to Ball, Thames, & Phelps (2008), it involves knowledge of the subject matter and its structures, therefore, there is a need for teachers to understand the subject matter, they are about to teach the students (Aksu et al., 2014;Ball et al., 2008;Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009;Kleickmann, Richter, Kunter, Elsner, Besser, Krauss, & Baumert, 2013;Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Conversely, the inability to properly understand the content causes them to be unable to aid the students in learning the material (Ball et al., 2008;Ghazi et al., 2013). ...
Article
Full-text available
This study aims to determine the effect of microteaching guided by an expert secondary English teacher on pre-service English teachers PCK, focusing on the changes before and after expert-guided microteaching. The equivalent time-series design involves a single-group, repeatedly assessed, with the treatment introduced between the measurements. Expert-guided microteaching significantly affects pre-service English teachers’ PCK and triggers them to know what to teach and how to teach for students.
... Some of the researchers used qualitative methods when assessing teachers' PCK (Turnuklu & Yesildere, 2007;Ma'rufi et al., 2018). At the same time, others used quantitative approaches (Aksu, Metin, & Konyalioglu, 2014;Lim & Guerra, 2015). Some even used mixed methods to assess mathematics teachers PCK (Martinovic & Manizade, 2017). ...
... Researchers used various instruments of quantitative and qualitative methods to assess the teachers' quality of mathematics teachers based on PCK. Regarding the quantitative instruments, PCK scales were developed by some researchers, which can be accessed (Aksu et al., 2014;Yıldırım & Topalcengiz, 2019). Also, other researchers used qualitative research design in their study of examining mathematics teachers PCK. ...
... The first section presents demographic information about the teachers' age, gender, level of education, year of experience, and several times the teacher attended in-service training. The second section occupied the Likert-scales from 1 to 5 in the rank ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree, respectively adapted from (Aksu et al. 2014), and it is in a self-assessment form. The items of this Likertscale were divided into three parts based on the components of PCK. ...
... The scope validity and appearance validity of the scale prepared in the study were tried to be provided in accordance with the expert opinions. In the studies conducted for the development of the scale, it is seen that expert opinions are used to ensure the validity of the content and appearance of the scale (Aksu et al., 2014;Buldur and Alisinanoğlu 2020;Maier et al., 2013;Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013;Tschannen-Moran and Hoy 2001). ...
Article
Full-text available
The study was carried out in order to develop a valid and reliable scale aimed at determining the self-efficacy of preschool teachers regarding science teaching. In the study, survey method was used within the scope of quantitative research approach. The sample of the study consists of 612 teachers who are actively working in preschool institutions in the 2020-2021 academic year. In the study, a self-efficiency scale consisting of 52 items was used as a data collection tool. In order to ensure the validity of the scale, the content, face and structure validity were examined. Expert opinions were obtained for the content and face validity, and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were applied for the structure validity. As a result of expert opinions and exploratory factor analysis, four items were excluded from the scale and the scale consisting of two factors was confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis. As a result of confirmatory factor analysis, RMSEA value was found to be 0.058, GFI value was found to be 087, CFI value was found to be 0.91 and IFI value was found to be 0.91. In order to determine the reliability of the scale, Cronbach Alpha coefficient was calculated. As a result of the reliability analysis, the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was calculated as 0.97. As a result of the study, a valid and reliable 48-item scale consisting of a two-factor structure was developed to determine the self-efficacy of preschool teachers regarding science teaching.
... Hence, Civic Education teachers should endeavour to assimilate the subject knowledge to avoid delivery challenges which may result into classroom distracters emanating from learners. The fact that some teachers do not have enough content knowledge may hinder students to learn the subject well (Aksu et al., 2014). But teachers who are conversant with the subject matter knowledge help learners to learn well than when the subject content knowledge is poor (Kind & Chan, 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
Abstract: The main objective of this paper is to explore how Civic Education acts as a catalyst to learner transformation. The paper is structured in categories such as pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) model, and Civic Education pedagogical content knowledge (CEPCK) model among others. The author contends that in order for effective teaching and learner transformation to occur, teachers of Civic Education at both junior secondary school and senior secondary school should be knowledgeable with the learning outcomes which are specified in the school syllabi. In addition, Civic Education teachers should be equipped with relevant knowledge domains as outlined in the developed Civic Education pedagogical content knowledge model. Therefore, the developed Civic Education pedagogical content knowledge model may help different teaching/learning institutions in Zambia and beyond because it is a tool which can be used by administrators in various teaching and learning institutions to evaluate the competence levels of members of staff. In addition, the model may help teachers of Civic Education to deliver the subject effectively and impart learners with integrated knowledge, skills, values, dispositions and attitudes which may enable them not only to actively participate in community activities but also to be creative, live in harmony with others and be able to understand the contemporary society in which they live. It is therefore recommended that teachers of Civic Education in schools across the country should possess a variety of teacher knowledge as outlined in the developed Civic Education pedagogical content knowledge model (CEPCK) model in order to enhance not only effective delivery but also academic performance and learner transformation. In addition, the Ministry of General Education (MoGE), parents, teachers, administrators and other stakeholders should collaborate and come up with other strategies which can be used to enhance subject delivery and learners transformation. Also, universities, colleges of education and other various teacher training institutions in Zambia should adopt and include the developed Civic Education pedagogical content knowledge model in their curricular in order to equip Civic Education trainee teachers with knowledge domains as outlined in the developed model. Lastly, the researcher also recommends that the Ministry of General Education, the Curriculum Development Centre (CDC), Provincial Education Officers (PEOs) and District Education Board Secretaries (DEBS) and school administrators should ensure that schools adopt the use of the developed Civic Education pedagogical content knowledge model as well as encouraging them to incorporate it during their Continuous Professional Development (CPD) activities.
... Nitekim dönüştürücü yaklaşımı benimseyen araştırmacıların deneyimli öğretmen gruplarını örneklemlerine dahil ettikleri görülmektedir (Lee ve Luft, 2008;Üner, 2016). Buna paralel olarak ise öğretmen adayları ile yapılan çalışmalarda bütünleyici yaklaşımın olduğu alanyazına yansımaktadır (Aksu, Metin ve Konyalıoğlu, 2014;Driel, Jong ve Verloop, 2002). Ancak araştırma katılımcılarının bilgi, beceri ve deneyim düzeylerindeki farklılığa göre bakış açıları çeşitlenebilmektedir. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
The aim of this study is to propose and test a model including the factors influencing the science teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Using exploratory sequential mixed design, this study consists of three phases. In the first phase, interviews were undertaken with 12 science teachers and 7 educational technology experts using qualitative research method. As a result of the content analysis of the interviews, common contextual factors influencing the science teachers’ TPACK were determined. These factors were student influence, teachers' beliefs and attitudes, technological infrastructure, administrative support, technical support, colleague interaction, lack of time, professional development, and educational technology experience. In the second phase of the research, a hypothesis model was developed. In this context, the relationships between common contextual factors revealed in the qualitative phase were analyzed and a literature review was conducted. In the third phase of the study, a scale was developed to measure common contextual factors determined based on qualitative research findings. In this regard, an item pool was generated, cognitive interviews were conducted and expert opinions were received. For the pilot implementation, Explanatory Factor Analysis was performed based on the data obtained from 152 science teachers. As a result, Contextual Factors Scale, which provides valid and reliable results, consisting of 7 dimensions and 37 item was developed. Furthermore, the hypothesis model was updated according to factor structure gained from exploratoty factor analysis results. Finally, data were collected from 348 science teachers working in private or public schools through the Contextual Factors Scale and Personal Information Form developed within the scope of the study along with the TPACK-Practical Scale. The hypothesis model was tested by path analysis method. As a result, direct, indirect and total effects of common contextual factors in the model were calculated. According to the results of the analysis, the variance explained regarding TPACK was 45% and the professional development factor was found to have the most influence on the TPACK of science teachers. Furthermore, the current study showed that the other factors that mostly influence teachers’ TPACK included teachers' beliefs and attitudes, administrative support, student influence, technological infrastructure and support, colleague interaction, educational technology experience and lack of time. Therefore, it can be suggested that TPACK was influenced by many factors and the relationships between factors were complex. The results of the study offer a model that provides guidance to both school principals and teachers to improve technology integration process in schools. In addition, the model can help decision-makers to determine teacher training strategies based on the influence of contextual factors on teachers' TPACK. Finally, some suggestions for practitioners and researchers were put forward based on the results of the study. Bu çalışmanın amacı, fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisini (TPAB) etkileyen faktörlere yönelik bir model önerisi sunmak ve bu modeli test etmektir. Keşfedici sıralı karma desen kullanılan bu araştırma üç aşamadan oluşmaktadır. İlk aşamada nitel araştırma yöntemi kullanılarak 12 fen bilgisi öğretmeni ve 7 eğitim teknolojileri uzmanı ile görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Görüşmelerin içerik analizi sonucunda fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin TPAB’larını etkileyen yaygın bağlamsal faktörler tespit edilmiştir. Bu faktörler öğrenci etkisi, öğretmenlerin inanç ve tutumları, teknolojik altyapı, yönetim desteği, teknik destek, meslektaş etkileşimi, zaman eksikliği, mesleki gelişim ve eğitim teknolojileri deneyimidir. Araştırmanın ikinci aşamasında hipotez model geliştirilmiştir. Bu kapsamda nitel aşamada elde edilen yaygın bağlamsal faktörler arası ilişkiler analiz edilmiş ve alanyazın taraması yapılmıştır. Çalışmanın üçüncü aşamasında, nitel araştırma bulgularına dayalı olarak belirlenen yaygın bağlamsal faktörleri ortaya koymak için bir ölçek geliştirilmiştir. Bu doğrultuda madde havuzu oluşturulmuş, bilişsel görüşmeler yapılmış ve uzman görüşleri alınmıştır. Pilot uygulama için 152 fen bilgisi öğretmeninden elde edilen verilerle Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak 7 boyut ve 37 maddeden oluşan geçerli ve güvenilir sonuçlar veren Bağlamsal Faktörler Ölçeği geliştirilmiştir. Bu aşamada ayrıca açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonuçlarına göre ortaya çıkan faktör yapısına dayalı olarak hipotez model güncellenmiştir. Son olarak TPAB-Uygulama Ölçeği ile birlikte araştırma kapsamında geliştirilen Bağlamsal Faktörler Ölçeği ve Kişisel Bilgi Formu aracılığıyla özel okul veya devlet okulunda görev alan 348 fen bilgisi öğretmeninden veriler toplanmıştır. Hipotez model, yol analizi yöntemiyle test edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak yaygın bağlamsal faktörlerin modeldeki doğrudan, dolaylı ve toplam etkileri hesaplanmıştır. TPAB’a ilişkin açıklanan varyans %45 olarak bulunmuş olup analiz sonuçlarına göre fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin TPAB’ı üzerinde en çok mesleki gelişim faktörünün etkili olduğu görülmektedir. Ardından öğretmenlerin TPAB’ını en çok etkileyen faktörlerin sırasıyla öğretmenlerin inanç ve tutumları, yönetim desteği, öğrenci etkisi, teknolojik altyapı ve destek, meslektaş etkileşimi, eğitim teknolojileri deneyimi ve zaman eksikliği olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Dolayısıyla TPAB’ın çok sayıda faktörden etkilendiği ve faktörler arası ilişkilerin karmaşık olduğu söylenebilir. Araştırma sonuçları, okullardaki teknoloji entegrasyon süreçlerinin iyileştirilmesi için hem okul müdürlerine hem de öğretmenlere rehberlik sağlayacak bir model sunmaktadır. Ayrıca model, karar vericilere bağlamsal faktörlerin öğretmenlerin TPAB'ı üzerindeki etkisine dayalı olarak öğretmen yetiştirme stratejilerini belirlemede yardımcı olabilir. Son olarak çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre araştırmacılara ve uygulayıcılara yönelik öneriler sunulmuştur.
... Data collection tools that measure student perceptions of their teachers' PCK can be used both to support the findings of observing from teachers' lessons or interviews with teachers and to provide a better understanding of PCK (Henze and van Driel 2015). There is a literature that determines prospective teachers' views about their own PCK (Aksu, Metin, and Konyalioglu 2014;Bukova-Guzel et al. 2013) and scholars' PCK or SMK (Jang, Guan, and Hsieh 2009). Tuan et al. (2000) conducted a study to develop an instrument for assessing secondary students' perceptions of teachers' knowledge and found that the instrument had satisfactory validity and reliability measures. ...
Article
Students’ perceptions are one of the sources that can be used to capture teachers’ PCK. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a scale to determine secondary students’ perceptions of their teachers’ PCK. Validity and reliability studies were conducted with 659 students. Both exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were done. The scale named secondary school students’ perceptions of their teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (SPTPCK) scale has two parts. The first part includes four factors containing perceptions about knowledge of students, knowledge of curriculum, knowledge of instructional strategies, and knowledge of assessment. These factors explain 59.340% of the total variance. The second part includes four factors containing perceptions about student-centered, academic rigor, examinationcentered and didactic orientations. These factors explain 63.059% of the total variance. The analyses show that the scale is statistically valid and reliable and can be used for examining students’ perceptions of their teachers’ PCK.
... To be a good teacher, one must have pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Shulman, 1986). Examination of the literature in this area reveals that scientists working in this field often cite Shulman's work when explaining the types of knowledge that teachers should possess (Aksu, Metin & Konyalıoğlu, 2014;Harr, Eichler, & Renkl, 2014;Park & Oliver, 2008;Veal & MaKinster, 1999). ...
Article
Full-text available
This study was conducted to find out the perceptions of Science and Mathematics trainee teachers on STEM Facilitator Training Program (SFTP) and to examine the impacts of SFTP on their personal growth as future teachers. The study employed a mixed-method design in which the data of the study were gathered through a short survey and group interview. The number of samples used for each method was dissimilar. 125 samples were selected by using stratified random sampling to answer the survey. The reliability of instruments used was determined by Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.944 > 0.6. indicating that the items used are highly reliable. Additionally, the researchers selected 6 pre-service teachers (3 respondents represented Science and Mathematics programmes respectively) to be involved in a semi-structured group interview. The study noted that they had high positive perception towards the programme. The design training programmes were suitable for the pre-service teachers as there is no significant difference in the respondents' perceptions. Irrespective of the semesters, the results specify that there is no difference in terms of their perception after participating in the programme. The pre-service teachers joined the program as most of them saw SFTP as a good platform to expand their ability as future teachers and to have a real experience dealing with school students. The study also reported that there were several skills and knowledge that the respondents gained throughout their involvement in SFTP. It is clear that SFTP has impacted the personal growth of the respondents as future teachers as they claimed to be more confident in delivering Science and Mathematics content, were able to speak with more control and order, found that their instruction had improved and knew the important aspects needed to give an effective delivery in class. Overall, they believed SFTP had helped them improve their skills as future Science and Mathematics teachers.
Thesis
Full-text available
Veal, et al., (1998: 3) suggest that ‘What has remained unclear with respect to the standard documents and teacher education is the process by which a prospective or novice science teacher develops the ability to transform knowledge of science content into a teachable form’. The aim of this research was to increase our understanding of this development since it focuses on the process of secondary science students’ knowledge base including subject matter knowledge (SMK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) development in England and Wales to meet the standards specified by the science ITT curriculum. This study reveals the nature of the problems encountered by students and any persistent problems experienced by newly qualified teachers (NQTs) in the aspects of their knowledge base development, during their training year and their first year of teaching, respectively. Strategies and sources which contribute to students’ knowledge base development are identified together with the roles of students and PGCE courses in this development. The inquiry process that guided this study is predominantly qualitative, but also quantitative in nature. Three groups participated to this study: the University of Nottingham PGCE secondary science students, their science tutors and secondary science NQTs who qualified from a range of universities and who were working in schools around Nottingham. Sixteen students, eleven NQTs and five science tutors were interviewed and thirty-five students also participated in this research by completing a questionnaire including both likert-scale and open-ended items. The results indicate a number of important issues, including; that the process of becoming a secondary science teacher and the development of SMK and PCK is not a linear process but a very complex process. Wide-range problems were encountered not only by the students but also by the NQTs. The problems were not exclusively in their non-specialist subject areas, they also encountered difficulties in their specialist subject areas. A number of reasons were identified for students’ and NQTs’ difficulties. Crucially, this research revealed that the majority of students and NQTs were unaware of their own weaknesses in many aspects of PCK including identifying and overcoming pupils’ misconceptions and, identifying and using appropriate models. Students and NQTs did not acknowledge and appreciate the support given by their Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). In addition, they were unclear of their own role in the PGCE course and in their professional knowledge base development. The findings also identified factors influencing or preventing effective knowledge base development.
Book
Examines the psychological processes involved in answering different types of survey questions. The book proposes a theory about how respondents answer questions in surveys, reviews the relevant psychological and survey literatures, and traces out the implications of the theories and findings for survey practice. Individual chapters cover the comprehension of questions, recall of autobiographical memories, event dating, questions about behavioral frequency, retrieval and judgment for attitude questions, the translation of judgments into responses, special processes relevant to the questions about sensitive topics, and models of data collection. The text is intended for: (1) social psychologists, political scientists, and others who study public opinion or who use data from public opinion surveys; (2) cognitive psychologists and other researchers who are interested in everyday memory and judgment processes; and (3) survey researchers, methodologists, and statisticians who are involved in designing and carrying out surveys. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Describes pedagogical content knowing (PCKg) based on a constructivist view of teaching and learning, emphasizing knowing and understanding as active processes. PCKg requires teachers to understand students' learning and the environmental context in which teaching and learning occur. The paper applies the model of PCKg to teacher education curriculum. (SM)
Article
This study investigated 40 first-grade teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of children's solutions of addition and subtraction word problems. Most teachers could identify many of the critical distinctions between problems and the primary strategies that children used to solve different kinds of problems. But this knowledge generally was not organized into a coherent network that related distinctions between problems, children's solutions, and problem difficulty. The teachers' knowledge of whether their own students could solve different problems was significantly correlated with student achievement.