Content uploaded by Alper Durukan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alper Durukan on Sep 02, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
INVESTIGATING THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE TPACK AND
CREATIVITY OF PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS
This study examined the relationship between pre-service science teacher knowledge, as represented by the
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, and teacher creativity. This design-
based predictive correlational research included self-rated and objective measurements of TPACK and
Creativity. The results indicated a weak positive correlation between self-rated TPACK competencies and
self-assessed creativity levels. However, no significant relationship was found between self-rated TPACK
and objective measures of Creativity or between self-assessed Creativity and assessments for enacted
TPACK. The assessed Creativity partially infers the sophistication of enacted TPACK and Creativity in
instructional designs and practices. The study highlighted the need for further research on the relationship
between TPACK and Creativity in pre-service science teacher training.
Keywords: Science teacher knowledge, TPACK, Creativity
INTRODUCTION & THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Science teacher knowledge is a critical factor in improving science education. Additionally, teacher
knowledge is a useful lens to design and enrich pre-service science teacher (PST) training. Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (PCK) construct was coined by Shulman (1986) to understand the types of knowledge
employed for effective science teaching that supports students’ understanding the science concepts. PCK
proposes the interplay of content, pedagogy, and contextual knowledge (Magnusson et al., 1999; Shulman,
1986). With the widespread use of technology both in daily life and teaching, Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK) was derived based on PCK by including technology and its integration into
teaching (Koehler et al., 2013). The TPACK framework had a substantial impact, and in the contemporary
literature, we can see inquiries on the combined effects of TPACK and Creativity for technology integration
(Sangka et al., 2022). However, the sole relationship between TPACK and teacher creativity warrants
further attention (Henriksen et al., 2018), particularly for science teachers. In the context of teacher training,
we can define creativity as a profession-laden construct consisting of multiple skills, including sensitivity to
issues, fluency, flexibility, and originality in ideas, and being able to elaborate and redefine the constructs in
teaching practices (Torrance, 1977). To provide a transformative experience of learning science for students,
the teacher's creativity is a prerequisite (Hadzigeorgiou et al., 2012). Given the limited studies investigating
the interplay between TPACK and PST creativity through multiple assessment techniques (Schmid et al.,
2021), this study aimed to address the gap. Hence, this study investigates the interplay between PSTs’ self-
rated and measured domain-specific TPACK and self-rated and measured Creativity. The research questions
directing the study are:
1. Do creativity levels of PSTs align with the Creativity of designed digital instructional materials
within the lens of TPACK?
2. Do creativity levels of PSTs infer the sophistication of technology integration in planned and enacted
learning experience designs within the lens of TPACK?
METHODS & CONTEXT
We conducted this study with 29 junior PSTs in a medium-sized state university in Turkey in 2022. The
participants were 7 males and 22 females. The data instruments utilized are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. The details of the instruments used to collect data
Self-Rated Data Instruments
Measured Data Instruments
How Creative Are You? (HCAY) 5 Point Likert-Type Scale
Divergent Association Task (DAT) (Olson et al., 2021) as an
(Gülel, 2006) for self-assessment of personal creativity (α=
.77)
objective measurement of general Creativity
ICT-TPACK-Science 5 Point Likert-type scale (Kadıoğlu-
Akbulut et al., 2020) for self-assessment of domain-specific
TPACK (α= .92)
Novel, Effective, Whole (NEW) rubric (Henriksen et al., 2015)
for assessment of the Creativity of designed instructional
materials within the TPACK context (κ= .80)
Technology Integration Assessment Rubric (TIAR) (Harris et
al., 2010) for TPACK-orientated evaluation of lesson plan
design in terms of the quality of ICT integration (κ = .79)
Technology Integration Observation Instrument (TIOI) (Hofer
et al., 2011) for TPACK-orientated evaluation of enacted micro-
teaching practices in terms of the quality of ICT integration (κ=
.81)
During the semester, participants took a 13-week long course for designing digital instructional materials in
various mediums and formats for curriculum objectives that they had selected. The training phase took place
in a computer lab by arranging a computer and broadband internet connection for each participant. We
provided hands-on instruction and constant guidance for various educational technology mediums, including
creating digital materials for concept teaching, animations, simulations, augmented and virtual reality
experiences, and designing extended reality-compatible synchronized digital learning environments from
scratch. Before the training, we administered HCAY, ICT-TPACK-Science, and DAT instruments. After the
8-week training phase, the design phase began in which PSTs designed digital instructional materials and
learning experience designs and then implemented these within a micro-teaching practice. During the design
phase, we assessed their products and practices using NEW, TIAR, and TIOI. Although adhering to the
educational design research perspective with a mixed-methods design, we structured the study through
prediction correlational research design (Fraenkel et al., 2012) as handling of the qualitative data is still in
progress.
FINDINGS
Regarding the 1st RQ, as the assumptions are met, we computed a Pearson’s correlation coefficient to
investigate the linear relationship between the participants’ ICT-TPACK-Science, HCAY, and DAT scores.
There is a weak and positive linear relationship between the ICT-TPACK-Science and Creativity r(27) =
.27, p = .02. However, the correlation between DAT and ICT-TPACK-Science was insignificant r(27) = -
.13, p = .84. Regarding the 2nd RQ, we calculated Pearson’s correlation and Spearman’s rho coefficients
because the assumptions are only met for specific pairs to investigate the linear relationship between the
participants’ HCAY, DAT, NEW, TIAR, and TIOI scores. There is no significant relationship between
HCAY and NEW, TIAR, and TIOI, respectively. Contrasting, a weak and positive linear relationship
between DAT and NEW scores r(27) = .35, p = .03, as well as a moderate positive linear relationship
between DAT and TIOI scores r(27) = .45, p = .01 found. As the research is still in progress, we will have
further results (i.e., from qualitative parts) to report at the ESERA conference.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The results for 1st RQ revealed a subtle positive relationship between self-rated Creativity and TPACK for
PSTs and, in contrast, no significant relationship between measured DAT scores and self-rated TPACK.
Concerning the 2nd RQ, on the other hand, regarding the productions and practices, the measured Creativity
appears to subtly infer the Creativity of designed instructional materials and moderately infer the
sophistication of technology integration in teaching practices rather than for the planned teaching. Although
the literature proposes an interplay between TPACK and Creativity (Mishra, 2012; Sangka et al., 2022), our
findings suggest that this interaction warrants further investigation concerning the nature of the assessment
of these two constructs (i.e. self-assessed vs measured by researchers). For instance, our findings imply a
weak and positive linear relationship between self-ratings of TPACK and Creativity, and between measured
TPACK and Creativity. Therefore, individuals with relatively naïve TPACK and Creativity in their
instructional designs and practices may not be wholly aware of their actual TPACK and Creativity at the
beginning. In contrast, individuals expressing relatively developed TPACK and Creativity in their
instructional designs and practices may be too aware of their weaknesses in these two domains for their
good.
As the quality of ICT integration demands a substantial TPACK background and a creative quantity to enact
that TPACK knowledge (Sangka et al., 2022), it is unsurprising that the PSTs scored higher on DAT also
tend to integrate ICT better in their teaching practices, rather than in their plans. The weak and moderate
relationships imply that external factors may be in play to mediate the interplay between TPACK and
Creativity. For instance, although we assessed TPACK in the context of science instruction, our assessments
for Creativity were relatively non-specific to science instruction and training of PSTs. The implications
suggest that the assessment of a teacher’s Creativity shall also be bound to the specific context of the
discipline (Mishra, 2012) and demands qualitative inquiries as we plan to do so.
REFERENCES
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). Correlational research. In How to Design and Evaluate
Research in Education (8th ed., pp. 330-364). McGraw-Hill.
Gülel, G. (2006). Elementary school teacher candidates' creativity levels towards different variables (Publication
Number 214874) [Unpublished Master's thesis, Pamukkale University]. Denizli, Turkey.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., Fokialis, P., & Kabouropoulou, M. (2012). Thinking about creativity in science education.
Creative Education, 3(5), 603-611. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.35089
Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric.
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference,
Henriksen, D., Henderson, M., Creely, E., Ceretkova, S., Černochová, M., Sendova, E., Sointu, E. T., & Tienken, C.
H. (2018). Creativity and technology in education: An international perspective. Technology, Knowledge and
Learning, 23(3), 409-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9380-1
Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2015). Novel, Effective, Whole: Toward a NEW framework for evaluations
of creative products. The Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23, 455-478.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1071579
Hofer, M., Grandgenett, N., Harris, J., & Swan, K. (2011). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration
observation instrument. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference,
Kadıoğlu-Akbulut, C., Çetin-Dindar, A., Küçük, S., & Acar-Şeşen, B. (2020). Development and validation of the ICT-
TPACK-Science scale. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(3), 355-368.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09821-z
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?
Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge
for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (Vol. 6, pp. 95‐132). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_4
Mishra, P. (2012). Rethinking technology & creativity in the 21st century: Crayons are the future. TechTrends, 56(5),
13-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-0594-0
Olson, J. A., Nahas, J., Chmoulevitch, D., Cropper, S. J., & Webb, M. E. (2021). Naming unrelated words predicts
creativity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(25), 6.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022340118
Sangka, K. B., Indriayu, M., Mackenzie, C., & Santika, V. (2022). TPACK towards ICT integration: Does creativity
have a moderating effect? International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 6(2), 104-115.
https://doi.org/10.20961/ijpte.v6i2.66748
Schmid, M., Brianza, E., & Petko, D. (2021). Self-reported technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of
pre-service teachers in relation to digital technology use in lesson plans. Computers in Human Behavior, 115,
12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106586
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Torrance, E. P. (1977). Creativity in the classroom; what research says to the teacher.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED132593
