Tpack Chapters 2

QUIRINO STATE UNIVERSITY
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Diffun, 3401 Quirino
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
.... promoting pedagogical excellence
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
In this 21st century, where technology permeates every aspect of our lives,
especially in education. The use of technology in teaching and learning cannot be
separated. Technology and Livelihood Education (TLE) teachers hold a pivotal role in
equipping students with the skills and knowledge required for success in the modern
workforce. The focus of curriculum and learning management in the twenty-first
century was on increasing students' capacity to integrate their knowledge, abilities,
attitudes, and characteristics into their performance (Allen et al., 2020; Prachagool &
Nuangchalerm, 2021).
Teacher education has placed significant emphasis on expanding teachers'
knowledge bases to improve both instruction and student learning. This emphasis is
particularly crucial due to the need for teachers to adapt to substantial changes
brought about by technology. Corkett and Benevides (2015) argue that despite these
challenges, the use of technology offers expanded teaching and learning opportunities
for both students and educators. The integration of technology into education is
encapsulated by the term Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge
(TPACK).
TPACK comprises three essential components: Pedagogical Knowledge (PK),
which centers on teachers' ability to apply specific teaching strategies to enhance

VISION MISSION
The leading center for academic and technological excellence Develop competent and morally upright professionals and generate
and prime catalyst for a progressive and sustainable Quirino appropriate knowledge and technologies to meet the needs of Quirino
Province and Southern Cagayan Valley. Province and Southern Cagayan Valley.
“Molding Minds, Shaping Future”

1
DIFFUN CAMPUS
student learning; Content Knowledge (CK), representing teachers' understanding of
the subject matter to be taught or learned; and Technological Knowledge (TK),
involving the incorporation of technology by teachers to support students in their
learning process.
The TPACK framework educates educators on how to create lessons that are
appropriate for their classroom environments (Gold & Holodynski, 2016;
Nuangchalerm, 2020). However, teachers’ development is the best way to improve
the educational needs of the students in today’s generation. Prospective teachers must
also be taken into account for their development during training to effectively conduct
the teaching process, to accomplish this, prospective teachers must possess TPACK,
to be prepared to meet today's educational needs at the proper level (Putri et al.,
2020). Besides, the student-teacher perspective towards Technological Pedagogical
and Content Knowledge (TPACK) plays an important role in the teaching and
learning process. According to the Britannica dictionary, perspective is a way of
thinking about and understanding something, the ability to understand how things
relate to one another or differ in importance. Prospective teachers need to adapt some
alternative teaching techniques, classroom management techniques, and student
evaluation techniques; aspiring teachers need to have a greater understanding of the
disciplines they teach and developmental theories of learning and how they apply to
students in the classroom. Aside from technological advancements, educators are also
coming up with creative applications for new technologies so that they can deliver
instruction effectively and follow students' needs. According to Rahmadi (2019),
educators need to be familiar with both modern and traditional methods to enhance
VISION MISSION

2
DIFFUN CAMPUS
learning quality in the twenty-first century. Because technology innovations have the
potential to completely change how we in the future to prepare new teachers
(Saiyachit, 2022).
Student-teacher perspectives towards the TPACK framework are essential
components of instruction for their development. The term "teacher development"
describes the ongoing enhancement of instructors' abilities and knowledge (Suebsing
& Nuangchalerm, 2021). There are many studies conducted about TPACK, however,
this study will examine prior research and literature to support the significance of the
TPACK perspective for BTLED prospective teachers. The insights of prominent
theorists Mishra and Koehler (2006) will be utilized to strengthen the statements made
in this introduction.
Objectives of the study
The study will be conducted to determine the technological, pedagogical, and
content knowledge of TLE Pre-service Teachers.
1. Determine the profile of the respondents according to:
 Sex
 Year level
2. Determine the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge of the
respondents.
3. Evaluate significant differences in the technological, pedagogical, and content
knowledge of the respondents when they are grouped by profile.

VISION MISSION

3
DIFFUN CAMPUS
4. Propose a developmental plan to enhance technological skills and knowledge
of pre-service teachers.
Hypothesis of the study
There is no significant difference on the Pre-service BTLED teachers’
perspectives in TPACK when grouped according to profile.
Significance of the Study
The following entities will benefit from this study teachers, students, schools,
and future researchers.
Students: They will benefit from this research by developing their
technological literacy skills and it can increase collaboration and communication
between students and teachers. Also, it helps them in technology advancement and to
broaden their understanding.
Pre-service Teachers: This study will provide pre-service teachers a chance
to develop professional development and strengthen their abilities. It also assists them
in learning new methods and innovative techniques for incorporating technology into
the classroom.
School: This study will be beneficial for the school to identify and meet the
needs of students and teachers in implementing technology in the classroom.
VISION MISSION

4
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Future researcher: This study will benefit future researchers; they can use it
as a starting point for their study and as a guide.
Scope and Delimitation
This study involved the BTLED student of Quirino State University for the
S.Y. 2023-2024. It mainly focused on determining the technological, pedagogical, and
content knowledge perspective of BTLED Pre-service Teachers’. The study will be
conducted at Quirino State University, Diffun, Quirino from September to December
2023.
Conceptual Framework
This research presented a paradigm of input, process, and output. The Pre-
service teachers of the BTLED department respondents will be given a questionnaire
to determine their perspective on TPACK and their differences when grouped
according to profile.
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
 Pre-Service teachers  Assessment on  Developmental

of BTLED at the perspective plan to enhance
Quirino State of Pre-service technological
University TLE Teachers skills and
 Pre-service BTLED in TPACK knowledge of
teachers’ perspective pre-service
in TPACK teachers.
VISION MISSION

5
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Figure 1. The conceptual framework of the study shows the

relationship between variables
Definition of Terms
For further understanding, the researchers have listed the following terms for
you to understand the statement on the previous page. These are:
Technology: Is constantly evolving, with new advancements and innovations
emerging all the time. It can be used to solve problems, improve efficiency, and
enhance productivity.
Pedagogy: This refers to the science or the art of teaching. It is the study of the
principles and methods of instruction, including the theories of teaching and learning.
Technological Knowledge (TK): This refers to the understanding of different
technologies, tools, and resources that can be used in the teaching and learning
process. It includes knowledge of how to operate and utilize various technological
devices and software effectively.
Pedagogical Knowledge (PK): This refers to the knowledge and understanding of
teaching methods, strategies, and approaches. It includes knowledge of instructional
design, classroom management, assessment techniques, and the ability to create
engaging and effective learning experiences.
VISION MISSION

6
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Content Knowledge (CK): This refers to the deep understanding of the subject
matter or content area being taught, such as specific topics within TLE (e.g.,
Information and Communication Technology, Home Economics, Industrial Arts,
Agri-Fishery Arts). It includes knowledge of the key concepts, principles, theories,
and best practices in the subject area.
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): This refers to the
integration and interaction of technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and
content knowledge. It involves understanding how technology, pedagogy, and content
intersect and influence each other to create meaningful and effective teaching and
learning experiences.
Perspective: This refers to a way of thinking about and understanding something;
viewing things from a different point of view in different areas of knowledge that
emerges from various situations, factors, and experiences.
Chapter II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
VISION MISSION

7
DIFFUN CAMPUS
This chapter shows a retrospective presentation of previously written material:
research literature that has relevance and significance to the research under
consideration.
This review is focused on the main three important topics of the study:
Technological knowledge (TK), Pedagogical knowledge (PK), and Content
knowledge (TK).
Technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK)
TPACK is a theory that describes sets of knowledge that a teacher requires to
integrate technology into their teaching. This theory fits in today’s modern generation
whereby technology is dominant, therefore, 21st century more focus is given to the
use of technology.
Moreover, technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK), (Mishra
& Koehler 2006) is the foundation of a technology augmented teaching strategy that
works. Whereas, in today’s generation children are growing up with technology, and
the current teacher must possess TPACK, to be prepared to meet today's educational
needs at the proper level (Putri et al., 2020).
TPACK framework was first introduced by Mishra and Koehler in 2006 in the
Teachers College Record under the title “Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge”. And now, it is the most widely
used model of teacher’s competency in the use of digital technology in education
VISION MISSION

8
DIFFUN CAMPUS
(Chai et al., 2013) because TPACK can provide the needs of student in terms of
knowledge and skills through this conceptual framework that is used to analyze
teachers' technological integration knowledge (Wang et al., 2018). TPACK is the
effective application of technology as a teaching tool. It entails utilizing technology-
enhanced teaching and learning methodologies to improve content delivery.
Learning for the 21st century is simply defined as learning that teaches students
the four Cs of the 21st century, which are: (1) Communication, (2) Collaboration, (3)
Critical Thinking and problem-solving, and (4) Creativity. A framework for
incorporating technology into learning that combines knowledge about pedagogy,
knowledge of content, and technology knowledge is referred to as 21st-century
learning that leads to the 4C (Juwandani et al., 2022; Kereluik et al., 2013; Santos &
Castro, 2021; Seufert et al., 2021).
The core components of TPACK are as follows: (1) Technological knowledge
(TK), knowledge of technology tools; (2) Pedagogical knowledge (PK), knowledge of
teaching methods; (3) Content knowledge (CK), knowledge of the subject matter
content categories in the classroom. Technological, pedagogical, and content
knowledge (TPACK) knowledge of using technology to implement teaching methods
for different types of subject matter content (Mishra and Koehler, 2006).
Technological knowledge: Technological knowledge refers to the teacher’s
knowledge of what technology, software, or applications can be used in teaching-
learning, and also includes the ability to adapt and learn new technologies (Rosyid,
VISION MISSION

9
DIFFUN CAMPUS
2017). It also involves being aware of the most effective technologies that may be
applied to enhance teaching and learning.
The importance of adapting to technological changes in education cannot be
overstated. Educational institutions must integrate technology into their curricula to
ensure that students receive a high-quality education that prepares them for the future.
Educational curricula are becoming more focused on innovative and comprehensive
applications of technology. Because the advancement of science and technology in the
twenty-first century has altered the characteristics of learners, requiring
orientation and new methods of learning (Handini & Mustofa, 2022).
Educational institutions need to recognize the importance of equipping
teachers with the necessary hardware and training to effectively integrate technology
into their classrooms. Furthermore, it is essential to provide teachers with ongoing
support to build their confidence in using technology. Doing so can help to ensure that
teachers are better equipped to teach in a modern, digital world and can create a more
engaging and dynamic learning experience for students.
Pedagogical Knowledge (PK): Pedagogical knowledge (PK) corresponds with the
teacher’s ability to use specific teaching techniques to enhance student learning.
Sonmark et al., (2017) stated that pedagogical knowledge is defined as a teacher’s
specialized body of knowledge to create an effective teaching and learning
environment for all students. Shulman (1987) stated pedagogical knowledge as broad
principles and strategies for classroom management and organization that appear to
transcend subject matter, and, also in another study by Shulman (1987) the PK
VISION MISSION

10
DIFFUN CAMPUS
pertains to teachers' knowledge regarding techniques of teaching, procedures,
practices, tactics, and classroom management.
Moreover, the ability to teach effectively depends on how teachers perceive their
pedagogical knowledge (Choy et al., 2013).
Classroom management is one of the main factors in classrooms for learning, and
it is related to pedagogical knowledge. Second, planning is a vital component of
learning as it is the way to achieve lesson objectives, and it can sometimes be a
challenging task for teachers (Saad et al., 2014). Lesson planning includes writing
lesson plans and providing resources for students. Teachers must plan and create an
environment in the classroom that is conducive to learning (Choy et al., 2013).
Pedagogical knowledge (PK) pertains to teachers' comprehensive understanding
of the procedures and practices or strategies for instructing and teaching. Among
other things, they include the overall aims, values, and purposes of education. This
type of general knowledge includes the learning styles of the students, general
classroom management abilities, lesson preparation, and student evaluation. The types
of target audiences, techniques for evaluating student understanding, and methods or
techniques that are used in the classroom are all covered. A teacher with extensive
pedagogical knowledge knows how students build their knowledge and skills, and
they also learn how to form thought patterns and have positive attitudes toward
teaching. Determining how cognitive, social, and developmental theories of learning
relate to students in the classroom is thus a necessary component of pedagogical
knowledge (Adipat et al., 2023).
VISION MISSION

11
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Content Knowledge (CK): CK is defined as the knowledge possessed by teachers
about the subject matter that is intended to be taught. It represents subject knowledge
and its organization in the teachers’ minds (Shulman, 1986). The term "component of
content knowledge" refers to the idea that a teacher who has received training in a
particular subject must possess knowledge related to that subject matter to effectively
convey that information to their students in the classroom. In learning, underlines the
significance of not only possessing subject matter expertise but also understanding
how to successfully transmit such information to learners. Teachers must also
comprehend students' past knowledge and views, as well as how to employ
technology to supplement and reinforce current information. It also requires
knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can
help teachers to address some of the problems that students face; as well as
knowledge of students’ prior and epistemological beliefs and knowledge of how to
use technology to build on existing knowledge developing new epistemologies or to
strengthen previous epistemologies (Mishra and Koehler, 2006).
A teacher who possesses a well-developed framework of content knowledge is
better equipped to impart knowledge to their students in a flexible, dynamic, and
effective manner. This implies that even with minimal effort, such teachers can
deliver information to the maximum potential. Moreover, it implies that teachers with
a robust content knowledge framework are better equipped to adjust their teaching
style to suit their students' learning styles, making learning more accessible and
enjoyable.
VISION MISSION

12
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Additionally, Effective lesson planning involves several key steps, including
setting learning objectives, selecting appropriate resources and materials, and
designing activities and assessments that align with the objectives. Good lesson plans
are organized, focused, and easy to follow. They provide a clear structure for learning,
allowing students to understand what is expected of them and how they can achieve
success.
Effective lesson planning is an essential skill for teachers. By planning and
creating a positive learning environment, teachers can help students achieve their full
potential. They can provide the necessary resources and support to enable students to
learn effectively and engage with the subject matter (Choy et al., 2013).
Professional development for teachers improves the quality of presentations
and course assessments by familiarizing the teachers with alternative delivery
methods, reviews, and documentation. Effective presentations and assessments are
critical components of high-quality instruction. Instructors who are conversant with
alternate delivery techniques, such as employing technology or experiential learning,
can provide their students with more interesting and dynamic learning experiences.
Similarly, teachers who are aware of evaluation methodologies and documentation
can provide their students with more accurate and useful feedback, assisting them in
understanding their strengths and areas for progress (Koh et al., 2018).
To help teachers and students communicate actively, collaborate, express
ideas, find problems, determine alternative solutions to problems, and interact with
each other. This statement suggests the importance of fostering active communication
VISION MISSION

13
DIFFUN CAMPUS
and collaboration between teachers and students to facilitate effective learning. By
encouraging open expression of ideas, finding and addressing problems, and working
together to identify alternative solutions, both teachers and students can work towards
achieving their goals and achieving a deeper understanding of the material being
studied. To achieve this level of interaction and collaboration, it may be necessary to
utilize a variety of tools and strategies, such as online platforms, group discussions,
and active learning techniques. These approaches can help to create an environment
that is conducive to meaningful engagement and productive collaboration. Overall,
the emphasis on communication, collaboration, and interaction in this statement
reflects the importance of promoting student-centered learning and fostering a sense
of shared responsibility and ownership in the learning process. By empowering
students to take an active role in their education, teachers can help to cultivate a
culture of learning that is engaging, relevant, and effective (Dewi, 2022; Westbroek et
al., 2019).
In addition, it emphasizes the importance of teacher knowledge in promoting
effective teaching and student learning. By investing in the ongoing development and
refinement of their knowledge and skills, teachers can play a critical role in
supporting the academic success and lifelong learning of their students. It is broadly
accepted that teacher knowledge makes a significant contribution to effective teaching
and student learning (Blomeke et al., 2015).
VISION MISSION

14
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Chapter III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research design, research instrument, research
environment, data gathering procedure, and statistical tool to be used by the
researchers in seeking the problems identified in Chapter One.
Research design
This study is a quantitative research that uses a descriptive approach to get a
deeper understanding of the perspective of BTLED pre-service teachers on TPACK.
Other variables described in the study were the profile of the students in terms of their
age, and sex.
The method employed in the study followed the usual process of the survey
research. The process is as follows: preparation of the questionnaire; presenting of the
questionnaire; recording and tabulation, statistical computations, interpretation, and
recommendations.
Research Environment
The study was conducted at Quirino State University, Diffun Campus, and
will be carried out by the BTLED pre-service teachers of School Year 2022-2023.
Sample and Sampling Procedure
VISION MISSION

15
DIFFUN CAMPUS
A sample size of 126 is determined through the Raosoft sample size
calculator. It has a confidence of 95 and an error of 5. This number is further cascaded
at each year level through a stratified random sampling technique.
The samples are shown below.
Table 1. Profile of the respondents
Sex Sample Percent
Male 25 19.84
Female 101 80.16
Total 126 100
Table 2. The year level of the respondents
Year Level Total No. Sample Percent
First 70 48 38.10
Second 40 27 21.43
Third 44 30 23.81
Fourth 31 21 16.66
185 126 100
Table 1 shows the distribution of the respondent’s profile. The distribution
revealed that most of the respondents are female, which is 80.16 percent or 101 out of
126 respondents, while male comprised 25 or 19.84 percent of the respondents.
Moreover, as shown in table 1.2, most of the respondents are in first year level with
VISION MISSION

16
DIFFUN CAMPUS
the total number of 70 which comprising 48 respondents, while respondents who are
in fourth year level with the total number of 31 which consist of 21 respondents has
the least number.
Data Gathering Procedure
The researcher was coordinated with the department chairperson and the
faculty of the BTLED department of Quirino State University, Diffun Campus, and
will conduct the study upon approval.
The researcher personally administered the questionnaire to the respondents.
The researcher consolidated, analyzed, and interpreted the gathered data using
appropriate data analysis tools.
Research Instrument
The survey questionnaire was used as the main instrument for the researchers
to obtain data for the study, the survey questionnaire is composed of two parts, the
first one is gathering the respondents’ profiles such as sex and year level. The second
is designed to assess if there is a significance between technological, pedagogical, and
content knowledge perceived by BTLED pre-service teachers.
Statistical Tools Used
The following statistical tools was used to analyze the results of the study:
1. Frequency counts and percentages was used to describe the respondents’
profile.
VISION MISSION

17
DIFFUN CAMPUS
2. Mean was used to describe the frequency of the respondents on the survey
questionnaires.
3. A t-Test was used to describe the significance of the pre-service teacher
perspective on Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge
(TPACK).
4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the significant
difference of the BTLED pre-service teachers on TPACK.
Statistical Treatment of Data
A four-point Likert scale was used to determine the perceptions of the Pre-
service teachers on technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge which are as
follows:
Scale Range Description Rubrics

4 3.25 – 4.00 Strongly Agree Demonstrates a thorough
understanding of TPACK
in teaching and learning
context.
3 2.5 – 3.24 Agree Demonstrate a good
VISION MISSION

18
DIFFUN CAMPUS
context.
2 1.75 – 2.49 Disagree Demonstrate a limited
context.
1 1.00 – 1.74 Strongly Demonstrate no
Disagree understanding or
misinterpretation of
TPACK in teaching and
learning context.
Chapter IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the findings of the study in terms of the profile of the
respondents, the mean level of Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge
perspective of BTLEd Pre-service teachers, and the significant differences of the
BTLED pre-service teachers on TPACK when they are grouped by profile.
1.The Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge of Pre-service BTLEd

Students
VISION MISSION

19
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Table 2.
General Technological Knowledge of the BTLEd Pre-service Teachers
Technological Knowledge Mean Description
1 I am knowledgeable about the use of computers. 2.90 Agree
2 I am confident in my ability to integrate computers, 2.87 Agree

projectors, printers, and software programs into
different TLE subject areas.
3 I actively seek professional development opportunities 3.04 Agree

to enhance my technology integration skills in TLE.
4 I stay updated on the latest technological advancements 2.87 Agree
and trends (such as E-learning, Video-assisted learning

Asynchronous learning) relevant to TLE.
5 I am confident in my ability to teach students how to 3.00 Agree

effectively and responsibly use technology in TLE.
Grand Mean 2.94 Agree
Presented in Table 2 are the technological knowledge of the BTLEd pre-
service teachers. It shows that the general mean is 2.94 and is interpreted as agree.
Moreover, it shows that all of the indicators are rated with agree. This indicates that
the respondents' technological knowledge needs to be improved for them to be fully
knowledgeable. The overall "Agree" rating indicates that, in general, the respondents
have a positive view of their technological knowledge and skills in the context of TLE.
VISION MISSION

20
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Table 3.
General Pedagogical Knowledge of the BTLEd Pre-service Teachers
Pedagogical Knowledge Mean Description
1 I can adapt my teaching methods (direct and 3.01 Agree
indirect instruction, cooperative/interactive
learning, etc.) to meet the diverse learning needs
of TLE students.
2 I effectively use assessment strategies to evaluate 3.02 Agree
student learning in TLE.
3 I can integrate technology seamlessly into my 2.94 Agree
pedagogical practices (practice of teaching) in
TLE.
4 I collaborate with other educators to share and 3.17 Agree
learn best practices of teaching in TLE.
5 I frequently seek feedback from students to 2.98 Agree
improve my pedagogical practices (practice of
teaching) in TLE.
6 I am skilled in creating engaging and interactive 2.86 Agree
TLE lessons.
7 I am confident in managing student behavior and 2.89 Agree
creating a positive learning environment in TLE.
8 I actively participate in professional development 2.93 Agree
VISION MISSION

21
DIFFUN CAMPUS
activities focused on pedagogy in TLE.

9 I am skilled in adapting my teaching strategies to 2.99 Agree
cater to the unique needs of TLE students
Grand Mean 2.98 Agree
Table 3 shows the pedagogical knowledge of the BTLEd pre-service teachers.
The overall mean score for all statements combined is 2.98, indicating that, on
average, the respondents agree with the statements. This suggests a generally positive
self-assessment of pedagogical knowledge and skills in the context of TLE among the
participants in the survey or self-assessment.
Table 4.
General Content Knowledge of the BTLEd Pre-service Teachers
Content Knowledge Mean Description
1 I am well knowledgeable about the TLE content areas. 2.83 Agree
2 I am up-to-date with the latest advancements and trends in the TLE 2.78 Agree
field.
3 I am capable of designing and developing a TLE curriculum that 2.89 Agree

matches the content standard.
4 I have a deep understanding of the connections between TLE content 2.87 Agree
and real-world applications.
5 I can differentiate instruction to meet the diverse learning needs of 2.87 Agree
TLE students in various content areas.
6 I can effectively assess student learning in different TLE content 2.84 Agree
areas.
7 I possess a broad range of instructional resources and materials 2.88 Agree

related to TLE content.
8 I actively seek opportunities to expand my content knowledge in TLE 3.10 Agree

through professional development.
9 I effectively integrate technology to enhance TLE content instruction. 3.03 Agree
10 I am confident in my ability to teach TLE content effectively. 2.99 Agree

VISION MISSION
The leading center for academic and technological Grand Mean
excellence 2.91 professionals
Develop competent and morally upright Agree and generate

22
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Presented in Table 4 is the content knowledge of the BTLEd pre-service
teachers. It shows that the general mean is 2.91 and is interpreted as agree.
Furthermore, it demonstrates that all of the indicators are evaluated as agree. This
suggests that the participants in the study had a generally good self-assessment of
their topic knowledge and skills in the context of TLE. In general, the respondents
have a positive view of their content knowledge and instructional abilities in TLE.
2. Comparative Analysis of the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge

of Pre-service BTLEd Students.
VISION MISSION

23
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Table 5.
Technological Knowledge of the BTLEd Pre-service Teachers when Grouped by Sex
Male Female t- p-value
value
Technological Knowledge
Mean DI Mean DI
1 I am knowledgeable about the use 2.92 A 2.89 A .197 .844

of computers.
2 I am confident in my ability to 2.76 A 2.90 A .802 .429
integrate computers, projectors,
printers, and software programs
into different TLE subject areas.
3 I actively seek professional 3.04 A 3.04 A .003 .998
development opportunities to
enhance my technology integration
skills in TLE.
4 I stay updated on the latest 3.00 A 2.83 A 1.185 .238
technological advancements and
trends (such as E-learning, Video-
assisted learning Asynchronous
learning) relevant to TLE.
5 I am confident in my ability to 3.04 A 2.99 A .306 .760
teach students how to effectively
and responsibly use technology in
TLE.
Grand Mean 2.95 A 2.93 A .200 .842
*Significant at .05 level; Similar letters within rows are comparable at .05 level
Table 5 presents the comparative analysis of the technological knowledge of
the respondents when they are grouped by sex. In general, it shows that both males
and females rated the parameter with agreement. Furthermore, the general mean
posted no significant results as indicated by the t-value (.200) and p-value (.842).
VISION MISSION

24
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Thus, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference in the
technological knowledge of the respondents is hereby accepted. This suggests that,
within the scope of our study, both male and female respondents demonstrate similar
levels of technological knowledge.
The results construe with the study of Akturk and Ozturk, (2019). It was
concluded in their papers that both male and female teachers can now easily utilize
technology instruments. As a result, no gender difference is expected when teachers
integrate and use technological tools in their lessons.
Table 6.
Technological Knowledge of the BTLEd Pre-service Teachers when Grouped by Year
Level
VISION MISSION

25
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Technological IA II B III C IV D F- p-
Knowledge Mean D Mean D Mean D Mean DI value value
I I I
1 I am knowledgeable 2.79 A 2.67 A 3.10 A 3.14 A 28.697 <.001*
about the use of AB BA CD DC
computers.
2 I am confident in my 2.88 A 2.56 A 3.00 A 3.10 A 3.696 .014*

ability to integrate AC B CAD DC
computers, projectors,
printers, and software
programs into
different TLE subject
areas.
3 I actively seek 2.85 A 2.85 A 3.20 A 3.48 S 7.242 <.001*
professional AB BA C D A
development
opportunities to
enhance my
technology integration
skills in TLE.
4 I stay updated on the 2.77 A 2.63 A 2.93 A 3.29 S 5.230 .002*

latest technological AB BA C D A
advancements and
trends (such as E-
learning, Video-
assisted learning
Asynchronous
learning) relevant to
TLE.
5 I am confident in my 2.90 A 2.70 A 3.20 A 3.33 S 4.385 .006*
ability to teach AB BA CD DC A
students how to
effectively and
responsibly use
technology in TLE.
Grand Mean 2.84 A 2.68 A 3.09 A 3.27 S 9.198 <.001*
A B C D A
Table 6 presents the comparative analysis of the technological knowledge of
the respondents when they are grouped by year level. It shows that the first, second,
and third years rated all the parameters with agree while the fourth year rated agree in
parameters number 1 and 2, and strongly agree in numbers 3 to 5. Furthermore, the
grand mean posted significant results as indicated by the F-value (9.198) and p-value
VISION MISSION

26
DIFFUN CAMPUS
(<.001). It can be noted that 1 and 3 have computed p-values lower than .005
significance level. This means that the result is significant which leads to the rejection
of the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference in the
technological knowledge of the respondents when they are grouped by year level.
Table 7.
Pedagogical Knowledge of the BTLEd Pre-service Teachers when Grouped by Sex
VISION MISSION

27
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Pedagogical Knowledge Male Female t- p-

value value
Mean D Mean D
I I
1 I can adapt my teaching methods (direct 3.08 A 2.99 A .719 .473

and indirect instruction, cooperative/
interactive learning, etc.) to meet the
diverse learning needs of TLE students.
2 I effectively use assessment strategies to 3.04 A 3.01 A .217 .829

evaluate student learning in TLE.
3 I can integrate technology seamlessly into 3.00 A 2.93 A .557 .579

my pedagogical practices (practice of
teaching) in TLE.
4 I collaborate with other educators to share 3.16 A 3.17 A .056 .956

and learn best practices of teaching in
TLE.
5 I frequently seek feedback from students 2.92 A 3.00 A .534 .595

to improve my pedagogical practices
(practice of teaching) in TLE.
6 I am skilled in creating engaging and 2.92 A 2.84 A .499 .618

interactive TLE lessons.
7 I am confident in managing student 2.84 A 2.90 A .391 .696

behavior and creating a positive learning
environment in TLE.
8 I actively participate in professional 2.88 A 2.94 A .410 .683

development activities focused on
pedagogy in TLE.
9 I am skilled in adapting my teaching 3.12 A 2.96 A 1.098 .274

strategies to cater to the unique needs of
TLE students.
Grand Mean 3.00 A 2.97 A .224 .823
Table 7 presents the comparative analysis of the pedagogical knowledge of the
respondents when they are grouped by sex. In general, it shows that both males and
females rated the parameter with agreement. Furthermore, the general mean posted
significant results as indicated by the t-value (.224) and p-value (.823). Thus, the null
VISION MISSION

28
DIFFUN CAMPUS
hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference in the pedagogical
knowledge of the respondents is hereby accepted. This suggests that, within the scope
of our study, both male and female respondents demonstrate similar levels of
pedagogical knowledge.
Table 8.
Pedagogical Knowledge IA II B III C IV D F- p-
Mean D Mean D Mean DI Mean DI value value
I I
1 I can adapt my teaching 2.98 A 2.70 A 3.13 A 3.29 S 2.481 .001*
methods (direct and indirect AB BA CD DC A
instruction,
cooperative/interactive
learning, etc.) to meet the
diverse learning needs of
TLE students.
2 I effectively use assessment 3.00 A 2.78 A 3.07 A 3.29 S 2.857 .040*
strategies to evaluate student AC B CA D A
learning in TLE.
VISION MISSION

29
DIFFUN CAMPUS
3 I can integrate technology 2.92 A 2.67 A 3.20 A 3.00 A 4.890 .003*

seamlessly into my ABD BA C DA
pedagogical practices
(practice of teaching) in
TLE.
4 I collaborate with other 3.10 A 3.04 A 3.20 A 3.43 S 1.611 .190
educators to share and learn A
best practices of teaching in
TLE.
5 I frequently seek feedback 2.77 A 2.81 A 3.27 S 3.29 S 6.064 <.001*
from students to improve my AB BA CD A DC A
pedagogical practices
(practice of teaching) in
TLE.
6 I am skilled in creating 2.79 A 2.63 A 2.90 A 3.24 A 3.374 .021*
engaging and interactive ABC BA CA D
TLE lessons.
7 I am confident in managing 2.75 A 2.63 A 3.07 A 3.29 S 5.323 .002*
student behavior and AB BA C D A
creating a positive learning
environment in TLE.
8 I actively participate in 2.90 A 2.70 A 2.97 A 3.24 A 2.775 .044*
professional development ABC BAC CAB D
activities focused on
pedagogy in TLE.
9 I am skilled in adapting my 2.96 A 2.70 A 3.10 A 3.29 S 3.737 .013*
teaching strategies to cater ABC BA CA D A
to the unique needs of TLE
students.
Grand Mean 2.91 A 2.74 A 3.10 A 3.26 S 6.305 <.001*
ABC BA CA D A
Pedagogical Knowledge of the BTLEd Pre-service Teachers when Grouped by Year
Level
Table 8 presents the comparative analysis of the pedagogical knowledge of the
respondents when they are grouped by year level. The results reveal that the first and
second-year students provided "agree" ratings for all parameters. In contrast, third-
year students rated parameter 5 as "strongly agree" and the remaining parameters as
"agree." Additionally, fourth-year students rated "agree" for parameters 3, 6, and 8,
while they rated "strongly agree" for parameters 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9. Furthermore, the
grand mean posted significant results as indicated by the F-value (6.305) and p-value
(<.001). It can be noted that all parameters except 4 have computed p-values lower
than 0.05 significance level. Thus, the null hypothesis which states that there is a
VISION MISSION

30
DIFFUN CAMPUS
significant difference in pedagogical knowledge of the respondents is hereby rejected
when they are grouped by year level.
Table 9.
Content Knowledge of the BTLEd Pre-service Teachers when Grouped by Sex
VISION MISSION

31
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Content Knowledge Male Female

t- p-
D D value value
Mean Mean
I I
1 I am well knowledgeable about the TLE 2.80 A 2.84 A .295 .769

content areas.
2 I am up-to-date with the latest advancements 2.72 A 2.79 A .500 .618

and trends in the TLE field.
3 I am capable of designing and developing a 2.92 A 2.88 A .284 .777

TLE curriculum that matches the content
standard.
4 I have a deep understanding of the 2.88 A 2.86 A .142 .887

connections between TLE content and real-
world applications.
5 I can differentiate instruction to meet the 2.84 A 2.87 A .224 .823

diverse learning needs of TLE students in
various content areas.
6 I can effectively assess student learning in 2.80 A 2.85 A .384 .702

different TLE content areas.
7 I possess a broad range of instructional 2.92 A 2.87 A .333 .740

resources and materials related to TLE
content.
8 I actively seek opportunities to expand my 3.16 A 3.08 A .647 .519

content knowledge in TLE through
professional development.
9 I effectively integrate technology to enhance 3.16 A 3.00 A 1.211 .228

TLE content instruction.
10 I am confident in my ability to teach TLE 3.00 A 2.99 A .067 .947

content effectively.
Grand Mean 2.92 A 2.90 A .162 .871
Table 9 presents the comparative analysis of the content knowledge of the
respondents when they are grouped by sex. In general, it shows that both males and
females rated the parameter with agreement. Furthermore, the general mean posted
VISION MISSION

32
DIFFUN CAMPUS
significant results as indicated by the t-value (.162) and p-value (.871). Thus, the null
hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference in the content
knowledge of the respondents is hereby accepted.
Content Knowledge IA II B III C IV D

F- p-
D
Mean DI Mean DI Mean Mean DI value value
I
1 I am well knowledgeable about 2.69 A 2.59 A 3.03 A 3.19 A 6.108 <.001*
the TLE content areas. AB BA C D
2 I am up-to-date with the latest 2.73 A 2.48 DA 2.87 A 3.14 A 4.853 .003*
advancements and trends in the AC B CA D
TLE field.
3 I am capable of designing and 2.83 A 2.70 A 3.00 A 3.10 A 2.156 .097

developing a TLE curriculum that
VISION MISSION

33
DIFFUN CAMPUS
4 I have a deep understanding of the 2.85 A 2.67 A 2.93 A 3.05 A 1.902 .133
connections between TLE content
5 I can differentiate instruction to 2.81 A 2.74 A 2.87 A 3.14 A 1.897 .134

meet the diverse learning needs of
TLE students in various content
areas.
6 I can effectively assess student 2.81 A 2.67 A 2.80 A 3.19 A 3.417 .020*
learning in different TLE content ABC ABC ABC D
areas.
7 I possess a broad range of 2.49 DA 2.74 A 2.90 A 3.24 A 2.953 .035*

instructional resources and A BC CB D
materials related to TLE content.
8 I actively seek opportunities to 3.02 A 2.89 A 3.13 A 3.48 S 5.335 .002*

expand my content knowledge in AB BA C D A
TLE through professional
development.
9 I effectively integrate technology 3.06 A 2.81 A 3.10 A 3.14 A 1.654 .180

to enhance TLE content
instruction.
10 I am confident in my ability to 2.90 A 2.67 A 3.23 A 3.29 S 5.796 <.001*
teach TLE content effectively. AB AB CD DC A
2.85 A 2.70 A 2.99 A 3.20 A 6.373 <.001*

Grand Mean ABC BAC CAB D
Table 10.
Content Knowledge of the BTLEd Pre-service Teachers when grouped by Year Level
Table 10 presents the comparative analysis of the content knowledge of the
respondents when they are grouped by year level. The results reveal that the first,
second, and third-year students provided "agree" ratings for all parameters. In
contrast, fourth-year students rated parameters 8 and 10 as "strongly agree" and the
remaining parameters as "agree". Furthermore, the grand mean posted significant
results as indicated by the F-value (6.373) and p-value (<.001). It can be noted that all
parameters except 3, 4, 5, and 9 have computed p-value higher than 0.05 significance
level. Thus, the null hypothesis which states that there is a significant difference in
VISION MISSION

34
DIFFUN CAMPUS
content knowledge of the respondents is hereby rejected when they are grouped by
year level.
Areas of Objectives Activities Person(s) Schedule Budget Expected

Action responsible output
plan
21st Understandi Conduct Teachers. Pre- A week 4,000.00 Improved

century ng on digital seminars/wo service before the and enriched
Literacy literacy rkshop on teachers internship of ideas on
skills improving Pre-service determining
literacy teachers. methods that
skills works best.
increased
confidence
and
productivity
in using
technology.
VISION MISSION

35
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Exploring Developing The pre- Teachers. Pre- A week 6,500.00 Improved

educationa new service service before the pre-service
l materials knowledge, teacher will teachers internship of teachers’
and skills and explore and Pre-service technologica
technical abilities practice teachers. l abilities
skills through applying and
developme active their implementin
nt learning and technical g new skills
direct hands- knowledge in teaching
on and skills and learning.
experiences. through
hands-on
experience.
A. Proposed plan to enhance technological skills and knowledge of Pre-

Service Teachers’.
Rationale
TPACK is a theory that was established to explain the set of knowledge that
instructors require in order to teach their students successfully and to use technology.
However, Improving and enhancing technological skills and knowledge of Pre-service
teachers’ is crucial for effective teaching and learning in the 21st century.
Pre-service teachers should be equipped to use educational technology
effectively to support students' learning and must be familiar with numerous
educational technologies and teaching techniques to provide interactive learning
experiences for students.
VISION MISSION

36
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Furthermore, the effective incorporation of technology into teaching practices
can enhance the students’ learning, and making it more authentic for the learners and
thus improve their achievement. In line with this, Pre-service teachers must have data
information and communication technology (ICT) skills in order to create meaningful
learning since ICT allows learners to cooperatively and independently in response to
the demands of 21st-century abilities.
A teacher preparation is a vital component of developing future talent and
intelligent educators. Teacher development is crucial to improve Pre-service teachers’
skills and knowledge to be prepared to meet today’s educational needs brought by
technology, this includes coping modern technologies and teaching strategies.
Thus, this proposed program might be a pathway to addressing the challenges
the students are experiencing. The following are the details of the proposed
intervention program as an offshoot of the result of the inquiry undertaken by the
researchers.
VISION MISSION

37
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Chapter V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
This research titled, “Perspective of Pre-service BTLEd Teachers on
Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge,” was carried out at QSU,
Diffun, Quirino with BTLEd Pre-service teachers enrolled for the S.Y. 2023-2024 as
respondents.
This research made use of a survey questionnaire which is composed of two
parts. The first part is the profile of the respondents and the second part contains the
statements on technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge exhibited by
TPACK in the classroom. (Adapted from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-9278-
4 ). The respondents were asked to answer the survey questionnaire using a 4-Likert
scale. The statistics used to determine the significant difference between the BTLEd
pre-service teachers on TPACK were the Raosoft sample size calculator.
VISION MISSION

38
DIFFUN CAMPUS
The results of the study are as follows:
1. The respondents from BTLEd Pre-service teacher of Quirino State University
are mostly female with 101 total respondents or 80.2 percent. The highest
number of respondents are in first year with 38.1 percent and fourth year has
the least number of respondents with 16.7 percent.
2. The general Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge of the
BTLEd Pre-service Teachers rated all the grand mean of each variable with
agree. The pre-service teachers have a positive view on their TPACK
knowledge.
3. The comparative analysis of the technological knowledge of the respondents
when they are grouped by sex. In general, it shows that both males and
females rated the parameter with agreement. Furthermore, the general mean
posted no significant results as indicated by the t-value (.200) and p-value
(.842). It can be noted that parameter 3 has a computed t-value lower than 0.05
significance level. Thus, the null hypothesis which states that there is no
significant difference in the technological knowledge of the respondents is
hereby accepted.
4. The comparative analysis of the technological knowledge of the respondents
when they are grouped by year level. It shows that the first, second, and third
years rated all the parameters with agree while the fourth year rated agree in
parameters number 1 and 2, and strongly agree in numbers 3 to 5.
Furthermore, the grand mean posted significant results as indicated by the F-
value (9.198) and p-value (<.001). It can be noted that 1 and 3 have computed
VISION MISSION

39
DIFFUN CAMPUS
p-values lower than .005 significance level. This means that the result is
significant which leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis which states that
there is no significant difference in the technological knowledge of the
respondents when they are grouped by year level.
5. The comparative analysis of the pedagogical knowledge of the respondents
when they are grouped by sex. In general, it shows that both males and
females rated the parameter with agreement. Furthermore, the general mean
posted significant results as indicated by the t-value (.224) and p-value (.823).
Thus, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference in
the pedagogical knowledge of the respondents is hereby accepted. This
suggests that, within the scope of our study, both male and female respondents
demonstrate similar levels of pedagogical knowledge.
6. The comparative analysis of the pedagogical knowledge of the respondents
when they are grouped by year level. The results reveal that the first and
second-year students provided "agree" ratings for all parameters. In contrast,
third-year students rated parameter 5 as "strongly agree" and the remaining
parameters as "agree." Additionally, fourth-year students rated "agree" for
parameters 3, 6, and 8, while they rated "strongly agree" for parameters 1, 2, 4,
5, 7, and 9. Furthermore, the grand mean posted significant results as indicated
by the F-value (6.305) and p-value (<.001). It can be noted that all parameters
except 4 have computed p-values lower than 0.05 significance level. Thus, the
null hypothesis which states that there is a significant difference in
VISION MISSION

40
DIFFUN CAMPUS
pedagogical knowledge of the respondents is hereby rejected when they are
grouped by year level.
7. The comparative analysis of the content knowledge of the respondents when
they are grouped by sex. In general, it shows that both males and females rated
the parameter with agreement. Furthermore, the general mean posted
significant results as indicated by the t-value (.162) and p-value (.871). Thus,
the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference in the
content knowledge of the respondents is hereby accepted.
8. The comparative analysis of the content knowledge of the respondents when
they are grouped by year level. The results reveal that the first, second, and
third-year students provided "agree" ratings for all parameters. In contrast,
fourth-year students rated parameters 8 and 10 as "strongly agree" and the
remaining parameters as "agree". Furthermore, the grand mean posted
significant results as indicated by the F-value (6.373) and p-value (<.001). It
can be noted that all parameters except 3, 4, 5, and 9 have computed p-value
higher than 0.05 significance level. Thus, the null hypothesis which states that
there is a significant difference in content knowledge of the respondents is
hereby rejected when they are grouped by year level.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the research, the following conclusions were drawn.
1. The study found that the majority of respondents are female with 101 in total
or 80.2 percent and in their first year with the total of 48 or 38.1 percent.
VISION MISSION

41
DIFFUN CAMPUS
2. The technological knowledge of respondents is not fully developed, with no
significant sex difference, but there's a significant finding related to actively
seeking professional development opportunities for technology integration.
3. Pedagogical knowledge is not fully optimized, with no significant sex
difference but significant variation by year level.
4. Content knowledge also needs further development, with no sex difference,
but a significant difference related to year level.
These findings underscore the need for ongoing support and improvement in
these knowledge domains for future TLE teachers.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The researchers cited some recommendations for the improvement and
development of this research.
1. The students may continue to use technology responsibly and effectively to
enhance their ICT skills;
2. Pre-service teacher may upgrade their technology abilities in a culture where
new technologies are being developed.
3. Pre-service teachers need to be creative and take any chance to combine any
method or framework to get a better result.
4. Pre-service teachers may be able to teach with technology which requires an
understanding of how technology, pedagogy, and content interact to support
student learning.
VISION MISSION

42
DIFFUN CAMPUS
REFERENCES
Adipat, S., Busayanon, K., Chotikapanich, R., Laksana, K., Piatanom, P.,
Ausawasowan, A., & Elbasouni, I. (2023). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge for Professional Teacher development. Academic Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies, 12(1), 173-182. https://doi.org./10.36941 /ajis-2023-
0015.
Akturk, A. O., & Saka Ozturk, H. (2019). Teachers’ TPACK levels and students’ self-
efficacy as predictors of students’ academic achievement. International
Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 5(1),a 283-294.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337195126_.
Allen, J., Rowan, L., & Singh, P. (2020). Teaching and teacher education in the time
of COVID-19. Asia-pacific journal of teacher education, 48(3), 233-236.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2020.1752051.
Blomeke, S., Gustafsson, J., & Shavelson, R. (2015). Approaches to Competence

Measurement in Higher Education. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 223(1), 1-2.
https://doi.org/10.27/2151-2604/a000193.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Examining practicing teachers’
perceptions of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
VISION MISSION

43
DIFFUN CAMPUS
pathways: A structural equation modeling approach. Instructional Science,

41(4), 793–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9249-y.
Choy, D., Wong, A. F. L., Lim, K. M., & Chong, S. (2013). Beginning Teachers’
Perceptions of their Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills in Teaching: A Three-
Year Study. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(5), 68-79. https://
doi.org/edu.au/ajte/vol38/iss5/5.
Corkett, J., & Benevides, T. (2015). Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology

and Multiliteracy Within the Inclusive Classroom. International Journal of
Psychology and Educational studies, 2(2), 35-46.
https://doi.org./10.17220/ijpes.2015.02.004.
Dewi, R., (2022). University Graduates’ Career Trajectories Amidst COVID-19: A

Systematic Literature Review. 524-531. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-
494069-09-161.
Gold, B., & Holodynski, M. (2016). Using digital video for measuring the
professional vision of elementary classroom management: Test validation and
methodological challenges. Computers & Education, 107.
https://doi.org./10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.012.
Handini, O., & Mustofa, M. (2022). Application of TPACK in 21st-century

learning. International Journal of Community Service Learning, 6 (4), 530-
537. https://doi.org./10.23887 /ijcsl.v6i4.54620.
Juwandani, E., Aliyah, A. S. N., Melati, C. S., & Susanto, R. (2022). Blended
Learning Strategy in the New Normal Era (TPACK Competency Study).
Pedagonal: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 6(2), 169–179.
https://doi.org/10.55215/pedagonal.v6i2.5611.
Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most
worth: Teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 127–140.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2013.10784716.
VISION MISSION

44
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Koehler, M., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19.
https://doi.org./10.117 7/002205741319300303.
Koh, N. S., Gottipati, S., & Shankararaman, V. (2018). Effectiveness of bite-sized

lecture on student learning outcomes. 4th International Conference on Higher
Education Advances (HEAd’18). https://doi.org/10.4995/HEAD18.2018.8027.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge:

A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-
1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.
Nuangchalerm, P., (2020). TPACK in ASEAN perspectives: Case study on Thai pre-
service teacher. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in
Education (IJERE), 9(4), 993-999. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i4.20700.
Prachagool, V., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2021). Perspectives of Thai educators toward

21st century instruction. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn),
15(3), 432-437. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v15i3.20281.
Putri, R., Purwanto, A., Asbari, M., & Wijayanti, L. M. (2020). Impact of the
COVID-19 Pandemic on Online Home Learning: An Explorative Study of
Primary Schools in Indonesia. International Journal of Advanced Science and
Technology, 29(5), 4809-4818.
https://doi.org./researchgate.net/publication/341194197.
Rahmadi, I. F., (2019). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK):

Kerangka Pengetahuan Guru Abad 21. Jurnal Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan,
6(1), 65-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.32493/jpkn.v6i1.y2019.p65-74.
Rosyid, A., (2017). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Sebuah

Kerangka Pengetahuan Bagi Guru Indonesia Di Era MEA. Prosiding Seminar
Nasional Inovasi Pendidikan, 446–54.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/289793309.pdf.
VISION MISSION

45
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Saad, A., Chung, P. W. H., & Dawson, C.W. (2014). Effectiveness of a case-based
system in lesson planning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(5).
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12053.
Saiyachit, L., (2022). Effectiveness of outcome-based approach to design content for

training secondary school English teachers in Laos. Journal of Green
Learning, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.53889/jgl.v2i1.99.
Santos, J. M., & Castro, R. D. (2021). Technological Pedagogical content knowledge

(TPACK) in action: Application of learning in the classroom by pre-service
teachers (PST). Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 3(1), 100-110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100110.
Seufert, S., Guggemos, J., & Sailer, M. (2021). Technology-related knowledge, skills,
and attitudes of pre- and in-service teachers: The current situation and
emerging trends. Computers in Human Behavior, 115(September 2020),
106552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106552.
Shulman, L. S., (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.

Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004.
Shulman, L. S., (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reforms.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.12691/moj-
es.net.
Sonmark, K., Revai, N., Gottschalk, F., Deligiannidi, K., & Burns, T. (2017).
Understanding teachers’ pedagogical knowledge: report on an international
pilot study. OECD Education Working Papers, 159, 2-150.
https://doi.org/10.1787/43332ebd-en.
Suebsing, S., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2021). Understanding and Satisfaction towards

STEM Education of Primary School Teachers through Professional
Development Program. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 10(2), 171-177.
https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v10i2.25369.
VISION MISSION

46
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Wang, W., Schmidt, D., & Jin, Y. (2018). Preservice Teachers' TPACK
Development: A Review of Literature. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher
Education, 34 (4), 234-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2018.1498039.
Westbroek, H.B., Vries, B., Walraven, A., & Handelzalts, A., & Mckenney, S. (2019).
Teachers as Co-designers: Scientific and Colloquial Evidence on Teacher
Professional Development and Curriculum Innovation. 35-54.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20062-6_3.
Appendix A
Republic of the Philippines
Quirino State University

Diffun, Quirino
CERTIFICATION
To whom it may concern:
This is to certify that the manuscript titled, “Perspective of Pre-service
Btled Teachers on Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge,”

VISION MISSION

47
DIFFUN CAMPUS
written by Jamaica I. Bummeh-ya, Christine Maie G. Daguio, Cecilia D.
Tugunen has been edited for English language, grammar, punctuation, and
spelling. The editor guarantees the quality of the English language in the
manuscript.
This certification is given this ___ day of November 2023 upon the
writers’ request for reference purposes.
___________________
English Critique
Appendix B
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Respondents,
The questionnaire presents the determinants of Pre-service teachers’
perspective in TPACK. Please supply the following questions as honestly as you can
as this is highly confidential and no other individual will able to see your data. The
answers to this questionnaire will go only to the project researchers (Bummeh-ya,
Jamaica, Daguio, Christine Maie, and Tugunen, Cecilia) and project adviser (Paul
Macarilay). Information will not be disclosed. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-
9278-4)
Part I. Profile
VISION MISSION

48
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Sex: __Male __Female Age: ____

Curriculum Year: ____I ____II ____III ____IV
Part II: Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge Below are situations
exhibiting TPACK in the classroom. Please answer the following items using the
scale below.
1 - Strongly Disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Agree
4 - Strongly Agree
TECHNOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE 4 3 2 1
1 I am highly knowledgeable about the use of computers.
2 I am confident in my ability to integrate computers, projectors, printers,
and software programs into different TLE subject areas.
3 I actively seek professional development opportunities to enhance my

technology integration skills in TLE.
4 I stay updated on the latest technological advancements and trends (such
as E-learning, Video-assisted learning Asynchronous learning) relevant to
TLE.
5 I am confident in my ability to teach students how to effectively and
responsibly use technology in TLE.
PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE 4 3 2 1
1 I can adapt my teaching methods (direct and indirect instruction,

cooperative/interactive learning, etc.) to meet the diverse learning needs
of TLE students.
2 I effectively use assessment strategies to evaluate student learning in
TLE.
3 I can integrate technology seamlessly into my pedagogical practices
VISION MISSION

49
DIFFUN CAMPUS
(practice of teaching) in TLE.

4 I collaborate with other educators to share and learn best practices of
teaching in TLE.
5 I frequently seek feedback from students to improve my pedagogical
practices (practice of teaching) in TLE.
6 I am skilled in creating engaging and interactive TLE lessons.
7 I am confident in managing student behavior and creating a positive
learning environment in TLE.
8 I actively participate in professional development activities focused on
pedagogy in TLE.
9 I am skilled in adapting my teaching strategies to cater to the unique
needs of TLE students.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 4 3 2 1
1 I am well knowledgeable about the TLE content areas.
2 I am up-to-date with the latest advancements and trends in the TLE

field.
3 I am capable of designing and developing a TLE curriculum that
4 I have a deep understanding of the connections between TLE content
5 I can differentiate instruction to meet the diverse learning needs of TLE
students in various content areas.
6 I can effectively assess student learning in different TLE content areas.
7 I possess a broad range of instructional resources and materials related

to TLE content.
8 I actively seek opportunities to expand my content knowledge in TLE
through professional development.
9 I effectively integrate technology to enhance TLE content instruction.
10 I am confident in my ability to teach TLE content effectively.
VISION MISSION

50
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Appendix C
CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal Background
Name: Jamaica I. Bummeh-ya
Address: Jose Ancheta, Maddela, Quirino
Birthdate: July 1, 2001
Age: 22
Parents: Mary Inlucna
Educational Background
Elementary Level: Sinsayon Elementary School
(2013-2014)
Secondary Level: Balligui National High School
(2019-2020)
Tertiary Level: Quirino State University, Diffun, Quirino
Bachelor of Technology and Livelihood Education
VISION MISSION

51
DIFFUN CAMPUS
(2023-2024)
Personal Background
Name : Christine Maie G. Daguio
Address : Balagbag, Diffun, Quirino
Birthdate : January 28,2002
Age : 21
Parents : Marites G. Daguio
June G. Daguio
Elementary Level: Balagbag Elementary School
(2013-2014)
Secondary Level: Quirino General High School
(2019-2020)
(2023-2024)
VISION MISSION

52
DIFFUN CAMPUS
Personal Background
Name : Cecilia D. Tugunen
Address: San Dionisio II, Nagtipunan, Quirino
Birthdate : September 30,2000
Age: 23
Parents : Maria Tugunen
Edgar Tugunen
Elementary Level: Nungkigadan Elementary School
(2013-2014)
Secondary Level: Kiangan National High School
(2019-2020)
(2023-2024)
VISION MISSION

53

Tpack Chapters 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tpack Chapters 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QUIRINO STATE UNIVERSITY

especially in education. The use of technology in teaching and learning cannot be

workforce. The focus of curriculum and learning management in the twenty-first

century was on increasing students' capacity to integrate their knowledge, abilities,

Teacher education has placed significant emphasis on expanding teachers'

encapsulated by the term Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge

TPACK comprises three essential components: Pedagogical Knowledge (PK),

which centers on teachers' ability to apply specific teaching strategies to enhance

“Molding Minds, Shaping Future”

student learning; Content Knowledge (CK), representing teachers' understanding of

the subject matter to be taught or learned; and Technological Knowledge (TK),

involving the incorporation of technology by teachers to support students in their

appropriate for their classroom environments (Gold & Holodynski, 2016;

Nuangchalerm, 2020). However, teachers’ development is the best way to improve

2020). Besides, the student-teacher perspective towards Technological Pedagogical

learning process. According to the Britannica dictionary, perspective is a way of

alternative teaching techniques, classroom management techniques, and student

evaluation techniques; aspiring teachers need to have a greater understanding of the

instruction effectively and follow students' needs. According to Rahmadi (2019),

“Molding Minds, Shaping Future”

potential to completely change how we in the future to prepare new teachers

Student-teacher perspectives towards the TPACK framework are essential

components of instruction for their development. The term "teacher development"

describes the ongoing enhancement of instructors' abilities and knowledge (Suebsing

TPACK perspective for BTLED prospective teachers. The insights of prominent

Objectives of the study

The study will be conducted to determine the technological, pedagogical, and

content knowledge of TLE Pre-service Teachers.

1. Determine the profile of the respondents according to:

2. Determine the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge of the

3. Evaluate significant differences in the technological, pedagogical, and content

knowledge of the respondents when they are grouped by profile.

“Molding Minds, Shaping Future”

4. Propose a developmental plan to enhance technological skills and knowledge

Hypothesis of the study

There is no significant difference on the Pre-service BTLED teachers’

perspectives in TPACK when grouped according to profile.

Significance of the Study

and future researchers.

Students: They will benefit from this research by developing their

technological literacy skills and it can increase collaboration and communication

broaden their understanding.

Pre-service Teachers: This study will provide pre-service teachers a chance

needs of students and teachers in implementing technology in the classroom.

“Molding Minds, Shaping Future”

as a starting point for their study and as a guide.

Scope and Delimitation

S.Y. 2023-2024. It mainly focused on determining the technological, pedagogical, and

content knowledge perspective of BTLED Pre-service Teachers’. The study will be

conducted at Quirino State University, Diffun, Quirino from September to December

service teachers of the BTLED department respondents will be given a questionnaire

to determine their perspective on TPACK and their differences when grouped

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

 Pre-Service teachers  Assessment on  Developmental

“Molding Minds, Shaping Future”

Figure 1. The conceptual framework of the study shows the

you to understand the statement on the previous page. These are:

Technology: Is constantly evolving, with new advancements and innovations

Technological Knowledge (TK): This refers to the understanding of different

process. It includes knowledge of how to operate and utilize various technological

devices and software effectively.

Pedagogical Knowledge (PK): This refers to the knowledge and understanding of