Indicators of Teaching and Learning Methods in the Technology Knowledge Curriculum of Elementary Education and the Amount of Attention Paid to Them

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Abstract

Objective: Faculty members need a series of knowledge to successfully design and implement the teaching and learning process. According to Shulman, (1986), for the success of a professor, having knowledge in seven areas is essential: content knowledge, pedagogy knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogy content knowledge, knowledge of the needs and characteristics of students and knowledge of educational goals and contexts. Technology knowledge as the third dimension of basic knowledge, next to the well known dimensions of pedagogy and content, is one of the knowledges that university professors urgently need; because professors are facing rapid changes in the field of scientific knowledge and technology used in teaching. They should become technically professional in the field of using technology as an educational tool to create effective learning and acquire the required knowledge and skills in this field. Therefore, the present study was conducted with the aim of identifying the indicators of teaching and learning methods in the curriculum of science and technology of elementary education and then the level of attention paid to them in Farhangian University.
Research questions: 1- What are the indicators of desirable teaching and learning methods in the science and technology curriculum of elementary education?
2- What is the level of attention paid to the indicators of desirable teaching and learning methods in the science and technology curriculum of elementary education in the studied university?
3- To what extent is there a significant difference between students opinions regarding the level of attention to the indicators of desirable teaching and learning methods in the science and technology curriculum of elementary education according to gender?
4- To what extent is there a significant difference between students opinions regarding the degree of attention to the indicators of desirable teaching and learning methods in the science and technology curriculum of elementary education according to the academic semester?
Methodology: A mixed design of sequential exploratory approach was used in the present study. In the qualitative section, the phenomenological method and in the quantitative section, the descriptive-survey method was used. In the qualitative section, a semi structured interview was conducted with 15 experts and university faculty members. The research population was a quantitative section of undergraduate student teachers of Farhangian universities, which 236 people were selected by a stratified random sampling method. Research data were collected through semi- structured interviews and questionnaires extracted from the qualitative section. To validate the qualitative section, the alignment method and control technique were used by the members. The face and content validity of the questionnaire was obtained by examining the opinions of eight experts and Cronbach's alpha coefficient equal to 0.876 was used to estimate the reliability of the questionnaire. To analyze the data of the study, thematic analysis method in the qualitative section and descriptive statistics and inferential statistical methods were used in the quantitative section.
Findings: The results of the study in the qualitative section showed that the most important indicators of teaching and learning methods in the science and technology curriculum of the elementary education field are five teaching themes based on modern educational technologies, teaching based on web and internet, teaching based on activity elementary student teachers have been using new technologies, teaching in an interactive and collaborative way with the help of new technologies and project-based teaching, problem solving, exploratory, etc. using new technologies. The results in the quantitative section also showed that the level of attention paid by Farhangian University professors to the indicators of teaching and learning methods in the curriculum of technology knowledge is at a weak level. Other results showed a significant difference between the two groups of male and female students regarding the use of indicators of teaching and learning methods in the science and technology curriculum of elementary education in some components and not in others. Moreover, there is a significant difference between the students of different semesters regarding the use of indicators of teaching methods and learning technology knowledge in the field of elementary education in the components of teaching based on modern educational technologies, teaching based on the web and the Internet, and teaching based on the activity of elementary school teachers with the use of new technologies and there was no significant change in other components.
Discussion: The integration of technological knowledge with pedagogical practices and subject matter expertise is essential for effective technology-based classroom activities. Utilizing identified indicators can enhance classroom instruction and facilitate the selection of appropriate educational technologies. The application of technological knowledge can advance learning outcomes at the tertiary level, promoting a shift from content-oriented and traditional curricula to competency-based and inclusive educational frameworks. Furthermore, the incorporation of technological knowledge supports, enhances, and streamlines the teaching and learning process, rendering it more engaging and effective. This approach leads to improved academic achievements and efficiency, while encouraging students to assimilate course material through enhanced cognitive capabilities. Curriculum indicators grounded in technological knowledge can inform subject-specific teaching and learning strategies, as well as methods for effectively conveying content knowledge to students. The integration of technology in education can reinforce the connection between academic instruction and students' real-world experiences and future career prospects.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abdolvahabi, M.,  Mehralizadeh, Y., &  Parsa, A. (2016).  A study of barriers of implementation of smart schools in in Ahwaz Girls secondary schools from the views of Teacher sand principles. Journal of Educational Sciences, 23, 1(1), 55- 80. https://doi.org/10.22055/edu.2016.12135. [In Persian]
Abduvakhidov, A. M., Mannapova, E. T., & Akhmetshin, E. M. (2021). Digital Development of Education and Universities: Global Challenges of the Digital Economy. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 743-760.
Abubakir, H., & Alshaboul, Y. (2023). Unravelling EFL teachers’ mastery of TPACK: Technological pedagogical and content knowledge in writing classes. Heliyon, 9 (6), 1 11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j. heliyon.2023.e17348.
Atabek, O. (2020). Alternative Certification Candidates' Attitudes towards Using Technology in Education and Use of Social Networking Services: A Comparison of Sports Sciences and Foreign Language Graduates. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 12(1), 1-13.
Bagherian far, M, NasrEsfahani, A . R., Ahanchian, M. R. (2020).  Identification the Indices of Desirable Teaching and Learning methods regarding the Humanity Courses for Universities and the Extent of attention them. Journal of Research in Teaching, 8 (2), 1 – 36. https://doi.org/10.34785/J012.2020.903. [In Persian]
Bao, W. (2020). COVID-19 and Online Teaching in Higher education: A Case Study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113-115.   https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191
Barton, D. C. (2020). Impacts of the COVID‐19 Pandemic on Field Instruction and Remote Teaching Alternatives: Results from a Survey of Instructors. Ecology and evolution, 10(22), 12499-12507. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.6628.
Bayazit, N. (1993). Designing: design knowledge, design research, related sciences’ in M J de Vries, N Cross and D P Grant (eds) Design methodology and relationships with science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht: 121–136.
Bennett, S., Lockyer, L. and Agostinho, S. (2018). Towards sustainable technologyenhanced innovation in higher education: Advancing learning design by understanding and supporting teacher design practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(6), 1014–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12683.
Bhattacharya, S., Agnihotri, A., Yannopoulou, N., & Sakka, G. (2021). Technological knowledge and internationalization: evidence from India. International Marketing Review, 39(3), 509-528. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-02-2021-0082.
Blackburn, H. A. (2014). A mixed methods study: Assessing and understanding technology pedagogy and content knowledge among college level teaching faculty: Drexel University PA.
Bodur, H. O., Brinberg, D., & Coupey, E. (2000). Belief, affect, and attitude: Alternative models of the determinants of attitude. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0901_2.
Chai, C.S., Koh, J.H.L., Tsai, C.C., Tan, L.L.W. (2011). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Comput. Educ. 57 (1), 1184–1193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.007.
Chen, Y., Kang, S., Han, Z., Liu, K., Wang, H., & Wu, K. (2023). Evaluation of teaching method for fluid mechanics course in engineering education. 11, 1 – 7. https: //doi. org/ 10.1016/j.mex.2023.102380.
Choi, Y., Lee, J., & Lee, H. (2016). Prioritizing Major Policy Issues Regarding the Smart Schooling System Using the AHP Method. International Journal of u- and e- Service, Science and Technology, 9 (5), 227-236.
Coman, C., Țîru, L.G., Meseșan-Schmitz, L., Stanciu, C., Bularca, M.C. (2020). Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education during the Coronavirus Pandemic: Students’ Perspective. Sustainability, 12, 1-24. https: //doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su 122410367
Davarpanah, S. H., Barat Dastjerdi, N., & Shirzad, Z. (2023). Student teachers’ experiences of online education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 4(2), 129-135. doi:10.61186/johepal.4.2.129.
DE VRIES, Marc J. (2003). The nature of technological knowledge: Extending empirically informed studies into what engineers know. Techne: Research in philosophy and technology, 6.3, 117-130.
Eghtesad, S., Mehrabi, M. (2021). Investigating Iranian Virtual Language Instructors’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Case of English and French Language Instructors. Foreign Language Research Journal, 11 (3), 355-374. Doi:
 10. 22059/ jflr. 2021.316523.793. [In Persian]
Fahadi, M., & Khan, M. S. H. (2022). Technology-Enhanced Teaching in Engineering Education: Teachers' Knowledge Construction Using TPACK Framework. International Journal of Instruction, 15(2), 519-542. https: //doi. org/10.29333/iji.2022.15229a.
Fathi, J., & Yousefifard, S. (2019). Assessing Language Teachers Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: EFL Students’ Perspectives. Research in English Language Pedagogy, RELP, 7(1), 255-282. DOI: 10.30486/relp.2019.665888.
Fütterer, T., Steinhauser, R., Zitzmann, S., Scheiter, K., Lachner, A., & Stürmer, K. (2023). Development and validation of a test to assess teachers' knowledge of how to operate technology. Computers and Education Open, 5, 1 - 10. https: //doi. org/ 10. 1016/ j. caeo. 2023.100152
Garcia, E. & Weiss.E. (2019). The Teacher Shortage is Real, Large and growing, and worse than We Thought, Economic Policy Institute.2 (5), 1-34. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED598211.pdf
Hasan, N., & Khan, N. H. (2020). Online Teaching-Learning During COVID-19 Pandemic: Students’ Perspectives. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 8(4), 202-213.
Holm, L. B., Rognes, A., & Dahl, F. A. (2022). The FLIPPED STEP study: A randomized controlled trial of flipped vs. traditional classroom teaching in a university-level statistics and epidemiology course. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 3, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100197.
Huang, R., Liu, D., Tlili, A., Knyazeva, S., Chang, T. W., Zhang, X., ... & Holotescu, C. (2020). Guidance on Open Educational Practices During School Closures: Utilizing OER under COVID-19 Pandemic in Line with UNESCO OER Recommendation. Beijing: Smart Learning Institute of Beijing Normal University.
Incantalupo, L., Treagust, D.F., Koul, R. (2013). Measuring student attitude and knowledge in technology-rich biology classrooms. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 23 (1), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9453-9.
Jackson, B. L., & Jones, M. (2019). Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Exploring the Perceptions of in-service Teachers in a Virtual Field Experience. Journal of Research on Technology  in Education, 51(1), 7-26. https: //doi. org/ 10.1080/ 15391523.2018.1530622
Joyce, B., Calhoun, E., &  Hopkins, D. (2023). Models of Learning: Tools for Teaching (Translated by Mahmoud Mehromhammadi and Lotfali Abedi). Tehran: Samt Publications.
Kogut, A. (2024). Exploring the connections between teaching librarians' beliefs about teaching and their teaching methods. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 50(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102828.
Kumar, A. (2022). Conceptualizing “classroom teaching-learning process” that engages students in Indian business school. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(7), 1238-1254. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2022-0079.
Lin, T.-C., Tsai, C.-C., Chai, C. S., & Lee, M.-H. (2013). Identifying science teachers’ perceptions of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 325-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9396-6.
Majeed, Z., & Yusoff, Z. S. (2015). Are We ‘Smarter’ Now? Case Study of Smart School Implementation in a Developing Nation. Journal of Studies in Education, 5 (3), 236-258.
Mirosavljević, A., Bognar, B., & Sablić, M. (2024). A case study of biology teaching practices in Croatian primary schools. Open Education Studies, 6(1), 2022-2029. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2022-0229.
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec;108(6):1017–1054. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.
Mohmmed, A. O., Khidhir, B. A., Nazeer, A., & Vijayan, V. J. (2020). Emergency remote teaching during Coronavirus pandemic: the current trend and future directive at Middle East College Oman. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 5(3), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-00326-7.
Molazhi, A., Rostaminejad, M. A., & Kikha, H. (2016). Examining the degree of adaptation of the new curriculum of Farhangian University's primary education field with the needs of information and communication technology of student teachers. The first national conference on the opportunities and developments of information and communication technology (specialized field: education).
Muhaimin, M., Habibi, A., Mukminin, A., Saudagar, F., Pratama, R., Wahyuni, S.,... & Indrayana, B. (2019). A sequential explanatory investigation of TPACK: Indonesian science teachers’ survey and perspective. JOTSE, 9(3), 269-281. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.662.
Newhouse, C. P. (2001). A follow-up study of students using portable computers at a secondary school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 209–219.   https: // doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00191
Ossiannilsson, E. (2021). Some challenges for Universities, in a post crisis, as Covid-19. In Radical Solutions for Education in a Crisis Context (pp. 99-112). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7869-4_7.
Prokopenko, I., & Berezhna, S. (2020). Higher Education Institutions in Ukraine during the Coronavirus, or COVID-19, Outbreak: New Challenges vs New Opportunities. Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 12(2), 130-135. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/12.1sup2/256
Quality Education Data (QED) Report. (2004). 2004–2005 technology purchasing forecas, 10th edn. New York: Scholastic Company.
Ropohl, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7 (1/2),65–72. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008865104461.
Sadeghi Dizaj, E., Hosseini Nasab, S. D., Asgarian, F., ShirAlipour, A., & Maghsoudi, M. R. (2015). Over-analysis of the effectiveness of active teaching methods in the academic performance of Iranian students. Educational Psychology, 35 (1), 79 - 103. [In Persian]
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), 100110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100110.
Schmid, M., Brianza, E., Petko, D. (2020). Developing a short assessment instrument for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK. xs) and comparing the factor structure of an integrative and a transformative model. Comput. Educ. 157, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103967.
Shulman LS. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educ Res;15(2): 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004.
Soto, M. A. P., & Herrera, P. A. A. (2023). The technological pedagogical content knowledge (tpack) model in primary education: a literature review. Italian Journal of Educational Technology.
Taghizadeh, M., & Hasani Yourdshahi, Z. (2019). Integrating technology into young learners' classes: language teachers' perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning,  1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1618876
Tartavulea, C. V., Albu, C. N., Albu, N., Dieaconescu, R. I., & Petre, S. (2020). Online Teaching Practices and the Effectiveness of the Educational Process in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Amfiteatru Economic, 22(55), 920-936.
Teegelbeckers, J. Y., Nieuwelink, H., & Oostdam, R. J. (2023). School-based teaching for democracy: A systematic review of teaching methods in quantitative intervention studies. Educational Research Review, 39, 100511.
Ting, F. S. T., Shroff, R. H., Lam, W. H., Garcia, R. C. C., Chan, C. L., Tsang, W. K., & Ezeamuzie, N. O. (2023). A meta-analysis of studies on the effects of active learning on Asian students’ performance in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 32(3), 379–400. doi: 10.1007/ s40299-022-00661-6.
Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Baran, E., Siddiq, F., Valtonen, T., & Sointu, E. (2019). Teacher educators as gatekeepers: Preparing the next generation of teachers for technology integration in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1189-1209.
Vincenti, W G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
Wang, S. (2019, November). The application of the interconnected model of professional growth and the change of teacher role in the development process of expert teacher. In 2nd International Conference on Humanities Education and Social Sciences, 236-239. doi: 10.2991/ichess-19.2019.48.
Wardoyo, C., Satrio, Y. D., Narmaditya, B. S., & Wibowo, A. (2021). Do technological knowledge and game-based learning promote students achievement: lesson from Indonesia. Heliyon, 7(11), 1 - 8.  DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08467.
Williams, D., Coles, L., Wilson, K., Richardson, A., & Tuson, J. (2000). Teachers and ICT: Current use and future needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4), 307–320.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00164.
Yelland, N. (2006). Changing worlds and new curricula in the knowledge era. Educational Media International, (43): 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980500237922.
Journal of Curriculum Research
Volume 14, Issue 2
September 2024
Pages 204-171

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 21 June 2024
  • Revise Date: 21 August 2024
  • Accept Date: 30 October 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics