Original article

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00372.x

Examining the technological pedagogical

content knowledge of Singapore pre-service
teachers with a large-scale survey jcal_372 563..573

J.H.L. Koh,* C.S. Chai* & C.C. Tsai†

*National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 637616
†National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei 106, Taiwan

Abstract This paper examined the profile of Singaporean pre-service teachers in terms of their techno-
logical pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). A total of 1185 pre-service teachers were
studied with a TPACK survey. An exploratory factor analysis found five distinctive constructs:
technological knowledge, content knowledge, knowledge of pedagogy, knowledge of teach-
ing with technology and knowledge from critical reflection. The participants of this study did
not make conceptual distinctions between TPACK constructs such as technological content
knowledge and technological pedagogical knowledge. There were some differences in their
TPACK perceptions by gender. However, the influence of age and teaching level were not
strong. The methodological and theoretical implications for the development of TPACK
surveys were discussed.

Keywords pre-service teachers, survey, technological pedagogical content knowledge.

edge in terms of how they made ‘intelligent pedagogical

Introduction
Pedagogical content knowledge was used to character-
ize teachers’ knowledge of how subject matter should
be taught. It was described as an integration of teachers’
pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge into a
‘special form of professional understanding’ (Shulman
1986, p. 64). Shulman’s articulation of pedagogical
content knowledge was widely used in teacher educa-
tion. Teacher educators started to develop the concept
of technological pedagogical content knowledge by
adding technological knowledge to pedagogical con-
tent knowledge (Mishra & Koehler 2006; Angeli &
Valanides 2009).
Technological pedagogical content knowledge or
TPCK was used to describe teachers’ body of knowl-
Accepted: 11 June 2010
Correspondence: Joyce Hwee Ling Koh, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore
637616. Email: joyce.koh@nie.edu.sg
uses of technology’ (Koehler et al. 2007, p. 741). Its
acronym of TPCK was later changed to TPACK for ease
of pronunciation and also to emphasize the integrated
use of technology, pedagogy and content knowledge for
effective technology integration (Thompson & Mishra
2007). Since its conception, many teacher education
programmes were restructured with TPACK as an
underlying conceptual framework (Niess et al. 2006;
Burns 2007; Niess 2007; Shoffner 2007). Attempts have
also been made to assess teachers’ TPACK develop-
ment (e.g. Koehler & Mishra 2005).
A common way of TPACK evaluation was to study
teachers’ learning behaviours and learning products
throughout their attendance of ICT courses (e.g. Niess
2005; Koehler et al. 2007; Angeli & Valanides 2009).
Qualitative data provided deep insights about teachers’
TPACK development in specific course contexts but
required more time and effort for collection and analysis
(Mishra & Koehler 2006; Schmidt et al. 2009b). In

© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2010), 26, 563–573 563
564
comparison, TPACK survey instruments were more
easily replicated and administered across course con-
texts (Mishra & Koehler 2006; Graham et al. 2009;
Schmidt et al. 2009b). The comparability of data gath-
ered across course contexts can also be improved by
supplementing qualitative TPACK analyses with
TPACK surveys. Furthermore, teachers’ technology
integration levels were commonly evaluated through
surveys of their attitudes and perceptions (Schmidt
et al. 2009b). Established technology integration
surveys did not assess teachers’ TPACK perceptions
(Christensen & Knezek 2002; Schmidt et al. 2009b),
which made the need for reliable and valid TPACK
survey instruments even more pressing.
Therefore, several TPACK surveys were developed
and pilot-tested with teachers in the USA and evaluated
for internal reliability (Schmidt et al. 2008; Archam-
bault & Crippen 2009; Graham et al. 2009; Schmidt
et al. 2009b). In these studies, small sample sizes
limited the analyses of instrument construct validity.
This study was designed to address current gaps in
TPACK survey development. It first examined the con-
struct validity of a TPACK survey through exploratory
factor analysis of responses from 1185 Singapore pre-
service teachers. The TPACK perceptions of these
teachers will be discussed following which several
methodological and theoretical issues involved in
developing TPACK surveys will be examined.
Literature review
TPCK and related constructs
According to Mishra and Koehler (2006), there were
seven constructs in the TPACK framework. The first
three were:
1 Content Knowledge – knowledge of subject matter.
2 Technology knowledge (TK) – knowledge of various
technologies.
3 Pedagogical knowledge – knowledge of the pro-
cesses or methods of teaching.
Just as PCK embodied a unique form of teacher pro-
fessional knowledge, Harris et al. (2007) emphasized
that teachers’ technology integration expertise laid
within the interactions between TK, pedagogical
knowledge and content knowledge. The four other con-
structs were therefore:
J.H.L. Koh et al.
4 Technological content knowledge (TCK) –
knowledge of subject matter representation with
technology.
5 Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) –
knowledge of using technology to implement differ-
ent teaching methods.
6 Pedagogical content knowledge – knowledge of
teaching methods for different types of subject
matter.
7 TPACK – knowledge of using technology to imple-
ment teaching methods for different types of subject
matter.
TPACK constructs addressed a theoretical void in the
field of educational technology by describing the differ-
ent types of technology integration knowledge teachers
required (Mishra & Koehler 2006; Angeli & Valanides
2009).
Surveys of teachers’ knowledge perceptions using the
TPACK framework
Koehler and Mishra (2005) first attempted to assess
TPACK perceptions through survey items. In their
survey of students’ course experiences, 14 items were
used to track 12 graduate students’ TPACK develop-
ment as they designed a technology-integrated lesson.
Schmidt et al. (2009b) commented that these items
were not generalizable as they specifically measured
knowledge development for the design project in the
study (e.g. I have been thinking and working a lot on
the technology of the course we are designing). There-
fore, Schmidt et al. (2009b) developed a 58-item
Survey of Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching
and Technology to measure pre-K-6 teachers’ generic
perceptions of TPACK for content areas of mathemat-
ics, social studies, science and literacy (e.g. I can teach
lessons that appropriately combine mathematics, tech-
nologies and teaching approaches). Three national
experts of TPACK in the USA evaluated and validated
revisions for these survey items before pilot-testing
with 124 pre-service teachers. Internal reliability of
this survey was established with high Cronbach’s
alphas of 0.80 and above for each TPACK con-
struct. Establishment of construct validity for this
instrument through factor analysis of large sample
data was reported as ongoing (Schmidt et al. 2008,
2009b).
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Singapore pre-service teachers’ TPACK perceptions
TPACK surveys for specific areas were also devel-
oped. Graham et al. (2009) developed a 30-item
TPACK in Science survey to measure teachers’ TPACK
for science teaching. This survey focused on the four
TPACK constructs that involved technology, i.e. TK,
TCK, TPK and TPACK. The items specifically
assessed the eight pedagogical uses of technology in
science teaching described by McCrory (2008), e.g. ‘I
am confident to help students use digital technologies
to organize and identify patterns in scientific data’.
Pilot-testing with 15 in-service teachers found high
Cronbach’s alphas of at least 0.90 for the four con-
structs. However, the authors conceded that the small
sample size limited further statistical analysis for con-
struct validity. Archambault and Crippen (2009) also
developed a 24-item survey to assess K-12 teachers’
TPACK for online teaching (e.g. my ability to encour-
age online interactivity among students). Content vali-
dation was established with teachers from an online
virtual school. Subsequent administration with 596
teachers from 25 states in the USA found Cronbach’s
alphas ranging from 0.70 to 0.93 for the seven TPACK
constructs. This analysis too did not include construct
validation, which was identified by the authors as an
area for future research.
The TPACK surveys reviewed so far have all been
administered on teachers in the USA. Lee and Tsai
(2010) developed a 30-item TPCK-Web Survey to
measure Taiwanese teachers’ TPACK with respect to
educational use of the World Wide Web (e.g. be able to
guide students to use Web resources to study a certain
course unit). Similar to the studies conducted with
teachers in the USA, high internal reliability for the
survey was established during an administration on 558
Taiwanese teachers. However, exploratory factor analy-
sis found that items for pedagogical knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge were merged into one
factor. The authors commented that this could be
because of survey design or that the teachers surveyed
lacked expertise in Web-based tools to distinguish
between these two constructs. These postulations
cannot be further examined as the construct validities of
other TPACK surveys are not available for comparison.
Lee and Tsai (2010) also explored TPACK with respect
to the teachers’ demographic profile and found that it
was significantly correlated with their age and teaching
experience. ICT training can be more effectively orga-
nized if the TPACK perceptions of teachers in different
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
565
demographic groups are better understood. However, a
comparison with existing TPACK survey studies (e.g.
Archambault & Crippen 2009; Graham et al. 2009;
Schmidt et al. 2009b) cannot be made as this area was
also not investigated.
Gaps
With the exception of Lee and Tsai (2010), majority
of the existing TPACK survey studies has been adminis-
tered with teachers in the USA. The internal reliability
of TPACK survey items appeared to be fairly consistent
across the studies reviewed. However, more studies of
teachers outside the USA are still needed to explore the
possibility of cultural differences in teachers’ TPACK
perceptions. The preceding review also showed two
visible gaps in extant development of TPACK surveys.
First, studies examining the construct validity of
TPACK surveys were lacking. With the exception of
Archambault and Crippen (2009) and Lee and Tsai
(2010), the other surveys reviewed were pilot-tested
with small samples of less than 500. Comrey and Lee
(1992) recommended a sample size of at least 500 for a
robust factor analysis, which could be used to establish
construct validity of survey instruments. Second, the
relationship between teachers’ demographic profile and
TPACK perceptions has not been examined. Lee and
Tsai (2010) found that older teachers with more teach-
ing experience were less confident about their Web-
TPACK. While there are no published TPACK survey
studies of Singapore teachers, Teo (2008) found that
Singapore teachers’ attitudes for computer use were
influenced by age, gender and teaching level. These
demographic variables may also be related to their
TPACK perceptions and need to be further
examined.
Purposes of study
Given the gaps in extant research, this study proposes to
examine issues related to the development of TPACK
surveys with a study of Singapore teachers. The two
purposes of this study were:
1 to examine the construct validity of a TPACK
survey through an exploratory factor analysis of
a large sample of pre-service teachers from
Singapore.
566
2 to examine the TPACK perceptions of Singapore
pre-service teachers and its relationship with their
demographic variables (i.e. age, gender, teaching
level).
Method
Subjects
The initial sample included 1664 pre-service teachers
who just began the first semester of their teacher educa-
tion training during August 2009. These teachers were
enrolled in the Postgraduate Diploma/Diploma in Edu-
cation programme at a higher education institute in
Singapore. A TPACK survey was administered at the
beginning of the semester to capture their baseline
TPACK profile before they began any form of ICT
instruction during teacher training.
At the beginning of theAugust 2009 semester, an invi-
tation to participate in the survey was sent to the entire
cohort via email. Participation was voluntary, and
respondents accessed the web-survey via a link listed in
the email. A total of 1185 responses were received, con-
stituting a response rate of 71.2%. Among the respon-
dents, 68.3% were female (N = 809), and 545
respondents were trained for primary education,
whereas the rest of them (N = 640) were for secondary
education. The respondents were fairly young
(mean = 26.4, sd = 5.9) as 75% of them were below the
mean age. The age range of respondents was between 18
and 51 years.
Instrument development
The teachers sampled for this study had diverse subject
specializations, some of which were mother tongue
languages, mathematics, physics, biology, music and
history. After a review, the researchers found that these
curriculum areas could be incorporated into the Survey
of Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and
Technology developed by Schmidt et al. (2009b)
without substantial changes to survey items. On the
other hand, the surveys developed by Graham et al.
(2009), Lee and Tsai (2010), and Archambault and
Crippen (2009) were subject-specific and need to be
adapted more extensively for the study participants.
Schmidt et al.’s survey was therefore chosen as it
catered for the study participants’ profile.
J.H.L. Koh et al.
Given these considerations, an expert committee
composed of five faculty members specializing in ICT
education conducted a content review of Schmidt
et al.’s (2009b) survey and suggested adaptations.
Schmidt et al. originally measured content knowledge,
TCK, pedagogical content knowledge and TPACK with
respect to curriculum areas of mathematics, social
studies, science and literacy. The questions were made
more generic in this study. For example, ‘I know how to
select effective teaching approaches to guide student
thinking and learning in mathematics’, was changed to
‘I know how to select effective teaching approaches to
guide student thinking and learning in my Curriculum
Subject’. In this study, 11 questions that were not rel-
evant to its objectives were also removed. These were
questions related to pre-service teachers’ assessment of
their professors’ TPACK. All other questions designed
to measure TK, pedagogical knowledge and technical
pedagogical knowledge were retained.
The final survey was composed of 29 questions for
TPACK. Thorndike (2005) recommended that the
larger the number of options within a range, the more
reliable a scale; The five-point Likert scale designed by
Schmidt et al. (2009b) was therefore changed to a
seven-point Likert-type scale in this study where: (1)
strongly disagree; (2) disagree; (3) slightly disagree; (4)
neither agree nor disagree; (5) slightly agree; (6) agree;
and (7) strongly agree. Administration of the survey
found its overall reliability to be high (a = 0.96).
Besides questions for TPACK, we also collected infor-
mation on pre-service teachers’ gender, age and teach-
ing level (i.e. primary or secondary), which were
demographic variables studied by Teo (2008) for Sin-
gapore teachers.
Data analysis
Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine the
construct validity of this TPACK survey, i.e. the first
purpose of this paper. This methodology was used to
reduce a set of variables into factors without pre-
specification of the number of factors that can emerge
(Brown 2006). It also helped to determine if test items
clustered towards the factors they were designed to
measure (Thorndike 2005). The factors were extracted
using principal component analysis and rotated using
varimax rotation. The items were eliminated if loadings
were less than 0.50 (Fish & Dane 2000; Walker & Fraser
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Singapore pre-service teachers’ TPACK perceptions
2005), or when there were cross-loadings (Bentler
1990). The exploratory factor analysis was re-run until
there were no factor loadings below 0.50 and cross-
loading of factors.
The factors derived from the exploratory factor analy-
sis were then used to describe the TPACK perceptions of
Singapore teachers; i.e. the second purpose of this paper.
Pre-service teachers’ TPACK rating for each factor was
examined with descriptive statistics. The relationship
between TPACK factors and age were analysed using
Pearson correlation, and t-tests were used to examine if
their TPACK ratings differed by the categorical back-
ground factors of gender and teaching level.
Results
Research question 1 – construct validity of
TPACK survey
During factor analysis, one item in the TPK scale with
cross-loadings was eliminated from analysis. The final
model was composed of five factors that explained
75.75% of the total variance. The five sources of teacher
knowledge were (See Table 1) TK, content knowledge,
knowledge of pedagogy (KP), knowledge of teaching
with technology (KTT) and knowledge from critical
reflection (KCR). The construct validity of this TPACK
survey was supported with respect to TK and content
knowledge. The items designed to measure these con-
structs emerged as two distinct factors as postulated by
the TPACK framework. The third factor was composed
of items for pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge. The participants of this study did
not distinguish between their knowledge of general
pedagogies (e.g. assessment, classroom management)
and how these were used to teach particular subject
areas. Therefore, the items for pedagogical knowledge
and pedagogical content knowledge were re-labelled as
‘Knowledge of Pedagogy’ (KP). The items measuring
TPK, TCK and TPACK formed the fourth factor. The
participants of this study interpreted the items related to
technology as being conceptually similar. Therefore,
these items were re-labelled as the fourth factor
‘Knowledge of Teaching with Technology’ (KTT). The
fifth factor was composed of the items TPK3 and TPK4
that were related to the teachers’ reflecting about tech-
nology integration (See Table 1). Therefore, these items
were re-labelled as the fifth factor ‘Knowledge from
Critical Reflection’ (KCR). The alpha coefficients for
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
567
these factors ranged from 0.83 to 0.96, indicating highly
adequate internal consistency in assessing the pre-
service teachers’ constructs of TPACK (See Table 1).
Research question 2 – examining the TPACK
perceptions of Singapore pre-service teachers
TPACK ratings by factor
The mean score of each factor showed that pre-service
teachers generally rated themselves as slightly above
average for each factor: TK (M = 4.84, sd = 1.06),
content knowledge (M = 4.71, sd = 1.04), KP
(M = 5.00, sd = 0.89), KTT (M = 4.89, sd=0.95) and
KCR (M = 5.45, sd = 0.97). However, they were
slightly more confident about KP and KCR as these
factors were rated above ‘5’.
TPACK ratings by demographic variables
Age, gender and teaching level were three demographic
variables analysed. The relationship between the
respondents’ age and TPACK perceptions were exam-
ined through Pearson correlations (N = 1185). There
were significant negative correlation between age and
four factors: TK (r = -0.074, P < 0.05), content knowl-
edge (r = -0.13, P < 0.01), KP (r = -0.13, P < 0.01)
and KTT (r = -0.15, P < 0.01). However, these correla-
tions were considered weak as they were below the 0.35
guideline proposed by Fraenkel and Wallen (2003).
For the factors of TK, content knowledge and KTT,
t-tests found significant gender differences (see
Table 2). The male pre-service teachers (N = 376) gen-
erally rated themselves higher than females (N = 809)
for these factors. The effect sizes of gender with respect
to content knowledge and KTT were small as they were
lower or close to 0.25 (Cohen 1965). The largest effect
size was for the factor of TK (d = 0.45).
The pre-service teachers’ TPACK knowledge per-
ceptions were also compared by the level of teaching
they were trained for, i.e. primary versus secondary. The
t-tests found significant differences for content knowl-
edge and KCR (See Table 3). Nevertheless, these effect
sizes were also small as they were less than 0.25 (Cohen
1965).
Discussion
Construct validity of the TPACK survey
This study supported the results of Schmidt et al.
(2009b) with respect to the internal reliability of
568 J.H.L. Koh et al.

Table 1. Factor loadings from exploratory factor analysis.

Factor
loadings

Factor 1 – Technological Knowledge (TK, a = 0.87)

TK1 – I have the technical skills I need to use technology 0.824
TK2 – I can learn technology easily 0.838
TK3 – I know how to solve my own technical problems 0.835
Factor 2 – Content Knowledge (CK, a = 0.93)
CK1 – I have sufficient knowledge about my Curriculum Subject 1 0.796
CK2 – I can think about the subject matter like an expert who specializes in my Curriculum Subject 1 0.778
CK3 – I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of my Curriculum Subject 1 0.805
CK4 – I have sufficient knowledge about my Curriculum Subject 2 0.753
CK5 – I can think about the subject matter like an expert who specializes in my Curriculum Subject 2 0.820
CK6 – I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of my Curriculum Subject 2 0.784
Factor 3 – Knowledge of Pedagogy (KP, a = 0.93)
PK1 – I know how to assess student performance in a classroom 0.715
PK2 – I can adapt my teaching based upon what students currently understand or do not understand 0.754
PK3 – I can adapt my teaching style to different learners 0.772
PK4 – I can use a wide range of teaching approaches in a classroom setting 0.697
PK5 – I know how to organize and maintain classroom management 0.724
PCK1 – I know how to select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in my 0.649
Curriculum Subject 1
PCK2 – I know how to select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in my 0.614
Curriculum Subject 2
Factor 4 – Knowledge of Teaching with Technology (KTT, a = 0.96)
TPK1 – I can choose technologies that enhance the teaching approaches for a lesson 0.757
TPK2 – I can choose technologies that enhance students’ learning for a lesson 0.759
TCK1 – I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing my Curriculum Subject 1 0.605
TCK2 – I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing my Curriculum Subject 2 0.697
TPACK1 – I can teach lessons that appropriately combine my Curriculum Subject 1, technologies and 0.751
teaching approaches
TPACK2 – I can teach lessons that appropriately combine my Curriculum Subject 2, technologies and 0.805
teaching approaches
TPACK3 – I can select technologies to use in my classroom that enhance what I teach, how I teach and what 0.766
students learn
TPACK4 – I can use strategies that combine content, technologies and teaching approaches that I learned 0.745
about in my coursework in my classroom
TPACK5 – I can provide leadership in helping others to coordinate the use of content, technologies and 0.675
teaching approaches at my school and/or district
Factor 5 – Knowledge from Critical Reflection (KCR, a = 0.83)
TPK3 – My teacher education programme has caused me to think more deeply about how technology could 0.787
influence the teaching approaches I use in my classroom.
TPK4 – I am thinking critically about how to use technology in my classroom 0.796

Pre-service teacher education in Singapore trains every teacher to teach at least two subject areas in the national curriculum. These
subject areas are termed Curriculum Subject 1, and Curriculum Subject 2. TK, technological knowledge; CK, content knowledge; PK,
pedagogical knowledge; PCK, pedagogical content knowledge; TPK, technological pedagogical knowledge; TCK, technological
content knowledge.

TPACK survey items. The exploratory factor analysis
established construct validity for items of TK and
content knowledge. The other items, however, were
interpreted as three factors: KP, KTT and KCR. The par-
ticipants of this study perceived conceptual differences
between teaching with and without technology (i.e. KP
and KTT). However, they could not distinguish the
related constructs within each factor. A new factor,
KCR, also emerged in this study. The following is a dis-
cussion of these findings.

© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Singapore pre-service teachers’ TPACK perceptions 569

Table 2. Pre-service teachers’ difference by gender (N: male = 376, female = 809).

Knowledge category Mean SD t P (two-tailed) d

Factor 1 – Technological Knowledge (TK) Male: 5.16 Male: 1.07 t(1183) = 7.15 0.000* 0.45
Female: 4.69 Female: 1.02
Factor 2 – Content Knowledge (CK) Male: 4.91 Male: 1.05 t(1183) = 4.46 0.000* 0.28
Female: 4.62 Female: 1.01
Factor 3 – Knowledge of Pedagogy (KP) Male: 5.08 Male: 0.94 t(1183) = 1.96 0.050 0.12
Female: 4.97 Female: 0.88
Factor 4 – Knowledge of Teaching Male: 5.00 Male: 0.95 t(1183) = 2.80 0.005* 0.17
with Technology (KTT) Female: 4.84 Female: 0.95
Factor 5 – Knowledge from Critical Male: 5.48 Male: 0.99 t(1183) = 0.71 0.478 0.04
Reflection (KCR) Female: 5.44 Female: 0.96

*P < 0.01.

Table 3. Pre-service teachers’ difference by teaching level (N: primary = 545, secondary = 640).

Knowledge category Mean SD t P (two-tailed) d

Factor 1 – Technological Knowledge (TK) Primary: 4.87 Primary: 1.01 t(1183) = 0.82 0.413 0.05
Secondary: 4.82 Secondary: 1.01
Factor 2 – Content Knowledge (CK) Primary: 4.58 Primary: 1.01 t(1183) = 4.11 0.000* 0.23
Secondary: 4.82 Secondary: 1.04
Factor 3 – Knowledge of Pedagogy (KP) Primary: 5.05 Primary: 0.88 t(1183) = 1.51 0.131 0.09
Secondary: 4.97 Secondary: 0.90
Factor 4 – Knowledge of Teaching Primary: 4.94 Primary: 0.95 t(1183) = 1.59 0.112 0.09
with Technology (KTT) Secondary: 4.85 Secondary: 0.95
Factor 5 – Knowledge from Critical Primary: 5.53 Primary: 0.96 t(1183) = 2.21 0.027** 0.13
Reflection (KCR) Secondary: 5.40 Secondary: 0.97

*P < 0.01; **P < 0.05.

Inexperience of the pre-service teachers General versus contextualized TPACK

The relative inexperience of the study participants
explained the merging of pedagogical knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge items into the factor
KP. Studies in the area of pedagogical content knowl-
edge have found that the pre-service teachers were less
able to consider linkages between content and peda-
gogy when envisioning their lesson agendas as com-
pared with expert teachers (Leinhardt 1989; Sabers
et al. 1991; Copeland et al. 1994). The participants of
this study were just beginning their teacher training and
therefore lacked deep knowledge and experience of the
teaching practice. This explained why they were unable
to distinguish between pedagogical knowledge and
PCK, which were consistent with the findings of Lee
and Tsai (2010). The relative inexperience of the study
participants also explained why the items for TCK, TPK
and TPACK were merged into the factor KTT.
The participants of this study may have also failed
to distinguish between TCK, TPK and TPACK items
because these were not anchored upon specific
examples of technological integration. Angeli and Val-
anides (2009) proposed that TPACK had a transforma-
tive epistemological nature. In the transformative view,
knowledge was described as a unique synthesis rather
than a simple combination of parts (Gess-Newsome
1999). Cox and Graham (2009) further suggested that
TPACK was contextualized to specific topics and
lesson activities while TPK and TCK could exist as
more general forms of knowledge. When Lee and Tsai
(2010) implemented a subject-specific survey, TCK
and TPACK emerged as two factors. More compari-
sons of construct validation results between generic
and contextualized TPACK surveys will be useful.
However, this is currently limited by the dearth of

© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

570
studies that examine the construct validity of TPACK
surveys.
Critical reflection and TPACK
The four TPK items were split between KTT and KCR
during factor analysis (See Table 1). This implied that
the study participants perceived conceptual differences
between the choosing of technology tools (i.e. TPK1 and
TPK2) and the reflection of technology use (i.e. TPK3
and TPK4). Shulman (1999) proposed that reflection
helps teachers formulate new insights of content, peda-
gogy and students, which enhances their pedagogical
reasoning. Therefore, KCR may be an important
TPACK construct that warrants further examination. On
the other hand, it could also be a factor idiosyncratic
to Singapore teachers as Lee and Tsai (2010) did not
have similar findings. Cross-cultural comparison with
US-based studies cannot be made at this point as there is
a dearth of studies in the area of TPACK construct vali-
dation (see Schmidt et al. 2009a,b). Therefore, the rel-
evance of KCR needs to be analysed in future studies.
TPACK perceptions of Singapore teachers
The participants of this study had moderately high con-
fidence about their TK, content knowledge and peda-
gogical knowledge. These results were consistent with
an earlier study of Singaporean pre-service teachers’
general ICT skills and pedagogical competence with
using ICT (Lee et al. 2008). Interestingly, their TPACK
perceptions were not strongly related to age, gender or
teaching level.
Weak relationships between TPACK perceptions
and age
Lee and Tsai (2010) also found weak negative correla-
tions between age and TCK (r = -0.22), and TPACK
(-0.16). However, their study found moderate correla-
tion of -0.45 between age and TK while this study
found such correlation to be close to zero. This could be
because Lee and Tsai (2010) studied an older sample of
in-service teachers (M = 34 years) as compared with the
younger pre-service teachers in this study (M = 26.4
years). In-service teachers with more teaching experi-
ence tend to be less confident with using computers
(Yaghi 2001), which may explain why the correlations
between age and TK were more pronounced in Lee and
Tsai (2010). The t-tests also found no significant differ-
J.H.L. Koh et al.
ences between the age of the primary (M = 26.33,
sd = 6.66) and the secondary teachers (M = 26.52,
sd = 5.26) in this study. This could also explain why
their TPACK perceptions did not differ by teaching
level. Therefore, the relationship between age and
TPACK perceptions may be more evident for in-service
teachers; while years of teaching experience may be a
variable that should also be considered.
Gender differences
Male pre-service teachers rated their TK higher than
females. This was consistent with research findings that
male teachers had more positive attitudes, higher confi-
dence and higher competency perceptions with respect
to computer use (Markauskaite 2006; Tsai 2008). These
results showed that the female pre-service teachers in
this study needed more support for TK as they entered
teacher training. However, such gender gaps may close
as computers become more prevalent in schools (North
& Noyes 2002), which is also the case in Singapore
where a series of Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) master plans have been launched to
spearhead ICT-driven curriculum and pedagogical
changes in schools (Teo & Ting 2010). Future cohorts of
Singapore pre-service teachers are expected to have rich
ICT-driven educational experiences, which may close
these gender gaps in terms of TPACK. Therefore, the
gender differences in future cohorts of Singapore teach-
ers should be closely monitored with longitudinal
TPACK studies.
Future research
The results of this study point to several areas for future
research. First, more KCR-type items can be added to
strengthen the measurement of this construct. Examples
of these are the critical reflection of personal education
experiences with ICT and critical reflection of student
teaching experiences. Second, construct validation
studies can be carried out in various ways. For example,
this study can be replicated with teachers known to be
exemplary technology integrators to determine if they
could make clear distinctions between TPACK con-
structs. This could not be explored in this study as the
participants were pre-service teachers. Comparative
studies of generic and subject-specific TPACK surveys
can also be carried out to ascertain the robustness of
context-specific TPACK items, while the cross-cultural
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Singapore pre-service teachers’ TPACK perceptions
validity of this TPACK survey can be examined through
replication in different countries. Third, the relationship
between TPACK constructs and teacher demographic
variables need to be further investigated. The study
results show that pre-service teachers’ TPACK percep-
tions were fairly consistent regardless of age, gender
and teaching level. There is a need to examine if these
variables had stronger influence on the TPACK percep-
tions of in-service teachers because this will inform the
planning of teacher development programmes.
Future research can also investigate the role of
TPACK surveys in supporting ICT programme evalua-
tion. There have been many qualitative studies that
provide rich details about interventions used to develop
teacher TPACK. Some of those studied were teacher
engagement in designing ICT lessons (Mishra &
Koehler 2006; Angeli & Valanides 2009), microteach-
ing activities (e.g. Cavin 2008), action research projects
(e.g. Lundeberg et al. 2003) and participation in
communities of practice (e.g. Rodrigues et al. 2003).
Pre- and post-course TPACK surveys can be used to
supplement qualitative analysis of teachers’ TPACK
development during such kinds of programmes. Trian-
gulation of qualitative findings with survey results can
contribute to the development of a common vocabulary
to describe teachers’ TPACK development.
Conclusion
In this study, exploratory factor analysis has found
support for TK and CK being distinctive within pre-
service teachers’ knowledge perceptions. KP, KTT and
KCR were the other sources of their knowledge percep-
tions. While PK, PCK, TPK, TCK and TPACK were
postulated to be distinct constructs, these have not been
perceived so by the participants of this study. More
studies are needed to validate the TPACK framework. A
better understanding of its epistemological foundations,
components and methods of measurement will contrib-
ute immensely to improving the predictive ability of this
model.
References
Angeli C. & Valanides N. (2009) Epistemological and meth-
odological issues for the conceptualization, development,
and assessment of ICT-TPCK: advances in technological
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
571
pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers &
Education 52, 154–168.
Archambault L. & Crippen K. (2009) Examining TPACK
among K-12 online distance educators in the United States.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Educa-
tion 9. Available at: http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/
general/article2.cfm (last accessed 15 July 2010).
Bentler P.M. (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural
models. Psychological Bulletin 107, 238–246.
Brown T.A. (2006) Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied
Research. The Guilford Press, New York.
Burns K. (2007) Technology, content and pedagogy: united in
pre-service teacher instruction. Technology and Teacher
Education Annual 18, 2177–2179.
Cavin R. (2008) Developing technological pedagogical
content knowledge in preservice teachers through
microteaching lesson study. In Proceedings of Society for
Information Technology & Teacher Education Interna-
tional Conference 2008 (eds K. McFerrin et al.), pp. 5214–
5220. AACE: Chesapeake, VA.
Christensen R. & Knezek G. (2002) Instruments for assessing
the impact of technology in education. Computers in the
Schools 18, 5–25.
Cohen J. (1965) Some statistical issues in psychological
research. In Handbook of Clinical Psychology (ed. B.B.
Wolman), pp. 95–121. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Comrey A.L. & Lee H.B. (1992) A First Course in Factor
Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale,
NJ.
Copeland W.D., Birmingham C., DeMeulle L., D’Emidio-
Caston M. & Natal D. (1994) Making meaning in class-
rooms: an investigation of cognitive processes in aspiring
teachers, experienced teachers, and their peers. American
Educational Research Journal 31, 166–196.
Cox S. & Graham C.R. (2009) Diagramming TPACK in prac-
tice: using and elaborated model of the TPACK framework
to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends 53,
60–69.
Fish M.C. & Dane E. (2000) The classroom systems observa-
tion scale: development of an instrument to assess class-
rooms using a systems perspective. Learning Environments
Research 3, 67–92.
Fraenkel J.R. & Wallen N.E. (2003) Statistics in perspective.
In How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education,
pp. 253–264. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York.
Gess-Newsome J., ed. (1999) Pedagogical Content Knowl-
edge: An Introduction and Orientation. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, The Netherlands.
Graham R.C., Burgoyne N., Cantrell P., Smith L., St. Clair L.
& Harris R. (2009) Measuring the TPACK confidence of
inservice science teachers. TechTrends 53, 70–79.
572
Harris J.B., Mishra P. & Koehler M.J. (2007) Teachers’ tech-
nological pedagogical content knowledge: curriculum-
based technology integration reframed. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education 41, 393–416.
Koehler M.J. & Mishra P. (2005) Teachers learning technol-
ogy by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education
21, 94–102.
Koehler M.J., Mishra P. & Yahya K. (2007) Tracing the devel-
opment of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: integrat-
ing content, pedagogy and technology. Computers &
Education 49, 740–762.
Lee C.B., Chai C.S., Teo T. & Chen D. (2008) Preparing pre-
service teachers’ for the integration of ICT based student-
centred learning (SCL) curriculum. Journal of Education
13, 15–28.
Lee M.H. & Tsai C.C. (2010) Exploring teachers’ perceived
self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowl-
edge with respect to educational use of the World Wide
Web. Instructional Science 38, 1–21.
Leinhardt G. (1989) Math lessons: a contrast of novice and
expert competence. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education 20, 52–75.
Lundeberg M.A., Bergland M., Klyczek K. & Hoffman D.
(2003) Using action research to develop preservice teach-
ers’ beliefs, knowledge and confidence about technology.
Journal of Interactive Online Learning 1, 1–16.
McCrory R. (2008) Science, technology, and teaching: the
topic-specific challenges of TPCK in science. In Hand-
book of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPCK) for Educators (ed. The AACTE Committee on
Innovation and Technology), pp. 193–206. Routledge,
New York and London.
Markauskaite L. (2006) Gender issues in preservice teachers’
training: ICT literacy and online learning. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology 22, 1–20.
Mishra P. & Koehler M.J. (2006) Technological pedagogical
content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge.
Teachers College Record 108, 1017–1054.
Niess M.L. (2005) Preparing teachers to teach science and
mathematics with technology: developing a technology
pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher
Education 21, 509–523.
Niess M., Suharwoto G., Lee K. & Sadri P. (2006) Guiding
inservice mathematics teachers in developing Technology
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). Paper pre-
sented at the Society for Information Technology and
Teacher Education International Conference, Chesapeake,
VA.
Niess M.L. (2007) Developing teacher’s TPCK for teaching
mathematics with spreadsheets. Technology and Teacher
Education Annual 18, 2238–2245.
J.H.L. Koh et al.
North A.S. & Noyes J.M. (2002) Gender influences on chil-
dren’s computer attitudes and cognitions. Computers in
Human Behavior 18, 135–150.
Rodrigues S., Marks A. & Steel P. (2003) Developing science
and ICT pedagogical content knowledge: a model of con-
tinuing professional development. Innovations in Educa-
tion and Teaching International 40, 386–394.
Sabers D.S., Cushing K.S. & Berliner D.C. (1991) Differ-
ences among teachers in a task characterized by simul-
taneity, multidimensional, and immediacy. American
Educational Research Journal 28, 63–88.
Schmidt D.A., Sahin E.B., Thompson A. & Seymour J. (2008)
Developing effective technological pedagogical and
content knowledge (TPACK) in PreK-6 teachers. Paper
presented at the Society for Information Technology and
Teacher Education International Conference, Chesapeake,
VA, March 3–7.
Schmidt D., Baran E., Thompson A., Koehler M., Punya M. &
Shin T. (2009a) Examining preservice teachers’ develop-
ment of technological pedagogical content knowledge in an
introductory instructional technology course. Paper pre-
sented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education International Conference, Chesapeake, VA,
March 2–6.
Schmidt D.A., Baran E., Thompson A.D., Mishra P., Koehler
M.J. & Shin T.S. (2009b) Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK): the development and valida-
tion of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education 42, 123–
150.
Shoffner M. (2007) The PT3 crossroads project: searching
for technology-PCK and results. Paper presented at the
Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education
International Conference, Chesapeake, VA, March 26–
30.
Shulman L.S. (1986) Those who understand: knowledge
growth in teaching. Educational Researcher 15, 4–14.
Shulman L.S. (1999) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of
the new reform. In Learners and Pedagogy (eds J. Leach &
B. Moon), pp. 61–77. Paul Chapman Publishing, London.
Teo T. (2008) Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards com-
puter use: a Singapore survey. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology 24, 413–424.
Teo Y.H. & Ting B.H. (2010) Singapore education ICT
masterplans (1997–200). In ICT for Self-Directed and
Collaborative Learning (eds C.S. Chai & Q.Y. Wang),
pp. 2–14. Pearson Education South Asia Pte Ltd.,
Singapore.
Thompson A. & Mishra P. (2007) Breaking news: TPCK
becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Educa-
tion 24, 38–64.
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Singapore pre-service teachers’ TPACK perceptions
Thorndike R.M. (2005) Measurement and Evaluation in
Psychology and Education. Upper Pearson Prentice Hall,
Saddle River, NJ.
Tsai C.C. (2008) The preferences toward constructivist
Internet-based learning environments among university
students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior 24,
16–21.
Walker S.L. & Fraser B.J. (2005) Development and validation
of an instrument for assessing distance education learning
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
573
environments in higher education: the distance education
learning environments survey (DELES). Learning Envi-
ronments Research 8, 289–308.
Yaghi H.M. (2001) Subject matter as a factor in educational
computing by teachers in international settings. Journal of
Educational Computing Research 24, 139–154.