Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies

Şule Betül TOSUNTAŞ, (Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Bölümü, Bursa, Türkiye)
Zühal ÇUBUKÇU, (Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Bölümü, Eskişehir, Türkiye)
Gary BEAUCHAMP (Cardiff Metropolitan University, School of Education and Social Policy, Department of Initial Teacher Education, Cardiff, United Kingdom)
Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi
9 0
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 29 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 63 - 83 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.24106/kefdergi.726886 İndeks Tarihi: 15-10-2021

Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies

Öz:
Purpose: Technology can be quickly and effectively integrated into education processes due to its rapidly developing and changingnature. Technopedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) emerges as one of the important types of knowledge that teachers shouldhave in the process of technology integration. Teacher performance is naturally affected, as technology integration reshapes theeducation process. However, there are no studies on how teacher performance is related to the use of technology in Turkey, andteacher performance evaluation is not studied robustly. This study aims to determine the relationship between teachers' TPACKcompetencies and their performance.Design/Methodology/Approach: This study was designed using a correlational model to determine the relationship between teachers'TPACK competencies and performance. The study group consists of 305 teachers working in primary, secondary and high schools inthe Central Anatolia Region. Data in the study were collected through TPACK-Practical Scale and Teacher Performance Scale. The datawere analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, correlation and regression techniques.Findings: The findings of the study showed that TPACK and performance did not differ according to the gender of the teachers. TPACKcompetencies differ according to educational status and school type, and teacher performance differs according to school type. TPACKcompetencies and performances of teachers were negatively correlated with their ages and seniority. On the other hand, small positiverelationships were determined between TPACK and performance.Conclusions: As a result, thanks to technology integration, teacher performance can be improved, and student achievement, which isseen as the most concrete output of teacher performance, can be improved. In this respect, it can be suggested that TPACK isconsidered as a whole, and it can be developed theoretically and practically. This study suggests that technology, pedagogy, andcontent knowledge should not be included separately in teacher education, but presented in an integrated way.
Anahtar Kelime:

Teknopedagojik Alan Bilgisi Yeterlikleri Açısından Öğretmen Performansı

Öz:
Çalışmanın Amacı: Teknoloji hızla gelişen ve değişen doğası gereği eğitim – öğretim süreçlerine de hızla ve etkili şekilde entegre olmaktadır. Teknopedagojik alan bilgisi (TPAB) ise teknoloji entegrasyonu sürecinde öğretmenlerin sahip olması gereken önemli bilgi türlerinden biri olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Teknoloji entegrasyonunun eğitim öğretim sürecini yeniden şekillendirmesi nedeniyle öğretmen performansı da doğal olarak etkilenmektedir. Ancak ülkemizde öğretmen performansının teknoloji kullanımıyla nasıl ilişkili olduğuna yönelik araştırmalar bulunmadığı gibi, öğretmen performans değerlendirmesi de üzerinde yeterince durulmayan alanlardan biridir. Bu araştırmanın amacı, öğretmenlerin TPAB yeterlikleri ile performansları arasındaki ilişkinin belirlenmesidir. Materyal ve Yöntem: Bu amaçla araştırma, öğretmenlerin TPAB yeterlikleri ve performansları arasındaki ilişkilerin belirlenmesi adına ilişkisel model kullanılarak desenlenmiştir. Çalışma grubunu İç Anadolu Bölgesinde ilkokul, ortaokul ve liselerde görev yapan 305 öğretmen oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın verileri, TPAB- Uygulama Ölçeği ve Öğretmen Performansı Ölçeği aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Veriler betimsel istatistikler, t testi, ANOVA, korelasyon ve regresyon teknikleri kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Araştırmanın bulguları, TPAB yeterlikleri ve performansın öğretmenlerin cinsiyetine göre farklılaşmadığını göstermiştir. TPAB’i yeterlikleri eğitim durumu ve okul türüne göre farklılaşmaktadır ve öğretmen performansı ise okul türüne göre farklılaşmaktadır. Öğretmenlerin TPAB yeterlik ve performansları yaşları ve kıdemleri ile negatif yönde ilişkili bulunmuştur. TPAB ve performans arasında ise küçük düzeyde pozitif yönlü ilişkiler belirlenmiştir. Sonuçlar: Teknoloji entegrasyonu sayesinde öğretme performansı ve öğretmen performansının en somut çıktısı olarak görülen öğrenci başarısı geliştirilebilir. Bu doğrultuda, TPAB’ın bir bütün olarak ele alınması ve teorik-pratik olarak geliştirilmesi önerilebilir. Bu çalışmada, öğretmen eğitiminde teknoloji, pedagoji ve içerik bilgisinin birbirinden ayrılmadan, bütüncül olarak sunulması önerilmektedir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Açıkalın, A. (1999). İnsan kaynağının yönetimi ve geliştirilmesi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Akal, Z. (1992). İşletmelerde performans ölçüm ve denetimi (Çok yönlü performans göstergeleri). Ankara: MPM Yayınları.
  • Akay, C. (2013). Teknoloji temelli öğretim tasarımları hazırlama ve uygulama ilkeleri. T. Yanpar Yelken, H. Sancar Tokmak, S. Özgelen, L. İncikapı (Ed.), Fen ve matematik eğitiminde teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi temelli öğretim tasarımları, (s. 129-148). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Albaaly, E., & Higgins, S. (2012). The impact of interactive whiteboard technology on medical students’ achievement in ESL essay writing: An early study in Egypt. The Language Learning Journal, 40(2), 207-222.
  • Almekhlafi, A.G. (2006). The effect of computer assisted language learning (CALL) on United Arab Emirates English as a foreign language (EFL) school students achievement and attitude. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 121-142.
  • Alpaslan, T. (2015). A review on administrators' and teachers' opinions about the performance evaluation (Master thesis). Erciyes University, Kayseri.
  • Altun, S. A. ve Memişoğlu, S. P. (2008). The opinions of teachers, administrators and supervisors regarding performance assessment. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 7-24.
  • Anagün, Ş. S. (2002). Performance appraisal process in education and performance appraisal methods used in human resource management (Master thesis). Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: An instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 292– 302.
  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICTTPACK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168.
  • Archer, J. (2000) State teacher policies tied to student results, Education Week, 19(17), 3-4.
  • Asan, A. (2003) Computer technology awareness by elementary school teachers: A case study from Turkey. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2, 150-163.
  • Atik Kara, D. (2012). Evaluation of teaching profession courses in terms of teacher candidates competencies regarding the learning and teaching process (Doctoral dissertation). Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
  • Avcı, T. (2014). Determining technological pedagogic content knowledge and self-confidence levels of science teachers (Master thesis). Celal Bayar University, Manisa.
  • Ay, Y. (2015). Evaluation of teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) within the framework of practical model (Doctoral dissertation). Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir.
  • Aydın, İ. (2012). Öğretimde denetim: Durum saptama değerlendirme ve geliştirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Azar, A. (2010). In-service and pre-service secondary science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about science teaching. Zonguldak Karaelmas University Journal of Social Sciences, 6(12).
  • Bal, M. S. ve Karademir, N. (2013). Determining social science teachers’ self-assessment levels with regard to their technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 34(2), 15-32.
  • Balkar, B. (2014). Perceptions of teachers on research-based teacher education policy comprising knowledge domains of clinically-based approach. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 29(4), 28-45.
  • Baloğlu, N. ve Karadağ, E. (2008). Teacher efficacy and Ohio teacher efficacy scale: Adaptation for turkish culture, language validity and examination of factor structure. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 56, 571-606.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
  • Barutçugil, İ. (2002). Performans yönetimi. İstanbul: Kariyer yayınları.
  • Becit İşçitürk, G. (2013). Teknopedagojik eğitimin planlanması. K. Yurdakul (Ed.), Teknopedagojik Eğitime Dayalı Öğretim ve Teknolojileri ve Materyal Tasarımı (1.Baskı, s. 73-91). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Bektaş, F. (2013). An evaluation of school managers behaviours, quality of work life and teachers performances in terms of students (Doctoral thesis). Atatürk University, Erzurum.
  • Belland, B. R. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration. Computers & Education, 52, 353–364.
  • Bilici, S. ve Güler, Ç. (2016). Investigation of teachers’ TPACK levels with respect to use of instructional technologies. Elementary Education Online, 15(3), 898-921.
  • Biswas, S. (2009). Organizational culture & transformational leadership as predictors of employee performance. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(4), 611- 627.
  • Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures or employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587–605.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1979). Symbolic power. Critique of Anthropology, 4(13-14), 77-85.
  • Bradley, E., Isaac, P., & King, J. (2020). Assessment of pre-service teacher dispositions. Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning, 13 (1). https://doi.org/10.14305/jn.19440413.2020.13.1.03
  • Burmabıyık, Ö. (2014). Investigation of perceptions of self-sufficiency towards teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge in terms of different variables (Case of Yalova) (Master thesis). Sakarya University, Sakarya.
  • Buyruk, H. (2014). Standardized examinations as a teacher performance indicator and performance evaluation in education. Trakya University Journal of Education, 4(2), 28-42.
  • Campbell, J. (1996). A comparison of teacher efficacy for pre and in-service teachers in Scotland and America. Education, 117(1), 2-12.
  • Celep, C. (2000). The correlation of the factors: the prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs, and attitudes about student control. National Forum, 1-10.
  • Chacon, C. T. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 257-272.
  • Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63–73.
  • Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31-51.
  • Choy, D., Wong, A.F. L., Gao, P. (2009). Student teachers’ intentions and actions on integrating technology into their classrooms during student teaching: A Singapore study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 175-195.
  • Comrey, A. L. & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Conroy, J., Hulme, M., & Menter, I. (2013). Developing a ‘clinical’ model for teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 39(5), 557-573.
  • Cooper, B.S., Ehrensal, P.A., & Bromme, M. (2005). School-level politics and professional development: Traps in evaluating the quality of practicing teachers. Educational Policy, 29(1), 112-125.
  • Çağıltay, K., Çakıroğlu, J., Çağıltay, N., & Çakıroğlu, E. (2001). Teachers’ perspective about the use of computers in education. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 21, 19-28.
  • Çakır, Ö. Kan, A., & Sünbül, Ö. (2006). The evaluation of the teaching certificate program and the masters program without thesis with respect to students’ attitudes and self-efficacy. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 2(1), 36-47.
  • Çapa, Y., Çakıroğlu, J., & Sarıkaya, H. (2005). The development and validation of a Turkish version of teachers’ sense of efficacy scale. Education and Science, 30(137), 74-81.
  • Çapri, B., & Çelikkaleli, Ö. (2008). Investigation of preservice teachers’ attitudes towards teaching and professional self-efficacy beliefs according to their gender, programs, and faculties. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9(15), 33-53.
  • Çelik Uyanıktürk, B. B. (2009). The applicability of performance rating system in primary education (Master thesis). Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale.
  • Çimen, S. (2007). Primary school teachers' burnout levels and perceived self-efficacy beliefs (Master thesis). Kocaeli University, Kocaeli.
  • Çoklar A.N., Kılıçer, K. ve Odabaşı, H.F. (2007, Mayıs). Eğitimde teknoloji kullanımına eleştirel bir bakış: Teknopedagoji. 7. Uluslararası Eğitim Teknolojileri Konferansı, Lefkoşe, KKTC.
  • Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Danişman, Ş., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., & Karadağ, E. (2015). The effect of leadership on organizational performance. E. Karadağ (Ed.), Leadership and organizational outcomes: Meta-analysis of empirical studies (pp. 143-168). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14908-0
  • Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 53, 285–328.
  • Daugherty, S. G. (2005). Teacher efficacy and its relation to teachers’ behaviors in the classroom (Doctoral dissertation). University of Houston, ABD.
  • Demirbolat-Ottekin, A. (2005). Expectations of graduate students from lecturers and the curriculum. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 3(1), 47-64.
  • Demirezen, S , & Keleş, H . (2020). Examination of social studies teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge competencies according to various variables. International Journal of New Approaches in Social Studies, 4 (1) , 131-150 . doi: 10.38015/sbyy.750007
  • Eğitimi Araştırma ve Geliştirme Dairesi (EARGED). (2006). Okulda performans yönetimi modeli. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi Müdürlüğü.
  • Ekici, G. (2008). Teknik öğretmenlerin ve teknik öğretmen adaylarının teknolojiye yönelik tutumlarının karşılaştırılması. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, 1, 42-55.
  • Erbas, A. K., Ince, M., & Kaya, S. (2015). Learning mathematics with interactive whiteboards and computer-based graphing utility. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 299-312.
  • Erişen, Y. ve Çeliköz, N. (2003). The self-perception on competency of the prospective teachers in terms of general teacher behaviors. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 1(4), 427-439.
  • Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.
  • Ferguson, P., & Womack, S. T. (1993). The impact of subject matter and education coursework on teaching performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 55-63.
  • Flowers, C. P., & Hancock, D. R. (2003). An interview protocol and scoring rubric for evaluating teacher performance. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(2), 161-168.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
  • Garcia-Morales, V. J., Jimenez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1040-1050.
  • Garden, A. M. (1991). Relationship between burnout and performance. Psychological Reports, 68(3), 963-977.
  • Gençtürk, A. (2008). The analysis of primary school teachers self-efficacy beliefs and job satisfactions in terms of various variables (Master thesis). Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Zonguldak.
  • Goodwin, A. L. (2020) Teaching standards, globalisation, and conceptions of teacher professionalism. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1- 15. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1833855
  • Gömleksiz, M. N., & Fidan, E. K. (2013). Self efficacy perception levels of prospective classroom teachers toward technological pedagogical content knowledge. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 14(1), 87-113.
  • Gülbahar, Y. (2008). Improving the technology integration skills of prospective teachers through practice: A case study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4), 71-81.
  • Gün, B. (2012). Views of teacher performance: to what extent do multiple observers converge. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 46, 81- 100.
  • Güvendi, G. M. (2014). Determination of teachers' usage frequency of online education and sharing websites supplied by the ministry of education: An example of Education Information Technologies Network (EBA) (Master thesis). Sakarya University, Sakarya.
  • Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.
  • Harwiki, W. (2013). The influence of servant leadership on organization culture, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior and employees' performance (study of outstanding cooperatives in east java province, Indonesia). Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 5(12), 876-885.
  • Heck, R. H., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1996). School culture and performance: Testing the invariance of an organizational model. School effectiveness and school improvement, 7(1), 76-95.
  • Heneman, R. L. (1986). The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented measures of performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 811–826.
  • Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.
  • Hollins, E. R., Luna, C., & Lopez, S. (2014). Learning to teach teachers. Teaching Education, 25(1), 99-124.
  • Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137-154.
  • Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (2013). Model Core Teaching Standards and Learning Progressions for Teachers 1.0: A Resource for Ongoing Teacher Development. Council of Chief State Schools Officers, 4(18), Washington, DC. http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Programs/Interstate_Teacher_Assessment_Consortium_(InTASC).html adresinden 15 Haziran 2015 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
  • İşigüzel, B. (2014). Determining the level of proficiency in technopedagogical knowledge competencies of pre-service german teachers. Journal of International Social Research, 7(34), 768-778.
  • İşleyen, R. (2011). The relation between the levels of organizational confidence of primary school teachers with the applications of performance managements to the teachers (Master thesis). Sakarya University, Sakarya.
  • Jang, S. J. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers. Computers & Education, 55 (4), 1744–1751.
  • Jang, S. J. & Tsai, M. F. (2012). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 59(2), 327-338.
  • Jennett, H. K., Harris, S. L., & Mesibov, G. B. (2003). Commitment to philosophy, teacher efficacy, and burnout among teachers of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(6), 583-593.
  • Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55, 1259–1269.
  • Jung, Y., & Takeuchi, N. (2010). Performance implications for the relationships among top management leadership, organizational culture, and appraisal practice: testing two theory-based models of organizational learning theory in Japan. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(11), 1931-1950.
  • Kabakçı Yurdakul, I. (2011). Examining technopedagogical knowledge competencies of preservice teachers based on ICT usage. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 40, 397-408.
  • Kahyaoğlu, M., & Yangın, S. (2007). Views of prospective teachers in elementary school teaching departments about professional self-efficacy. Kastamonu Education Journal, 15(1), 73-84.
  • Kakkos, N. & Trivellas, P. (2011). Investigating the link between motivation, work stress and job performance. Evidence from the banking industry. 8th International Conference on Enterprise Systems, Accounting and Logistics, 408-428.
  • Kantos, Z. E. (2013). The performance evaluation process and the 360 degrees feedback system Educational Sciences and Practice, 12(23), 59- 76.
  • Kazmi, R., Amjad, S. & Khan, D. (2008). Occupational stress and its effect on job performance. A case study of medical house officers of Abbotabad. JAMC, 20(3), 135-139.
  • Khalid, A., Murtaza, G., Zafar, A., Zafar, M. A., Saqib, L., & Mushtaq, R. (2012). Role of supportive leadership as a moderator between job stress and job performance. Information Management and Business Review, 4(9), 487.
  • Koçak, R. (2006). The validity and reliability of the teachers’ performance evaluation scale. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 6(3), 779- 808.
  • Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102.
  • Koh, J., Chai, C., & Tsai, C. (2010). Examining the technological pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a largescale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 563–573.
  • Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • Kotlyar, I. (2001). Leadership in decision-making groups: Improving performance by managing conflict. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Canada.
  • Kozlowski, S.W.J., G.T. Chao, and R.F. Morrison. (1998). Games raters play: Politics, strategies, and impression management in performance appraisal. In Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice, J.W. Smither (ed.), 163-208. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Kunz, A. H., & Pfaff, D. (2002). Agency theory, performance evaluation, and the hypothetical construct of intrinsic motivation. Accounting, organizations and society, 27(3), 275-295.
  • Küçükahmet, L. (2007). Evaluation of the undergraduate programs of teacher education introduced in the 2006-2007 educational year. Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 5(2), 203-218.
  • Küçükyılmaz, E. A., & Duban, N. (2006). The opinions of primary teacher candidates on taking measures to increase science teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education, 3(2), 1-23.
  • Lee, M., & Tsai, C. (2010). Exploring teachers' perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the world wide web. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 38(1), 1-21.
  • Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education, 49(2), 284-296.
  • Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their planning and conduct of computer mediated classroom lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 807–828.
  • Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Strahl, J. D., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology integration ‘‘work’’ when key barriers are removed? Educational Media International, 45(3), 189–206.
  • Malik, N., & Shanwal, V. K. (2015). A comparative study of academic achievement of traditional classroom and smart classroom technology in relation to intelligence. Educational Quest, 6(1), 21.
  • Marsh, J. (2006). Popular culture in the literacy curriculum: A Bourdieuan analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(2), 160-174.
  • Maslowski, R. (2001). School culture and school performance. Enschede: Twente University Press.
  • Medley, D. M., & Coker, H. (1987). The accuracy of principals’ judgments of teacher performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 80, 242– 247.
  • Milanovsk, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 33-53.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2008). Öğretmen yeterlikleri. Ankara: Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü.
  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  • Montes, F.C.L., Moreno, A. R., & Garcia-Morales, V. (2005). Influence of support leadership and teamwork cohesion on organizational learning, innovation and performance: An empirical examination. Technovation, 25, 1159–1172.
  • Mouza, C. (2008). Learning with laptops: Implementation and outcomes in an urban, under-privileged school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 447-472.
  • Murat, A. ve Erten, H. (2016). Self-efficacy perception levels of science preservice teachers' in technopedagogical knowledge. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 48, 477-485.
  • Mutluoğlu, A., & Erdoğan, A. (2012). İlköğretim matematik öğretmenlerinin tpab düzeylerinin farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. In 6th International Computer and Instructional Technologies Symposium, 4th-6th October, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey.
  • Neill, M. (1999). Stop misusing tests to evaluate teachers. Social Education, 63(6), 330-32.
  • Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.
  • Noyes, A. (2004). (Re) producing mathematics educators: A sociological perspective. Teaching Education, 15(3), 243-256.
  • Nweke, W.C., Perkins, T.P, & Afolabi, C.Y. (2019). Reliability analysis of complementary assessment tools for measuring teacher candidate dispositions. Georgia Educational Researcher, 16(2), 1- 33. https://doi.org/10.20429/ger.2019.160202
  • Ocak, M. A. (2005). Mathematics teachers’ attitudes toward the computers. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(3), 82-88.
  • Ogbonna, E. & Harris, L. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: Empirical evidence from UK companies. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 11(4), 766-788.
  • Özgen, K., Narlı, S., & Alkan, H. (2013). An investigation of mathematics teacher trainees’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and their perception of the frequency of technology use. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 44(44), 31-51.
  • Özgün, M. S. (2007). A Survey between the school psychological counselors personality features and occupational self-efficacy (Master thesis). Çukurova University, Adana.
  • Özoğlu, M. (2010). Türkiye’de öğretmen yetiştirme sisteminin sorunları. Ankara: Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Toplum Araştırmaları Vakfı.
  • Öztürk, Ü. (2006). Organizasyonlarda performans yönetimi. İstanbul: Sistem yayıncılık.
  • Palmer, M., & Winters, K. (1993). İnsan kaynakları (Çeviren: Doğan Şahiner). İstanbul: Reprosal Matbaası.
  • Pecheone, R. L., & Chung, R. R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The performance assessment for California teachers (PACT). Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22-36.
  • Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Pierson, M. (1999). Technology practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. (Doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University. UMI Dissertation Service, 9924200.
  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.
  • Popham, W. J. (2000). Putting instruction on the line, The School Administrator, 57(11), 46-48.
  • Recepoğlu, S , & İbret, B . (2020). Examining the perceptions of social studies prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy. Kastamonu Education Journal , 28 (1) , 125-136 . doi: 10.24106/kefdergi.3478
  • Remington, L.R. (2002). School internal investigations of employees, open records law, and the prying press. Journal of Law and Education, 31(4), 459-468.
  • Sabo, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Tessellations in TPACK: comparing technological pedagogical content knowledge levels among K-12 online and traditional teachers. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Societyfor Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 4751-4756). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  • Savaş, B., & Topak, E. (2005). Lisansüstü öğrenim gören öğrencilerin beklentileri ve lisansüstü öğrenimi talep etme gerekçeleri. Buca Faculty of Education Journal, 17, 145-154.
  • Say, M. (2005). Self-efficacy beliefs of science teachers (Master thesis). Marmara University, İstanbul.
  • Shriki, A., & Lavy, I. (2005). Assimilating innovative learning/teaching approaches into teacher education: Why is it so difficult? International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4, 185-192.
  • Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher. 15(2), 4-14.
  • Soydan, T. (2012). A research based on the views of managers and teachers about the effectiveness of the performance evaluation system in the field of education. Ege Journal of Education, 13(1), 1-25.
  • Stiggens, R. J., & Duke, D. (1988) The case for commitment to teacher growth: Research on teacher evaluation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Süzen, A. Z. (2007). Within the framework of human resource management process performance evaluation in teacher evaluation: Perceptions of primary school teachers in a private primary school (Master thesis). Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
  • Swailes, S. (2002). Organizational commitment: a critique of the construct and measures. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2), 155-178.
  • Şad, S. N., Açıkgül, K., & Delican, K. (2015). Senior pre-service teachers’ senses of efficacy on their technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 8(2), 204-235.
  • Şahin, A. E. (2004). Öğretmen yeterliklerinin belirlenmesi. Bilim ve Aklın Aydınlığında Eğitim Dergisi, 5(58), 58-62.
  • Şeker, H., Deniz, S., & Görgen, İ. (2005). Prospective teachers’ assessment of teacher competencies. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 42(42), 237-253.
  • Şimşek, M.Ş. ve Nursoy, M. (2002). Toplam kalite yönetiminde performans ölçme. İstanbul: Hayat Yayınları.
  • Şimşek, Ö., Demir, S., Bağçeci, B. ve Kinay, İ. (2013). Examining technopedagogical knowledge competencies of teacher trainers in terms of some variables. Ege Journal of Education, 14(1), 1-23.
  • Şişman, M. (2002). Öğretmenliğe giriş. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Şişman, M. (2009). Teacher’s competencies: A modern discourse and the rhetoric. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(3), 63-82.
  • Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1996). Using multivariate Statistics. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Tamam, S. (2005). The views of teachers and administrators on performance evaluation as a part of total quality management in primary schools (Master thesis). Çukurova University, Adana.
  • Taris, T. W. (2006). Is there a relationship between burnout and objective performance? A critical review of 16 studies. Work & Stress, 20(4), 316-334.
  • Taylor, F. W. (1997). Bilimsel yönetimin ilkeleri (Çeviren: H. B. Akın). Konya: Çizgi.
  • Telef, B. B. (2011). The study of teachers’ self-efficacy, job satisfaction, life satisfaction and burnout. Elementary Education Online, 10(1), 91-108.
  • Tell, C. (2001). Appreciating good teaching: A conversation with Lee Shulman. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 6-11.
  • Terpstra, M. J. (2009). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge: preservice teachers’ perceptions of how they learn to use educational technology in their teaching. (Doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, Michigan.
  • Tirri, K., & Ubani, M. (2013) Education of Finnish student teachers for purposeful teaching. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 39(1), 21-29.
  • Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. (2004). Principals’ sense of efficacy: Assessing a promising construct. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 573-585.
  • Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2002). The influence of resources and support on teachers’ efficacy beliefs. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
  • Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001) Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive concept. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
  • Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk- Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
  • Türk Eğitim Derneği (TED). (2009). Öğretmen yeterlikleri. Ankara: Türk Eğitim Derneği.
  • Tüysüz, C., & Çümen, V. (2016). Opinions of secondary school students about the EBA course website. Uşak University Journal of Social Sciences, 9(27), 244-254.
  • Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & Braak, J. V. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge – a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109-121.
  • Wakefield, R. L., Leidner, D. E., & Garrison, G. (2008). Research note-a model of conflict, leadership, and performance in virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 434-455.
  • Williams, S. (1999). The effects of distributive and procedural justice on performance. Journal of Psychology, 133, 183-193.
  • Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.
  • Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Education Psychology, 82(1), 81-91.
  • Yariv, E. (2009). The appraisal of teachers' performance and its impact on the mutuality of principal-teacher emotions. School Leadership and Management, 29(5), 445-461.
  • Yavuz, M., Özkaral, T., & Yıldız, D. (2015). The teacher competencies and teacher education in international reports. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 2(2), 60-71.
  • Yeh, Y., Hsu, Y., Wu, H., Hwang, F., & Lin, T. (2014). Developing and validating technological pedagogical content knowledge-practical (TPACKpractical) through the Delphi survey technique. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), 1-16.
  • Yıldırım, A. (2011). Competing agendas and reform in teacher education. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 1(1), 1- 17.
  • Yıldırım, A. (2013). Teacher education research in Turkey: Trends, issues and priority areas. Education and Science, 38(169), 175-191.
  • Yıldırım, İ., & Vural, Ö F. (2014). Problems related with teacher training and pedagogical formation in Turkey. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 3(1), 73-90.
  • Yılmaz, A. (2021). The effect of technology integration in education on prospective teachers' critical and creative thinking, multidimensional 21st century skills and academic achievements. Participatory Educational Research, 8(2), 163-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.21.35.8.2
  • Yılmaz, A., Ayyıldız, P., & Baltacı, H. S. (2020). Speak now or forever hold your peace: Turkish academics’ self-efficacy beliefs in their spoken English. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(6), 325-343. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.280.20
  • Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (2011). Türkiye yükseköğretim yeterlilikler çerçevesi (TYYÇ). http://tyyc.yok.gov.tr/?pid=10 adresinden 15.06.2016 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
  • Zehir, C., Akyuz, B., Eren, M. S., & Turhan, G. (2013). The indirect effects of servant leadership behavior on organizational citizenship behavior and job performance: Organizational justice as a mediator. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 2(3), 1-13.
APA Tosuntas S, CUBUKCU Z, Beauchamp G (2021). Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies. , 63 - 83. 10.24106/kefdergi.726886
Chicago Tosuntas Sule Betul,CUBUKCU Zühal,Beauchamp Gary Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies. (2021): 63 - 83. 10.24106/kefdergi.726886
MLA Tosuntas Sule Betul,CUBUKCU Zühal,Beauchamp Gary Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies. , 2021, ss.63 - 83. 10.24106/kefdergi.726886
AMA Tosuntas S,CUBUKCU Z,Beauchamp G Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies. . 2021; 63 - 83. 10.24106/kefdergi.726886
Vancouver Tosuntas S,CUBUKCU Z,Beauchamp G Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies. . 2021; 63 - 83. 10.24106/kefdergi.726886
IEEE Tosuntas S,CUBUKCU Z,Beauchamp G "Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies." , ss.63 - 83, 2021. 10.24106/kefdergi.726886
ISNAD Tosuntas, Sule Betul vd. "Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies". (2021), 63-83. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.726886
APA Tosuntas S, CUBUKCU Z, Beauchamp G (2021). Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 29(1), 63 - 83. 10.24106/kefdergi.726886
Chicago Tosuntas Sule Betul,CUBUKCU Zühal,Beauchamp Gary Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi 29, no.1 (2021): 63 - 83. 10.24106/kefdergi.726886
MLA Tosuntas Sule Betul,CUBUKCU Zühal,Beauchamp Gary Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, vol.29, no.1, 2021, ss.63 - 83. 10.24106/kefdergi.726886
AMA Tosuntas S,CUBUKCU Z,Beauchamp G Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi. 2021; 29(1): 63 - 83. 10.24106/kefdergi.726886
Vancouver Tosuntas S,CUBUKCU Z,Beauchamp G Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi. 2021; 29(1): 63 - 83. 10.24106/kefdergi.726886
IEEE Tosuntas S,CUBUKCU Z,Beauchamp G "Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies." Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 29, ss.63 - 83, 2021. 10.24106/kefdergi.726886
ISNAD Tosuntas, Sule Betul vd. "Teacher Performance in Terms of Technopedagogical Content Knowledge Competencies". Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi 29/1 (2021), 63-83. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.726886
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 19:43

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları