CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

CEDTECH-18467-2022-R1

Technopedagogical and disciplinary knowledge of primary school teachers in different socio-demographic contexts

ABSTRACT
The research aims to explore teachers' technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) and its relationship with socio-demographic factors. A quantitative, non-experimental, transactional study was conducted. The sample consisted of 403 primary school teachers. The Chilean version of the TPACK questionnaire was used as an instrument. Data were analyzed with SPSS 27 and JASP 0.16.2. Descriptive, correlational, and inferential techniques were used for the statistical analyses. In addition, normality, contrast, and post-hoc tests were considered. The results show that teachers have higher levels of pedagogical (4.27) and disciplinary (4.12) knowledge compared to technological (3.59). Likewise, there are positive correlations in all dimensions of TPACK, highlighting technological knowledge (TK) and its derivations of technological content knowledge (TCK) and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), with values ranging between (.613) and (.732). In regard to gender, professional training and teacher evaluation, the inferential analyses shows significant differences only in the central dimensions of TPACK. In the administrative unit, significant differences are observed between private subsidized and public-school teachers in technological knowledge (TK) and technological knowledge of content (TCK). Finally, teachers with less than five years of service have lower knowledge in most of the TPACK dimensions.
KEYWORDS
Knowledge of technological pedagogical content (TPACK), primary school teachers, integration of technology, ICT.
FULL-TEXT (PDF)
YOUR DECISION
MINOR REVISION
YOUR COMMENTS TO AUTHORS

The article can be recommended for publication if the following remarks are eliminated:

  1. There is no research hypothesis in the experimental part of the article.

2.  The article does not sufficiently substantiate the need for a conducting research.

3. Insufficiently clearly formulated conclusions on the results of the research, the results are not substantiated.

4. The article contains punctuation and technical errors: the numbering of tables is broken - 4,7,6,7 (Page 11).

YOUR COMMENTS FOR EDITORIAL STAFF
(None)
Copyright © 2004 - 2026 EditorialPark. All rights reserved.