SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Temel Eğitim / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 31

An investigation of a classroom teacher’s technological pedagogical content knowledge development within the context of the digital literacy coaching cycle

Bir Sınıf Öğretmeninin Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi Gelişiminin Dijital Okuryazarlık Koçluk Döngüsü Bağlamında İncelenmesi

Remziye Uludağ Kırçıl(AMASYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ)0000-0001-8736-3370
Şafak Uluçınar Sağır(AMASYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3383-5330
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-08-06
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Based on these results, it can be argued that incorporating continuous, feedback-oriented, and practice-based coaching models into teachers’ professional development processes would enhance the quality of technology-supported instructional practices.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to investigate how a classroom teacher’s Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) competencies develop within the context of the Digital Literacy Coaching Cycle process.
📊
Key Findings & Data:As a result, the digital literacy coaching cycle increased the teacher’s awareness of technology use, ensured the selection of digital tools consistent with instructional objectives, and supported the development of student-centered teaching practices.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on these results, it can be argued that incorporating continuous, feedback-oriented, and practice-based coaching models into teachers’ professional development processes would enhance the quality of technology-supported instructional practices.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi · dijital okuryazarlık · koçluk

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate how a classroom teacher’s Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) competencies develop within the context of the Digital Literacy Coaching Cycle process. A design-based research method was employed in the study. The participant of the research was a classroom teacher selected through purposive sampling. Data collection instruments included the TPACK interview form, TPACK-based lesson plan evaluation form, observation form, reflective journals, and researcher notes. The data were analyzed using content and descriptive analysis methods. As a result, the digital literacy coaching cycle increased the teacher’s awareness of technology use, ensured the selection of digital tools consistent with instructional objectives, and supported the development of student-centered teaching practices. However, findings such as time management challenges, insufficient time for interactive activities, and unstructured assessment processes indicate areas where the teacher’s instructional processes still require support for greater coherence. Nevertheless, the teacher’s awareness of these shortcomings and efforts to compensate for them also suggest a positive potential for development. Based on these results, it can be argued that incorporating continuous, feedback-oriented, and practice-based coaching models into teachers’ professional development processes would enhance the quality of technology-supported instructional practices.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı bir sınıf öğretmeninin Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi (TPAB) yeterliklerinin, Dijital Okuryazarlık Koçluk Döngüsü süreci bağlamında nasıl geliştiğini incelemektir. Araştırmada tasarım tabanlı araştırma yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın katılımcısı uygun örnekleme yöntemi ile belirlenen bir sınıf öğretmenidir. Veri toplama aracı olarak TPAB görüşme formu, TPAB temelli ders planı değerlendirme formu, gözlem formu, yansıtma günlükleri ve araştırmacı notları kullanılmıştır. Veriler içerik ve betimsel analiz yöntemi ile çözümlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, dijital okuryazarlık koçluk döngüsü öğretmenin teknoloji kullanımındaki farkındalığını artırmış, dijital araçların öğretim hedefleriyle tutarlı bir biçimde seçilmesini sağlamış ve öğrenci merkezli öğretim uygulamalarının gelişimini desteklemiştir. Ancak zaman yönetimi, etkileşimli etkinlikler için sürenin yetersiz kalması ve değerlendirme süreçlerinin planlı yürütülememesi gibi bulgular, öğretmenin öğretim süreçlerinin bütünselliğinde hâlâ desteklenmesi gereken yönleri olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Ancak öğretmenin bu eksikliklerin farkında olması ve bunları telafi etmeye çalışması olumlu bir gelişim potansiyelini de beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu sonuçlar doğrultusunda, öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişim süreçlerinde sürekli, geri bildirim temelli ve uygulamaya dayalı koçluk modellerine yer verilmesinin, teknoloji destekli öğretim uygulamalarının niteliğini artıracağı söylenebilir

🔖

Cite This Article

Kırçıl, R. U., Sağır, Ş. U. (2026). An investigation of a classroom teacher’s technological pedagogical content knowledge development within the context of the digital literacy coaching cycle. Temel Eğitim, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 31. https://doi.org/10.52105/temelegitim.1930664

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (60)

  1. Aktaş, İ., & Özmen, H. (2022). Assessing the performance of Turkish science pre-service teachers in a TPACK-practical course. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3495-3528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09653-x
  2. Alayyar, G., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2010). Technology integration in the science teachers' preparation program in Kuwait: Becoming TPACK competent through design teams. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, San Diego, CA
  3. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2008, March). TPCK in pre-service teac her education: Preparing primary education students to teach with technology. In AERA Annual Conference, New York
  4. Aslan, S., Alanoğlu, M., & Karabatak, S. (2025). Enhancing 21st-century teaching competencies: The key role of digital literacy in connecting pre-service teachers’ TPACK. Information Development, 02666669251315841. https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669251315841
  5. Baran, E., & Canbazoğlu Bilici S. (2015). Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi (TPAB) Üzerine Alanyazın İncelemesi: Türkiye Örneği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Hacettepe University Journal of Education], 30(1), 15-32.
  6. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership. 57(3),18-24. Burget, M., & Ränik, L. (2020). Keep students engaged to keep them motivated. In ICERI2020 Proceedings (pp. 6305-6310). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2020.1357
  7. Canbazoğlu Bilici, S., & Yadigaroğlu, M. (2019). Kuram ve uygulamada teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi. Ş. Uluçınar Sağır (Ed.), Teoriden uygulamaya pedagojik alan bilgisi içinde (s. 226-256). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  8. 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). Computers & Education, 57, 1184-1193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.007
  9. Chan, R., Tan, M., & Verma, A. (2025). The relationship between teacher digital literacy and the use of technology in learning. International Journal of Educational Narratives, 3(2), 133-142. https://doi.org/10.70177/ijen.v3i2.2149.
  10. Chen, C. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2021). In-service teachers' conceptions of mobile technology-integrated instruction: Tendency towards student-centered learning. Computers & Education, 170, 104224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104224
  11. Chen, X., Li, M., & Lv, Y. (2022, June). Curriculum Construction and Implementation Based on the Development of University Teachers' TPACK: TPACK's curriculum construction and implementation. In Proceedings of the 2022 6th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business and E-Technology (pp. 46-51). https://doi.org/10.1145/3549843.3549850.
  12. Daniel, K., Msambwa, M., Fute, A., & Wan, X. (2024). Motivate students for better academic achievement: A systematic review of blended innovative teaching and its impact on learning. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 32(4). e22733. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22733.
  13. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005
  14. Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to design online learning environments and professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319-346. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.41.3.d
  15. Ertmer, P.A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich A.T. (2010) Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
  16. Guzey, S.S., & Roehrig, G.H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). 25-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9140-4
  17. Hague, C., & Payton, S. (2010) Digital literacy across the curriculum. London, UK: Kogan Page. Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3833–3840). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  18. Haryanti, M. L., & Purbojo, R. (2024). Peran Kepemimpinan Transformasional dan Literasi Digital terhadap Kompetensi Pedagogis Guru dalam Pengintegrasian Teknologi. Edumatic: Jurnal Pendidikan Informatika, 8(1), 103-112. https://doi.org/10.29408/edumatic.v8i1.25444.
  19. Hofer, M., Grandgenett, N., Harris, J., & Swan, K. (2011). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration observation instrument. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 4352–4359). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  20. Jang, S. J., & Chen, K. C. (2010). From PCK to TPACK: Developing a transformative model for pre-service science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 553-564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9222-y
  21. Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259-1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.022
  22. Karagözoğlu, N. (2025). Sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde yaşanan sorunlar: bir meta-tematik analiz. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 54(246), 879-914. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1548581
  23. Karakaya Cirit, D., & Aydemir, S. (2019). The effects of peercoaching on the technological pedagogical content knowledge of pre-service science teachers. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 20(3), 933-951. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.566462
  24. Khan, R., & Gul, F. (2022). Exploring the relationship between digital literacy skills and Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) among secondary school teachers. Global Social Sciences Review, 7(2), 196-206. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2022(VII-II).19
  25. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013) What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education 193(3). 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303
  26. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of educational computing research, 32(2), 131-152. https://doi.org/10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV
  27. Koh, J. H., & Divaharan, H. (2011). Developing pre-service teachers' technology integration expertise through the TPACK-developing instructional model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 35-58. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.44.1.c
  28. Kokoç, M. (2012). Karma mesleki gelişim programı sürecinde ilköğretim sınıf çözümlerinde teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgileri üzerine bir çalışma [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi.
  29. Koyunkaya, M. Y., & Taşdan, B. T. (2019). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının ders planlarının teknoloji entegrasyonu açısından değerlendirilmesi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20, 1137-1166. https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.
  30. Kum O, (2022). İlkokul öğretmenlerinin teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgileri ile dijital okuryazarlık yeterlilikleri arasındaki ilişki [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Bartın: Bartın University
  31. Knight, J. (2017). The impact cycle: What instructional coaches should do to foster powerful improvements in teaching. Corwin Press.
  32. Mardiana, H. (2024). Perceived impact of lecturers’ digital literacy skills in higher education institutions. Sage Open, 14(3), 21582440241256937.https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241256937.
  33. Mariscal, L. L., Albarracin, M. R., Mobo, F. D., & Cutillas, A. L. (2023). Pedagogical competence towards technology driven instruction on basic education. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research. 4(5), 1567–1580. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.04.05.18.
  34. Martin, A. (2006). A European framework for digital literacy. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 1(2), 151-161. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2006-02-06
  35. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2016). Nitel veri analizi. (Çev. Ed. S. Akbaba Altun ve A. Ersoy). Pegem Akademi. (Orijinal yayın tarihi 1994).
  36. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli öğretim programları ortak metni. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/ortak-metin
  37. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  38. Niess, M. (2007). Developing Teacher’s TPCK for Teaching Mathematics With Spreadsheets. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2007--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2238-2245). San Antonio, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  39. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006
  40. Okulu, H. Z., & Güngör Babaoğlu, M. (2024). Fizik eğitiminde teknoloji destekli yenilikçi uygulamaların öğretmenlerin teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgilerine ve teknolojiyi kullanma durumlarına etkisi. Eğitim Bilim Ve Araştırma Dergisi, 5(2), 156-180. https://doi.org/10.54637/ebad.1434316
  41. Orakova, A., Nametkulova, F., Issayeva, G., Mukhambetzhanova, S., Galimzhanova, M., & Rezuanova, G. (2024). The relationships between pedagogical and technological competence and digital literacy level of teachers. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 6(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2024.2.
  42. Patton, M. Q. (2018). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri (M. Bürün ve S.B. Demir, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  43. Pehlevan, İ. (2023). The relationship between digital literacy and TPACK levels of pre-service English teachers [Unpublished master’s thesıs]. Yıldız Technıcal Unıversıty.
  44. Quach, T. T. N., Pham, T. X. T., Pham, P. P., & Nguyen, T. T. X. (2024, December). Integrating TPACK to Enhance Quality Assurance in General English Teaching: A Case Study in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the AsiaCALL International Conference (Vol. 6, pp. 250-267). https://doi.org/10.54855/paic.24618.
  45. Saykal, A., & Uluçınar Sağır, Ş. (2021). Türkiye'de öğretmen yeterlikleri ve teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi araştırmaları. Gazi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(2), 115-137. https://dx.doi.org/10.30855/gjes.2021.07.02.001
  46. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A.D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544
  47. Shin, T., Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Schmidt, D., Baran, E., & Thompson, A. (2009). Changing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) through Course Experiences. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 4152-4159). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  48. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
  49. Siregar, V.V., Rajab, Hermansyah, Eva Ardinal, Rully Hidayatullah, & Nurkhaerat Alimudin. (2024). Analyzing the Influence of Digital Literacy and Pedagogical Knowledge on TPACK in Elementary School Teachers. Jurnal Ilmiah Sekolah Dasar, 8(3), 476–486. https://doi.org/10.23887/jisd.v8i3.53414
  50. Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2017). A comprehensive investigation of TPACK within pre-service teachers’ ICT profiles: Mind the gap. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3504
  51. Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2020). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A mixed-method study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 319-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09692-1
  52. Trust, T. (2018). 2017 ISTE standards for educators: from teaching with technology to using technology to empower learners. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(1), 1-3, https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1398980
  53. Veenman, S., & Denessen, E. (2001). The coaching of teachers: Results of five training studies. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(4), 385-417. https://doi.org/10.1076/edre.7.4.385.8936
  54. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Roblin, N. P., Tondeur, J., & Van Braak, J. (2012). Technological pedagogical content knowledge—A review ofthe literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
  55. Weitzel, H., & Blank, R. (2014, December). Content focused peer coaching and the development of lesson plans about scientific inquiry. In Katya Maab et.al (Eds.), Educating the educators: international approaches to scaling-up professional development in mathematics and science education (pp. 325-327). WTM. Wong, H., & Wong, R. (2008, Şubat). Coaches are more effective than mentors. http://teachers.net/wong/FEB08/
  56. Wulandari, M., & Inggitajna, A. A. (2023). Improving the preservice teachers’ TPACK level through hybrid learning. Journal of Applied Studies in Language, 7(1), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.31940/jasl.v7i1.66-74.
  57. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimler nitel araştırma (11.Baskı). Seçkin Yayınları.
  58. Yurdakul, I. K., Odabasi, H. F., Kilicer, K., Coklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A. (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Computers & Education, 58(3), 964-977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.012
  59. Zhang J. (2023). EFL teachers' digital literacy: the role of contextual factors in their literacy development. Frontiers in psychology, 14, 1153339. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1153339
  60. Zunica, B. (2023). Technology everywhere! But who’s got the time? The influence of time pressures on technology integration in Australian secondary mathematics. Discover Education, 2(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-023-00071-w