{"title":"如何评估数学教师的 TPACK?自我报告与知识测试的比较","authors":"Alina Kadluba, Andreas Obersteiner","doi":"10.1007/s10763-024-10490-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Teachers need technology-related knowledge to effectively use technology in the classroom. Previous studies have often used self-reports to assess such knowledge. However, it is questionable whether self-reports are valid measures for this purpose. This study investigates how mathematics teachers’ self-reports correlate with their scores in a paper–pencil knowledge test regarding TPCK (technological pedagogical content knowledge), CK (content knowledge), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and technological knowledge (TK). Participants were <span>\\(N = 173\\)</span> pre- and in-service mathematics teachers. To assess self-reports, we adapted an existing survey from the literature. We also compiled a knowledge test based on items from existing test instruments. To increase comparability between the two instruments, both the self-report and the paper–pencil knowledge test addressed the specific topic of fractions. The four subscales in both instruments had sufficient reliability. The correlations between the self-reports and the paper–pencil test scores were low or very low for all subscales <span>\\(\\left(r=.00-.23\\right)\\)</span>, suggesting that the two instruments captured different underlying constructs. While paper–pencil tests seem more suitable for assessing knowledge, self-reports may be influenced more strongly by participants’ personal traits such as self-efficacy. Our findings raise concerns about the validity of self-reports as measures of teachers’ professional knowledge, and the comparability of studies that use distinct assessment instruments. We recommend that researchers should be more cautious when interpreting self-reports as knowledge and rely more strongly on externally assessed tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":14267,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to Assess Mathematics Teachers’ TPACK? A Comparison Between Self-Reports and Knowledge Tests\",\"authors\":\"Alina Kadluba, Andreas Obersteiner\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10763-024-10490-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Teachers need technology-related knowledge to effectively use technology in the classroom. Previous studies have often used self-reports to assess such knowledge. However, it is questionable whether self-reports are valid measures for this purpose. This study investigates how mathematics teachers’ self-reports correlate with their scores in a paper–pencil knowledge test regarding TPCK (technological pedagogical content knowledge), CK (content knowledge), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and technological knowledge (TK). Participants were <span>\\\\(N = 173\\\\)</span> pre- and in-service mathematics teachers. To assess self-reports, we adapted an existing survey from the literature. We also compiled a knowledge test based on items from existing test instruments. To increase comparability between the two instruments, both the self-report and the paper–pencil knowledge test addressed the specific topic of fractions. The four subscales in both instruments had sufficient reliability. The correlations between the self-reports and the paper–pencil test scores were low or very low for all subscales <span>\\\\(\\\\left(r=.00-.23\\\\right)\\\\)</span>, suggesting that the two instruments captured different underlying constructs. While paper–pencil tests seem more suitable for assessing knowledge, self-reports may be influenced more strongly by participants’ personal traits such as self-efficacy. Our findings raise concerns about the validity of self-reports as measures of teachers’ professional knowledge, and the comparability of studies that use distinct assessment instruments. We recommend that researchers should be more cautious when interpreting self-reports as knowledge and rely more strongly on externally assessed tests.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14267,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10490-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10490-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
How to Assess Mathematics Teachers’ TPACK? A Comparison Between Self-Reports and Knowledge Tests
Teachers need technology-related knowledge to effectively use technology in the classroom. Previous studies have often used self-reports to assess such knowledge. However, it is questionable whether self-reports are valid measures for this purpose. This study investigates how mathematics teachers’ self-reports correlate with their scores in a paper–pencil knowledge test regarding TPCK (technological pedagogical content knowledge), CK (content knowledge), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and technological knowledge (TK). Participants were \(N = 173\) pre- and in-service mathematics teachers. To assess self-reports, we adapted an existing survey from the literature. We also compiled a knowledge test based on items from existing test instruments. To increase comparability between the two instruments, both the self-report and the paper–pencil knowledge test addressed the specific topic of fractions. The four subscales in both instruments had sufficient reliability. The correlations between the self-reports and the paper–pencil test scores were low or very low for all subscales \(\left(r=.00-.23\right)\), suggesting that the two instruments captured different underlying constructs. While paper–pencil tests seem more suitable for assessing knowledge, self-reports may be influenced more strongly by participants’ personal traits such as self-efficacy. Our findings raise concerns about the validity of self-reports as measures of teachers’ professional knowledge, and the comparability of studies that use distinct assessment instruments. We recommend that researchers should be more cautious when interpreting self-reports as knowledge and rely more strongly on externally assessed tests.
期刊介绍:
The objective of this journal is to publish original, fully peer-reviewed articles on a variety of topics and research methods in both science and mathematics education. The journal welcomes articles that address common issues in mathematics and science education and cross-curricular dimensions more widely. Specific attention will be paid to manuscripts written by authors whose native language is not English and the editors have made arrangements for support in re-writing where appropriate. Contemporary educators highlight the importance of viewing knowledge as context-oriented and not limited to one domain. This concurs with current curriculum reforms worldwide for interdisciplinary and integrated curricula. Modern educational practice also focuses on the use of new technology in assisting instruction which may be easily implemented into such an integrated curriculum. The journal welcomes studies that explore science and mathematics education from different cultural perspectives.