participated in the PD program (see Section 4.4.1 for detail). The questionnaires were adapted from Schmidt et al. (2009) because these items formed the basis of the design of other
instruments used in the study. The detailed procedure of the questionnaire development process for this study was reported in Getenet and Beswick (2013).
In diverse fields of study and a variety of contexts, instruments to measure teachers’ knowledge of technology integrated teaching have been developed using the TPACK framework (e.g., Abbitt, 2011; Albion, Jamieson-Proctor, & Finger, 2010; Graham, Cox, & Velasquez, 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Schmidt et al., 2009). The current study, however, argued for the importance of understanding and explaining the use of the TPACK framework specific to
mathematics teaching and the need for an instrument that could be used with mathematics teacher educators (see Chapter 3, Section 3.4). This led to the development of an instrument to measure mathematics teacher educators’ STAMPK. The development process, detailed by Getenet and Beswick (2013), entailed conceptualising the TPACK framework for mathematics teaching, consideration of context, comparison with an existing instruments, expert review, and pilot testing. It drew on Colton and Covert’s (2007) iterative process for instrument
development, and the instrument development phases of Liang et al. (2008) to design the questionnaire. The process used is shown in Figure 4.2.
The first step was specifying the TPACK framework in relation to mathematics teaching (see Chapter 3 at Section 3.4 for details). This step supported the item design for each construct of STAMPK in terms of the new conceptualisation.
Figure 4. 2. Process of developing an instrument to measure mathematics teacher educators’ STAMPK (Getenet & Beswick, 2013, p. 356).
The second step was considering the context. According to Colton and Covert (2007), the context in which an item is presented has an influence on the way respondents interpret and answer it. The items needed to be in relation to mathematics teacher educators in the context of College of Teacher Education (CTE) in Ethiopia. For example, there were items, which referred to how teacher educators can be models for their pre-service teachers in the use of technology in their teaching. Table 4.4 provides examples of items (item number) related to each of the
Table 4. 4.
Examples of STAMPK Construct Items STAMPK
construct
Item number
Example
SMK 8 I have sufficient knowledge about mathematics
SPMK 20 I can select effective teaching approaches to guide pre-service teachers’ thinking and learning in mathematics
STMK 26 I know about technologies that I can use to develop pre-service teachers’ understanding of mathematics
STAMPK 40 I can provide leadership in helping others to teach ICT integrated mathematics with teaching approaches
Comparison with an existing instrument was the third step in developing the questionnaire. Similar to other studies (e.g., Agyei & Voogt, 2012; Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2010; Koh, Chai, & Tsai, 2010), Schmidt et al.’s (2009) instrument was used as a frame but with redefinition of the TPACK framework from the perspective of teaching mathematics with technology, that is in relation to the STAMPK framework (Chapter 3 at Section 3.4). As described in Getenet and Beswick (2014), for example, the definition of CK in Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) TPACK framework was reconceptualised to account for the distinctive nature of CK needed to teach mathematics, as described by Ball et al. (2008) and defined as “Specialised Mathematical Knowledge” (SMK). This specialised knowledge assisted in the design of items related to Content Knowledge (CK), later (SMK), of mathematics teachers in the TPACK framework. The definition for each of the newly conceptualised technologies integrated mathematics teaching components was compared with the items included in Schmidt et al. (2009). Based on the comparison, some items were revised, included or discarded based on the new conceptualisation
of TPACK, the context, and characteristics of participants in the study. Table 4.5 shows examples of how items related to TK were modified.
Table 4. 5
Modification of items for the Technological Knowledge (TK) construct of TPACK (Getenet & Beswick, 2013, p.358)
Schmidt et al. (2009)
item New items STAMPK Justification
I know about technologies that I can use for
understanding and doing mathematics.
I can use a wide range of technologies to teach maths. I can select technologies to use in my classroom that enhance what I teach
I can’t think of teaching maths without the use of technology I know how to cement the
knowledge needed to teach maths with the application of technologies
The item in Schmidt et al. (2009) was considered
inadequate to measure teacher’s TCK; hence there was a need to include more items. In addition, the special type of knowledge needed for mathematics teachers should be measured in relation to the application of technology not simply knowledge of it After conceptualising the definition of TPACK framework, considering the context, and comparing with an existing instrument, a draft instrument for measuring mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge for technology integrated mathematics teaching was designed. In the draft questionnaire, 41 items were constructed requiring responses on five point Likert scales from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Open ended questions were added to invite participants to explain their experience in relation to each of the items. The draft questionnaire also asked respondents to provide information about their experience of teaching at CTE and school level,
their access to various technologies, and the frequency with which they used these technologies, and their confidence to undertake a range of tasks involving the use of technology. Following the design of the draft instrument, two experienced mathematics education professors, who were supervisors of this study, reviewed the questionnaire and several changes were made. Some of the changes included adaptations to address explicitly mathematics teacher educators’ work,
splitting ‘double-barrelled’ items and including additional open ended items (see Getenet &
Beswick, 2013, pp. 359-360).
After the instrument was reviewed by two experienced mathematics education professors, a pilot test with a small group of mathematics teacher educators (five responses were obtained) was conducted. The pilot test assisted in addressing problems that might occur during
administration. Furthermore, this step was essential in checking that the items were such that the instrument was likely to fulfil its purpose, and that it was unlikely that participants in the study would misunderstand (Colton & Covert, 2007). The pilot testing revealed that some items were vague and too broad. As a result, several items were modified. For example, one open ended question read, “In your opinion, what are the challenges in using technology into your teaching of pre-service teachers?” In relation to this item, one respondent commented “so many.” This indicated that the question was too broad and hence, there was a need to modify the question to focus on a mathematics teaching. The final questionnaire contained the items in the revision provided in Appendix F.
An observation checklist was used to evaluate teacher educators’ technology integrated mathematics teaching practices before and after participating in the refined PD program. The checklist was adapted from Agyei and Voogt (2011) and modified to evaluate mathematics
teacher educators’ technology integrated teaching practices based on their STAMPK framework. The same two experienced mathematics education professors reviewed the observation checklist in terms of the new conceptualised STAMPK framework. The final observation checklist
contained 20 items to measure each STAMPK construct and a space to explain the observed practices (see Appendix K). Table 4.6 shows examples of items of the observation checklist on each constructs of STAMPK.
Table 4. 6
Examples of Item of the Observation Checklist on each STAMPK Construct STAMPK
construct
Item number
Example
The teacher educator…
SMK 1 Clearly introduced the topic and learning goals
SPK 5 Engages pre-service teachers in exploring real-world issues and solving authentic problems using teaching resources
TK 8 Demonstrates developed knowledge in selecting technology skills SPMK 12 Applies teaching approaches which gives more authority to pre-
service teachers in solving mathematics problem
STPK 14 Uses the technology used to help pre-service teachers to collaborate STMK 15 Clearly link between technology and the specialised mathematics
knowledge
STAMPK 18 Choose appropriate technology in relation to the mathematics concept and pedagogy
4.5.2.Interview and focus group discussion questions. The interview questions were