Development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ knowledge of technological integration in inquiry-based learning to promote chemistry core competencies†
Anggiyani Ratnaningtyas Eka Nugraheni
a and
Niwat Srisawasdi*ab
aFaculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand. E-mail: niwsri@kku.ac.th
bDigital Education and Learning Engineering Association, Nonthaburi 11110, Thailand
First published on 10th December 2024
Abstract
The Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework is a cornerstone in teacher education, equipping educators with the skills to effectively integrate technology into their teaching practices. However, there is a noticeable research gap in the specific application of TPACK training to enhance chemistry core competencies (CCCs). This study, a collaborative effort with 32 Indonesian pre-service chemistry teachers (28 females and four males) from a public university, sets out to fill this gap by exploring the development of their knowledge of technological integration, with a focus on promoting core competencies in chemistry. We designed and implemented a TPACK-CCCs training intervention, a beacon of hope in teacher education, to foster both declarative and procedural knowledge in a technology-infused inquiry learning environment in chemistry. A mixed-methods approach was employed, involving pre- and post-intervention assessments to measure changes in declarative and procedural knowledge framed with TPACK through a multiple-choice TPACK test and chemistry competencies lesson plan design. The results brought about significant improvements in the pre-service teachers’ specific and overall TPACK. These findings paint a promising picture, suggesting that the TPACK-CCCs training intervention can effectively prepare pre-service teachers to incorporate digital technology in ways that enrich inquiry-based chemistry education and foster CCCs. The implications for teacher education programs and future research directions are discussed in a positive light.
Introduction
Fostering core competencies is essential for developing learners who can think critically and apply their knowledge to real-world problems. In recent decades, school education has needed to redefine expected learning outcomes in the age of globalization and adapt to qualified students’ newly defined characteristics. Chemistry core competencies (CCC), which encompass macroscopic identification and microscopic analysis (MIMA), changes and equilibrium (CE), evidence-based reasoning and modeling (ERM), scientific inquiry and innovation (SII), and scientific attitudes and social responsibility (SASR), are essential for enabling students to understand and engage with chemistry in real-world contexts (Wei, 2019). According to Wei (2019), enhancing the overall quality of education to meet contemporary challenges requires focusing on CCCs, and these competencies are essential for advancing curriculum reform to a high-quality development stage and achieving elevated educational goals for the next generation of learners. Promoting these core competencies is particularly important in today's chemistry learning because it equips students with the chemistry knowledge, skills, attitude and value necessary to navigate complex scientific issues, comprehend the underlying principles of chemical phenomena, and engage in chemistry-related problem-solving and innovation (Wei, 2019). Achieving these competencies necessitates chemistry teachers who possess not only a deep understanding of chemistry content but also the pedagogical skills and technological applications to promote these CCCs for today's learners effectively. Numerous studies have shown that teacher professional knowledge positively affects instructional quality and student learning (Hill et al., 2005; Baumert et al., 2010; Park et al., 2011; Heller et al., 2012; Keller et al., 2017; Srisawasdi et al., 2018; Chaipidech et al., 2021, 2022).The emphasis on CCCs has presented significant challenges for chemistry teachers, particularly in developing economies such as Indonesia. Digital technology in education has emerged as a critical tool to address these challenges by transforming traditional teaching methods and learning tactics (Hunter et al., 2019; Matovu et al., 2023). Through the integration of digital technologies and resources, teachers can enhance the teaching of CCCs. Digital tools not only facilitate interactive and engaging learning experiences but also enable sophisticated visualizations and provide access to extensive information resources, thereby fostering a deeper understanding of chemistry concepts and mastery of competencies among students (Pekdaǧ, 2020; Watson et al., 2020). Given that chemistry often necessitates interactive and visual learning, this paradigm shift is essential in advancing chemistry education (Nugraheni et al., 2021). The teaching environment is evolving, and educators, particularly pre-service teachers, must adapt and use digital devices and resources effectively to improve students’ academic performance (e.g., Hunter et al., 2019; Pekdaǧ, 2020; Watson et al., 2020; Matovu et al., 2023).
The integration of digital technologies in chemistry education could be a promising potential to support students in achieving core chemistry competencies (Nugraheni et al., 2021). Seven modes of digital technology integration in chemistry teaching improve students’ learning quality (Aroch et al., 2024). Digital tools for visualization can serve as powerful tools in chemistry classrooms by transforming abstract concepts into observable, manipulable experiences (Belford and Gupta, 2019), and technology-enhanced multiple representations in chemistry can medaite the different representations, e.g., macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic, and link them to a comprehensive model of chemical phenomena (Gilbert and Treagust, 2009), directly supporting the competency of MIMA and ERM. In addition, the mode of using realistic videos of chemical experiments could aid competency development by better resembling an actual chemistry situation and presenting the multi-representation of knowledge (Daltoè et al., 2024), engaging directly in the competency of MIMA. Moreover, a more realistic video observation would foster CE competency by allowing students to engage with scientific phenomena in an interactive and hypothesis-driven exploratory manner (Ardisara and Fung, 2018) and foster increased autonomy during practical classes (Garrido et al., 2024) to gain a deeper understanding of CE in chemistry. To promote learners’ competency regarding SII and SASR, the modes of presenting chemistry in everyday life phenomena and using mobile-assisted digital databases can connect students with real-world issues and encourage them to consider chemistry practices’ social and ethical implications (Daltoè et al., 2024). In sum, integrating digital technologies in chemistry education not only aids in understanding complex concepts and processes but also fosters students’ development of CCCs by creating immersive, realistic, and interactive environments that support inquiry, modeling, and socially responsible scientific practices.
This study focuses specifically on three of these digital tools: ChemDraw modeling software for molecular modeling, interactive 360-degree video for realistic lab experiences, and citizen inquiry mobile app for field-based scientific investigation. Each tool was selected for its unique potential to foster CCCs within pre-service chemistry teacher training. For example, ChemDraw aids ERM and MIMA by visualizing molecular structures, while interactive 360-degree videos allow students to explore chemical equilibrium and reaction dynamics (CE) in an immersive, realistic environment and identify connections between macroscopic and microscopic phenomena (MIMA). In addition, the citizen inquiry mobile apps (i.e., nQuire and iNaturalist) provide an interactive platform for students to engage in hands-on, real-world data collection and analysis, fostering SII by enabling them to explore scientific questions and test hypotheses in authentic contexts. Additionally, by involving students in field-based inquiry-led projects with societal or environmental relevance, such as plastic waste pollution, their interactions with the app promote SASR, encouraging them to consider scientific practices’ ethical and social implications and develop a commitment to sustainable actions.
However, the effective incorporation of these technological tools into instructional environments remains a significant challenge for educators (Niess, 2005; Angeli and Valanides, 2009; So and Kim, 2009). Teachers often struggle to identify the most effective technological tools and may lack a deep understanding of the pedagogical principles necessary for successful technology integration (Hew and Brush, 2007; Kramarski and Michalsky, 2010; Chai et al., 2013). Despite the recognized importance of TPACK, there is also a notable research gap in its application to enhance chemistry core competencies. Addressing this gap, several scholars have proposed the necessity of training pre-service teachers in educational technology during the early stages of their education. For instance, Smarkola (2008) suggested that incorporating such training throughout the early stages of teacher education could be beneficial. Additionally, Lawrie et al. (2019) emphasized the need for discipline-specific professional development, particularly during the initial stages of university teaching, such as the doctoral or post-doctoral phases. Applying this approach to upper secondary school instructors, the most effective professional development occurs during undergraduate education.
In terms of CCCs, there is currently limited research focusing on the development of teaching comprehension for promoting CCCs among pre-service chemistry teachers in Indonesia. While CCCs are crucial for equipping students with the skills necessary to engage in complex scientific problem-solving, the integration of these competencies into teacher education programs has not been widely explored in the Indonesian context. This study seeks to fill this gap by examining how a targeted TPACK training intervention can enhance pre-service teachers’ comprehension to promote CCCs in future classrooms. By addressing this gap, our research provides a novel contribution to the literature on teacher education in Indonesia, offering insights into the potential of TPACK to foster these essential competencies.
Inquiry-based learning (IBL) plays a pivotal role in the effective integration of TPACK with CCCs. The dynamic nature of IBL requires that technology not only support content delivery but also enhance the inquiry process, fostering deeper engagement with scientific practices. This contrasts with non-inquiry-based environments, where technology might primarily reinforce content understanding through direct instruction. The integration of TPACK and the development of CCCs can differ significantly between these two pedagogical approaches. In IBL settings, teachers must leverage technological tools to actively facilitate inquiry, enabling students to construct their understanding and engage in authentic scientific inquiry. This necessitates a tailored approach to TPACK development, ensuring that the use of technology in chemistry education is aligned with the principles of inquiry and supports the cultivation of essential competencies such as evidence-based reasoning and innovation. In addition, the integration of TPACK in chemistry education is highly dependent on the specific types of digital technologies employed (Angeli and Valanides, 2009; Koehler et al., 2013). Different technologies, such as simulations, data analysis tools, and virtual labs, offer varying affordances that influence how teachers can promote CCCs through IBL (Niess, 2005; Chai et al., 2013). Therefore, it is critical to contextualize TPACK development within the specific technological tools used rather than treating digital technology as a monolithic entity. This study explores how targeted educational interventions can enhance pre-service chemistry teachers’ ability to effectively integrate different types of digital technologies within IBL environments to foster CCCs.
This study aims to investigate the development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK, specifically within the context of IBL, to promote CCCs. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following research questions: (1) Does the TPACK-CCCs training intervention affect pre-service chemistry teachers’ declarative and procedural TPACK within IBL environments? (2) Does the TPACK-CCCs training intervention affect pre-service chemistry teachers’ ability to design TPACK-aligned lesson plans that effectively integrate technology to support CCCs in an IBL setting? By exploring these questions, the study seeks to contribute to understanding how the TPACK-CCCs training intervention can enhance pre-service teachers’ knowledge of technology integration in chemistry education, particularly in fostering inquiry-driven competencies.
Theoretical backgrounds
Theoretical foundations of chemistry core competencies (CCCs)
The CCCs, as outlined by the 2017 school chemistry curriculum standards in China (Wei, 2019), encompass five key components essential for a comprehensive chemistry education. These components are macroscopic identification and microscopic analysis (MIMA), changes and equilibrium (CE), evidence-based reasoning and modeling (ERM), scientific inquiry and innovation (SII), and scientific attitudes and social responsibility (SASR). The MIMA and CE focus on understanding the properties, structures, and reactions of matter from both macroscopic and microscopic perspectives, paralleling the NGSS crosscutting concepts of structure and function and stability and change. The ERM integrates scientific practices like explanation, argumentation, and modeling, while SII emphasizes systematic scientific investigations to foster innovative thinking. SASR highlights the ethical and societal dimensions of chemistry, encouraging students to engage in sustainable and socially responsible scientific practices.The CCCs are structured within the triangle framework (He et al., 2021; 2022) (see Fig. 1), categorizing them into three superordinate aspects: chemical thinking (MIMA and CE), chemical practice (ERM and SII), and values (SASR). The ontological-epistemological-axiological (OEA) perspective (Chesky and Wolfmeyer, 2015) underpins this framework, which offers a philosophical foundation that emphasizes the importance of the OEA in education as well as what needs to be learned (ontology), how it should be learned (epistemology), and why it is important (axiology). This comprehensive structure ensures that each competency contributes to the overall educational goals in order to promote a deeper understanding of chemistry, innovative thinking in chemistry, and a sense of social responsibility. By integrating these competencies into the curriculum, educators can prepare students to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world, equipping them with the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for lifelong learning and responsible citizenship.
 | ||
| Fig. 1 The triangle framework of CCCs (He et al., 2022). | ||
Theoretical framework of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK)
In 2006. Mishra and Koehler presented the TPACK conceptual framework (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) by Shulman (1986) serves as its foundation. This framework defines the integration of content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge. This framework describes essential knowledge regarding how teachers can integrate digital technology to teach subject-specific content using a particular pedagogy (Jimoyiannis, 2010; Srisawasdi, 2014).There are seven constructs in TPACK. Each construct is described as follows. (1) Content Knowledge (CK) pertains to an individual's understanding of the subject matter to be taught or studied; (2) pedagogical knowledge (PK) encompasses knowledge of instructional methods and approaches to teaching and learning; (3) technological knowledge (TK) encompasses knowledge of technology and the skills required to operate specific technological tools effectively; (4) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) refers to specific teaching practices necessary to teach a particular subject's content effectively; (5) technological content knowledge (TCK) refers to the knowledge of how specific subject content can be represented and manipulated through the appropriate use of technology; (6) technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) pertains to the specific knowledge of technology that can be utilized to support a particular method's teaching and learning process; (7) technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) encompasses the knowledge of how to integrate technology in order to effectively support the teaching of specific content through strategic approaches (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). Fig. 2 depicts the original TPACK framework proposed by Mishra and Koehler (2006).
 | ||
| Fig. 2 TPACK Framework (Mishra and Koehler, 2006) (https://www.tpack.org). | ||
The TPACK framework was selected for this study because of its unique ability to address the multifaceted challenges of teaching with technology. Unlike other theoretical frameworks, TPACK provides a comprehensive model that not only integrates content, pedagogy, and technology but also highlights the dynamic and context-specific nature of this integration. This makes TPACK particularly well-suited for understanding how pre-service teachers effectively develop the expertise needed to incorporate technology into their instructional practices. TPACK is often described as either integrative or transformative (Angeli and Valanides, 2009). The integrative view suggests that TPACK represents a combination of CK, PK, and TK. In contrast, the transformative view argues that TPACK represents a distinct body of knowledge that emerges when these three knowledge domains interact. This transformative nature of TPACK is particularly relevant in our study, as it aligns with our goal of developing pre-service teachers’ ability to seamlessly integrate technology in ways that transform their teaching practices and enhance student learning outcomes.
Recent developments in TPACK research have significantly expanded our understanding of how this framework can be applied in diverse educational contexts. For example, recent studies have explored the role of TPACK in designing the use of digital technologies to support inquiry-based STEM learning, promoting learner-centered pedagogies (Chaipidech et al., 2021, 2022). Additionally, innovations in the TPACK model have emerged, particularly in the context of Generative AI. Mishra et al. (2023) has highlighted the integration of AI within the TPACK framework, calling for an adaptation of TPACK to include aspects of the culture of digitality, as discussed by Stalder (2018). This has led to the development of the DPACK model, which further extends the original TPACK framework by incorporating these new dimensions (Thyssen et al., 2023). These advancements underscore the continued relevance and evolution of TPACK in teacher education and teacher professional development, particularly in preparing teachers to meet the complex demands of 21st-century classrooms, where digital technologies and AI play increasingly pivotal roles.
This study draws on the TPACK framework to analyze how pre-service chemistry teachers integrate technological tools into their teaching strategies to facilitate CCCs. By examining their development of TPACK, we aim to contribute to the ongoing discourse on the role of technology in education and provide insights into effective teacher preparation practices.
Method
Context of the study
Integrating the CCCs within the TPACK framework is crucial for preparing pre-service chemistry teachers effectively. TPACK emphasizes the intersection of content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge, and the researchers take an opportunity to align seamlessly with the CCCs’ components and structure. For instance, MIMA and CE require teachers to have a deep understanding of chemical principles and the ability to use visualization technology, i.e., ChemDraw, to illustrate macroscopic and microscopic perspectives. ERM and SII necessitate teachers to engage students in scientific practices using digital tools, i.e., 360-degree video, for modeling and inquiry-based investigations. SASR, with its focus on social responsibility and ethical considerations, can be enhanced through the use of technology, i.e., mobile-assisted citizen inquiry application, to explore real-world issues and promote sustainable practices. In addition, the effective integration of these competencies into the TPACK framework presents a substantial challenge for training pre-service chemistry teachers. Scholarly investigations indicate that understanding and implementing a new curriculum standard is a big challenge for in-service and pre-service teachers, and teachers often exhibit a deficiency in confidence when it comes to instructing science in accordance with newly established curricular guidelines (Kang et al., 2018). As digital technologies are an integral part of modern teaching and learning processes in chemistry, many researchers used the TPACK framework to investigate the impact of learning or training interventions on chemistry teachers’ development of knowledge about teaching (e.g., Cetin-Dindar et al., 2018; Zimmermann et al., 2021). However, it is equally important to emphasize the role of digital technologies as essential tools in conducting chemistry research. Developing a deep understanding of these technologies is crucial, not just for their pedagogical applications but also for enabling future chemists to “do chemistry” effectively in a digital world (Gomollón-Bel, 2022). Therefore, this study also considers the significance of equipping teachers with the knowledge and skills to utilize digital technologies both in teaching and in professional chemical research practices. In the context of chemistry teacher education, to date, a rare study has investigated chemistry teachers’ TPACK associated with CCCs. Therefore, the development of specific learning or training interventions for fostering TPACK associated with the CCCs needs to be studied.Following a TPACK model as an intervention approach in this study, an integrative framework of TPACK that emphasizes the interaction between CCCs, inquiry-based learning approaches, and digital technologies is proposed, as displayed in Fig. 3. Following Fig. 1–3 illustrates a conceptual result of integrating CCCs within the TPACK framework. It highlights how different digital technologies can be leveraged to enhance IBL in chemistry education. The Fig. 3 emphasizes the intersection of content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge, aligning these with the specific components of CCCs. For example, the competency of Macroscopic Identification and Microscopic Analysis (MIMA) and Changes and Equilibrium (C&E) requires teachers to possess a deep understanding of chemical principles and utilize visualization tools such as 360-degree video camera. This technology aids in illustrating both macroscopic and microscopic perspectives, facilitating a more comprehensive understanding of chemical structures and reactions during inquiry-based learning activities. Similarly, competencies related to Evidence-based Reasoning and Modeling (ERM) and Scientific Inquiry and Innovation (SII) are supported through the use of digital tools like ChemDraw. This allows students to engage in authentic scientific practices, such as modeling and conducting inquiry-based investigations, by providing immersive and interactive experiences that enhance their understanding of complex scientific concepts. Lastly, Scientific Attitude and Social Responsibility (SASR) competency can be effectively developed using mobile-assisted citizen inquiry applications. These technologies enable students to explore real-world issues, promoting ethical considerations and sustainable practices through inquiry-based projects that connect classroom learning to societal challenges. In this way, Fig. 3 demonstrates how different digital technologies can be strategically employed within the TPACK framework to support the development of CCCs in an IBL environment, ensuring that pre-service chemistry teachers are well-equipped to foster these competencies in their future classrooms.
 | ||
| Fig. 3 An adapted TPACK framework for CCCs, TPACK-CCCs. | ||
In the context of the TPACK framework, this paper selectively concentrates on the four technology-centric categories, specifically TK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK, as depicted in Fig. 3. These categories are intricately interconnected, sharing a common foundational basis within the adapted framework proposed in this study:
• TK refers to the essential knowledge required to effectively interact with and manipulate digital technologies, such as ChemDraw, 360-degree video and software, and citizen inquiry mobile apps, enabling their purposeful application to achieve their goal.
• TCK refers to the technological knowledge of using digital technologies, such as ChemDraw, 360-degree video and software, and citizen inquiry mobile app, to facilitate and enhance CCCs.
• TPK refers to instructional knowledge, which enables teachers to amplify inquiry-based learning approaches by integrating digital technologies such as ChemDraw, 360-degree video, and citizen inquiry mobile apps.
• TPACK refers to a comprehensive body of knowledge associated with leveraging CCCs through the use of digital technologies, such as ChemDraw, 360-degree video and software, and citizen inquiry mobile app, in inquiry-based learning approaches.
Teachers’ professional knowledge is a critical predictor of instructional quality (Sorge et al., 2019). A primary objective of teacher education is to develop pre-service teachers’ expertise in TPACK (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Pondee et al., 2021). Expertise in TPACK involves a sophisticated and systematically organized knowledge base focused on integrating technology with pedagogy and content. This contrasts with novice knowledge, which is often composed of isolated knowledge (Shavelson et al., 2005). Developing such expertise enables teachers to effectively integrate digital technologies into their instructional practices, enhancing both teaching and learning outcomes. To become experts in TPACK, student teachers or pre-service teachers must acquire both declarative knowledge (“knowing that”) and procedural knowledge (“knowing how”). Declarative knowledge involves understanding facts and concepts and knowing that something is the case, while procedural knowledge refers to the ability to apply skills and know how to perform tasks (Schiering et al., 2021). Mastery of both types of knowledge is essential for effectively integrating technology with pedagogy and content in educational settings. Theoretically, both types of knowledge are important for practical and professional professions such as teaching. In addition, understanding the declarative aspects of effective teaching is crucial for the planning and implementation of instructional activities, and it is exemplified in classroom settings through the manifestation of procedural knowledge (Saks et al., 2021). As such, the current TPACK study is also built on a theoretical structure of professional knowledge with two main types of knowledge—declarative and procedural. Regarding the adapted framework of TPACK and the structure of professional knowledge, a series of training modules have been designed to facilitate chemistry teachers’ development of TPACK-CCCs in this study.
Research design
This study employs a pre-experimental one-group pretest-posttest design, providing an intervention during the experiment (Creswell, 2002), to investigate the effects of TPACK-CCCs training on pre-service chemistry teachers’ development of TPACK for promoting students’ CCCs. Such a design is commonly utilized in educational contexts where all participants receive the same instructional intervention as part of their regular curriculum, making the inclusion of a control group impractical (Campbell and Stanley, 1963). In this design, a single group of participants undergoes the intervention, with competency levels measured before and after the intervention to evaluate changes attributable to the training. By using pretest scores as a baseline in this study, we aimed to measure the change within the same group of participants, thereby controlling for individual differences that could affect the outcomes. Although a one-group pretest-posttest design does not include a control group, it is suitable for evaluating the intervention efficacy within a specific cohort of pre-service teachers. This design focuses on within-group changes, providing valuable insights into how the TPACK-CCCs intervention influences pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK.To address potential limitations inherent in the one-group pretest-posttest design, we implemented several strategies to mitigate threats to internal validity. The pretest and posttest were administered within a tightly controlled timeframe to minimize the impact of external events. Consistent measurement instruments were used to reduce instrumentation threats, and statistical analyses and effect size calculations were employed to determine the significance and magnitude of observed changes. The homogeneity of the participant cohort, selected based on specific inclusion criteria, helped control for individual differences that could confound results.
By focusing on within-group changes and employing these mitigation strategies, the design allows us to measure the direct impact of the intervention on the participants' competencies. This approach is particularly suitable for exploratory studies aiming to assess the potential efficacy of educational interventions before committing resources to larger-scale research involving control groups (Creswell and Creswell, 2018).
Participants
This research involved a cohort of 32 pre-service chemistry teachers from a public university in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The participants were selected based on specific inclusion criteria to ensure a focused and homogeneous cohort, including their educational background, prior exposure to digital technologies, and readiness for TPACK-CCCs training.The participants engaged in a series of TPACK-CCCs training modules designed according to the S–P–A (showing the case, practice in the team, and application of the case) case-oriented instructional model for TPACK development proposed by Pondee et al. (2021). The demographic composition of the cohort included 28 females (87.5%) and four males (12.5%), with participants’ ages ranging from 20 to 22 years. While the sample size of 32 participants is relatively small, it is appropriate given the exploratory nature of this pilot study. The primary aim of this research is to investigate the efficacy of TPACK-CCCs training intervention on a targeted group of pre-service teachers rather than to make broad generalizations. The limited cohort size reflects the number of pre-service teachers enrolled in the course during the study period. This constraint provides a unique opportunity to gather in-depth qualitative insights and preliminary data on the training's impact within a specific context.
All participants were pre-service chemistry teachers approaching the completion of their second year of study. Each participant completed a comprehensive curriculum that included subject-specific content and pedagogical training. This curriculum covered foundational courses in chemistry, such as general chemistry, analytical chemistry, organic chemistry, and physical chemistry. Additionally, the participants had undergone general pedagogical training through Introduction to Education and Educational Psychology courses. Their educational experience was further enriched by subject-specific instructional courses tailored to chemistry, such as Strategy of Chemistry Teaching and Curriculum of Chemistry. A key aspect of the participant selection process was the exclusion criterion related to concurrent research involvement. Specifically, any participant engaged in this project was required not to be a volunteer in another research project simultaneously, ensuring dedicated and undivided participation in the present study.
Design of TPACK-CCCs training intervention
The intervention aims to nurture pre-service chemistry teachers’ declarative and procedural TPACK (i.e., TK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK) associated chemistry core competencies. The pre-service chemistry teachers also should be fostered comprehensive understanding to design inquiry-based chemistry learning activities with the support of digital technologies for promoting the CCCs. For the current study, the researchers categorized the five dimensions of CCCs into three distinct training episodes based on their inherent characteristics. The first episode encompasses SII and SASR. The second episode includes MIMA and CE. Lastly, the third episode is composed of ERM and SII.The intervention was structured as a comprehensive TPACK training program, conducted over six consecutive days. The training consisted of a total of 24 instructional hours, with each day comprising four hours of focused activities. This schedule mirrors the lecture hours typically allocated for a two-credit semester course. Each day's activities were carefully planned to cover different aspects of TPACK development, with the S–P–A model integrated into each episode to enhance the pre-service chemistry teachers’ development of TK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK. The S–P–A model, which stands for Showing the Case (S), Practicing in the Team (P), and Application of the Case (A), is an instructional framework rooted in a case-based learning strategy, designed to enhance the development of pre-service teachers’ TPACK. The model unfolds in three distinct phases. The S phase, where instructors demonstrate or “show” how specific technological tools can be integrated into teaching practices. This phase often involves presenting exemplary cases, modeling effective strategies, and discussing the theoretical underpinnings of the technology's use in education. The objective is to provide pre-service teachers with a clear understanding of how technology can be leveraged to enhance learning outcomes. The P phase is where pre-service teachers move into the “practicing” phase, where they actively engage with the technology in a controlled environment. This phase allows them to experiment with the tools and strategies they observed during the showing phase. The goal is to build confidence and competence in using the technology, providing a safe space for trial and error under the guidance of the instructor. Finally, the A phase, where they were encouraged to integrate the technology into their lesson planning and teaching practices. In this phase, they apply what they have learned in authentic teaching scenarios, often involving real or simulated classroom environments. This application phase is critical for consolidating their knowledge and ensuring they can effectively use technology to support their pedagogical goals. The S–P–A model is particularly effective in promoting a deep understanding of technology integration in education, as it seamlessly blends theoretical knowledge with practical application. Through this structured progression, pre-service teachers are better equipped to acquire the skills necessary for effective technology-enhanced teaching (Pondee et al., 2021). The specific activities conducted on each training day are outlined in detail in Appendix 3.
In the P phase, pre-service teachers engaged in hands-on practice with selected mobile technologies, namely iNaturalist and nQuire, to support citizen inquiry learning. The session involved installation, trial, and discussion of each technology's merits and drawbacks, culminating in presentations of these findings to the class. Pre-service teachers also engaged in monitoring the big data generated by the Citizen Inquiry application.
In the A phase, pre-service teachers were tasked with designing lesson plans integrating the nQuire to facilitate citizen inquiry learning. This activity consisted of individual lesson plan design, group discussions, and presentations to the class. Upon concluding the first training episode's session, the researcher prompted the pre-service teachers to engage in a reflection on the training's proceedings at the end of Day 2 in terms of using mobile applications in citizen inquiry learning for cultivating SII and SASR in school chemistry.
During the P phase, pre-service teachers engaged in a session utilizing the 360-degree video camera to record laboratory activities across four experiments, including bio-plastic formulation and degradation, plastic identification, and thermoplastic versus thermosetting (Knutson et al., 2019; Li et al., 2024). They also employed additional technologies like smartphone lux meters for light measurement and utilized Vivista software for video enhancement.
In the A phase, the pre-service teachers designed lesson plans incorporating the 360-degree video camera and Vivista software, focusing on achieving the MIMA and CE core competencies. This involved individual lesson plan creation, collaborative group discussions, and presentations to the entire class. At the close of the second episode on Day 4, the instructor encouraged the pre-service teachers to participate in reflective discussions about the episode's training activities, focusing on using 360-degree video in inquiry-based laboratory learning to promote MIMA and CE competencies in school chemistry laboratories.
During the P phase, pre-service teachers actively engaged with ChemDraw, learning to install and utilize the software for drawing molecular structures. A focused session allowed them to draw seven types of plastic structures in both 2D and 3D formats, followed by participation in a ChemDraw tournament. Unlike the online format described by Fontana (2020), this study's tournament was conducted offline, with questions posted on Instagram and responses submitted via the platform. The tournament, spanning approximately one hour, involved qualification rounds, semifinals, and a final, culminating in a reward for the winning group.
In the A phase, pre-service teachers were tasked with creating lesson plans integrating ChemDraw and gamified inquiry-based pedagogy to foster the core competency of evidence-based reasoning. This activity also involved individual lesson plan development, collaborative group discussions, and class presentations of the designed lesson plans. As the third episode's session concluded, the instructor prompted the pre-service teachers to engage in thoughtful reflections on the application of ChemDraw in a gamified inquiry-based learning approach for fostering students’ ERM and SII competencies.
Instruments
A structured, closed-ended multiple-choice questionnaire, specifically tailored to assess their understanding of TPACK in the context of CCCs, was utilized for this purpose. The questionnaire was designed following the approach articulated by Lachner et al. (2019), which supports the assessment of TPACK's cognitive dimensions in small sample studies. The questionnaire encompassed 38 items corresponding to the training intervention, and the content of the questionnaire was diversified to cover a comprehensive range of declarative TPACK, a type of knowledge that could be described as “know-what” in TPACK, and procedural TPACK, a type of knowledge that could be described as “know-how” in TPACK, each consisting of 19 items. The total scores are 38 points. Specifically, the assessment aimed to gauge the participants’ conceptual and procedural teaching knowledge of CCCs across various technological components integral to TPACK, encompassing TK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK.Furthermore, the questionnaire was rigorously created by the researchers and then subjected to a rigorous review procedure by a panel of specialists, each with a specialty in chemistry education, teacher education, or educational technology. After this validation, a substantial cohort of 380 pre-service chemistry teachers participated in the assessment, facilitating a thorough evaluation of the instrument's empirical validity and reliability, and the empirical findings underscored the validity of all items within the instrument. The findings revealed that the reliability of the instrument based on the Kuder–Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) coefficient, as indicated by Cronbach's alpha values, was robust across various constructs. Specifically, Cronbach's alpha values were as follows: conceptual TK (7 items) at 0.87, conceptual TCK (6 items) at 0.84, conceptual TPK (3 items) at 0.77, conceptual TPACK (3 items) at 0.73, procedural TK (7 items) at 0.84, procedural TCK (6 items) at 0.90, procedural TPK (3 items) at 0.89, and procedural TPACK (3 items) at 0.82. The instrument demonstrated excellent internal consistency with an overall Cronbach's alpha value of 0.96. Details of the sample items from the TPACK test are available in Appendix 1 for further reference.
In this study, we used lesson plans as a tool to shed light on how well the pre-service teachers could weave TPACK into their teaching strategies facilitating CCCs. Lesson plans were employed at two critical points—before and after each learning episode—to evaluate pre-service chemistry teachers’ ability to integrate TPACK into their instructional strategies for promoting CCCs. Participants first created an initial lesson plan (pre-test) to reflect their baseline integration of digital technologies. After completing each training module, they refined their plans (post-test) based on the new knowledge gained. These lesson plans served as practical applications of TPACK, focusing on different aspects of CCCs and utilizing specific digital tools to enhance IBL. The plans were assessed using a specialized rubric adapted from Huang and Lajoie (2021), which evaluated the application of TK, TCK, and TPK. Details on the rubric are provided in Appendix 2.
To evaluate their lesson planning, three distinct assessment tasks were developed. These tasks were administered to the participants both as a pre-test and a post-test to measure their TK, TCK, and TPK. These tasks were designed to probe different dimensions of the participants’ teaching knowledge and their ability in the context of integrating digital technology into their inquiry-based instructional practices for promoting CCCs. The assessment tasks were categorized into three superordinate aspects as follows:
At the beginning of individual learning episodes, they were asked to plan a lesson to facilitate specific chemistry core competency and revisit and refine their lesson plans at the end of each episode. The researchers then looked closely at the initial and refined lesson plans in three tasks (N = 96) written by these pre-service chemistry teachers to see how their TPACK developed during the training.
Data analysis
The data analysis comprised two main components: quantitative data from the TPACK questionnaire and qualitative data from the lesson planning assessments. Descriptive statistics, including Mean (M) and Standard Deviations (SD), were calculated for the quantitative analysis using IBM-SPSS version 27. Non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were employed to compare the median pre- and post-intervention scores for TK, TPK, TCK, and TPACK due to the non-normal data distribution indicated by the Shapiro-Wilk test. A significance level of alpha = 0.05 was used for hypothesis testing, and effect sizes were calculated using Rosenthal's (1994) formula, with interpretations based on Cohen's guidelines (Chaipidech et al., 2022). In addition, the eta-squared values in reporting effect sizes were used to understand the magnitude of the intervention's impact, even in a small sample setting.The qualitative analysis involved a systematic content analysis of the lesson plans, guided by the adapted rubric from Huang and Lajoie (2021). The content analysis was conducted in several steps: (i) the lesson plans were first coded according to the rubric, which categorized the application of three essential TPACK constructs—Technological Knowledge (TK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)—across four levels of proficiency: not applicable (0), low (1), medium (2), and advanced (3); (ii) each lesson plan was segmented into relevant sections that aligned with the specific TPACK constructs. For instance, sections that focused on the use of digital tools to facilitate content understanding were coded under TCK, while sections that demonstrated the integration of technology with pedagogical strategies were coded under TPK; (iii) two independent researchers coded the lesson plans to ensure inter-rater reliability. Discrepancies in coding were discussed and resolved through consensus, and the final codes were applied to assess the overall application of TPACK in the lesson plans; (iv) the coded data were then analyzed to determine the frequency and distribution of each TPACK construct within the lesson plans. This analysis provided insights into the participants’ proficiency levels in applying TPACK to instructional practices.
A key limitation of the free-form lesson planning assessments is the inability to distinctly analyze and categorize TPACK into separate declarative and procedural knowledge components. Unlike the structured multiple-choice questionnaire, which specifically targeted and measured declarative and procedural TPACK knowledge, the free-form nature of the lesson plans made it challenging to distinguish and evaluate these types of knowledge separately. Consequently, while the lesson plans provided valuable insights into the participants’ overall application of TPACK in instructional contexts, they did not allow for a detailed analysis of the development of declarative and procedural TPACK knowledge individually.
Results
Declarative and procedural TK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK facilitated CCCs
The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of an educational intervention on pre-service chemistry teachers’ knowledge across four domains: TK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK. These domains are integral to the development of CCCs. The assessment was segmented into three distinct clusters: declarative TPACK, procedural TPACK, and overall TPACK. Data were collected before and after the intervention to measure potential improvements.Declarative TPACK
Table 1 reports the descriptive findings from this study of the pre-service chemistry teachers’ means (M) and standard deviations (S.D.) on the four TPACK scales. The statistics revealed increased declarative TK, TCK, TPK, TPACK, and total scores.| Declarative TPACK scores (N = 32) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPACK construct | Pre-test | Post-test | Max. score | Z | p | ESa | ||
| M | SD | M | SD | |||||
| *Refers to p < 0.05, total N = 32.a Refers to effect size = Z/√N. | ||||||||
| TK | 5.25 | 1.02 | 6.13 | 0.87 | 7.00 | 3.622 | <0.001* | 0.640 |
| TCK | 4.31 | 0.74 | 4.94 | 0.56 | 6.00 | 3.601 | <0.001* | 0.637 |
| TPK | 1.03 | 0.74 | 2.19 | 0.69 | 3.00 | 4.081 | <0.001* | 0.721 |
| TPACK | 1.16 | 0.72 | 1.75 | 0.72 | 3.00 | 3.343 | <0.001* | 0.591 |
| Total | 11.75 | 1.50 | 15.00 | 1.68 | 19.00 | 4.958 | <0.001* | 0.876 |
As the results, TK saw a significant increase in a medium effect size (Z = 3.622, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.640) from a pre-intervention (M = 5.25, SD = 1.02) to a post-intervention (M = 6.13, SD = 0.87). TCK scores also significantly rose in a medium effect size (Z = 3.601, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.637) from a pre-intervention (M = 4.31, SD = 0.74) to a post-intervention (M = 4.94, SD = 0.56). Notably, TPK scores more than doubled, with a pre-intervention (M = 1.03, SD = 0.74) escalating to a post-intervention (M = 2.19, SD = 0.69), and there was a significant improvement in a medium effect size (Z = 4.081, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.721). Similarly, TPACK also significantly increased in a medium effect size (Z = 3.343, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.591) from a pre-intervention (M = 1.16, SD = 0.72) to a post-intervention (M = 1.75, SD = 0.72). Finally, the total declarative TPACK scores substantially increased from a pre-intervention (M = 11.75, SD = 1.50) to a post-intervention (M = 15.00, SD = 1.68), approaching the maximum possible score of 19.00. The result of the total score confirmed the significant enhancement (Z = 4.958, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.876) in the pre-service chemistry teachers’ declarative TPACK.
Procedural TPACK
The analysis of procedural TPACK scores for pre-service chemistry teachers revealed significant improvements post-intervention across all measured constructs related to chemistry core competencies. Table 2 depicts descriptive and inferential statistics of TK, TCK, TPK, TPACK, and the total scores for the intervention.| Procedural TPACK scores (N = 32) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPACK construct | Pre-test | Post-test | Max. score | Z | p | ESa | ||
| M | SD | M | SD | |||||
| *Refers to p < 0.05, total N = 32.a Refers to effect size = Z/√N. | ||||||||
| TK | 3.81 | 1.15 | 4.91 | 1.25 | 7.00 | 3.724 | <0.001* | 0.658 |
| TCK | 4.50 | 1.02 | 5.19 | 0.86 | 6.00 | 3.334 | <0.001* | 0.589 |
| TPK | 1.78 | 1.04 | 2.69 | 0.47 | 3.00 | 3.522 | <0.001* | 0.623 |
| TPACK | 1.25 | 0.72 | 1.88 | 0.75 | 3.00 | 3.256 | <0.001* | 0.576 |
| Total | 11.34 | 1.91 | 14.66 | 2.16 | 19.00 | 4.807 | <0.001* | 0.850 |
For procedural TK, the pre-intervention score (M = 3.81, SD = 1.15) significantly increased (Z = 3.724, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.658) to post-intervention (M = 4.91, SD = 1.25) in a medium effect size. The TCK scores also showed a significant improvement in a medium effect size (Z = 3.334, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.589), with a pre-intervention (M = 4.50, SD = 1.02) and a post-intervention (M = 5.19, SD = 0.86) scores. TPK experienced a significant increase in a medium effect size (Z = 3.522, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.623) from a pre-intervention (M = 1.78, SD = 1.04) to a post-intervention (M = 2.69, SD = 0.47). In addition, TPACK also showed an overall significant increase in a medium effect size (Z = 3.256, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.576) from a pre-intervention (M = 1.25, SD = 0.72) to a post-intervention (M = 1.88, SD = 0.75). The most substantial growth was observed in total scores for procedural TPACK, which saw a pre-intervention (M = 11.34, SD = 1.91) significantly increase in large effect size (Z = 4.807, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.850) to a post-intervention (M = 14.66, SD = 2.16).
Overall
The overall TPACK score was calculated, and it represents the sum of the declarative and procedural components of TPACK. While the declarative and procedural scores provide valuable insights into the specific types of knowledge gained, the overall TPACK score offers a comprehensive summary of the participants’ total knowledge integration. This overall score is essential for understanding the broader impact of the intervention, as it encapsulates the cumulative improvements in the pre-service chemistry teachers’ ability to integrate technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge into their instructional practices. The inclusion of the overall score allows us to assess the general effectiveness of the intervention in enhancing TPACK across both declarative and procedural domains.The intervention led to marked improvements in all domains. Statistically significant increases were observed in each construct (p < 0.001), with the most considerable change notedin the total (Z = 4.949, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.875) reflecting a large size of the impact of the intervention. In addition, TK (Z = 4.326, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.765), TCK (Z = 4.175, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.731), TPK (Z = 4.453, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.787), and TPACK (Z = 4.109, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.726) also exhibited a significant improvement in a medium effect size for the overall scores, as shown in Table 3.
| Overall TPACK score (N = 32) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPACK construct | Pre-test | Post-test | Max. score | Z | p | ESa | ||
| M | SD | M | SD | |||||
| *Refers to p < 0.05, total N = 32.a Refers to effect size = Z/√. | ||||||||
| TK | 9.06 | 1.61 | 11.03 | 1.66 | 14.00 | 4.326 | <0.001 | 0.765 |
| TCK | 8.81 | 1.42 | 10.13 | 1.24 | 12.00 | 4.175 | <0.001 | 0.731 |
| TPK | 2.81 | 1.55 | 4.88 | 0.94 | 6.00 | 4.453 | <0.001 | 0.787 |
| TPACK | 2.41 | 1.13 | 3.63 | 1.07 | 6.00 | 4.109 | <0.001 | 0.726 |
| Total | 23.09 | 2.74 | 29.66 | 3.28 | 38.00 | 4.949 | <0.001 | 0.875 |
Overall, the pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK (e.g., TK, TCK, TPK, TPACK) associated with chemistry core competencies significantly improved after participating in the intensive training intervention program as measured by the increase in their overall and total scoring. Fig. 4 displays the results of statistical analysis for evaluating the effects of the intensive training interventions on the TPACK development.
 | ||
| Fig. 4 Results of declarative, procedural, and overall TPACK associated with CCCs development. | ||
TK, TCK, and TPK in chemistry competencies lesson plans
The following sections detail the findings from the content analysis and rubric scoring, highlighting the changes in the pre-service teachers’ TPACK in incorporating digital technology to enhance inquiry-based chemistry education promoting CCCs. To complement the quantitative assessment of TPACK development, we conducted a qualitative analysis of the lesson plans created by the pre-service chemistry teachers. This analysis involved selecting representative excerpts from the lesson plans (Appendix 4) illustrating how participants applied their TK, TCK, and TPK in designing instructional activities. Each excerpt is followed by a detailed justification for the rubric score assigned. In addition, the pre-test and post-test lesson plans were analyzed using content analysis to assess the pre-service teachers’ TK, TCK, TPK, and total scores.The use of 360-degree video and Vivista software in this lesson demonstrated an advanced level of TK, as the pre-service teacher effectively employed these tools to create an immersive virtual laboratory experience. This approach enhanced students’ ability to visualize and interact with complex chemical processes related to acid–base reactions, making the learning experience more engaging and equipping students with valuable skills in using advanced digital tools in chemistry. Consequently, TK was rated as “Advanced” (3 points). The integration of these technologies with the lesson content was particularly effective, allowing students to observe and analyze chemical reactions in a controlled virtual environment, thereby reinforcing their understanding of acid–base theory and its practical applications. This strong alignment between content and technology earned the lesson an “Advanced” (3 points) rating for TCK. The pedagogical strategy, which used guided-inquiry learning through virtual laboratory videos, was both innovative and engaging. It provided students with opportunities to actively explore content, collaborate in groups, and draw conclusions based on their observations. However, the lesson could have been improved by incorporating more explicit opportunities for reflection on the learning and its broader implications, leading to a “Medium” (2 points) rating for TPK.
The statistical analysis of the pre-service chemistry teachers’ performance on Task 1, which focused on MIMA and CE. The task aimed to evaluate the pre-service teachers’ ability to design lessons that effectively integrate these core chemistry competencies using digital technology. The results of the task 1 are presented in Table 4. The findings demonstrate an overall rise in all constructs following the implementation of the intervention in the ability to design lesson plans to foster MIMA and CE competencies. Additionally, the results further indicate that there were significant differences noticed between the pre-test and post-test scores for all constructs and the overall total score, with a large effect size (TK: Z = 4.796, p = <0.001, Eta2 = 0.848; TCK: Z = 5.292, p = <0.001, Eta2 = 0.936; TPK: Z = 5.334, p = <0.001, Eta2 = 0.943; total score Z = 5.079, p = <0.001, Eta2 = 0.898).
The application of ChemDraw in the lesson demonstrated a high level of TK, as the pre-service teacher effectively utilized this tool to enable students to accurately visualize polymer structures. This approach not only deepened students’ understanding of chemical structures but also provided them with valuable hands-on experience in using advanced digital tools, earning an “Advanced” (3 points) rating for TK. The integration of ChemDraw with the lesson content, particularly in having students draw and name polymer structures, showed strong TCK. However, while the technology was well-matched to the chemistry concepts, there was a slight disconnect in linking these visualizations to broader chemical principles, such as the functional properties of polymers, resulting in a “Medium” (2 points) rating for TCK. The pedagogical strategy, which incorporated a gamified inquiry-based approach, was innovative and engaging, encouraging active student participation and fostering a collaborative learning environment. The use of Instagram to share ChemDraw results added a modern and interactive element that enhanced student motivation. Nonetheless, the lesson plan could have benefited from more structured reflection activities to help students consolidate their learning, leading to a “Medium” (2 points) rating for TPK.
For this section, the pre-test and post-test scores were analyzed to determine the impact of the targeted training on the pre-service teachers’ competencies in these areas. The results of descriptive and inferential analysis are provided in Table 5. The findings indicate there are significant differences between the pre-test and post-test scores for all constructs and the overall total score in task 2, with a large effect size (TK: Z = 5.416, p = <0.001, Eta2 = 0.957; TCK: Z = 5.578, p = <0.001, ES = 0.986; TPK: Z = 5.578, p = <0.001, Eta2 = 0.986; total score: Z = 5.334, p = <0.001 Eta2 = 0.943).
The statistical analysis of Task 3 focuses on evaluating the pre-service chemistry teachers’ competency in promoting SASR through their lesson plans. This task aimed to assess their ability to integrate ethical considerations, environmental awareness, and social responsibility into their teaching, alongside their use of digital technology to support these aims. The results of Table 6 indicate that all constructs increase following intervention in designing lesson plans for promoting SASR competency. In addition, the results indicate that there was significant improvement between the pre-test and post-test scores for all constructs and the total score in medium sizes (TK: Z = 4.284, p = <0.001, Eta2 = 0.757; TCK: Z = 4.261, p = <0.001, Eta2 = 0.753) and large sizes (TPK: Z = 5.216, p = <0.001, ES = 0.922; total score Z = 5.011, p = <0.001, Eta2 = 0.886).
Overall
The intervention led to substantial improvements across all evaluated domains, with statistically significant increases observed in each construct (p < 0.001). The TPK score showed the most pronounced change, increasing from a pre-test mean of 3.03 (SD = 0.93) to a post-test mean of 7.28 (SD = 1.22) (Z = 5.079, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.898). The TK scores rose from 4.69 (SD = 0.47) to 7.34 (SD = 1.18) (Z = 4.980, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.880). The TCK improved from 4.22 (SD = 0.75) to 7.06 (SD = 1.22) (Z = 5.001, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.884). Finally, the total scores increased from 11.94 (SD = 1.76) to 21.69 (SD = 3.56) (Z = 4.953, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 0.876). These results underscore the substantial impact of the intervention on enhancing pre-service teachers’ competencies in integrating technology into their inquiry-based chemistry teaching practices (Table 7).In conclusion, the pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK, encompassing TK, TCK, TPK, and total, showed significant improvement following the intensive training intervention program. This improvement is evidenced by the marked increase in their overall and total scores. Fig. 5 presents the results of the statistical analysis illustrating the impact of the intensive training interventions on the development of TPACK related to chemistry core competencies.
 | ||
| Fig. 5 Results of TPACK associated with chemistry core competencies development based on the intensive training program for pre-service chemistry teachers assessing by lesson planning. | ||
Discussion
The TPACK-CCCs training intervention significantly impacted the pre-service chemistry teachers’ development of knowledge of technological integration with inquiry-based pedagogy to promote chemistry core competencies. This discussion will focus on the three key findings of the study, with an emphasis on the intervention's transformative effects.Significant improvements in TPACK constructs
The results demonstrate that the TPACK framework supported a transformative approach, enabling pre-service teachers to move beyond separate domains of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge toward a cohesive integration of these areas. This transformation empowered participants to design and implement inquiry-based learning experiences that seamlessly integrate digital tools to address CCCs. By fostering a dynamic, interconnected understanding, the TPACK framework facilitated participants’ ability to adapt and apply their knowledge in diverse educational contexts, aligning with the real-world demands of 21st-century science education.The substantial improvements observed in TPACK constructs, including TK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK, underscore the effectiveness of the training intervention. These improvements are crucial as they reflect the pre-service teachers’ growing competence in utilizing digital technology in their inquiry-based chemistry lessons for promoting CCCs. Previous studies have emphasized the importance of TPACK in preparing teachers to meet contemporary educational demands (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Chai et al., 2013). This aligns with previous research (e.g., Koehler and Mishra, 2009; Chaipidech et al., 2021; Pondee et al., 2021; Chaipidech et al., 2022) which emphasized the importance of integrating technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge to create effective teaching strategies. In addition, Pondee et al. (2021) reported that well-designed courses with the case-oriented S–P–A instructional model could improve pre-service teachers’ TPACK comprehension. Meanwhile, Chaipidech et al. (2021) and Chaipidech et al. (2022) also reported that well-designed TPACK training could enhance STEM-discipline teachers’ TPACK to integrate digital technologies into the school science context. Our results align with these findings, demonstrating that targeted training can significantly enhance pre-service chemistry teachers’ comprehensive understanding of technological integration into competency-based chemistry education.
The training intervention was developed based on the case-oriented S–P–A instructional model for TPACK development, as proposed by Pondee et al. (2021). This model emphasizes a structured approach to TPACK development, beginning with exposing pre-service teachers to exemplary cases, followed by collaborative practice, and culminating in the practical application of learned concepts. This approach ensures that teachers not only understand theoretical or declarative knowledge of teaching but also gain practical or procedural knowledge of teaching via hands-on experience in applying these concepts in chemistry lesson scenarios (Scott et al., 2008; Sahin, 2012; Pondee et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2023).
Enhancement of lesson plan quality
The quality of the lesson plans developed by pre-service teachers also saw marked improvements post-intervention. These plans were more effective in promoting CCCs through the integration of digital tools. The observed differences in post-test total scores across the TPACK constructs for MIMA and CE, ERM and SII, and SASR highlight variations in the effectiveness of the educational intervention on pre-service teachers’ knowledge development in these areas. One possible interpretation is that MIMA and CE, as well as ERM and SII, are more directly related to the traditional chemistry content and inquiry-based instructional methods. These areas are likely more familiar to pre-service teachers, who may have already encountered similar concepts and practices during their prior education. As a result, the intervention might have enhanced their TPACK in these areas more effectively, leading to higher post-test scores. This alignment between technology and content might explain the significant improvement in TPACK scores in this domain. This suggests that pre-service teachers are better equipped to apply technology in areas where content is more straightforward and conceptually well-established, such as molecular visualization and inquiry-based experimentation (Wu and Puntambekar, 2012; Pedaste et al., 2015). In addition, the findings, particularly the significant improvement in TPACK scores for MIMA and CE as well as ERM and SII, align with the modes of technology integration in chemistry teaching discussed by Aroch et al. (2024), who emphasize that successful technology integration in chemistry education often occurs when the technological tools are closely aligned with the specific content and instructional goals.On the other hand, SASR might represent a more abstract and complex domain that is less frequently emphasized in traditional chemistry education. The relatively lower post-test score for SASR could indicate that pre-service teachers found it more challenging to integrate technology, content, and pedagogy in this area. This might be due to the difficulty of translating social responsibility concepts into concrete instructional practices, particularly through the use of digital tools. Additionally, the pedagogical strategies required to teach SASR effectively might be less familiar to pre-service teachers, further contributing to the lower post-test scores. This finding aligns with research indicating that integrating socio-scientific issues into science education is complex and requires careful consideration of both content and pedagogy (Sadler, 2009; Zeidler and Nichols, 2009).
This enhancement suggests that the training intervention helped the teachers design more engaging and educationally rich lessons, which is critical for developing students’ competencies such as macroscopic identification, microscopic analysis, evidence-based reasoning, and scientific inquiry. This is consistent with the findings of Niess (2005), who highlighted that effective TPACK development requires teachers to create lesson plans that seamlessly integrate technology to enhance student learning, and this is crucial for fostering a deeper understanding of chemistry concepts and developing students’ scientific inquiry skills (Niess, 2005). Moreover, this finding is also consistent with research by Angeli and Valanides (2009) and Koehler et al. (2013), who found that well-structured TPACK interventions lead to better-designed educational activities that leverage technology to enhance learning outcomes.
To clarify the TPACK-CCCs training intervention impact, during the showing the case phase, pre-service teachers were introduced to best practices and exemplary models of technology integration in chemistry education. This phase involved interactive lectures and demonstrations, which provided a clear understanding of how technology can be used to enhance chemistry learning. In the practice in the team phase, the pre-service teachers were involved in hands-on practice with digital technologies to support inquiry-based learning and discussed the technological merits and drawbacks of the technological applications. This collaborative practice not only enhanced their TPACK but also fostered a sense of community and shared learning. The application of the case phase allowed the pre-service teachers to design and refine their lesson plans, providing them with valuable practical experience and the opportunity to reflect on their teaching practices from comments. This process facilitated pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK development by enabling them to gain complete professional learning experiences through research-based case studies (Pondee et al., 2021).
Positive impact on procedural knowledge, not only theoretical knowledge
The intervention significantly improved procedural knowledge scores, indicating that pre-service teachers not only learned about technology integration theoretically but also applied it practically in their chemistry teaching. This finding underscores the effectiveness of the case-oriented training approach in bridging the gap between theory (declarative knowledge) and practice (procedural knowledge). Jimoyiannis (2010) and Niess (2011) support this, highlighting the importance of practical, hands-on experiences in developing robust TPACK. In addition, this finding is supported by Harris and Hofer (2009), who emphasized the need for hands-on, practical training to develop teachers’ ability to integrate technology in meaningful ways. The increased procedural knowledge scores indicate that pre-service teachers gained confidence and competence in using technology to support chemistry instruction, which is essential for promoting student engagement and learning outcomes (Harris and Hofer, 2009).The S–P–A model specifically contributed to this improvement by ensuring that pre-service teachers had multiple opportunities to apply their learning in practical settings. The structured phases of the S–P–A model facilitated a deeper understanding and application of TPACK constructs, as pre-service teachers moved from observing and analyzing cases to practicing collaboratively and finally applying their skills independently. This iterative process of learning and application is crucial for developing procedural knowledge and confidence in using technology in the classroom (Pondee et al., 2021).
Limitations and future works
Despite the promising findings, this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the sample size was relatively small and limited to pre-service chemistry teachers from a single public university in Indonesia. This limits the generalizability of the findings to other contexts and populations. Future studies should include larger and more diverse samples to enhance the robustness and applicability of the results. Second, the study focused on a specific set of TPACK constructs, i.e., TK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK, within the context of chemistry education. While this focus allowed for a detailed examination of TPACK development in this domain, it may not fully capture the complexities and variations of TPACK across different subject areas. Expanding the scope to include other disciplines could provide a more comprehensive understanding of how TPACK can be effectively developed and applied. Third, the intervention was conducted over a relatively short period (six days), which may not be sufficient to fully capture the long-term impact of the training on pre-service teachers’ practices and outcomes related to TPACK. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine how the gains in TPACK knowledge and skills are sustained and applied in real classroom settings over time. Fourth, the study relied heavily on closed-ended test data and lesson plan evaluations, which may be subject to biases such as social desirability and self-perception inaccuracies. Incorporating more objective measures, such as classroom observations and student open-ended performance test data, could provide a more accurate assessment of the intervention's effectiveness. Fifth, another limitation of this TPACK research is the apparent need for greater data triangulation to enhance the validity of findings, which can reduce biases and increase accurately capture pre-service teachers’ actual practice. Additionally, there is a call for the inclusion of more neighboring constructs, such as teachers’ beliefs and attitudes, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of technology integration. Lastly, this study did not include item analysis or factor analysis, which are critical steps in thoroughly assessing the reliability and construct validity of an instrument. The absence of these analyses means that while the instrument appears to be reliable based on internal consistency metrics, the dimensionality, and specific item performance were not empirically verified. This limitation highlights the need for further research to conduct more comprehensive validation procedures, including item analysis and exploratory factor analysis, to ensure that the instrument accurately measures the intended constructs and performs consistently across different samples. Future studies should incorporate these analyses to strengthen the empirical foundation of the instrument and provide more robust support for its use in evaluating TPACK and CCCs in educational settings.Conclusions and implications
The findings of this study highlight the significant impact of the TPACK-CCCs training intervention on the development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ TPACK and their ability to integrate technology effectively in promoting core chemistry competencies. The case-oriented S–P–A instructional model has proven to be an effective framework for structuring professional development, ensuring that teachers acquire both declarative and procedural knowledge necessary for technology integration in chemistry education. The substantial improvements observed in TPACK constructs, lesson plan quality, and procedural knowledge underscore the importance of hands-on, collaborative, and practical training approaches in teacher education programs. These findings provide valuable insights for designing and implementing effective TPACK-based interventions to enhance the quality of chemistry teacher education.This study has several important implications for teacher education programs. First, the adoption of the TPACK-CCCs training intervention, which incorporates the S–P–A instructional model, can significantly enhance the preparedness of pre-service teachers to integrate technology into their teaching practices. Chemistry teacher education programs should consider incorporating similar case-based, hands-on modules that provide opportunities for pre-service chemistry teachers to engage in collaborative learning and practical application of TPACK concepts. Second, the integration of personalized learning systems within the TPACK-CCCs training framework can provide more tailored and effective professional development in order to improve both declarative and procedural TPACK in chemistry classroom practices. Personalized approaches can address the specific needs of individual pre-service teachers, ensuring that they receive the support and resources necessary to develop their declarative and procedural TPACK effectively. Finally, ongoing support and follow-up activities are essential to sustain the gains achieved through initial training interventions. By providing continuous professional development opportunities, chemistry teacher education programs can help ensure that pre-service teachers maintain and build upon their TPACK comprehension, ultimately leading to improved instructional quality and student learning outcomes in chemistry education.
Author contributions
All authors contributed. Anggiyani Ratnaningtyas Eka Nugraheni was responsible for developing the intervention, collecting and analyzing data, formulating study conclusions, and preparing an initial draft of the paper. Niwat Srisawasdi contributed to the conceptualization and methodology of the study, supervised the progress of the work, and conducted a thorough review and editing of the article. The final manuscript was read and approved by all the authors.Ethical considerations
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Khon Kaen University Ethics Committee, Thailand, with the no. HE663036 and informed consent was obtained from all individual participants.Data availability
All data and a list of software used are publicly available at https://github.com/niwsri/CERP-Data-TPACK-CCCs-. Data are also available here as ESI.†Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts to declare.Appendices
Appendix 1
| Type of knowledge | TPACK test items | |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesian version | English version | |
| Declarative knowledge of TPACK | ||
| TK | Kamera 360° adalah salah satu teknologi yang digunakan dalam bidang pendidikan termasuk kimia. Salah satu keuntungan menggunakan teknologi tersebut adalah …. | A 360° camera is a technology used in the educational field, including chemistry. One advantage of using that technology is …. |
| A. Tampilan object yang luas* | A. Large view of the field* | |
| B. Sangat mudah digunakan | B. Easiest to use | |
| C. Sangat murah | C. Cheapest one | |
| D. Sangat familiar | D. Very familiar | |
| TCK | Video Vivista dapat membantu peserta didik untuk mencapai kompetensi kimia, terutama untuk…. | Vivista video can support students to achieve chemistry competencies, especially for…. |
| A. Membantu peserta didik untuk memvisualisasikan tingkat mikroskopis* | A. Helping students for visualizing microscopic level* | |
| B. Membantu peserta didik untuk mengumpulkan data | B. Helping students for collecting data | |
| C. Membantu peserta didik untuk menganalisis hasil percobaan | C. Helping students for analyzing the result of the experiments | |
| D. Membantu peserta didik untuk membuat kesimpulan | D. Helping students for making a conclusion | |
| TPK | nQuire dapat mendukung pembelajaran berbasis inkuiri, terutama untuk.… | nQuire can support inquiry learning, especially for … |
| A. Membuat pertanyaan inkuiri | A. Investigating inquiry question | |
| B. Mengumpulkan data* | B. Collecting data* | |
| C. Menganalisis data | C. Analyzing data | |
| D. Membuat kesimpula | D. Making conclusion | |
| TPACK | Berikut ada beberapa contoh studi kasus. Studi kasus yang menggunakan kerangka TPACK dengan tepat adalah…. | There are some examples of case studies. The case study that employed the TPACK framework appropriately is…. |
| A. Seorang guru menggunakan iNaturalist untuk mendukung pembelajaran berbasis inkuiri untuk mencapai kompetensi kimia terutama perubahan dan keseimbangan | A. A teacher uses iNaturalist to support inquiry learning for achieving chemistry competencies, especially change and equilibrium | |
| B. Seorang guru menggunakan nQuire untuk mendukung pembelajaran berbasis inkuiri untuk mencapai kompetensi kimia terutama identifikasi mikroskopik dan analisis makroskopik | B. A teacher uses nQuire to support inquiry learning for achieving chemistry competencies, especially macroscopic identification and macroscopic analysis | |
| C. Seorang guru menggunakan ChemDraw untuk mendukung pembelajaran berbasis inkuiri yang digamifikasi untuk mencapai kompetensi kimia terutama penalaran berbasis bukti dan pemodelan* | C. A teacher uses ChemDraw to support gamified inquiry-based learning for achieving chemistry competencies, especially evidence-based reasoning and modeling* | |
| D. Seorang guru menggunakan Luxmeter untuk mendukung pembelajaran berbasis inkuiri yang digamifikasi untuk mencapai kompetensi kimia terutama sikap ilmiah dan tanggung jawab sosial | D. A teacher uses Luxmeter to support gamified inquiry-based learning for achieving chemistry competencies, especially scientific attitude and social responsibility | |
| Procedural knowledge of TPACK | ||
| TK | Bagaimana cara merekam video dengan kamera 3600 secara efektif? | How to record video with a 360-degree camera effectively? |
| A. Pengaturan-pengujian-penempatan-orientasi lensa-rekaman stabil | A. Setting-testing-positioning-orientation of the lenses-stable footage | |
| B. Pengujian-pengaturan-penempatan-orientasi lensa-rekaman stabil* | B. Testing-setting-positioning-orientation of the lenses-stable footage* | |
| C. Pengujian-pengaturan-penempatan-rekaman stabil-orientasi lensa | C. Testing-setting-positioning-stable footage-orientation of the lenses | |
| D. Pengaturan-pengujian-penempatan-rekaman stabil-orientasi lensa | D. Setting-testing-positioning-stable footage-orientation of the lenses | |
| TCK | Bagaimana cara menggunakan teknologi untuk memvisualisasikan bahwa materi bergerak dan berubah? | How do you use technology to visualize that matter is motion and change? |
| A. Dengan mendaftar ke platform nQuire dan kemudian menggunakannya untuk memvisualisasikan bahwa materi bergerak dan berubah | A. By registering to nQuire and then using it to visualize that matter is motion and change | |
| B. Dengan menggunakan luxmeter dan kemudian mengatur aplikasi tersebut untuk memvisualisasikan bahwa materi bergerak dan berubah | B. By using luxmeter and then setting the application to visualize that matter is motion and change | |
| C. Dengan mendaftar ke iNaturalist dan kemudian menggunakannya untuk memvisualisasikan bahwa materi bergerak dan berubah | C. By registering to iNaturalist and then using it to visualize that matter is motion and change | |
| D. Dengan membuat video dan kemudian menggunakannya untuk memvisualisasikan bahwa materi bergerak dan berubah* | D. By creating a video and then using it to visualize that matter is motion and change * | |
| TPK | Bagaimana cara menggunakan nQuire untuk mendukung pembelajaran berbasis inkuiri? | How to use nQuire for supporting inquiry learning? |
| A. Dengan mendaftar ke platform tersebut kemudian membuat game untuk membuat pertanyaan inkuiri | A. By registering to that platform, then making a game to investigate the inquiry question | |
| B. Dengan mendaftar ke platform tersebut kemudian membuat misi untuk mengumpulkan data dari responden* | B. By registering to that platform, then making a mission to collect data from respondents* | |
| C. Dengan mendaftar ke platform tersebut kemudian membuat video untuk refleksi | C. By registering to that platform, then making a video for reflection | |
| D. Dengan mendaftar ke platform tersebut kemudian membuat rubrik untuk menganalisis data | D. By registering to that platform, then making a rubric to analyze data | |
| TPACK | Seorang guru ingin membantu para peserta didiknya dalam mencapai kompetensi kimia terutama inkuiri ilmiah dan inovasi. Dia ingin mengintegrasikan teknologi untuk mengajar peserta didiknya melalui pedagogi tertentu. Bagaimana cara memilih teknologi dan pedagogi yang paling tepat untuk mengajar di kelasnya? | A teacher wants to support his students in achieving chemistry competencies, especially scientific inquiry and innovation. He wants to integrate technologies to teach his students through specific pedagogy. How to choose the most appropriate technologies and pedagogies to teach in his classroom? |
| A. Guru dapat memilih Luxmeter dan kemudian menggunakannya sebagai teknologi untuk membantu peserta didik menganalisis hasil percobaan sebagai bagian dari langkah-langkah inkuiri terbimbing. | A. The teacher can select the Luxmeter and then use it as technology to help students analyze the experiment results as a part of the guided inquiry steps. | |
| B. Guru dapat memilih nQuire dan kemudian menggunakannya sebagai teknologi untuk membantu peserta didik memvisualisasikan tingkat mikroskopis sebagai bagian dari langkah-langkah inkuiri terbimbing. | B. The teacher can select nQuire and then use it as a technology to help students visualize the microscopic level as a part of the guided inquiry steps. | |
| C. Guru dapat memilih Luxmeter dan kemudian menggunakannya sebagai teknologi untuk membantu peserta didik mengumpulkan data/bukti sebagai bagian dari langkah-langkah citizen inquiry. | C. The teacher can select Luxmeter and then use it as a technology to help students collect data/evidence as a part of the citizen inquiry steps | |
| D. Guru dapat memilih nQuire kemudian menggunakannya sebagai teknologi untuk membantu peserta didik mengumpulkan data sebagai bagian dari langkah-langkah citizen inquiry.* | D. The teacher can select nQuire, then use it as a technology to help students collect data as a part of the citizen inquiry steps* | |
Appendix 2
| TPACK components | Not applicable (0 point) | Low (1 point) | Medium (2 points) | Advanced (3 points) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TK | Not using any technology in teaching. | One or more technologies are used but stated in simple ways. | Multiple pedagogical methods are mentioned clearly and the affordances and/or constraints of these tools are discussed. | The specifications of technology are discussed in detail and/or teachers know how it contributes to student-centered learning. |
| TCK | No alignment between technology and content, or the use of technology is not aligned with content representation. | Content information is stated generally and represented by a single technology, or content information is specified but represented by a single technology. | Subject/topic-specific contents are presented, and multiple technologies are used to support content representations. | Subject/topic-specific contents are presented and multiple technologies are used to support content representations. And teachers encourage students’ use of technology to present content. |
| TPK | No alignment between pedagogy and pedagogy, or the use of technology is not aligned with pedagogical implementation. | Use a single technology to support teaching, or use a few technologies, but teaching is designed simply. | Teachers articulate how to use technologies to support their teaching in different stages of the class, but no consideration of after class or students’ use. | Teachers articulate how to use technologies to support their teaching in class, which includes using technologies in different stages and for different purposes, and/or the student use is encouraged. |
Appendix 3
| Day | Week | Time | Phase | Session description | Learning strategy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 hour | Showing the case (S) | Showing some successful cases of using technology-enhanced Citizen Inquiry | Interactive lecture |
| 3 hours | Practice in the team (P) | Practicing citizen inquiry application (i.e. iNaturalist, nQuire) | Collaborative learning and practical work | ||
| 2 | 1 | 1 hour | Practice in the team (P) | Monitoring the big data in citizen inquiry applications (i.e., iNaturalist, nQuire) | Collaborative learning and practical work |
| 3 hours | Application of the case (A) | Designing a lesson plan to foster students’ SASR and or SII chemistry competencies: | Collaborative learning and practical work | ||
| • Designing a lesson plan individually | |||||
| • Discussing the lesson plan in a group | |||||
| • Presenting the lesson plan to the whole class | |||||
| 3 | 1 | 1 hour | Showing the case (S) | Showing some successful cases of using 360-degree video in the chemistry laboratory | Interactive lecture |
| 3 hours | Practice in the team (P) | Practicing 360-degree camera to make a 360-degree video in the chemistry laboratory | Collaborative learning and practical work | ||
| 4 | 1 | 1 hour | Practice in the team (P) | Enriching 360-degree video with Vivista software | Collaborative learning and practical work |
| 3 hours | Application of the case (A) | Designing a lesson plan to foster students’ MIMA and or CE chemistry competencies: | Collaborative learning and practical work | ||
| • Designing a lesson plan individually | |||||
| • Discussing the lesson plan in a group | |||||
| • Presenting the lesson plan to the whole class | |||||
| 5 | 1 | 1 hour | Showing the case (S) | Showing some successful cases of using ChemDraw | Interactive lecture |
| 3 hours | Practice in the team (P) | Practicing ChemDraw to create 2D, 3D chemical structure | Collaborative learning and practical work | ||
| 6 | 1 | 1 hour | Practice in the team (P) | Practicing ChemDraw on gamification learning strategies | Collaborative learning and practical work |
| 3 hours | Application of the case (A) | Designing a lesson plan to foster students’ ERM and or SII chemistry competencies: | Collaborative learning and practical work | ||
| • Designing a lesson plan individually | |||||
| • Discussing the lesson plan in a group | |||||
| • Presenting the lesson plan to the whole class | |||||
Appendix 4
| Hari/Sesi | Langkah-langkah | Kegiatan Guru | Kegiatan Peserta Didik | Alokasi Waktu | Bahan Ajar |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hari 1/Sesi 1 (1 × 90 menit) | Masalah/Pertanyaan | Guru memberikan apersepsi tentang topik asam-basa dengan menanyakan pertanyaan seperti | Peserta didik mendiskusikan pertanyaan. Kemudian peserta didik menonton video 360°. | 10 menit | Video laboratorium virtual: |
| [English] Day 2/Session (1 × 90 Minutes) | [English] Problem/question | • Apa yang kalian gunakan saat mandi? | [English] Students discuss the questions. Then, students watch the 360-degree video. | [English] | Dibuat menggunakan kamera 360° dan Vivista. |
| • Apa bahan dari barang-barang tersebut? | 10 minutes | Video utama adalah tentang laboratorium kimia. | |||
| Latar Belakang Ilmiah/Teori | Kemudian guru meminta peserta didik untuk menonton video asam-basa. | Bab 1 berisi materi tentang pengenalan asam-basa (video interaktif). | |||
| [English] Scientific background/theory | [English] The teacher gives apperception about the acid–base topic by asking a question such as | Bab 2 berisi peraturan kerja di laboratorium. | |||
| • What are you guys using when taking a shower? | |||||
| • What ingredients of those things? | |||||
| Then, the teacher asks students to watch the acid–base video. | |||||
| Prosedur/desain | Guru menjelaskan informasi tentang video asam-basa. Kemudian guru membagi peserta didik menjadi kelompok kecil yang terdiri dari 4–5 individu. Kemudian guru mengarahkan peserta didik untuk melakukan praktikum. | Peserta didik dapat memahami informasi yang diberikan. Kemudian peserta didik dibagi menjadi kelompok kecil untuk mengumpulkan data terkait praktikum asam-basa. | 50 menit | Bab 3 berisi pengenalan peralatan dan bahan dalam praktikum asam-basa. | |
| [English] | Bab 4 berisi prosedur praktikum asam-basa (video interaktif). | ||||
| [English] Procedure/design | [English] The teacher explains information about the acid–base video. Then, the teacher divides students into small groups of 4–5 individuals and directs them to conduct a practicum. | [English] Students can understand the information given. Then, students were divided into small groups to collect data related to acid–base practicum. | 50 minutes | [English] Virtual laboratory video: | |
| Analisis Hasil | Guru mengarahkan peserta didik untuk menganalisis data yang diperoleh dari hasil praktikum asam-basa dan membuat kesimpulan dari diskusi. | Peserta didik menganalisis data yang diperoleh dari praktikum asam-basa dan menyimpulkan diskusi. | 30 menit | It was created using a 360-degree camera and Vivista. The main video is about the chemistry laboratory. | |
| [English] The teacher directs the students to analyze data obtained from the results acid–base practicum and make conclusions from the discussion. | [English] Students analyze data obtained from acid–base practicum and conclude the discussion. | [English] | Chapter 1 contains material about the introduction to acid–base (interactive video). | ||
| [English] Result analysis | 30 minutes | Chapter 2 contains work regulations in the laboratory. | |||
| Chapter 3 introduces the equipment and materials in the acid–base practicum. | |||||
| Chapter 4 contains practicum procedure acid–base (interactive video) |
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the support of the Khon Kaen University Scholarship for ASEAN and GMS Countries Personnel, which funded the first author's doctoral studies at Khon Kaen University.References
- Angeli C. and Valanides N., (2009), Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPACK: advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), Comput. Educ., 52(1), 154–168.
- Ardisara A. and Fung F. M., (2018), Integrating 360° videos in an undergraduate chemistry laboratory course, J. Chem. Educ., 95, 1881–1884.
- Aristeidou M. and Herodotou C., (2020), Online citizen science: a systematic review of effects on learning and scientific literacy, Citiz. Sci.: Theory Pract., 5(1), 1–12.
- Aroch I., Katchevich D. and Blonder R., (2024), Modes of technology integration in chemistry teaching: theory and practice, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 25(3), 843–861.
- Baumert J., Kunter M., Blum W., Brunner M., Voss T., Jordan A. and Tsai Y. M., (2010), Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress, Am. Educ. Res. J., 47(1), 133–180.
- Belford R. E. and Gupta T., (2019), Introduction: technology integration in chemistry education and research, in Belford R. E. and Gupta T. (ed.), Technology Integration in Chemistry Education and Research (TICER), American Chemical Society, pp. 1–20.
- Campbell D. T. and Stanley J. C., (1963), Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research, Houghton Mifflin.
- Cetin-Dindar A., Boz Y., Sonmez D. Y. and Celep N. D., (2018), Development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 19(1), 167–183.
- Chai C. S., Koh J. H. L. and Tsai C. C., (2013), A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge, Educ. Technol. Soc., 16(2), 31–51.
- Chaipidech P., Kajonmanee T., Chaipah, K., Panjaburee, P. and Srisawasdi, N., (2021), Implementation of an andragogical teacher professional development training program for boosting tpack in stem education: the essential role of a personalized learning system, Educ. Technol. Soc., 24(4), 220–239.
- Chaipidech P., Srisawasdi N., Kajonmanee T. and Chaipah K., (2022), A personalized learning system-supported professional training model for teachers’ TPACK development, Comput. Educ.: Artificial Intelligence, 100064.
- Chesky N. Z. and Wolfmeyer M. R., (2015), STEM's what, why, and how? Ontology, axiology, and epistemology, in Chesky N. Z. and Wolfmeyer M. R. (ed.), Philosophy of STEM education: A critical investigation. The cultural and social foundations of education, Palgrave Pivot, pp. 17–43.
- Clemons T. D., Fouché L., Rummey C., Lopez R. E. and Spagnoli D., (2019), Introducing the first year laboratory to undergraduate chemistry students with an interactive 360° experience, J. Chem. Educ., 96(7), 1491–1496.
- Creswell J., (2002), Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
- Creswell J. W. and Creswell J. D., (2018), Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 5th edn, Sage Publications.
- Daltoè T., Ruth-Herbein E., Brucker B., Jaekel A. K., Trautwein U., Fauth B. and Göllner R., (2024), Immersive insights: unveiling the impact of 360-degree videos on preservice teachers’ classroom observation experiences and teaching-quality ratings, Comput. Educ., 213, 104976.
- Fontana M. T., (2020), Gamification of chemdraw during the covid-19 pandemic: investigating how a serious, educational-game tournament (molecule madness) impacts student wellness and organic chemistry skills while distance learning, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 3358–3368.
- Garrido A., Berthaut F. and Manganoni J., (2024), Evaluation of the use of a 360° immersive visit of the organic chemistry practical laboratory for pharmacy students, J. Chem. Educ., 101(10), 4182–4188 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00264.
- Gilbert J. K. and Treagust, D. F., (2009), Introduction: macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: key models in chemical education, in Gilbert J. K. and Treagust D. F. (eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education, Models and Modeling in Science Education, Dordrecht: Springer, vol. 4, pp. 1–10 DOI:10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_1.
- Gomollón-Bel F., (2022), IUPAC Top Ten Emerging Technologies in Chemistry 2022: discover the innovations that will transform energy, health, and materials science, to tackle the most urgent societal challenges and catalyse sustainable development. Chem. Int., 44(4), 4–13.
- Harris J. and Hofer M. J., (2009), Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based tpack development, Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2009(1), 4087–4095. https://activitytypes.wm.edu/HarrisHoferTPACKDevelopment.pdf.
- He P., Zheng C. and Li T., (2021), Development and validation of an instrument for measuring Chinese chemistry teachers’ perceptions of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching chemistry core competencies, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22(2), 513–531..
- He P., Zheng C. and Li T., (2022), Development and validation of an instrument for measuring chinese chemistry teachers’ perceived self-efficacy towards chemistry core competencies, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 20, 1337–1359.
- Heller J. I., Daehler K. R., Wong N., Shinohara M. and Miratrix L. W., (2012), Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and student achievement in elementary science, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 49(3), 333–362.
- Hew, K. F. and Brush, T., (2007), Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 55(3), 223–252.
- Hill H. C., Rowan B. and Ball D. L., (2005), Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement, Am. Educ. Res. J., 42(2), 371–406.
- Huang L. and Lajoie S. P., (2021), Process analysis of teachers’ self-regulated learning patterns in technological pedagogical content knowledge development, Comput. Educ., 166, 104169.
- Hunter V., Hawkins I. and Phelps A. J., (2019), Comparing the influence of visualization type in an electrochemistry laboratory on the student discourse: who do they talk to and what do they say? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 20(4), 851–861.
- Jimoyiannis A., (2010), Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development, Comput. Educ., 55(3),1259–1269.
- Kang E. J., Donovan C. and McCarthy M. J., (2018), Exploring elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and confidence in implementing the NGSS science and engineering practices, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 29(1), 9–29.
- Keller M. M., Neumann K. and Fischer H. E., (2017), The impact of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and motivation on students’ achievement and interest, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 54(5), 586–614.
- Knutson C. M. et al., (2019), Dyeing to degrade: a bioplastics experiment for college and high school classrooms, J. Chem. Educ., 96(11), 2565–2573.
- Koehler M. J. and Mishra P., (2009), What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? CITE, 9(1), 60–70.
- Koehler M. J., Mishra P. and Cain W., (2013), What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? J. Educ., 193(3), 13–19.
- Kong C. I., Welfare J. G., Shenouda H., Sanchez-Felix O. R., Floyd J. B., Hubal R. C., Heneghan J. S., Lawrence D. S., (2022), Virtually bridging the safety gap between the lecture hall and the research laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 99, 1982–1989.
- Kramarski B. and Michalsky T., (2010), Preparing preservice teachers for self-regulated learning in the context of technological pedagogical content knowledge, Learn. Instr., 20(5), 434–447.
- Lachner A., Backfisch I. and Stürmer K., (2019), A test-based approach of modeling and measuring technological pedagogical knowledge, Comput. Educ., 142, 103645.
- Lawrie G. A., Schultz M., Bailey C. H., Dargaville B. L., (2019), Personal journeys of teachers: an investigation of the development of teacher professional knowledge and skill by expert tertiary chemistry teachers, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 20(1), 132–145.
- Levonis S. M., Tauber A. L. and Schweiker S. S., (2021), 360° virtual laboratory tour with embedded skills videos, J. Chem. Educ., 98(2) 8–11.
- Li B., Ding B. and Eilks I., (2024), A case on a lesson plan about take-out plastics use addressing Confucianism for sustainability-oriented secondary chemistry education in Mainland China, J. Chem. Educ., 101(1), 58–68.
- Matovu H. et al., (2023),Change in students’ explanation of the shape of snowflakes after collaborative immersive virtual reality, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 24(2), 509–525.
- Mishra P. and Koehler M. J., (2006), Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge, Teach. Coll. Rec.: The Voice of Scholarship in Education., 108(6), 1017–1054.
- Mishra P., Warr M. and Islam R., (2023), TPACK in the age of ChatGPT and Generative AI. J. Digit. Learn. Teach. Educ., 39(4), 235–251.
- Morsch L. A. and Lewis M., (2015), Engaging organic chemistry students using chemdraw for ipad, J. Chem. Educ., 92(8), 1402–1405.
- Niess M. L., (2005), Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge, Teach. Teach. Educ., 21(5), 509–523.
- Niess M. L., (2011), Investigating TPACK: knowledge growth in teaching with technology, J. Educ. Comput. Res., 44(3), 299–317.
- Nugraheni A. R. E., Prasongsap B. and Srisawasdi N., (2021), Targeting chemistry competencies on plastic circular economy with technology-assisted citizen inquiry: a proposal of learning matrix, Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computers in Education Conference, Thailand, pp. 219–227.
- Park S., Jang J. Y., Chen Y. C. and Jung J., (2011), Is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) necessary for reformed science teaching? evidence from an empirical study, Res. Sci. Educ., 41(2), 245–260.
- Pedaste M., Mäeots M., Siiman L. A., de Jong T., van Riesen S. A., Kamp E. T. and Tsourlidaki, E., (2015), Phases of inquiry-based learning: definitions and the inquiry cycle, Educ. Res. Rev., 14, 47–61.
- Pekdaǧ B., (2020), Video-based instruction on safety rules in the chemistry laboratory: its effect on student achievement, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 21(3), 953–968.
- Pondee P., Panjaburee P. and Srisawasdi N., (2021), Preservice science teachers’ emerging pedagogy of mobile game integration: a tale of two cohorts improvement study, Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn., 16, 1–27.
- Qian M., Boyer D. M., Gao Q., Vargas P., Mercer E. L., Wang A. X., (2023), Digital interactive case-based instruction: a useful tool to enhance preservice teacher education, Technol., Pedagogy Educ., 32, 389–404.
- Rosenthal R., (1994), Parametric measures of effect size, in Cooper H. and Hedges L. V. (ed.), The handbook of research synthesis, Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 231–244.
- Sadler T. D., (2009), Situated learning in science education: socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice, Stud. Sci. Educ., 45(1), 1–42.
- Sahin S., (2012), Pre-service teachers’ perspectives of the diffusion of information and communications technologies (ICTs) and the effect of case-based discussions (CBDs), Comput. Educ., 59(4), 1089–1098.
- Saks K., Ilves H. and Noppel A., (2021), The impact of procedural knowledge on the formation of declarative knowledge: How accomplishing activities designed for developing learning skills impacts teachers’ knowledge of learning skills, Educ. Sci., 11(10), 598.
- Scanlon E. and Sharples M., (2020), nQuire: citizens acting as scientists in massive open online learning, Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Learning, pp. 257–260.
- Schiering D., Sorge S. and Neumann K., (2021), Promoting progression in higher education teacher training: How does cognitive support enhance student physics teachers' content knowledge development? Stud. High. Educ., 46(10), 2022–2034.
- Scott A., Downton A., Gronn D. and Staples A., (2008), Engagement versus deep mathematical understanding: an early career teacher's use of ICT in a lesson, in Goos M., Brown R., and Maka K. (ed.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia-Navigating currents and charting directions, MERGA, Brisbane: QLD, pp. 43–49.
- Sharples M., Technology E. and Keynes M., (2017), The sense-it app: a smartphone sensor toolkit for citizen inquiry learning, Int. J. Mob. Blended Learn., 9(2), 16–38.
- Shavelson R. J., Ruiz-Primo M. A. and Wiley E. W., (2005), Windows into the mind, High. Educ., 49, 413–430.
- Shulman L. S., (1986), Those who understand: a conception of teacher knowledge, American Educ., 10(1), 4–14.
- Smarkola C., (2008), Efficacy of a planned behavior model: beliefs that contribute to computer usage intentions of student teachers and experienced teachers, Comput. Hum. Behav., 24, 1196–1215.
- So H. J. and Kim B., (2009), Learning about problem based learning: student teachers integrating technology, pedagogy and content knowledge, Australas. J. Educ. Technol., 25(1), 101–116.
- Sorge S., Kröger J., Petersen S. and Neumann K.,(2019), Structure and development of pre-service physics teachers’ professional knowledge, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 41(7), 862–889.
- Srisawasdi N., (2014), Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in using computerized science laboratory environment: an arrangement for science teacher education program, Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn., 9(1), 123–143.
- Srisawasdi N., Pondee P. and Bunterm T., (2018), Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate mobile technology into science laboratory learning: an evaluation of technology-integrated pedagogy module, Int. J. Mob. Learn. Organ., 12(1), 1–17.
- Stalder F., (2018), The digital condition, Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Thyssen C., Huwer J., Irion T. and Schaal S., (2023), From TPACK to DPACK: the “digitality-related pedagogical and content knowledge” model in STEM education, Educ. Sci., 13(8), 769. DOI:10.3390/educsci13080769.
- Watson S. W., Dubrovskiy A. V. and Peters M. L., (2020), Increasing chemistry students’ knowledge, confidence, and conceptual understanding of pH using a collaborative computer pH simulation’, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 21(2), 528–535.
- Wei B., (2019), Reconstructing a school chemistry curriculum in the era of core competencies: a case from china, J. Chem. Educ., 96, 1359–1366.
- Wu H. K. and Puntambekar S., (2012), Pedagogical affordances of multiple external representations in scientific inquiry, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 21(6), 754–767.
- Zeidler D. L. and Nichols B. H., (2009), Socioscientific issues: theory and practice, Handbook of Research on Science Education, Routledge, pp. 49–82.
- Zimmermann F., Melle I. and Huwer J., (2021), Developing prospective chemistry teachers’ tpack – a comparison between students of two different universities and expertise levels regarding their tpack self-efficacy, attitude, and lesson planning competence, J. Chem. Educ., 98, 1863–1874.
Footnote |
| † Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d4rp00160e |
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2025 |