Cognition and Practices in Technology-Supported Teaching Among Teachers of Chinese as a Foreign Language

Abstract

The integration of technology in education has reshaped teaching methodologies, particularly in language instruction. This mixed-methods explanatory sequential research investigated the TPACK cognitions and practices of nine Filipino high school teachers of Mandarin. The TPACK is a framework that illustrates the importance of the interplay between technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge to the utilization of technology in teaching. This study consolidated both quantitative and qualitative data from self-assessment reports, semi-structured interviews, and classroom observations, providing a clear vignette of the participants’ TPACK. Using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, this study captured the entirety of the participants’ TPACK. The qualitative data revealed the participants’ high level of awareness of their TPACK. The qualitative data described the participants’ thirteen teaching practices demonstrating TPACK, and two approaches of enacting TPACK. Lastly, based on the findings, this study provided recommendations such as deepening the participants’ understanding of the TPACK framework and strengthening each professional knowledge, contributing to improving the participants’ capability to teach Mandarin with technology. The research findings might not apply to a larger population of Mandarin teachers because of the study’s limited sample size and restricted research setting. However, despite this limitation, the research delivers original insights by applying TPACK theoretical framework to Mandarin language teaching in an area that currently lacks extensive research. This research reveals new understandings of TPACK development and implementation among foreign language instructors in the Philippines through unique pedagogical methods and integration techniques.

Plain Language Summary

Why was the study done? The continuous advancement of educational technologies has greatly influenced the evolution of the education landscape. Among the most significant developments in education in the recent years is the implementation of online education, which undeniably provides teachers and students with greater flexibility. To contribute in the continuous discussion on the cognition and practices of teaching with technology, specifically in the context of Chinese as Foreign Language teaching, this study was implemented. What did the researchers do? The researchers employed both quantitative and qualitative data to describe the cognitions and practices of Chinese as Foreign Language Teachers in supporting their teaching with technology. The researchers gathered data through survey questionnaire, classroom observations, and interviews. What did the researchers find? First, the teachers have a high level of awareness of their TPACK as reflected in the computed mean score of their responses in the questionnaire. Second, the teachers employed 13 teaching practices that demonstrated the development of CK to PCK to TPACK. Third, the teachers’ cognition reflected that the content knowledge served as the baseline in deciding what technology to use. What do the findings mean? Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that school heads or supervisors should conceptualize contextualized professional development programs for TPACK by assigning a TPACK teacher-trainer in each subject area, rather than merely depending on the ICT coordinator. Further, future researchers may explore the approaches on TPACK development employed by teachers of other discipline and how it may be significant in students’ learning outcomes.

Keywords

Chinese as foreign language foreign language teaching teachers cognition educational technology Chinese language teaching technology-supported teaching

Introduction

The continuous advancement of educational technologies has greatly influenced the evolution of the education landscape. The advancement of digital tools has transformed their pedagogical applications so they now form a core component of educational delivery (Burbules et al., 2020). The implementation of online education stands as one of the foremost educational advancements today because it offers teachers and students enhanced flexibility. The primary feature of online education is to provide students, who are restricted from attending physical classes due to distance, schedules, or health reasons, with flexibility (Eisenhauer, 2013). The implementation of online education became feasible with the availability of various online educational technologies. Online educational technology refers to virtual platforms that facilitate interaction and communication, including video conferencing, chat rooms, file-sharing applications, and email (Azlim et al., 2015).

The effectiveness of educational technologies in the classroom to supplement teaching and learning activities has been thoroughly discussed in substantial literature, even before the pandemic (Atan et al., 2004; Evseeva & Solozhenko, 2015; Heba & Nouby, 2008; Strelan et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2019). Moreover, previous studies in foreign language teaching have examined the role of technology in supporting classroom activities (Altun, 2015; Bilyalova, 2017; Blake, 2011; Chilingaryan & Zvereva, 2017; Fitzpatrick, 2004; Hubackova et al., 2011). In fact, the integration of technology in language learning dates back to the 1960s, when Stanford University implemented Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) in teaching Russian as a foreign language (Ahmad et al., 1985; Suppes, 1981). Although there is an abundance of research available, most of these studies examine technology integration broadly in educational settings but don’t specifically focus on language teaching methods in non-Western areas. The study tackles this research gap through its examination of technology utilization within Mandarin educational settings in the Philippines. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that teaching with technology during the pandemic constituted emergency remote teaching, which differs from a planned online course (Tomasik et al., 2021). In the Philippine context, online learning, along with other alternative learning delivery modalities, became the primary mode of education for secondary school students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the courses delivered via online learning was Chinese Mandarin.

The gap between planned online instruction and emergency remote teaching led to significant challenges, particularly in teachers’ ability to effectively teach with technology. Thus, Meyers and Smylie (2017) asserted that educators require support and training to develop relevant competencies that would enable them to effectively integrate educational technology into online instruction. Teachers’ professional development has been regarded as the most significant factor in e-learning (Keramati et al., 2011). Being knowledgeable about technology adoption and its potential in supporting student learning should be a fundamental skill for every teacher (Kumar et al., 2008). The success of online instruction implementation relies on teachers’ preparedness and competence in utilizing technology for teaching (Mahmud et al., 2012). Consequently, schools offering online instruction are expected to assess teachers’ technological competence to identify areas where support is needed.

While multiple studies have looked into teachers’ preparedness to use technology in their classrooms research has not focused enough on how foreign language teachers in non-Western settings experience this integration. This research fills a void by acknowledging the distinct challenges of language instruction which demands a sophisticated approach to technology integration. Language instruction requires interactive and immersive experiences which differ from general education subjects and requires an analysis of how technology impacts these learning processes in classroom settings.

Chai et al. (2013) asserted that the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) of Chinese language teachers in Singapore significantly shaped their pedagogical beliefs. Therefore, enhancing TPACK is crucial for improving teachers’ technology-supported instructional strategies. Similarly, Wurigen (2022) found that Chinese as a Second Language (CSL) teachers tended to avoid technology tools in their lessons due to a lack of technological skills. Examining Chinese teachers’ TPACK allows schools to gain insights into effective distance teaching by analyzing the interplay between technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. This approach can enhance student learning, foster better interaction, and promote collaboration in second-language learning (L2) classrooms. Meaningful language skills development requires effective technology use that is guided by pedagogical content knowledge. Likewise, Lin et al. (2017) stated that Chinese language skills instruction and the professional development of language teachers are increasingly shaped by technology. Lu (2014) investigated the application of TPACK in a “Connected Classroom” Chinese course, evaluating video conferencing as a remote teaching tool for Chinese language education. The study’s findings expand knowledge on the role of TPACK in Chinese language instruction, highlighting the importance of teacher training in technology integration for successful online education.

Teachers’ readiness to integrate technology into teaching can be assessed by examining various factors. Previous studies have identified multiple variables that influence teachers’ readiness for technology-enhanced teaching (Al-Furaydi, 2013; Copriady, 2014; Eslaminejad et al., 2010; Goh & Murad, 2006; Kumar et al., 2008; Sang et al., 2011). Additionally, technological competence—or the ability to effectively use technology—has been recognized as one of the most common measures of e-learning readiness models (Demir & Yurdugül, 2015). From a different perspective, rather than measuring technology readiness, Koehler and Mishra (2009) developed the TPACK framework, which guides teachers on effectively integrating technology into their teaching. The framework consists of three key knowledge domains: technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and content knowledge (CK). The dynamic interaction among these components shapes teachers’ ability to effectively teach with technology.

Although the TPACK framework has received extensive validation through research, its application to Mandarin teaching in Philippine public schools remains under-researched. The investigation extends to TPACK cognition and teachers’ classroom practices to connect theory with real-world teaching execution. This method results in a deeper understanding of TPACK implementation within practical teaching environments which includes foreign language instruction.

The TPACK framework provided researchers and educators with a new lens to describe teachers’ technology integration skills, leading to the development of assessment tools aligned with the framework’s components. One of the most recent instruments, the TPACK Short-Scale Questionnaire, was developed by Schmidt (2020) and has undergone validation. This study utilized this instrument and implemented self-assessment reports, classroom observations, and semi-structured interviews. By employing multiple data sources, the study established triangulation, thereby enhancing the accuracy and reliability of the findings.

In more than a decade of Chinese language instruction in the Philippine public school system, no study has yet examined the TPACK cognition and instructional practices of Filipino high school teachers of Mandarin. While extensive research on TPACK exists, previous studies have focused primarily on other subjects and educational contexts, creating a population gap in this field. Furthermore, this study’s methodological approach—combining both quantitative and qualitative data—differs from previous research, which has typically relied on either quantitative or qualitative methodologies exclusively.

General Objectives: The present study aimed to describe the TPACK of Filipino high school teachers of Mandarin using both quantitative and qualitative data.

Specific Objectives: Specifically, this study aimed to achieve the following:

To describe Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) in terms of:

1.1. Self-Assessment Report

1.2. Classroom Practices

1.3. Cognition

To describe the implications of the findings of the study for educational management.

Hypotheses:

H1: Teachers’ self-assessment of their TPACK significantly differs from their actual classroom practices.

H2: Teachers’ TPACK is demonstrated on their classroom practices.

H3: Teachers’ cognition of TPACK supports their self-assessment results and classroom practices.

H4: The findings of the study have significant implications for educational management, particularly in enhancing teacher training, curriculum design, and policy formulation related to technology integration in education.

The findings of this study identified strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino high school teachers of Mandarin in terms of using technology in their teaching, thus, provided baseline data for future training related to technology or TPACK. Further, the results of this study can be used in designing teachers’ pre-service or in-service trainings that would contribute in further equipping the teachers with skills necessary to effectively use technology in teaching, leading to the uplifting of the overall quality of instruction.

Literature Review

Theoretical Backgrounds

Koehler and Mishra (2009) created the TPACK framework in 2006 to demonstrate necessary skills for integrating technology effectively into teaching practices. The creators of the TPACK framework expanded Shulman’s Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model from 1986 by adding technological knowledge to it. The TPACK framework uses a Venn diagram with three circles representing technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and content knowledge (CK). The combination of the three fundamental knowledge forms produces three additional knowledge intersections called Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). The central intersection of the framework which combines all three main knowledge forms represents another knowledge category called Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK).

Koehler and Mishra (2009) stated that each variable within the framework plays crucial roles both alone and together when technology is used in teaching. Each knowledge form within the framework is explained below to help understand its concept more clearly.

Content Knowledge (CK) represents the teacher’s understanding of the subject matter. The framework determines the subject matter intended for instruction and learning.

Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) describes a teacher’s comprehension of both teaching methods and learning processes. It answers the question “How to teach?”

Technological Knowledge (TK) encompasses teachers’ understanding of ICT tools and their effective application in educational settings. This section details which ICT resources teachers can access.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) signifies a teacher’s expertise in determining the best methods for delivering specific content. This knowledge addresses the question of how to deliver subject matter.

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) involves teachers understanding how to select appropriate technologies for specific subject teaching. This addresses which technology should be utilized when teaching subject matter.

The Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) concept describes teachers’ ability to select suitable technology tools to implement specific instructional methods. The question answered here is “Which technology stands as the best choice to support both teaching and learning activities?”

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) represents the integrated knowledge forms of the framework as it involves teachers understanding how technology can convey subject matter concepts and support specific teaching methods while assessing the subject matter’s difficulty and utilizing technology to help students overcome conceptual challenges and build upon their existing knowledge.

Technology integration into educational environments has opened new paths for creative and innovative teaching and learning methods. Technology integration impacts both teaching methods and content delivery yet the latter remains frequently ignored according to Tallvid et al. (2012). Teacher competencies in technology use need development beyond individual knowledge forms to include the connections among all three knowledge forms according to the TPACK framework. Teachers require integration of the three distinct knowledge forms known as TPCK to achieve effective technology use in education according to Schmid et al. 2021. The TPACK framework emerged as an assessment tool for teachers’ technology teaching competencies and a foundation for professional development programs which enhance teachers’ TPACK skills (Chai et al., 2013).

Experimental Backgrounds

The level of teacher preparedness for technology-based instruction determines the success of online instruction implementation (Mahmud et al., 2012). The implementation of online teaching/learning needs to begin with thorough planning which involves the assessment of online readiness according to Clark and Mayer (2011). The investigation by Borotis and Poulymenakou (2004) reinforced the significant importance of examining online readiness factors for successful online learning. In Oliver’s 2001 study he identified e-learning readiness as the key determinant of successful e-learning implementation. In order to enhance e-learning implementation further we must explore various factors that predict teacher readiness for online teaching. The research by Al-Awidi and Aldhafeeri (2017) investigated teacher perceptions about their readiness to implement digital curriculum and identified knowledge and skills as key factors influencing their preparedness. Schools that adopt online teaching methods must assess teacher technological teaching skills to deliver essential support. Baya’a and Dayer (2015) established that institutional support advances teachers’ ICT teaching abilities which contributes to their TPACK development. The teachers’ ICT proficiency and TPACK level significantly improved after the school provided support interventions.

Educators frequently use the TPACK as a standard framework to evaluate their technological teaching abilities. Chai et al. (2011) suggest that the TPACK framework serves as a key tool to overcome teaching technology-related challenges. Educational technology problems can be traced to their origins by applying the TPACK framework. The TPACK framework continues to gain popularity as researchers use both quantitative and qualitative studies to explore it.

Synthesis

There has been no published research on the TPACK of Filipino public secondary school teachers who teach Mandarin in the Philippines. Research has evaluated TPACK in teachers from various countries while secondary school teachers’ TPACK remains underexplored in limited studies. The paper addresses technology use through fully online instructional delivery instead of standard classroom technology integration. Existing literature depended exclusively on self-assessment reports that are currently challenged regarding their validity and accuracy. Based on these considerations, this study conducted an investigation into the TPACK of Filipino public secondary school Mandarin teachers using classroom observations and data from semi-structured interviews and questionnaires. This study revealed essential information about developing teachers’ TPACK to implement online teaching within policymaking bodies of various educational institutions like the Department of Education. This research serves as a foundational resource for developing professional development programs that aim to improve the TPACK abilities of Filipino public secondary Mandarin teachers.

Materials and Methods

Research Design

To capture a comprehensive understanding of teachers’ TPACK, this study utilized a mixed-methods research design, specifically, the explanatory-sequential design. The explanatory-sequential design involves using qualitative data to support the interpretation of quantitative data; thus, quantitative data is collected first, followed by qualitative data (Edmonds & Kennedy, 2019). Figure 1 shows the flow of data collection and analysis of this study using the explanatory-sequential design.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

Study Participants

This study utilized a purposive sampling technique, which is nonrandom and involves deliberately selecting participants based on predetermined qualities that would help fully describe the phenomenon of interest (Etikan et al., 2016). The participants of this study were public secondary school Filipino teachers teaching Chinese Mandarin. They were trained under the Special Program in Foreign Language of the Department of Education, Philippines. These teachers were from three schools identified as Centers of Excellence in teaching Chinese Mandarin as a foreign language in the country. They had completed the two-year training program for Mandarin teachers offered by the Department of Education and were engaged in online instruction during the study. On the other hand, trained SPFL-Chinese Mandarin teachers who were using other modes of instructional delivery or were not currently teaching in the program during the study were excluded. Nine (9) teachers of Chinese Mandarin from the identified schools met the inclusion criteria and complied with the study protocols.

The vital information regarding the teaching profile of the participants is shown in Table 1. The two teachers, Chan and Ong, are from a school in region 1; Three teachers, Nan, Fan, and Uy, are from a school in National Capital Region; Four teachers, Chu, Ing, Un, and Sy, are from a school in region 3. Regarding teaching experience in general, Fan has the most years of teaching experience with thirteen (13) years. However, if referring to experience in Chinese Mandarin teaching, Chan can be considered the most experienced among the participants with ten (10) years of experience, while the other participants have 3 to 9 years of experience. It should be noted that the participants were originally teachers of other subject areas and later on were trained to also teach Chinese Mandarin. Thus, their actual number of years of teaching experience is different from that of the number of years of teaching Chinese Mandarin. In support of that, eight of the participants were teachers of English, while one of them was a teacher of Technology and Livelihood Education. In terms of the educational qualification of the participants, seven (7) of them have been or currently taking up a master’s degree, one (1) has a doctoral degree, and the other one (1) is yet to pursue graduate studies.

Table 1.

Participants’ Profile.

Teacher	1 Chan	2 Ong	3 Nan	4 Fan	5 Uy	6 Chu	7 Ing	8 Un	9 Sy
Age	32	39	28	49	29	26	38	44	40
School region	1	1	NCR	NCR	NCR	3	3	3	3
Grade level	7	8	7	8	7	8	8	10	7
Years of teaching experience	10	7	4	13	8	4	10	7	8
Years of teaching Chinese Mandarin	10	5	3	9	3	3	5	5	3
Chinese proficiency level (HSK)	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Educational qualification	MA	BS	MA	MA	MA	MA	Ed. D	MA	MA
Bachelor’s degree/major	Ed.- English	Ed.- TLE	Ed.- English	Ed.- English	Ed.- English	Ed.- English	Ed.- English	Ed.- English	Ed.- English
Summer training program (1, 2)	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Follow-through and mentoring session (1, 2, 3+)	3	3	2	3	2	2	3	3	2
Immersion program in China	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
LAC session	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Concerning Chinese Mandarin, Chan has the highest level of Chinese language proficiency with HSK level 3 or equivalent to the B1 level of the Common European Languages Framework of Reference (CEFR). In contrast, the other participants have HSK level 2 of Chinese language proficiency or equivalent to CEFR A2 level. All the participants have completed two (2) summer training programs and at least two (2) years of follow-through and mentoring sessions. Among the participants, only Chan and Fan have attended an immersion program in China. Lastly, two (2) out of three (3) schools implemented Learning Action Cell (LAC) Sessions for Chinese Mandarin.

Study Instrument

This study employed the TPACK short-scale questionnaire developed and validated by Schmidt (2020). The questionnaire is a 5-point Likert scale which allows the participants to express the level of their agreement or disagreement to the given statements describing their TPACK. The questionnaire’s statements were converted into questions and used in the interview guide of the semi-structured interview. On the other hand, classroom observation recordings were recorded, transcribed, and coded.

To further strengthen the accuracy and validity of the analyses, this study employed multiple verification mechanisms. The verification mechanisms aim to safeguard validity and reliability, contributing to the rigor of the research (Morse et al., 2002). In establishing validity, the researcher can use different viewpoints, including the researcher’s viewpoint, participants’ viewpoint, and external viewpoint (Creswell & Miller, 2000). It is recommended to have at least two (2) validation mechanisms for qualitative studies (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Thus, the researchers employed members’ checking, external auditing, inter-rater reliability assessment, triangulation, and audit trail in this study.

Study Protocol

This study strictly complied with the recommended protocols of the school’s ethics review committee to ensure the highest ethical standards. Consent and permission to conduct the study were obtained from the relevant offices of the Department of Education. Data were collected through three sources: classroom observation, semi-structured interviews, and questionnaires. The first phase of data collection involved participants answering a self-assessment questionnaire, which provided the researcher with a quick glimpse of how the participants perceived their TPACK. The second phase involved recording three (3) consecutive classes of the participants, providing data on their TPACK pedagogical practices. The third phase involved conducting semi-structured interviews to allow the researcher to dig deeper into the TPACK perceptions and practices of the teachers, leading to the uncovering of their TPACK cognitions.

Data Analysis

The quantitative data extracted from the self-assessment report were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as percentage, frequencies, mean, and standard deviation. The interpretation of the quantitative data was then supplemented with qualitative data from classroom observations and semi-structured interviews which were analyzed using thematic analysis of Braun and Clarke (2006). The Thematic Analysis includes the following steps: (a) familiarizing the data, (b) assigning code to the data, (c) developing themes among codes, (d) reviewing identified themes, (e) defining & naming themes, and (f) finalizing the analysis. The result of the thematic analysis will be analyzed individually and collectively, and then to be used to further clarify the interpretation of quantitative data. Table 2 shows the summary of research protocols implemented in the conduct of this study.

Table 2.

Summary of Procedures.

Research procedure	Classroom observation	Semi-structured interview	Questionnaire
Data gathering	Obtaining signed informed consent forms
	Training and briefing observers	Conducting and recording interviews	Distributing the online questionnaire link
	Pilot Classroom Observation
	Recording online class sessions
Data analysis	Transcribing classroom observations	Transcription of the recorded interview	Statistical Treatment of the QNR data
	Member Checking	Member checking of SSI transcripts
	Coding classroom observation transcripts (including establishing inter-rater reliability)	Coding of SSI transcripts
	Generating themes from codes	Generating themes from codes
	Comparing themes with field notes
	Finalization and Reporting of CO Results	Reporting of the results	Reporting of the results
	Triangulation
	External Audit and Review of the Audit trails

Results

Participants’ Perceptions of their Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is the interplay among all the knowledge domains of the framework, which is defined as the teacher’s understanding to appropriately integrate technology to represent subject matter’s content and support teaching approaches (Koehler et al., 2007). Through TPACK, the teacher will decide on what and how to use technology to support teaching and enhance students’ learning experience. In the context of this study, TPACK refers to participants’ ability to utilize suitable technology to deliver their Chinese Mandarin lessons and support their choice of language teaching approach. The participants expressed a high level of confidence in their TPACK, as reflected in the computed mean score of their TPACK questionnaires (4.58). Among the statements describing their TPACK, participants expressed their highest confidence in using strategies that combine the three knowledge domains of the framework in their Chinese Mandarin classrooms (4.67). On the other hand, the three other statements garnered the same level of confidence (4.56) including: (a) choosing technology to enhance lesson’s content; (b) selecting technology to support enhancing what is being taught, how it is being taught, and what students are learning; and (c) delivering lessons with aligned content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge. The details of the computed mean score in each TPACK statement are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Participants’ Perceptions of Their TPACK.

Technological pedagogical and content knowledge items	Mean scores	Standard deviations
I can use strategies that combine content, technologies, and teaching approaches that I learned about in my coursework/training in the Chinese Mandarin classroom.	4.67	0.50
I can choose technologies that enhance the content of a lesson in Chinese Mandarin subject.	4.56	0.51
I can select technologies to use in the Chinese Mandarin classroom that enhance what I teach, how I teach, and what students learn.	4.56	0.51
I can teach lessons that appropriately combine my teaching subject, technologies, and teaching approaches. (Chinese Mandarin classroom)	4.56	0.47
Mean score for Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge	4.58

Note. 1–1.80 (SDA), 1.81–2.60 (DA), 2.61–3.40 (N), 3.41–4.20 (A), 4.21–5.00 (SA).

Participants’ Classroom Practices Demonstrating Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK)

To visibly illustrate the participants’ TPACK, the researcher organized the observed practices demonstrating their TPACK in Table 4. The first column consists of the codes used to label the teaching episodes where technological integration was observed to support Chinese Mandarin language teaching. The second column briefly describes how technological tools support the presentation of the lesson and the chosen teaching approach.

Table 4.

Participants’ TPACK Practices.

TPACK practices		Description	TPACK development	TPACK level
1	TPACK-Word-VideoTPACK-Watch Video Presentation	The participants used platforms such as Youtube, Facebook, Google Classroom, Google Slide, Google Meet, and Powerpoint (TK) to share or view a video clip containing the lesson’s content (vocabulary/grammar/dialogue), supporting the Audiolingual Method (PCK).	PCK + TK	Adapting
2	TPACK-Word-TranslationTPACK-Sentence-TranslationTPACK-Sentence-Formula	The participants used PowerPoint or Google Slide (TK) to show the translation/structure of the lesson’s content, supporting Grammar-Translation Method (PCK).	PCK + TK	Adapting
3	TPACK-Word-ReviewTPACK-Sentence-ReviewTPACK-Visual Identification Activity	The participants used visual-prompt (image/animation) or text-based material (flashcard/word card) placed in a slide presentation or digitized textbook (TK) for an activity to let students’ recall and summarize the newly learned vocabulary and sentence patterns (PCK).	PCK + TK	Adapting
4	TPACK-Word-Picture	The participants used digital images (TK) representing the definition of a particular Chinese word, supporting Situational Language Teaching (PCK).	PCK + TK	Adapting
5	TPACK-Word-Comparison	The participants used PowerPoint presentation/animation (TK) to model the correct pronunciation of the word and ask the students to identify which among the given choices is the pinyin with the correct tones (PCK).	PCK + TK	Adapting
6	TPACK-Production PracticePCK-Repetition DrillPCK-Pronunciation Activity	The participants used PowerPoint presentation (TK) containing the lesson’s content and ask the students toread it aloud,read it after them,or perform a tongue twister (PCK).	PCK + TK	Adapting
7	TPACK-Modelling	The participants used video/audio recording or PowerPoint presentation (TK) to model the correct pronunciation of the vocabulary or sentence (PCK).	PCK + TK	Adapting
8	TPACK-Kinesthetic	The participants used visual-prompt (image/animation) or text-based material (flashcard/word card) placed in a slide presentation or digitized textbook (TK) and let the students say the newly learned word accompanied with a body movement, supporting Total Physical Response (PCK).	PCK + TK	Adapting
9	TPACK-Dialogue Activity	The participants used slide presentation or digitized textbook (TK) to ask the students to use the newly learned sentence patterns through a dialogue activity with their peers. Visual-prompt or text-based prompt may be included in the slide presentation as basis for the dialogue, supporting Communicative Language Teaching & Situational Language Teaching (PCK).	PCK + TK	Adapting
10	TPACK-Game	The participants used software such as Bamboozle, Kahoot, or PowerPoint presentation to facilitate a game (TK) to arouse students’ interest, to review the previous lesson, test students’ knowledge of the vocabulary and sentence patterns (PCK).	PCK + TK	Adapting
11	TPACK-Review Previous Lesson	The participants used PowerPoint presentation to let students recall their previous lesson (TK), and served as a springboard for the presentation of the current lesson (PCK).	PCK + TK	Adapting
12	TPACK-Online Test	The participants used software such as Nearpod, Google Form, and PowerPoint presentation (TK) to test students’ comprehension of the lesson (PCK).	PCK + TK	Adapting
13	TPACK-Enrichment Activity	The participants used video or slide presentation (TK) for the enrichment activity such as making a card, writing Chinese characters, etc. (PCK).	PCK + TK	Adapting

The data in Table 3 revealed the varied teaching activities employed by the participants, which demonstrated the alignment between their pedagogical, content, and technological knowledge, thus, exemplifying TPACK. The participants employed at least 13 teaching activities in which they have successfully showcased the technology affordances in Chinese language teaching. Instead of the conventional implementation of a particular language teaching strategy, the participants checked the availability of technological tools which might be effective in teaching the lesson’s content and supporting the whole teaching process. The technological tools used by the participants vary from a slide presentation, images, videos, audio recordings, digitized textbooks, online classrooms, social media, game software, online tests, and others, depending on the content and classroom activity. To further illustrate the complexity of the interplay between the three knowledge domains, a specific example was provided in Table 5.

Table 5.

TPACK Example.

Knowledge domain	Description	Code
Technological knowledge	The participants are aware of YouTube, Facebook, Google Classroom, Google Slide, Google Meet, and PowerPoint.	TK
Pedagogical knowledge	The participants are aware of constructivist learning or students’ active participation on the learning process.	PK
Content knowledge	The participants know the Chinese vocabulary related to different modes of transportation.	CK
Pedagogical-content knowledge	The participants use Situational Language Teaching by modeling the correct pronunciation of the vocabulary or Audiolingual Method by asking the students to imitate the pronunciation of the presented vocabulary.	PCK
Technological-pedagogical knowledge	The participants use social media or Google classroom to distribute learning materials, allowing the students to browse the materials before and after the class.	TPK
Technological-content knowledge	The participants use video materials containing the Chinese words for different modes of transportation.	TCK
Technological pedagogical and content knowledge	The participants use platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Google Classroom, Google Slide, Google Meet, and PowerPoint to share or view a video clip containing the lesson’s content (vocabulary/grammar/dialogue), supporting the Audiolingual Method. Moreover, it involves the active participation of the students by asking them to preview or review the materials shared in the platforms mentioned above.	TPACK

Using the TPACK-Word-Video/TPACK-Watch Video Presentation as an example, Table 5 uncovered how using a video material can essentially support the presentation of the vocabulary (TCK) and classroom activities such as previewing and reviewing (TPK). Moreover, using video material (TK) to provide an accurate model of the correct pronunciation of the words may also support activities attributed to the Audiolingual Method or Situational Language Teaching such as repetition, imitation, and memorization (PCK), thus, manifesting TPACK. It was clearly illustrated that the choice of technological tools (TK) depends on the lesson’s content (CK) and its way of teaching (PK). The necessity for the alignment of the three knowledge domains of the TPACK framework was emphasized further by the participants on their responses in the interview and open-ended questionnaires.

Participants’ Cognition of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Through their interview responses, the participants demonstrated their consciousness of the importance of TPACK in their Chinese language teaching. They strongly concurred with the proposition of the TPACK framework that there is a need to combine Content, Pedagogical, and Technological knowledge to successfully facilitate technology integration in teaching. The ultimate goal of TPACK is to support teaching and learning activities, resulting in achieving the target learning objectives. The participants perceived the subject matter (CK) as the baseline in choosing what technology to use and how to deliver the lesson. This was clearly mentioned by Teacher Sy, who said, “No matter how good we are in technology, if we do not know how to incorporate it in a certain content or subject matter, I think it will become useless.” The same comments were observed from the responses of Teacher Chan, Teacher Chu, Teacher Nan, Teacher Ing, and Teacher Fan. Below are their responses when asked to share their strategy in aligning CK, PK, and TK.

Teacher Chan

: It is necessary that these three knowledge domains will be aligned so that you can achieve your goal, your objective that you have presented in the first part of your lesson. So, what’s the use of those objectives? If the technology or the content or the pedagogy are not relevant, or not aligned to each other? So, in making the lesson plan, make it sure that the technology, the content, as well as the pedagogy go together for you to achieve the objectives.

Teacher Chu:

I am aligning them (TK & PK) for the objectives because I try to check first objectives. And then whenever I try to see what those objectives of my lesson are, then that will be the time for me to check my content afterwards. After checking my content, I am going to think of better ways for them to learn the language, by means of incorporating the technology that I know is enticing to the students. Well then that will be the time that my lessons are for me, they are already good.

Teacher Nan

: Well, I see to it that I have to check also the difficulty of the subject, the level of the difficulty of the subject. And then and the level of understanding of the students before I give a specific, choose a specific technology in teaching a specific lesson. So it should be subject first, I will study it first, then, consider the level of the student, and then strategy, and then, technology.

Teacher Ing:

How do I combine? You must consider from the content, strategies and technologies. We must consider the needs. For example, you already know the lesson or topic, let’s say self-introduction, so how will you deliver this lesson? what could be my techniques? So from this is, Because this new normal that we have is, they could not directly attend classes. So from that, we can use video, so you will go on the simplest way. It’s you, you need to connect the content to existing technology.

Teacher Fan:

Definitely if you have already the content with you then you want it to make it more presentable, then you could definitely look for technology like the PowerPoint, and to make it more presentable, and that’s it. The moment that you’ve already content with you, you put something, and then you make it more presentable.

The initial step taken by the participants in choosing what technology to integrate into their teaching is identifying the target learning objectives and the content to be taught. After identifying the lesson’s content, Teacher Chu, Teacher Nan, and teacher Ing identified teaching strategy, then technology (CK-PCK-TPACK). The same step was reflected in Teacher Uy’s response, saying, “We cannot give the content and pedagogy or the strategy if there is no proper technology aligned with what we know. It is not enough to know what we know and the strategy to employ. It should be with the technology because an expert in the subject does not mean a good teacher. We should be well equipped with the pedagogy and technology this time of the pandemic.” On the other hand, Teacher Chu and Teacher Fan immediately identified the technology that can be used to teach the lesson’s content (CK-TCK-TPACK). The same step was observed in the response of Teacher Un, who identified an application that can be used to present the content in a new form and then designed learning activities wherein the students can use the application. Below is the response of Teacher Un when asked about her reflection on TPACK.

Teacher Un

: Technology is a big help in delivering lesson to the students. Because it is easier. You don’t have to write in a Manila Paper, or a Cartolina. Books are still helpful, but if you want to explain something, one click away, it is already there. It really helps. For example, the students are not just relying on the teacher, but through using the apps like Pleco, the students learn the correct pronunciation. I also told the students that, to assure that they have correct pronunciation, record themselves. I gave them poems in Chinese, and they had to read and record themselves. Just re-record if they think they mispronounce something.

The participants followed different steps in ensuring that the three knowledge domains of the TPACK framework were aligned. Most participants first decided to identify the appropriate strategy to teach the content (PCK) before deciding on what technology to support the identified way of teaching (TPACK). On the other hand, few of the participants immediately decided the technology to use with the content (TCK), and later on, decided what strategy can be possible with the identified content and technology (TPACK). Although there were two approaches observed in implementing TPACK in the participants’ Chinese Mandarin classrooms, there was a consensus that TPACK is significant in teaching with technology. Through TPACK, teachers may fully utilize the features of existing technological tools to support teaching, especially during the online distance learning setup, and contribute to facilitating a more fun and engaging learning experience, making the Chinese language easier to grasp. This was reflected on the participants’ responses in their interview below.

Teacher Sy:

It opens horizons that are already available and just needs to be maximized to hasten learning convenience.

Teacher Nan:

This (TPACK) is a big help in the discussion and topics to be discussed.

Teacher Uy:

TPACK is essential part of educational system today as it incorporates the growing demand on the use of technology. Very timely and relevant this time of pandemic since almost all transactions (lessons, quizzes, etc) are done online now.

Teacher Chu:

I enjoyed how I teach Chinese Mandarin subject. Also, my students are having fun while learning so it is very evident that TPACK is really good in instruction inside the classroom.

Teacher Ing:

TPACK is a tool the helps the learner learned better in mandarin.

Teacher Un:

Through TPACK, students can work in groups using technology. Through TPACK, students can work in groups using technology. Teachers can follow up, assist students in their learning and unlike the traditional way of teaching, TPACK actually makes the teaching and learning more motivating and encouraging to both students and teachers.

In addition to providing a more encouraging and motivating learning environment, TPACK also contributes to enhancing the participants’ teaching practices. This was emphasized by Teacher Fan, Teacher Ong, Teacher Chan, Teacher Chu, and Teacher Sy in their interview responses below.

Teacher Fan:

This (TPACK) would allow us to improve our teaching.

Teacher Ong:

I realized that this TPACK helped me to continue pushing to the best of my ability so as to give the better service that the students ought to have. It widens my perspective in teaching and hopeful to carry a bag of change in terms of using technology in teaching.

Teacher Chan

: It’s really challenging! Embedding TPACK in classroom instructions needs good planning, wise choosing of technology aligned with your content and applying at your best the pedagogy suited for all your clienteles, your learners.

Teacher Chu

: TPACK is indeed the thing we need in this new normal set up and also, it is very engaging for our 21st century learners.

Teacher Sy:

TPACK is an avenue where technology can be used effectively and efficiently.

The participants recognized the significant role of TPACK as a framework of reference in choosing technology that is appropriate to both subject matter and pedagogy, contributing to making the learning atmosphere more engaging to 21st-century learners. The significance of TPACK was further highlighted during the online distance learning setup wherein the technology served as the channel or the platform the teacher could use to deliver teaching. Thus, it is more needed to ensure that what the teacher knows and how it will facilitate matches with the choice of technology. Through TPACK, participants may further improve the technology integration in their classroom, resulting in more effective and efficient teaching.

In summary, the participants’ Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) was described using the data gathered from the self-assessment questionnaire, classroom observations, and interviews. First, the data from the self-assessment questionnaire revealed the participants’ high confidence level of TPACK (4.58). Second, the classroom observation data revealed that the participants utilized 13 teaching practices that demonstrated TPACK. The participants’ TPACK was observed in the lesson’s review, vocabulary and grammar teaching, practice, and assessment parts. Third, the interview data revealed the participants’ perceptions towards TPACK and its impact on their teaching. Moreover, participants’ cognition reflected that the content knowledge served as the baseline in deciding what pedagogy and technology to use. The implementation of TPACK followed two approaches: from CK to PCK to TPACK and from CK to TCK to TPACK.

Discussion

The technological pedagogical and content knowledge garnered a high rating with a computed average of 4.58, manifesting the participants’ high confidence in their TPACK. The participants’ practices and cognitions reflected two developmental approaches of TPACK: from CK to PCK to TPACK and from CK to TCK to TPACK. The participants employed 13 teaching practices that demonstrated the development of CK to PCK to TPACK. These teaching practices were observed in the lesson’s review, vocabulary and grammar teaching, practice, and assessment parts. The same approach (CK-PCK-TPACK) was called grounded technology integration by Harris et al. (2010) because the technology for integration was in accordance with the identified subject-specific pedagogy. Thus, technology integration does not simply mean adding technology to teaching but allowing technology to support teaching and give the subject a new representation. This supports the recommendation of Collet (2013), which asserted that the emphasis of technological integration is not on the technology itself, but on the new literacies (digital literacy). The concept of new literacies is not simply about technology but having the ability to use technology for collaboration, problem-solving, and critical thinking (Swenson et al., 2006). Rather than focusing on technology, teachers should focus on improving their proficiency with the use of digital tools. Having sufficient new literacies allows the teachers to operationalize the use of technology in their classroom, rather than treating it as an add-on only. On the other hand, the participants’ cognition reflected that the content knowledge served as the baseline in deciding what pedagogy and technology to use, thus following the sequence of TPACK development from CK to TCK to TPACK. These TPACK developmental approaches were also identified in previous studies (Doering et al., 2009; Harris & Hofer, 2011). The content knowledge represented by the curriculum content was also the primary basis of Harris et al. (2011) in their attempt to develop learning activity types involving technological tools in different subject areas.

The discussion above also confirmed the significant influence of TCK and PCK, along with TPK, on TPACK development. The findings suggest that participants’ approach of developing their TPACK is by identifying the technology or pedagogy suited to the delivery of a particular content (CK-TCK/PCK-TPACK), thus, the content knowledge is the ultimate starting point of their TPACK enactment. Therefore, attention shall be given in further developing the participants’ CK, which influences their TCK/PCK, which in turn contribute to TPACK enactment. In addition to advancing their content knowledge, the participants may also reflect on which among the knowledge domains of the framework are their strengths and in which aspect they need support or further training to develop their TPACK fully. The collaboration among the teachers, which was reflected in the participants’ LAC session, is necessary to improve their TPACK further. For instance, during the participants’ LAC session, participants shared and discussed their pedagogical practices (PCK) and technological tools (TCK) they use to teach a particular content, contributing to the development of their TPACK.

The sequence of the TPACK development is another research interest that can be explored further to determine its significance and possible impact on teaching and learning. Despite the varied sequences of the TPACK development, the end product is still the blending of three knowledge domains, contributing to more effective integration of technology in teaching. This was further supported by the participants who perceived TPACK as an essential framework of reference in aligning technology to both subject matter and pedagogy, contributing to making the learning atmosphere more engaging to 21st-century learners.

Conclusion

Through the use of data from self-assessment questionnaires, classroom observations, and semi-structured interviews, this paper aimed to describe the teachers’ TPACK practices and cognitions, providing a clear picture of the integration of TPACK in the Chinese as a foreign language classroom in the Philippines. The quantitative data revealed that Filipino high school teachers of Mandarin have a high level of confidence in their TPACK as reflected in the TPACK self-assessment report. Further, a more detailed vignette of the teachers’ TPACK was reflected in their classroom practices and cognitions. This study uncovered that teachers’ primary consideration in implementing TPACK begins with the content, followed by the identification of technology or pedagogy to support the delivery of the content, then developing to full enactment of the TPACK. Based on the gathered data, the following are the findings and recommendations of this study:

First, the teachers have a high level of awareness of their TPACK as reflected in the computed mean score of their responses in the questionnaire. Considering that TPACK is the interplay between the individual professional knowledge of the framework, it is necessary to conduct TPACK needs assessment to establish the current status of the teachers’ professional knowledge. The assessment will establish baseline data for crafting structured TPACK training that allows the teachers to gradually develop their professional knowledge and to seamlessly design their technology-integrated lessons. The self-assessment questionnaires indicated that all nine participants rated their overall TPACK confidence highly (M > 4.0 on a 5-point scale). Notably, Chan (10 years Mandarin teaching, HSK 3) and Fan (9 years Mandarin, HSK 2)—both of whom completed the China immersion—scored at the top of every TPACK dimension. Their advanced proficiency and extended mentoring (three cycles) likely underpin this strong self-efficacy.

Second, classroom observations revealed 13 distinct teaching practices following the “grounded integration” sequence described by Harris et al. (2010). For instance, during vocabulary and grammar lessons, teachers first presented content (CK), then selected subject-specific strategies (PCK), and only afterwards introduced technology (TPK) culminating in integrated TPACK activities (e.g., digital mind maps to reinforce target structures). five teachers (Chu, Ing, Un, Sy, Uy) exemplified this sequence most consistently. Their reliance on CK → PCK → TPACK suggests that strengthening each component knowledge, especially CK through advanced content workshops, will further enhance technology-driven pedagogies.

Third, semi-structured interviews uncovered a second developmental trajectory among teachers with stronger TK backgrounds—primarily Chan and Fan—where technology choices (TCK) preceded detailed pedagogical adaptations. For example, Chan often experimented with interactive quiz platforms first, then reconfigured her lesson flow to leverage those tools for communicative tasks. This CK → TCK → TPACK pathway underscores the need for flexible training modules that accommodate both content-driven and technology-driven entry points into TPACK. Tailoring support to these divergent sequences will help ensure teachers find an approach aligned with their existing strengths.

Fourth, this study advances TPACK theory through its examination of how secondary school foreign language teachers implement technology into their teaching practices. This study broadens TPACK application research by showing how instructors modify digital tools and teaching methods for immersive learning settings. The study findings highlight essential professional development needs for foreign language educators whose technological requirements demand specialized teaching innovation programs that connect theoretical models with practical applications.

Lastly, this study suggests that school leaders and supervisors need to design professional development programs that address the specific contexts of TPACK. By combining quantitative self-efficacy measures with qualitative practice vignettes the study demonstrates the significance of professional development that is contextually relevant. Standard ICT workshops which were typically managed by only one coordinator failed to provide solutions for special difficulties encountered in teaching Mandarin. The distribution of TPACK teacher-trainers throughout each subject area (e.g., a Mandarin specialist assigned to each school) ensures continuous coaching that aligns with content needs. Creating sustained communities of practice demands both the extension of mentoring beyond two cycles and the formal establishment of Learning Action Cell (LAC) sessions across all schools.

Limitations of the Study

First, this study employed targeted approach in selecting participants who possessed the specialized background necessary to describe its focus. While this study provides a detailed exploration into the TPACK beliefs and practices of nine Chinese Mandarin teachers at the identified Centers of Excellence, their experiences may not fully represent the broader population of Chinese Mandarin teachers across the Philippines. This is due to the fact that the sample was drawn from high-performing schools using purposive methods, findings may overstate TPACK development relative to teachers in more typical or resource-constrained settings. Future research should include a larger, more diverse sample of Chinese Mandarin teachers—ideally selected through probability sampling—to assess how widely these results apply nationwide. Therefore, the small sample size of only nine participants from outstanding program implementation centers which restricts the generalizability of its findings and the representation of different populations and institutional contexts.

Secondly, this research establishes the significance of coordinated content, pedagogy and technology yet acknowledges that these findings will apply differently across educational institutions based on their policies, technological capabilities and faculty preparedness. Teachers find it easier to develop TPACK skills in institutions with comprehensive digital resources and strong professional development programs, but those in resource-limited environments face obstacles like inadequate access to technology and insufficient technical support and training opportunities which prevent proper integration.

The TPACK development sequence observed in this research (CK-PCK-TPACK vs. CK-TCK-TPACK) appears to vary among schools based on their digital integration levels. Teachers develop Technology Knowledge (TK) earlier in institutions with established instructional technology which then affects their pedagogical and content delivery methods. This study demonstrated that educational institutions with emerging technology adoption tend to follow a progression that begins with content-first strategies. Research must examine how different institutional environments such as urban versus rural schools and public versus private institutions along with digital resource availability affect teacher TPACK development. By examining these variations educators can build more adaptable professional development strategies which will allow training programs to fit different teaching environments.

These limitations have impacted the conclusion of this study. The study’s sample of nine selected teachers from three Centers of Excellence indicates that the strong TPACK profiles and development patterns observed might actually be results of specialized training environments rather than representative of all Chinese Mandarin teachers across the country. The effectiveness evaluation of current professional development approaches and CK-PCK-TPACK versus CK-TK-PCK sequences from this sample represents optimal conditions which should not be considered standard patterns. The integration of content knowledge with pedagogical methods and technology will develop in unique ways within schools that lack resources or follow different organizational structures which means standard recommendations need extensive modification. To confidently extend these implications to all Filipino Mandarin teachers, future research must involve larger samples selected randomly from various school settings.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Cavin F. Pamintuan

Ethical Considerations

The proponents of this research conformed with the regulations and guidelines set forth by the university’s ethics review committee. On the other hand, prior to the actual conduct of the study, informed consent forms were disseminated to the prospective participants wherein the nature, aims, and objectives of the study were clearly explained. The participation on this study was purely voluntary, and the proponent respected the participants’ right to refuse or withdraw from participating in this study at any point. Furthermore, the protection of participants’ privacy was in compliance with the pertinent laws of the country. The data that were generated from this study were only used for the specified purpose. Code names were assigned to participants to ensure that their identities remained anonymous and confidential. Furthermore, the researcher ensured that participants were free from severe risk or harm in participating in the conduct of this study. The study procedures and instrument were approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the Angeles University Foundation, Philippines with Protocol No. 2021-365.

Consent to Participate

The researcher arranged an online conference with the prospective participants and discussed the study’s nature, scope, significance, and purpose. The time frame and protocols for data gathering were also discussed during the online conference. After the prospective participants had expressed their willingness to partake in the study, they were asked to accomplish the informed consent forms, which were reviewed and approved by the university’s ethics review committee. The informed consent form was converted into a Google Form, and the link was provided to the participants via email.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The researcher will ensure that your identity will remain confidential. The data or information you will provide will be kept private and will be treated with the utmost confidentiality. All the collected data will be kept in secure, private, and locked locations that can only be accessed by the researcher. The data that will be stored will only refer to your responses to the questionnaire and no data will be kept that could identify you. Your identity will not in any way be identified from any reports produced from this study. After the conduct of the study, all electronic and downloaded data from the Google Form such as the demographic profile forms and informed consents will be destroyed and disposed of properly.

References

Ahmad

Corbett

Rogers

Sussex

(1985). Computers, language learning and language teaching. London: Cambridge University Press.

Al-Awidi

Aldhafeeri

(2017). Teachers’ readiness to implement digital curriculum in Kuwaiti schools. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 105–126.

Al-Furaydi

(2013). Measuring e-learning readiness among EFL teachers in intermediate public schools in Saudi Arabia. English Language Teaching, 6(7), 110–121. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.5539/elt.v6n7p110

Altun

(2015). The integration of technology into foreign language teaching. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 6(1), 22–27.

Atan

Rahman

Idrus

(2004). Characteristics of the web-based learning environment in distance education: Students’ perceptions of their learning needs. Educational Media International, 41(2), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980410001678557

Azlim

Amran

Rusli

M. R.

(2015). Utilization of educational technology to enhance teaching practices: A case study of community colleges in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1793–1797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.385

Baya’a

Dayer

(2015). The role of institutional support in developing teachers’ ICT integration skills and its impact on TPACK. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 8(2), 1–18.

Bilyalova

(2017). ICT in teaching a foreign language in high school. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.060

Blake

R. J.

(2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051100002X

10.

Borotis

Poulymenakou

(2004). E-learning readiness components: Key issues to consider before adopting e-learning interventions. In Nall

Robson

(Eds.), World Conference on E-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 1622–1629). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/11555/

11.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

12.

Burbules

N. C.

Fan

Repp

(2020). Five trends of education and technology in a sustainable future. Geography and Sustainability, 1(2), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2020.05.001

13.

Chai

C.-S.

Koh

J. H.-L.

Tsai

C.-C.

(2013). A Review of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (2), 31–51.

14.

Chai

C. S.

Koh

J. H. L.

Tsai

C.-C.

Tan

W. L.

(2011). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57(1), 1184–1193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.007

15.

Chilingaryan

Zvereva

(2017). Methodology of the flipped classroom as a learning technology in foreign language teaching. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 1500–1504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.236

16.

Clark

R. C.

Mayer

R. E.

(2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons.

17.

Collet

V. S.

(2013). Helping teachers make the shift: Professional development for renovated writing instruction. In Pytash

K. E.

Ferdig

R. E.

Rasinski

T. V.

(Eds.), Preparing teachers to teach writing using technology (pp. 111–124). Carnegie Mellon University’s Research Showcase. http://repository.cmu.edu/etcpress/12/

18.

Copriady

(2014). Self-motivation as a mediator for teachers’ readiness in applying ICT in teaching and learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(4), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.529

19.

Creswell

J. W.

Miller

D. L.

(2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://people.ucsc.edu/~ktellez/Creswell_validity2000.pdf

20.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

21.

Demir

Ö.

Yurdugül

. (2015). The exploration of models regarding e-learning readiness: Reference model suggestions. International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(1), 173–194.

22.

Doering

Veletsianos

Scharber

Miller

(2009). Using the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to design online learning environments and professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319–346.

23.

Edmonds

W. A.

Kennedy

T. D.

(2019). An applied guide to research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/978107180277

24.

Eisenhauer

J. G.

(2013). Student migration to online education: An economic model. Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education, 9(1), 19–28. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1140938.pdf

25.

Eslaminejad

Masood

Ngah

N. A.

(2010). Assessment of instructors’ readiness for implementing e-learning in continuing medical education in Iran. Medical Teacher, 32(10), e407–e412. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.496006

26.

Etikan

Musa

Alkassim

(2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

27.

Evseeva

Solozhenko

(2015). Use of flipped classroom technology in language learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 206, 205–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.006

28.

Fitzpatrick

(2004). Information and communication technology in foreign language teaching and learning an overview, Information and communication technologies in the teaching and learning of foreign languages: State-of-the-art, needs and perspectives- Analytical survey, Moscow: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education, 10–26. http://iite.unesco.org/pics/publications/en/files/3214627.pdf.

29.

Goh

Murad

(2006). Factors influencing psychology and skills of the secondary school teachers’ e-learning readiness: A case study in Malacca, Malaysia. Current Developments in Technology-Assisted Education. http://www.formatex.org/micte2006/pdf/2135-140.pdf

30.

Harris

J. B.

Hofer

M. J.

Schmidt

D. A.

Blanchard

M. R.

Young

C. Y.

Van Olphen

(2010). “Grounded” technology integration: Instructional planning using curriculum-based activity type taxonomies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(4), 573–605.

31.

Harris

J. B.

Hofer

M. J.

(2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211–229.

32.

Harris

J. B.

Hofer

M. J.

Schmidt

D. A.

Blanchard

M. R.

Young

C. Y.

Van Olphen

(2010). “Grounded” technology integration: Instructional planning using curriculum-based activity type taxonomies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(4), 573–605.

33.

Heba

E. D.

Nouby

(2008). Effectiveness of a blended e-learning cooperative approach in an Egyptian teacher education programme. Computers & Education, 51(3), 988–1006.

34.

Hubackova

Semradova

Klimova

B. F.

(2011). Blended learning in foreign language teaching. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.054

35.

Keramati

Afshari-Mofrad

Kamrani

(2011). The role of readiness factors in e-learning outcomes: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1919–1929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.005

36.

Koehler

M. J.

Mishra

(2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.

37.

Koehler

M. J.

Mishra

Yahya

(2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762.

38.

Kumar

Rose

R. C.

D’Silva

J. L.

(2008). Teachers’ readiness to use technology in the classroom: An empirical study. European Journal of Scientific Research, 21(4), 603–616.

39.

Lin

C.-H.

Liu

(2017). Technology and the education of Chinese-language teachers: Where are we now? Journal of Technology and Chinese Language Teaching, 8(1), 1–15.

40.

(2014). Towards technological pedagogical content knowledge via cross socio-linguistic interaction: A case study of beginning teacher-researchers’ decision-making in school-engaged teacher-researcher [Doctoral dissertation, Western Sydney University]. Western Sydney University Thesis Collection. http://researchdirect.uws.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:22679

41.

Mahmud

Arif

Ismail

Abdul

Kamarudin

Radhiah

(2012). Teachers’ readiness in utilizing educational portal resources in teaching and learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 484–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.057

42.

Meyers

C. V.

Smylie

M. A.

(2017). Five myths of school turnaround policy and practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16(3), 502–523.

43.

Morse

Barrett

Mayan

Olson

Spiers

(2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100202

44.

Oliver

R. G.

(2001). Assuring the quality of online learning in Australian higher education. Proceedings of 2000 Moving Online Conference. (n.d., pp. 222–231). Gold Coast, QLD. Norsearch Reprographics.

45.

Sang

Valcke

van Braak

Tondeur

Zhu

(2011). Predicting ICT integration into classroom teaching in Chinese primary schools: Exploring the complex interplay of teacher-related variables. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 160–172.

46.

Schmid

Brianza

Petko

(2021). Self-reported technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service teachers in relation to digital technology use in lesson plans. Computers in Human Behavior, 115 (September 2020), 106586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106586

47.

Schmidt

(2020). Teaching digital literacies: Knowledges, practices, and resources in second language writing (Publication No. 27999107) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

48.

Strelan

Osborn

Palmer

(2020). The flipped classroom: A meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels. Educational Research Review, 30, 100314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314

49.

Suppes

(1981). University-level computer-assisted instruction at Stanford: 1968–1980. Stanford University.

50.

Swenson

Young

C. A.

McGrail

Rozema

Whitin

(2006). Extending the conversation: New technologies, new literacies, and English education. English Education, 38(4), 351–369.

51.

Tallvid

Lundin

Lindström

(2012). Using TPACK for analysing teachers’ task design – Understanding change in a 1:1-laptop setting. In Resta

(Ed.), Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4773–4780). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/40362/.

52.

Tomasik

M. J.

Helbling

L. A.

Moser

(2021). Educational gains of in-person vs. distance learning in primary and secondary schools: A natural experiment during the COVID-19 pandemic school closures in Switzerland. International Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 566–576.

53.

Wurigen

(2022). Applying Nearpod to the teaching Chinese as a second language class to enhance interactions and collaborations in the secondary schools. Psychology Research, 12(2), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5542/2022.02.002

54.

Yang

Chen

(2019). Using a blended synchronous classroom approach to promote learning performance in rural areas. Computers & Education, 14(1), 103619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103619