Research Article

Digital skills and ethical knowledge of teachers with TPACK in higher education

Isabel María Gómez-Trigueros 1 *
More Detail
1 University of Alicante, Alicante, SPAIN* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), April 2023, ep406, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12874
Published Online: 25 January 2023, Published: 01 April 2023
OPEN ACCESS   2570 Views   1279 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This paper analyzes the professional ethical knowledge of teachers in the use of technologies by teachers in training. Based on the disciplinary pedagogical technological knowledge (TPACK) model, it is intended to measure the correct inclusion of technologies in the classroom. For this, a descriptive exploratory methodological design study was carried out. The instruments used have been the Likert scale questionnaire and the personal interview, organized into four dimensions in which the self-perception of professional ethical knowledge, ethical knowledge of technology, pedagogical technological ethical knowledge and disciplinary technological ethical knowledge of the future teachers. The questionnaire has been applied to a sample of 1.051 trainee teachers from a European university in the context of COVID-19 and 822 students participated in the interview.
The results show the scarce training in professional ethical knowledge of teachers in training and the importance of addressing this knowledge in the 21st century, a post-pandemic context. Another of the conclusions is the need to include the ethical component in the TPACK model to achieve a correct and ethical use of digital resources in the classroom.
Keywords: professional ethics, teaching digital competence, technology, teachers in training, TPACK

CITATION (APA)

Gómez-Trigueros, I. M. (2023). Digital skills and ethical knowledge of teachers with TPACK in higher education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), ep406. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12874

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson, K. (2005). Christian ethics in plain language. Thomas Nelson Inc.
  2. Argibay, J. C. (2009). Muestra en investigación cuantitativa [Sample in quantitative research]. Subjetividad y Procesos Cognitivos [Subjectivity and Cognitive Processes], 13(1), 13-29.
  3. Asamoah, M. K. (2019). TPACKEA model for teaching and students’ learning. Journal of Academic Ethics,17, 401-421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09326-4
  4. Atun, H., & Usta, E. (2019). The effects of programming education planned with TPACK framework on learning outcomes. Participatory Educational Research, 6(2), 26-36. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.19.10.6.2
  5. Cabero-Almenara, J., Barroso-Osuna, J., Palacios Rodríguez, A., & Llorente-Cejudo, C. (2020). Marcos de competencias digitales para docentes universitarios: Su evaluación a través del coeficiente competencia experta [Digital competence frameworks for university teachers: Their evaluation through the expert competence coefficient]. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado [Interuniversity Electronic Journal of Teacher Training], 23(3), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop.414501
  6. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2008). Research methods in education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203029053
  7. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE.
  8. Ganote, C., & Longo, P. (2015). Education for social transformation: infusing feminist ethics and critical pedagogy into community-based research. Critical Sociology, 41(7/8), 1065-1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920514537843
  9. Gao, T., Siegel, P., Johar, J. S., & Sirgy, M. J. (2008). A survey of management educators’ perceptions of unethical faculty behavior. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 129-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9062-z
  10. Ghiațău, R. M., & Mâță, L. (2019). Factors influencing higher education teachers’ attitudes towards unethical use of information technology: A review. Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala [Romanian Magazine for Multidimensional Education], 11(1), 287-300. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/111
  11. Gómez-Trigueros, I. M. (2020). Digital teaching competence and space competence with TPACK in social sciences. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(19), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i19.14923
  12. Gómez-Trigueros, I. M., & Yáñez de Aldecoa, C. (2021). The digital gender gap in teacher education: The TPACK framework for the 21st century. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education,11(4), 1333-1349. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11040097
  13. Gómez-Trigueros, I. M., Ortega-Sánchez, D., & García Cobas, R. (2021). Brecha digital de género y coeducación: claves conceptuales y orientaciones metodológicas [Digital gender gap and coeducation: conceptual keys and methodological guidelines]. McGraw-Hill Interamericana de Spain (Aula Magna).
  14. Gómez-Trigueros, I. M., & Ortega-Sánchez, D. (2022). El conocimiento ético profesional docente y su presencia en la inclusión de las tecnologías en el contexto educativo presente [Professional teaching ethical knowledge and its presence in the inclusion of technologies in the present educational context]. Edutec. Revista Electrónica De Tecnología Educativa, (80). https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2022.80.2345
  15. Landeta, J. (2002). El método Delphi. Una técnica de previsión para la incertidumbre [The Delphi method. A forecasting technique for uncertainty]. Ariel.
  16. Mâță, L., Clipa, O., & Tzafilkou, K. (2020). The development and validation of a scale to measure university teachers’ attitude towards ethical use of information technology for a sustainable education. Sustainability, 12(15), 6268. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156268
  17. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810610800610
  18. Ortega-Sánchez, D., Gómez-Trigueros, I. M., Trestini, M., & Pérez-González, C. (2020). Self-perception and training perceptions on teacher digital competence (TDC) in Spanish and French university students. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 4(4), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti4040074
  19. Pardo, A., Ruiz, M. A., & San-Martín, R. (2015). Análisis de datos en ciencias sociales y de la salud I [Data analysis in social and health sciences I]. Síntesis.
  20. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2017). Education of true criterion validity for unidimensional multicomponent measuring instruments in longitudinal studies. Structural Equation Modeling, 24(4), 599-608. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1172486
  21. Sánchez-Gómez, M. C., Rodrigues, A. I., & Costa, A. P. (2018). Desde los métodos cualitativos hacia los modelos mixtos: Tendencia actual de investigación en ciencias sociales [From qualitative methods to mixed models: Current trends in social science research]. Revista Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informação [Iberian Journal of Information Systems and Technologies], 28, 9-13. https://doi.org/10.17013/risti.28.0
  22. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  23. UNESCO. (2018). Issues and trends in education for sustainable development. UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002614/261445e.pdf
  24. WHO. (2020). WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behavior. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015128
  25. Yurdakul, I. K., Odabasi, H. F., Kilicer, K, Coklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A. (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPCK-deep: A technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Computers & Education, 58(3), 964-977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.012
  26. Zhu, X., & Liu, J. (2020). Education in and after COVID-19: Immediate responses and long-term visions. Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 695-699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00126-3
  27. Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed method research: Instruments, validity, reliability and reporting findings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2), 254-262 https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.2.254-262