










































English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1-15  

  10.12928/eltej.v5i1.5914                                  http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index        eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id 

How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge 

components in forming Technological Pedagogical Content 

Knowledge (TPACK) 

 

Leimin Shia,1 , Lili Jiangb,2 

a University of Wollongong, Wollongong campus, Northfields Ave, Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia 
b Shanghai Lixin University of Accounting and Finance, 2800 Wenxiang Rd. Songjiang, Shanghai 201600, China 
1 lshi@uow.edu.au *; 2 jll021@126.com  

* corresponding author 

 

A R T I C L E  I N F O 

 

ABST RACT   

 

 

Article history 

Received 27 March 2022 

Revised 28 April 2022 

Accepted 29 April 2022 

 Technology is widely involved across the learning environment including 
its integration into teaching English as a foreign language (EFL); 
however, few studies have explored EFL teachers’ perceptions of 
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). This study 
investigates how EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate knowledge of 
content (CK), pedagogy (PK), and technology (TK), the interplay of these 
with each other (TPACK), and the underlying influential factors for 
TPACK construction. The data were gathered in China from an online 
survey (n = 64) comprising 35 items on the TPACK components, and 
self-evaluation by nine survey participants of their TPACK in follow-up 
interviews. WeChat, the most popular social media App in China, was 
utilised as the data collection tool. The survey reveals teachers’ strong 
beliefs in the value of PK, CK and PCK and their positive beliefs about 
technological applications in EFL instruction. Consistent with these 
results, interviewees’ self-evaluation of TPACK demonstrates that they 
felt a high level of confidence in CK, PK and PCK but relatively less 
confidence when technology was integrated despite commonly applying 
technology to instruction. Influential factors include: 1) contextual 
factors; 2) knowledge of students; 3) demographic background; and 4) 
availability of quality training. Decision-makers’ financial support and 
policy-making, technological training in the integration of CK and/or PK, 
and a collaborative learning strategy are recommended. 

 

This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license. 

    

 

 

Keywords 

EFL 

knowledge 

perception 

pedagogy 

technology 

TPACK 

 

 

 

 

How to Cite: Shi, L., & Jiang, L. (2022). How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge 
components in forming Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). English Language Teaching 
Educational Journal, 5(1), 1-15. 

1. Introduction 

An increasing number of institutions throughout the world are applying technology to education, 
and the use of technology in language teaching and learning has also received significant attention 
(e.g., Banditvilai, 2016; Ekrem & Recep 2014; Hong, 2010; Liu, Liu, Yu, Li, & Wen, 2014). Starting 
in early 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic has been a catalyst that largely boosted the application of 
technology and research on teaching with the technology. The applications of technology in education 
involve teachers’ instructional practices and knowledge of technological tools (Willermark, 2018). 
Therefore, language teachers need to be equipped with technological knowledge as a pedagogical tool 
and an essential component of their knowledge base to represent content knowledge of the target 

10.12928/eltej.v5i1.5914
http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index
https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.12928/eltej.v5i1.5914&domain=pdf
mailto:lshi@uow.edu.au
mailto:jll021@126.com
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7167-1210


2 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1-15 

 Shi, L. & Jiang, L. (How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge components …..) 

language and enhance students’ learning. They not only need to evaluate the technology in many 
forms but also to understand “what” the technology can do and “why”, to assist their teaching (Dalal, 
Archambault, & Shelton, 2021; Wei & Gao, 2016). However, little is known about how (language) 
teachers’ tech-involved instruction outcomes are related to their beliefs about the fundamental 
knowledge components of content, pedagogy and technology, and the interplay between these. 

In China, teaching with technology is a requirement for teaching English as a foreign language 
(EFL) mandated in the current national College English Curriculum Requirements (CECR) issued by 
the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China in 2007. The CECR states, the new EFL 
teaching model “should … give play to the advantage of traditional classroom teaching while fully 
employing modern information technology … Changes in the teaching model by no means call for 
changes in teaching methods and approaches only, but, more important, consist of changes in teaching 
philosophy and practice …”. Under this guidance, university EFL teachers are required to accept, 
obtain and integrate technological knowledge with their traditional classroom teaching strategies.  

The term, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), was 
proposed as an extension of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) presented in Shulman’s (1987) 
model, presenting the essential knowledge that teachers must possess to succeed in teaching with 
technology. Of Schulman’s seven components of the teachers’ knowledge base, the most important 
are: Knowledge of subject matter content (CK); pedagogy (PK - the ability to employ strategies to 
improve student learning such as classroom management); and PCK (the ability to use PK to deliver 
CK). Successful technological applications require an understanding of how technology is related to 
pedagogy and content (Koehler & Mishra, 2005) and the TPACK framework (Fig. 1) illustrates how 
teachers’ appropriate combination of technologies with instructional strategies can effectively support 
their delivery of CK to their students. In addition to the existing components of PK, CK and PCK 
(Shulman, 1987), the four new knowledge areas of TK, TCK, TPK and TPACK are defined based on 
prior studies (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 1.  The framework of TPACK (source: http://tpack.org/). Reproduced by permission of the publisher, 2012 

by tpack.org 

Technological Knowledge (TK): The awareness of digital tools, and how these tools can be used 
in learning environments; 

Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK): Teachers’ understanding of technology and its 
application to pedagogical strategies;  

Technological content knowledge (TCK): Teachers’ capability to use technology to represent 
subject matter; and 

TPACK: The integration of PCK, TPK and TCK.  



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 3 
 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1-15 

Shi, L. & Jiang, L. (How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge components …..) 

While TPK and TCK are conceptualized as teachers’ understanding of and capability in employing 
appropriate technologies to enhance pedagogical strategies and to represent CK, the complex form of 
TPACK is the thoughtful use of TK, representing “a class of knowledge that is central to teachers’ 
work with technology” (Mishra & Koehler 2006, p. 1029). This is contextualized knowledge 
integrating TK and PK on specific CK (Archambault & Crippen, 2009); which thus emphasizes 
teachers’ understanding of how to present CK through the effective use of technology with appropriate 
strategies in their contexts. 

The TPACK framework provides a theoretical lens through which teachers’ TPACK and capability 
of enhancing student learning with technology can be evaluated, and thus has drawn much research 
attention. While there have been increasing applications of technology in teaching practices and 
research on TPACK (e.g., Archambault & Crippen, 2009; Chai, Chin, Koh, & Tan, 2013; Dalal et al., 
2021; Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee, 2013; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Sahin, 2011; Schmidt et al., 2009; Wei 
& Gao, 2016), studies regarding EFL teachers’ perceptions about the value of the seven TPACK 
components and their relationships with teachers’ TPACK outcomes are rare. Most of the existing 
studies are quantitative surveys assessing teachers’ TPACK; but few are in-depth investigations about 
how EFL teachers perceive and construct TPACK and the underlying influential factors. This is also 
true in China, even though the CECR (2007) advocates the requirements of “changes in teaching 
philosophy” and integration of technology into traditional instruction. 

However, teachers are less likely to implement innovations when mismatches exist between the 
main principles underlying the curriculum and teachers’ beliefs, which may become the most crucial 
obstacles to implementing educational innovations (Shi, Delahunty, & Gao, 2019). “What teachers 
know, believe and think” is defined as ‘teacher cognition’ (Borg 2003, p.81), which is also referred to 
using a wide range of concepts including knowledge, attitude, beliefs, conceptions, perceptions and 
understanding (e.g., Baker, 2014; Borg, 2003). What teachers believe “shapes what teachers do” (Borg 
2003, p. 95). The application of technology in teaching practice is also largely influenced by teachers’ 
beliefs about its value (De Paepe, Zhu, & Depryck, 2018; Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, 
Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012; Lehtinen, Nieminen, & Viiri, 2016). Accordingly, EFL teachers’ beliefs 
in TPACK and its components for enhancing EFL teaching and learning strongly influence their 
motivation for learning and using technology as well as the development and performance of their 
TPACK.  

This study explores Chinese EFL teachers’ beliefs regarding the value of the TPACK knowledge 
components and their self-evaluation of their performance in these knowledge areas. After a review 
of relevant literature, it describes qualitative survey findings on teachers’ perceptions, before 
discussing more in-depth information about EFL teachers’ beliefs and their self-evaluation of their 
TPACK outcomes as presented in interviews. The self-evaluation results are compared, then viewed 
alongside teachers’ perceptions of the value of TPACK components. Underlying factors affecting EFL 
teachers’ TPACK outcomes are also discussed, to provide professional development suggestions for 
achieving tech-enhanced EFL instruction. 

Researchers have applied the TPACK framework to develop survey instruments to evaluate the 
TPACK profiles of both pre- and in- service teachers across disciplines. Sahin’s (2011) survey of pre-
service teachers studying English language education in Turkish demonstrates that the survey 
instrument is a valid and reliable tool for examining teachers’ TPACK. The instrument included seven 
subscales and 47 items related to the seven essential components of the TPACK framework. Similarly, 
Archambault and Crippen (2009) developed a survey instrument including 24 items to examine online 
teachers serving in K-12 schools in the United States regardless of their disciplines. It found that 
teachers felt very confident about conveying the CK through various strategies which drew upon their 
PK. In contrast, teachers became less confident when technology was involved. The relationship of 
teachers’ TK with their knowledge of content and pedagogy was minimal. 

Schmidt and colleagues’ (2009) influential evaluation instrument comprises 58 items to allow pre-
service teachers majoring in early childhood education to self-assess the development and application 
of TPACK. This instrument was adopted in a survey (Lin et al., 2013) on pre- and in- service 
Singaporean science teachers. This examination revealed significant and positive correlations of 
teachers’ synthesized knowledge (of technology, content, and pedagogy) with all other TPACK 
knowledge components. It also found that teachers’ perceptions of TPACK are influenced by their 
demographic factors such as teaching experience, gender and age. Schmidt et al’s instrument was also 



4 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1-15 

 Shi, L. & Jiang, L. (How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge components …..) 

utilized in one of the few studies on EFL teachers’ TPACK in Turkey (Ekrem & Recep, 2014), 
revealing pre-service EFL teachers’ positive beliefs in all TPACK components and identifying the 
impact of gender on teachers’ different knowledge performances. All pre-service EFL teachers were 
found to have used the internet regularly, but their TK Mean score was the lowest, whereas TPK was 
the highest among the seven Mean scores of the TPACK factors.  

Xiang and Ning’s (2014) evaluation in China was adapted from both Schmidt et al.’s (2009) and 
Archambault and Crippen’s (2009) instruments, based on their consideration of the discipline 
(mathematics) of their pre-service teacher participants. The Chinese preservice mathematics teachers 
were found to be most competent in CK but least competent in TPACK, being more familiar with 
traditional (non-tech-related) ways of instruction.  

Schmidt et al.’s (2009) survey instrument has also had a significant impact on another study on 
TPACK in Singapore in which Chai et al. (2013) modified this instrument to investigate the profile of 
349 primary and secondary school teachers’ TPACK with the supporting evidence of teachers’ 
pedagogical beliefs. As for the preservice mathematics teachers in Xiang and Ning’s (2014) study, the 
participants, in-service Chinese Language teachers, rated themselves as most competent in CK but 
least competent in TPACK. The findings from an open-ended question further supported the teachers’ 
self-rated profile, demonstrating that teachers’ TPACK requires teachers’ constructivist pedagogical 
beliefs more than traditional beliefs. 

Another study on EFL teachers’ TPACK was mixed-method research in Taiwan (Liu & 
Kleinsasser, 2015), focusing on the development of the TPACK of six vocational high school EFL 
teachers who participated in a yearlong professional development program on technology. The study 
demonstrates the development of these EFL teachers’ TPACK and self-efficacy of technological 
applications in instruction. It also recognizes the importance of administration support, partnership 
with universities, and peer collaboration as positive influential factors that facilitated teachers’ 
implementation of technology.  

Despite the significant research attention to TPACK across the educational field, existing studies 
are commonly based on self-evaluation (Willermark, 2018); however, teachers, who are the key factor 
in the success of technological reform, have varied beliefs in and/or ways of applying technology to 
instruction. Meanwhile, most studies (e.g., Archambault & Crippen, 2009; Sahin, 2011; Schmidt et 
al., 2009) are questionnaire surveys on teachers’ perceptions of TPACK (Chai et al., 2013); however, 
more reliable data and accurate measurements of teachers’ competency can be achieved from 
interviews with teachers (Ekrem & Recep, 2014). Likewise, available studies focusing on teachers’ 
perceptions of computer technology mainly look at its relationship with teachers’ implementation of 
technology in classroom practice (Wozney, Venkatesh, & Abrami, 2006). Hence. there is a “lack of 
studies about the relationship between teachers’ TPACK and teachers’ beliefs” (Chai et al. 2013, p. 
657); and even more limited is research on EFL teachers’ perceptions of TPACK. 

Thus, to address a gap in the literature, the present study investigated EFL teachers’ perceptions of 
TPACK through both surveys and interviews. This is significant because 1) existing studies on 
TPACK are mostly questionnaire assessments; 2) there is no existing research on how teachers’ beliefs 
regarding the value of TPACK components are related to their TPACK outcomes; and 3) the literature 
about EFL teachers’ TPACK is limited.   

Three research questions (RQ) guided the study:  

1) How do EFL teachers perceive the knowledge components of content, pedagogy, and 

technology in teaching? 

2) How do EFL teachers perceive the integration between the knowledge components of 

content, pedagogy, and technology in teaching? 

3) What are the possible factors affecting the development of EFL teachers’ TPACK? 

2. Method 

Data collection methods comprised an online survey and interview. The surveys explored how 
teachers value each TPACK component, from the premise that what teachers believe directly impacts 
what they do in teaching practice (Borg, 2003). Successful integration of technology depends on 
teachers’ acceptance of technology as a useful tool in supporting their students’ learning outcomes 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 5 
 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1-15 

Shi, L. & Jiang, L. (How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge components …..) 

(Liu et al., 2014; Wozney et al., 2006). In addition, an insight into EFL teachers’ perceptions is 
obtained from teachers’ self-evaluation statements about their TPACK performance in follow-up 
interviews. Emergent themes with regard to individual interviewees’ knowledge of content, pedagogy 
and technology, and the interactions between these knowledge areas were compared to reveal possible 
links across the participants and the underlying factors related to their TPACK performance. Relevant 
suggestions are provided to motivate and support EFL teachers’ professional development in TPACK 
and tech-enhanced EFL teaching.  

2.1. Participants 

A total of 64 EFL teachers, serving at 25 universities across China, completed the online 
questionnaire in December 2019. With ethics approval from the lead author’s university, the second 
author sent an initial survey invitation and the questionnaire to her personal contacts. For snowball 
sampling, all teachers were encouraged to forward the questionnaire to invite their colleagues’ 
participation. The participants’ mean age was 36, and the percentages of young (less than 35), 
medium-aged (35 to 50), and older teachers (over 50) are 54.6%, 35.9%, and 9.5% respectively. The 
gender ratio of females and males is 64.06% to 35.94%. Regarding participants’ university EFL 
teaching experience, they were considered as novice (1-5 years, 30.1%), experienced (5-15 years, 
39.2%), and veteran (over 15 years, 30.7%).  

In January 2020, nine survey participants also participated in a follow-up, semi-structured 
interview, and their demographic information is summarized in Table 1. As shown, all participants 
are veteran teachers with 17 to 26 years’ teaching experience and were teaching EFL courses to 
develop students’ overall English competence (College/Academic English) and for specific purposes 
(T2 and T6).  

Table 1.  Teacher Interviewees’ Background 

Teacher 

codes 

Age Gender Education background 

(M.A. in) 

Years of EFL 

teaching 

Subject of teaching 

T1 45 Female Applied Linguistics 19 Academic English 

T2 46 Male English 19 Fundamental medical English & 
Academic English  

T3 40 Male Pragmatics 17 College English 

T4 46 Female International Relationship 20 College English 

T5 45 Female English & Literature for 
Applied Linguistics 

22 College English 

T6 44 Female English & Literature 23 College English & Police College 

English 

T7 53 Female Applied Linguistics 26 Academic English 
T8 48 Female English teaching 24 Academic English 

T9 44 Female Education 22 College English 

 

2.2. Instrument 

Tseng’s (2014) instrument, which is developed based on Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) TPACK 
framework, was adapted for both the survey and interview and used as an analytical tool to frame EFL 
teachers’ perceptions of the knowledge component in TPACK construction. Acknowledging the value 
of students’ views, Tseng (2014) introduced an instrument to examine EFL teachers’ TPACK from 
students’ perspectives in Taiwan. Based on the seven knowledge components in the TPACK 
framework, the researcher designed five items for each component to ask for students’ comments on 
their teachers at a five-level scale. The instrument was demonstrated to be a valid and reliable tool for 
measuring students’ perceptions of their EFL teachers’ TPACK.  

This instrument was chosen because teachers’ experiences of using technology are different 
depending on the areas of teaching content (Schmidt et al., 2009). The present study shares similarities 
with Tseng’s study in both the discipline (EFL) and the learners’ first language (Chinese). Tseng’s 
scale consists of 35 statements on EFL teachers’ TPACK, including 5 items for each of the seven 
TPACK components (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) to ask for students’ opinions of their EFL teachers’ 
TPACK performance on a five-level scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 



6 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1-15 

 Shi, L. & Jiang, L. (How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge components …..) 

Relevant modifications were made to the statements to meet the focus of this study on EFL teachers’ 
perceptions instead of students’ perspectives.  

The survey provided an overall picture of Chinese in-service EFL teachers’ views about TPACK 
components, responding to RQ1 and RQ2.  

Semi-structured interviews collect in-depth information about teachers’ perceptions and self-
evaluation of TPACK performance (RQ1 and RQ2) and the underlying influential factors (RQ3). The 
employment of the qualitative method can explore teachers’ perceptions and implementation of 
TPACK in depth (Archambault & Crippen, 2009). Thirteen guiding questions (see Appendix) were 
designed based on Tseng’s (2014) instrument, covering the seven TPACK factors. All interviews were 
about 30-minutes long and in English by interviewees’ choice, and audio-recorded with consent. The 
first author’s transcriptions of the recordings were confirmed as an accurate account by the 
interviewees.  

WeChat, the most popular social media App in China, was employed as the data collection tool. 
Prospective participants received the survey questionnaire file as a WeChat text message and could 
complete and submit the questionnaire on WeChat directly. Survey participants who were willing to 
participate in a follow-up interview were contacted and then interviewed by the first author through 
WeChat audio calls.   

2.3. Data analysis 

Descriptive measures were utilized in the survey to explore the degrees to which EFL teachers 
perceived the importance of 35 TPACK items. Due to the small number of respondents (n = 64), the 
survey findings are discussed as a supporting data source complementing the interview findings. 
Reported results include mean (M) scores and standard deviations (SD) of the seven TPACK 
components, and the top and bottom five Ms out of the 35 items. When analysing interview data, the 
Guest’s (2012) thematic analysis method was applied. The analyses firstly focus on individual cases 
to find the evidence of teachers’ knowledge of content, pedagogy and technology, the interactions 
between them, and the factors related to their TPACK performance. Then, the findings are compared 
across the cases. Finally, EFL teachers’ beliefs regarding the value of each TPACK component 
(survey findings) and its relationship with veteran teachers’ self-evaluation results of their TPACK 
outcome, and the underlying factors impacting teachers’ TPACK outcomes (interview findings), are 
discussed. 

3. Findings  

Survey results indicate that EFL teachers considered all seven TPACK components (CK, PK, TK, 
PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK) important in their EFL teaching, but at varying levels. Different 
interplays between the basic knowledge components of content, pedagogy and technology were 
apparent.  

3.1. All TPACK components are important but at different levels 

EFL teachers’ overall positive belief in the seven TPACK components can be identified from their 
Mean and SD scores. Fig. 2 shows that the Mean scores of all seven components are over 4.00, 
evidencing EFL teachers’ overall positive belief in the importance of all TPACK components. The 
high Mean scores of TPK, TCK and TPACK also indicate that teachers’ technical applications were 
based on their consideration of both pedagogy and content. Among these scores, the Mean scores of 
PK (M=4.6) and CK (M=4.53) are the top two highest and TK (M = 4.09) is the lowest, suggesting 
that PK and CK were believed to be the most important, whereas TK was the least important of all 
seven TPACK components. On the other hand, the SD results in Fi. 3 indicate that, while teachers 
were in high agreement about the role of PK (SD=.034) in contributing to successful EFL teaching, 
differences in their views about TK were significant (SD=.388). Teachers’ attitudes towards tech-
supported teaching appeared to be related to their age as evinced from the Mean scores of younger 
teachers (M=4.16), medium-aged (M=4.10), and older teachers (M=3.70). No clear evidence was 
found to relate these attitudes to other demographic factors such as gender or teaching experience. In 
the meantime, the small SD range of the other five TPACK components (from .101 to .144) indicates 
that teachers were generally in agreement about their functions in achieving successful EFL 
instruction.   



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 7 
 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1-15 

Shi, L. & Jiang, L. (How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge components …..) 

Because PK and CK were much more valued than TK, it is not surprising that their interplay PCK 
(M=4.44) was considered as the third important TPACK component; by contrast, TPK (M=4.31) and 
TCK (M=4.23) were the two least important, following TK. Thus, teachers’ relatively weak belief 
about the importance of TK was the key source negatively impacting their beliefs regarding the other 
TK-integrated TPACK factors, namely, TCK and TPK and, ultimately, TPACK.  

 

 

Fig. 2.  Mean of seven TPACK factors 

 

 

Fig. 3.  SD of seven TPACK factors 

Table 2 and Table 3 present the five items with ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ Mean scores respectively. 

The top five items comprise two CK and three PK items. They include having CK of good 

pronunciation and sufficient grammar knowledge, and PK of understanding students’ learning 

difficulties, being able to choose various teaching strategies with flexibility to adhere to student’s 

needs. In other words, finding appropriate strategies (PK) to deliver comprehensible CK to students 

is the priority of survey respondents, which also reflects their strong beliefs in PCK. 

Table 2.  Top Five Items 

Items TPACK 

components 

N Means SD 

EFL teachers should have good pronunciation. CK 64 4.66 0.570 
EFL teachers should have sufficient knowledge of English 

grammar.  

CK 64 4.64 0.574 

EFL teachers should understand students’ learning difficulties. PK 64 4.63 0.519 

EFL teachers should adjust the ways he/she teaches according 

to student performance and feedback. 

PK 64 4.63 0.642 

EFL teachers should use a variety of teaching strategies in class 

(e.g., explanation, raising questions, and group work). 

PK 64 4.6 0.657 

 

Teachers’ least concerns are related to TK, TCK and TPK (Table 3). Specifically, TK of computer 
hardware and of software technical problems was believed to be the two items of least importance. 
Teachers’ minimal attention to solving hardware problems aligns with Ekrem and Recep’s (2014) 
research. Similarly, little attention was given to the application of digitalized materials to teach 
vocabulary or grammar (TCK), or to the use of technological strategies to enhance explanations and 
interactions with students (TPK). 



8 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1-15 

 Shi, L. & Jiang, L. (How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge components …..) 

Table 3.  Bottom Five Items 

Items TPACK 

components 

N Means SD 

EFL teachers should use digitalized teaching materials with which 
their students can learn vocabulary better. 

TCK 64 4.09 0.938 

EFL teachers should know about basic computer hardware (e.g., 

RAM, network cable, and projector).    

TK 64 4.092 0.921 

EFL teachers should use digitalized teaching materials with which 
their students can learn grammar better. 

TCK 64 4.17 0.951 

EFL teachers should use technologies to explain clearly. TPK 64 4.17 0.846 

EFL teachers should use technologies to interact more with students. TPK 64 4.19 0.852 

EFL teachers should know how to deal with technical problems 
related to software (e.g., installing drivers, setting up Internet 

connection, and sharing files in the cloud). 

TK 64 4.19 0.921 

 

Interview findings provide in-depth information about EFL teachers’ self-evaluation of their 
TPACK components and the factors affecting TPACK development. Emerged interview themes 
demonstrated EFL teachers’ high confidence in their CK, PK and PCK, the apparent interaction of 
their TK with CK (TCK) and PK (TPK), and TPACK as the overall knowledge of presenting CK with 
TK. 

3.2. High confidence in CK, PK and PCK  

Interview participants showed strong confidence in their knowledge of content and pedagogy, and 
capability for employing suitable strategies to deliver comprehensible content knowledge to their 
students. ‘Task-based’ and ‘student-centered’ were teachers’ favorite approaches. According to T7, 
‘student-centered’ teaching is “the most important strategy”, and she would “try to improve the 
teaching efficiency by organizing more activities”. T5 and T8 often promoted students’ active 
participation by designing lots of learning activities, such as peer discussions, group presentations and 
debates, to practice the new CK regardless of a large class size (50 to 100 students) situation. Both T1 
and T5 explained, “Learning a language is through using it”. In addition, motivation was perceived as 
an important vehicle that drives students’ positive attitudes toward achieving successful language 
learning (Banditvilai, 2016). The interviewees made great efforts to achieve “fun” (T1) and 
“motivation” (T3, T5, and T6) in their classes. T5 asserted: “It’s important to motivate students to 
speak, to write, to debate, to use the language…to encourage their teamwork, cooperate and 
communicate to their peers”. In other words, in these veteran EFL teachers’ PK, all pedagogical 
choices should be based on their knowledge of students; and motivating students’ active participation 
and target language use is the priority. All teachers revealed a high level of confidence in making 
strategic choices for their students, which is inseparable from their long-term teaching experience as 
veteran teachers. 

Teachers’ pedagogical designs were often oriented toward the teaching content or topics. As stated, 
the teachers “design activities depending on the topic and have students involved” (T1), and arrange 
students “to ask each other questions related to the text content” (T9). Such interplay between PK and 
CK was based on teachers’ knowledge of their students. Student-centered activities such as group 
discussions were used to motivate students’ collaborative use of the target language “if the content is 
easy for them to understand” (T2); while traditional teacher-centered approach (T2) and translation 
strategies (T3) were applied when the teaching content was too challenging/complicated to encourage 
students’ language use. The statements above reflect the teachers’ strong confidence in their PK, CK 
and PCK, as a result of their proficiency in these knowledge components and the knowledge of 
students.   

3.3. Evidenced interplay of TK with CK (TCK) and PK (TPK) 

Interview results also evinced teachers’ TPACK: Employment of technology as a tool (TK) to 
complement, convey and explain (TPK) content knowledge (TCK), and to encourage students’ 
engagement (TPK/TPACK). The technology was an essential tool in all interviewees’ teaching 
preparation and delivery. However, when asked about their confidence in TK, while four teachers (T2, 
T5, T6 and T8) described their TK as “above average” the other five lacked such confidence. All 
teachers’ general technological applications included Word processing, PowerPoint (PPT), video 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 9 
 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1-15 

Shi, L. & Jiang, L. (How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge components …..) 

player software, social media apps, and internet search. Seven of the interviewees frequently searched 
online resources (e.g., the Baidu website) to enrich teaching materials, reflecting the interplay of TK 
with CK. For example, T4 used online resources and introduced her students to some background 
information when teaching about Valentine’s Day. Furthermore, all teaching venues were multimedia 
rooms, or at least had standard audio-video equipment including Overhead Projector, screen, 
projection, and desktop computer (and laptop input). PPT slides (and video player software and Word 
documents) were mostly prepared as pedagogical tools to display (TCK) and explain the main 
teaching content (TPACK) and establish activities (TPK), replacing the traditional method of 
blackboard use (T1 and T4) and “stimulating students’ interests” by showing audio and video 
resources (TPK) (T4).  

Besides, the WeChat App was used by all teachers as an important platform for enhancing teacher-
student (T-S) and student-student informal interactions outside the class. All teachers created WeChat 
groups for each class to send students notices, tasks and resources et cetera (TPK). The adoption of 
WeChat compensated for the lack of interaction in formal classes because of the situation of large-
sized classes. Enhanced T-S communication can positively motivate students and influence their 
learning attitude (Banditvilai, 2016). The EFL teachers also benefitted from their regular use of 
WeChat in motivating their students (TPK). 

The EFL teachers’ responses regarding their use of technology reveal that, while technology was 
widely implemented to support their instruction, their technological applications were generally at a 
basic level. The interplay of TK with their PK (e.g., using technological equipment for instruction, to 
stimulate students’ interest, and motivating students; using WeChat to enhance communications) and 
CK (e.g., finding online resources to enhance teaching materials) was apparent, reflecting teachers’ 
TPACK. However, except for the use of digital equipment at the teaching venues and the limited 
software purchased by the schools, the manner of technological application appeared basic, but 
expressive and informative (Wozney et al., 2006). For example, the internet was used to find online 
materials, and PPT was used for displaying content. No communication tool (e.g., email, 
conferencing) was used except for WeChat; and no tool was for recreation (e.g., games), instruction 
(e.g., practice), or expansion (e.g., brainstorming). 

3.4. Factors affecting EFL teachers’ technological applications and TPACK development 

The interview results suggest several factors significantly affecting EFL teachers’ technological 
application and TPACK development. 

The first is related to contextual factors. The availability of technological equipment at teaching 
venues directly influenced teachers’ application of technology and the interplay of teachers’ TK with 
PK and CK. T2 stated, “If we want to carry out lots of student-centered activities, we need more access 
than standard equipment. For example, if there are two presenters, we can show different contexts. 
We can switch the content on the boards”. T2’s employment of student-centered activities was tech-
supported and was largely dependent on the available technological equipment. ‘Inadequate 
equipment’ was pointed out as a barrier preventing his application of technology to enhance his 
strategy (TPK). However, T7 raised an issue of data access: “I try to find something interesting online 
at home. We have to pay a lot if we exceed 50 MG data allowance at the university”. The restriction 
of data usage surely limited T7’s and her colleagues’ technological application (TK), whether this was 
in the integration with PK, CK, or both. 

Decision-makers can be another influential contextual source. T6 talked about technological 
applications as both an EFL teacher and the Head of School: 

If the current application is not useful, maybe I would search other technologies or strategies. 

Sometimes such application of technologies is driven by the university. We’re required to 

have this kind of online course. It’s becoming a must... some of the EFL teaching platform 

provided by the publishing house is rather sophisticated... but first I need to get the 

approval… get the financial support. If it is approved, there should be this kind of training 

for all the teachers in my department. (T6) 

As an EFL teacher, T6 considered that technological innovation “is becoming a must” and felt the 
need to receive professional training in technology. Her professional concerns were about the 
effectiveness of technologies in assisting EFL teaching, and her judgments were about the result of 
interactions between her knowledge of the new technology and accumulated PCK. As the Head of 



10 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1-15 

 Shi, L. & Jiang, L. (How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge components …..) 

School, T6 applied for (financial) approval for a new technological application and planned to have 
teachers trained accordingly. Her statements demonstrate the important role of decision-makers as the 
driving force for enhancing tech-supported instruction and teachers’ TPACK construction - the crucial 
factor to guarantee the effectiveness of innovation (Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, & Hopkins, 
2006).  

Archambault and Crippen (2009) assert that the integration of technological knowledge in forming 
TPACK is contextualized and inseparable from the environment. It is within specific contexts that 
such development happens through the interaction between teachers’ CK, PK and TK (Mishra & 
Koehler, 2006). In the present study, whether regarding the availability of technology equipment (T2), 
the issue of data usage (T7) at the teaching venues, or decision-makers’ requirement for enhancing 
teaching with technology, their support for purchasing new technological tools and their offering of 
teacher training in new technology (T6), all demonstrated the crucial role of context in developing 
teachers’ TPACK and achieving technological innovation.  

The second influential factor is linked to teachers’ knowledge of their students. T3 stated, “If 
students’ English proficiency level is low, I use PPTs to make myself understood better. Otherwise, 
they can have a good discussion in class”. It is clear that T3’s strategical decisions were based on the 
integration of his TK with both his PK and knowledge of his students’ English proficiency levels. 
Technology implementations are likely to happen when teachers, such as T3, believe that technology 
can be a beneficial pedagogical tool to support students’ learning of CK. Similarly, teachers would 
apply technology if it is evaluated as helpful to foster their students’ engagement (e.g., T5, T7, and 
T8) and their understanding of CK (e.g., T1, T2, and T9). This finding supports Ertmer et al. (2012) 
and Saudelli and Ciampa (2014) who argue that teachers’ positive beliefs and attitudes towards 
technology in student learning have the biggest impact on teachers’ success in technology integration 
practice. It also aligns with Nezvalová (2011) who asserts that the knowledge of students is more 
significant than PK. Even when technology is integrated into pedagogy, as demonstrated by the 
interviewees, teachers’ knowledge of their students still has a powerful influence on any instructional 
decision.   

Thirdly, teachers’ knowledge base accumulated from their learning and teaching experience has a 
significant impact on EFL teachers’ use of technology and TPACK construction. As discussed earlier, 
teachers’ technological decisions were oriented by “the target of teaching” (T1, T4, and T9), according 
to “the tasks” (T4) or “what materials or what kind of information to convey” (T8). For example, T5 

appreciated the online system 批改网 (an online service system for automatically correcting English 

composition based on cloud computing) because “it makes it easy for us to share our students’ papers 
and administrate students’ writing portfolio”. T5, as well as other teachers, interpreted and evaluated 
any new knowledge when learning it such as a technology. Teachers’ cognition “shapes what teachers 
do but is in turn shaped by the experiences teachers accumulate” (Borg 2003, p. 95). The EFL teachers’ 
evaluation results above are connected to teachers’ CK, PK and PCK. The outcomes of their 
innovative technological pedagogy are mediated by teachers’ experience and the knowledge 
accumulated and thus agree with Saudelli and Ciampa’s finding (2014).  

Fourthly, teachers’ demographic background, such as age and the years of teaching experience, 
could also impact the degree to which technology is utilized. T7 asserted, “I have enough teaching 
materials. I don’t have the desire to apply more technology since I’m about to retire”. T7’s reluctance 
to seek additional digital resources or learn new technology would surely become a barrier for 
developing her TK and other TK-integrated knowledge, because motivation plays a crucial role in 
enhancing the autonomy to develop TK (Banditvilai, 2016). As a veteran teacher, T7 was confident 
she already had rich materials. Her reluctance was also directly linked to the approach of her retirement 
in two years. Her attitude toward technology became the strongest barrier preventing her from utilising 
the technology which supports the other research findings (Ertmer, 2012; Liu et al., 2014). 

Lastly, lacking quality training in technology was the factor that significantly influenced the 
development of EFL teachers’ TPACK. Few teachers had received quality formal training in 
technology, and available training was mostly offered by publishers or software providers as one-shot 
workshops for marketing purposes (e.g., T2, T4, and T7), lacking attention to how to apply the 
technology as an effective pedagogical tool to represent content knowledge. Only T6 and T8 reported 
their recent reception of professional training in technology. T6 agreed that training opportunities were 
not open to everyone in her school and that access to these was on a competitive basis. By contrast, 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 11 
 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1-15 

Shi, L. & Jiang, L. (How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge components …..) 

T8 and her colleagues were the lucky ones who could access regular, unrestricted training in 
technology, offered by the School of Computer Science in their university. For the other seven 
interviewees, ‘informal learning’ was found to be the predominant way for them to develop their TK 
for their teaching needs, with the most popular ways being self-learning through use (T1, T3, and T9), 
and learning from available people via teachers’ own learning networks, such as colleagues (e.g., T4, 
T5, and T7), family members (e.g., T4 and T7) and students (e.g., T5 and T7). 

The lack of professional training in technology was likely to negatively influence these EFL 
teachers’ attitudes toward technology, and their confidence in developing TK and teaching with 
technology. As Hong (2010) argues, computer-assisted language teacher education programs have 
noticeable benefits in building up teachers’ positive attitudes towards technology and developing their 
confidence in technology competency; and the influencing factors contributing to language teachers’ 
integration of technology into their teaching practices can be categorized as “teacher education, 
teachers’ individual factors, and contextual factors”, with teacher education, among these, being the 
most “salient” (p.60).   

The ways that most interviewees sought to develop their TK reflect teachers’ constructivist-
oriented beliefs. According to Loughran (2013), pedagogy in constructivist learning is “both 
generative and informing as a consequence of an active and ongoing process” and is enhanced through 
noticing (p. 122). The interviewees’ approaches to TK development mirror these key principles of 
constructivist learning in noticing the value of new technologies, learning by doing, regulating one’s 
own learning, building individual meaning in a situation or experience, and learning with and from 
others. This aligns with the findings in Xiang and Ning’s (2014) study that TPACK construction 
requires more of teachers’ constructivist pedagogical beliefs than of traditional ones. Similarly, 
infusing technology innovation into content instruction (TCK) was often a personal adventure for 
these EFL teachers, which included dealing with an explosion in the availability of resources. As 
language teachers, they need to ensure the full integration of online materials with the subject 
(Banditvilai, 2016). EFL teachers also need to think about whether technology can be a useful 
pedagogical tool with suitable methods and activities, including for students’ independent study 
outside classes. This time-consuming process is likely discouraging for EFL teachers (such as the 
participants in the present study), since many of them already have very heavy workloads (e.g., T5 
and T7), negatively influencing the development of teachers’ technological knowledge and TPACK.  

4. Discussion 

The survey respondents highly valued PK, CK and PCK in achieving successful EFL teaching but 
considered TK as the least important of all the seven TPACK components, as did the interviewees, 
who showed much more confidence in these three knowledge areas. This concurs with previous survey 
findings (Alqurashi, Gokbel, & Carbonara, 2017; Archambault & Crippen, 2009; Ekrem & Recep, 
2014) that teachers have high confidence in PK and CK but less in TK. This finding also aligns with 
Xiang and Ning’s (2014) finding that teachers are most competent in CK and familiar with traditional 
teaching modes without technological applications. These, and the findings of the present study appear 
to demonstrate that (both pre- and in- service) teachers generally agree with each other in viewing and 
developing PK, CK and PCK as the key knowledge components for achieving successful teaching in 
any discipline, even though in the digital era. This demonstrates that developing teachers’ TPACK is 
“a multigenerational process” (Mishra & Koehler 2006, p. 1043).  

In general, teachers’ manner of using technological applications was expressive and informative 
but basic, lacking application purposes for communication, recreation, instruction and expansion. 
Therefore, the interplay of their TK with CK (TCK) and PK (TPK), and TPACK performance, 
although evident, was not significant, as evident in the results across both the survey and interview 
data. The survey respondents considered TK and other TK-integrated knowledge components (e.g., 
TCK and TPK) as being less important. Similarly, although all interviewees commonly adopted digital 
tools to assist their EFL teaching, no one described his/her technology competence as ‘confident’, but 
instead as “above average” (four teachers) or “unconfident” (five teachers). This limitation in TPACK 
development is probably interrelated to teachers’ insufficient confidence in technological applications, 
which is “the necessary first step” to expand language teachers’ TPK and use of technology as a 
pedagogical tool to enhance classroom teaching (Hong 2010, p. 56). This constraint on TPACK 
development also echoes Archambault and Crippen’s (2009) findings on the minimum relationship 



12 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1-15 

 Shi, L. & Jiang, L. (How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge components …..) 

between teachers’ TK with PK and CK, and on teachers’ lack of confidence when teaching with 
technology. 

Factors revealed to be contributing to interviewees’ TPACK performance include both external 
and internal ones. The external factors were contextualized, such as the availability of technology 
equipment (T2) and internet accessibility (T7) at teaching venues, and decision-makers’ beliefs, 
requirements and financial support to purchase updated digital tools and provide professional training 
(T6); or they were related to teachers’ own learning networks for accessing support for technology 
(e.g., T4, T5 and T7). The importance of context is apparent throughout (Loughran, 2013). Internal 
factors were shown to be mainly linked to teachers’ knowledge of students, teachers’ demographic 
background (e.g., age, which was also evidenced in the survey), and teachers’ constructivist-oriented 
beliefs, aligning with previous findings (Xiang & Ning, 2014). These findings support Sansom’s 
(2020) argument that teacher change is dependent on each teacher, on each innovation, and in each 
context. The development of teachers’ tech-integrated ability can be limited by the technology 
resource constraints in their teaching contexts or by their students’ readiness (Dalal et al., 2021). 
Similarly, according to Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) “context bound” notion of TPACK construction, 
applying technology in the classroom relies on certain factors, such as the availability of digital 
resources and student background.  

Therefore, teachers’ knowledge of students has a significant impact on TPACK construction and 
should be attended to as a key knowledge component in achieving successful teaching with 
technology. Nezvalová (2011) argues that, in developing PCK, the knowledge of students is even 
more significant than PK: Any embedded attribute of PCK (e.g., context, assessment, pedagogy) can 
be applied if a teacher has developed a solid knowledge of his/her students. The development of 
teachers’ PK and CK must occur in the contexts of students and the learning environment (Dalal, 
2021). In accordance with this consideration, the process of integrating TK with PCK to develop 
(EFL) teachers’ TPACK and enhance technological innovation is both contextualized and dependent 
on teachers’ knowledge of students.   

5. Conclusion 

This study explored EFL teachers’ perceptions of the knowledge components (PK, CK, TK, PCK, 
TCK, TPK, and TPACK) in forming their own TPACK as well as their self-assessment of TPACK. 
The interviewees’ self-evaluation results on their TPACK competency were found to be generally 
consistent with the role of each TPACK component that was perceived by survey respondents, even 
though the interviewees were all veteran teachers and their demographic backgrounds were not as 
various as the survey participants.  

It is argued that the change process for experienced teachers may be “more complex, more varied 
and less certain” (Sansom 2020, p. 467) because teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning and 
their teaching experience influence each other (Shi et al., 2019). The present study has a limitation in 
that its interview participants were veteran teachers only, and also that the number of survey 
participants was too small to confidently generalize. However, since the survey participants’ beliefs 
about the value of each TPACK component were in line with veteran teachers’ (interviewees) self-
evaluation results of their TPACK performance, this demonstrates the power of teacher cognition in 
shaping their practices (Borg, 2003) and, ultimately, their TPACK outcomes. This may imply that: 1) 
EFL teachers, regardless of their teaching experience, value CK, PK and PCK as the key knowledge 
components in achieving successful EFL teaching; 2) this strong belief drives their efforts to develop 
these knowledge areas, and their confidence in these areas is more developed with accumulated 
experience (such as for the interviewees); and 3) TK and the knowledge areas integrating with TK 
(TCK, TPK, and TPACK) are considered as less important, and accordingly, EFL teachers are 
relatively less confident in these areas. This evidences that teachers’ positive beliefs about technology 
as a useful pedagogical tool in supporting students’ learning development are the basis of succeeding 
in any tech-assisted instruction (Ertmer, 2012; Liu et al. 2014; Wozney et al., 2006). Enabling teachers 
to accept and obtain TK and to gain confidence to integrate it into their classroom teaching is “the 
unlimited goal” of teacher education in computer-assisted language learning (Hong 2010, p.53). 

This study has implications for future research on teachers’ TPACK and technological innovation 
in education. Firstly, certain policies can be made at the university/school levels to motivate 
technology-enhanced teaching (to accommodate the national CECR innovation goal). Secondly, 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 13 
 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1-15 

Shi, L. & Jiang, L. (How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge components …..) 

adequate financial support should be assigned to upgrade the technological equipment at teaching 
venues and to provide professional training in new technologies. The effectiveness of technological 
training in developing teachers’ TPACK is apparent (e.g., Dalal, Archambault, & Shelton, 2021; 
Hong, 2010; Liu & Kleinsasser, 2015). Thirdly, technological training should be integrated with CK 
and/or PK. Unless equipped with a well-developed knowledge of computer-assisted language 
learning, language teachers find it difficult to make a difference through infusing technology into their 
classroom teaching (Hong, 2010). Training with educative examples could encourage teachers to 
explore the possibilities of new technology in their teaching; and teachers who learn about technology 
with the integration of CK may be more likely to apply this to support content learning, in comparison 
with learning it as a skill only (Hughes, 2005). In addition, the learning/training in technology and 
development of TPACK is continuing; and in this process, collaborative learning can be a useful way 
to learn technology and to develop TPACK (Hughes, 2005; Liu & Kleinsasser, 2015; Liu et al., 2014). 

Acknowledgment   

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all participants. Without you, it would have been 
impossible to complete this research. 

Declarations 

Author contribution : Leimin Shi was responsible for the entire research project. She also 

led the writing of the manuscript and the collaboration with the 

second author. Lili Jiang participated in the data collection, 

transcription and analysis. She also revised the manuscript. Both 

authors approved the final manuscript. 
Funding statement : This research did not receive any funding. 

Conflict of interest : Both authors declare that they have no competing interests. 

Additional information : No additional information is available for this paper. 

 

REFERENCES 

Alqurashi, E., Gokbel, E. N., & Carbonara, D. (2017). Teachers' knowledge in content, pedagogy and 

technology integration: A comparative analysis between teachers in Saudi Arabia and United States. 

British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1414-1426. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12514 

Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the 

United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.  

Baker, A. (2014). Exploring teachers' knowledge of L2 pronunciation techniques: Teacher  

cognitions, observed classroom practices, and student perceptions. Tesol Quarterly, 48(1), 136-163. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.99 

Banditvilai, C. (2016). Enhancing students’ language skills through blended learning. The Electronic Journal 

of e-Learning, 14(3), 220-229.  

Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, 

know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903 

Chai, C. S., Chin, C. K., Koh, J. H. L., & Tan, C. L. T. (2013). Exploring Singaporean Chinese language 

teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and its relationship to the teachers’ 

pedagogical beliefs. Asia-Pacific Edu Res, 22(4), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0071-

3 

Dalal, M., Archambault, L., & Shelton, C. (2021). Fostering the growth of TPACK among international 

teachers of developing nations through a cultural exchange program. Australasian Journal of 

Educational Technology, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5964 

De Paepe, L., Zhu, C., & Depryck, K. (2018). Online language teaching: Teacher perceptions of effective 

communication tools, required skills and challenges of online teaching. Journal of Interactive 

Learning Research, 29(1), 129-142. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12514
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.99
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0071-3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0071-3
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5964


14 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1-15 

 Shi, L. & Jiang, L. (How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge components …..) 

Ekrem, S., & Recep, C. (2014). Examining preservice EFL teachers’ TPACK competencies in Turkey. Journal 

of Educators Online, 11, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2014.2.2 

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and 

technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001 

Guest, G., Macqueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage 

Publications, Inc. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483384436 

Hong, K. H. (2010). CALL teacher education as an impetus for L2 teachers in integrating technology. ReCALL, 

22(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834400999019X 

Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated 

pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-302.  

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The 

development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing 

Research, 32(2), 131-152. https://doi.org/10.2190%2F0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV 

Lehtinen, A., Nieminen, P., & Viiri, J. (2016). Preservice teachers’ TPACK beliefs and attitudes toward 

simulations. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 151-171.  

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Seven strong claims about successful 

school leadership. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701800060 

Lin, T.-C., Tsai, C.-C., Chai, C. S., & Lee, M.-H. (2013). Identifying science teachers’ perceptions of 

technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Science Education and 

Technology, 22(3), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9396-6 

Liu, M., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (2015). Exploring EFL teachers' CALL knowledge and computer competencies: 

In-service program perspectives. Language Learning and Technology, 19(1), 119–138.  

Liu, S., Liu, H., Yu, Y., Li, Y., & Wen, T. (2014). TPACK: A new dimension to EFL teachers’ PCK. Journal 

of Education and Human Development, 3(2), 681-693.  

Loughran, J. (2013). Pedagogy: Making sense of the complex relationship between teaching and learning. 

Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 118-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12003 

Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. (2007). College English Curriculum Requirements. 

Shanghai: Foreign Language Education Press. 

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/10.1111/j.1467-

9620.2006.00684.x 

Nezvalová, D. (2011). Researching science teacher pedagogical content knowledge. Problems of Education in 

the 21st Century, 35, 104-118.  

Sahin, I. (2011). Development of survey of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). The 

Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 97-105.  

Sansom, D. W. (2020). Investigating processes of change in beliefs and practice following professional 

development: Multiple change models among in-service teachers in China. Professional Development 

in Education, 46(3), 467-481. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1634625 

Saudelli, M. G., & Ciampa, K. (2014). Exploring the role of TPACK and teacher self-efficacy: An ethnographic 

case study of three iPad language arts classes. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(2), 227–247. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.979865 

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological 

pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment 

instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544 

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 

57(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 

https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2014.2.2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483384436
https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834400999019X
https://doi.org/10.2190%2F0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701800060
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9396-6
https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12003
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1634625
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.979865
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411


ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 15 
 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1-15 

Shi, L. & Jiang, L. (How EFL teachers perceive and self-evaluate the knowledge components …..) 

Shi, L., Delahunty, J., & Gao, X. (2019). Constraints preventing Chinese EFL teachers from putting their stated 

beliefs into teaching practice. Professional Development in Education, 45(5), 774-789. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1511455 

Tseng, J. (2014). Developing an instrument for assessing technological pedagogical content knowledge as 

perceived by EFL students. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 302-315. -

https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.941369 

Wei, L., & Gao, X. (2016). An empirical study on College English teacher’s TPACK: Theory and application. 

IOSR Journal of Engineering, 6(4), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.9790/3021-06410104 

Willermark, S. (2018). Technological pedagogical and content knowledge: A Review of empirical studies 

published from 2011 to 2016. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(3), 315–343. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117713114 

Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ 

perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173-207.  

Xiang, K., & Ning, L. (2014). Evaluating Chinese pre-service mathematics teachers’ knowledge of integrating 

technology in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Education, 7(1), 48-58. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1511455
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.941369
https://doi.org/10.9790/3021-06410104
https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117713114

