CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 108Mathematics Education and Teaching TechniquesTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

Evaluating novice and experienced EFL teachers’ perceived TPACK for their professional development

Open access
Nazari, Naghmeh, Nafissi, Zohreh, Estaji, Masoomeh, Marandi, S. Susan, Wang, Shuyan·2019·Cogent Education
DOI 10.1080/2331186x.2019.1632010
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a framework which provides a number of opportunities for conducting research in teacher education, teacher professional development, and teacher’s use of technology. By applying TPACK framework, this mixed methods study aimed to examine novice and experienced EFL teachers’ differences in their perceived TPACK and its influences on their professional development. To this end, for the quantitative phase, a sample of 427 EFL teachers, both male and female with different teaching experiences were selected from various English language institutes in Tehran. In the qualitative phase, 16 EFL teachers were selected for a structured interview. The quantitative results indicated that experienced teachers were of significantly higher scores in terms of pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge subscales. In contrast, novice teachers were of significantly higher scores considering their technological knowledge, technological content knowledge, technological pedagogical knowledge, and TPACK. The qualitative results demonstrated that novice and experienced EFL teachers favored different professional development programs tailored to their needs. Likewise, they claimed that they could bridge the gap in their knowledge through collaboration in professional development courses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/2331186x.2019.1632010

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The selective satisfiers' limited discussion messages about instructional plans could indicate a preference for feedback from experienced teachers rather than peers, perhaps due to the latter's perceived lack of pedagogical knowledge and/or pedagogical content knowledge.

    “Conversely, their limited number of discussion messages about instructional plans could indicate this subgroup's preference for feedback from experienced teachers rather than from their peers, perhaps due to the latter's perceived lack of pedagogical knowledge and/or pedagogical content knowledge, as previously suggested by Nazari etal.(2019).”

    From Knowledge (Co-)Construction Among Artificial Intelligence, Novice Teachers, and Experienced Teachers in an Online Professional Learning Community (2025) · cites this paper as Nazari et al. 2019

  • Despite not being digital natives, experienced teachers' extensive teaching experience aided their development of a nuanced understanding of how technology can be integrated effectively into education.

    “Despite not being digital natives, their extensive teaching experience aided their development of a nuanced understanding of how technology can be integrated effectively into education (see also Harris2014; Nazari etal.2019).”

    From Knowledge (Co-)Construction Among Artificial Intelligence, Novice Teachers, and Experienced Teachers in an Online Professional Learning Community (2025) · cites this paper as Nazari et al. 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nazari, N., Nafissi, Z., Estaji, M., Marandi, S. S., & Wang, S.
Affiliations
  • Alzahra University (IR)
  • Allameh Tabataba'i University (IR)
  • University of Southern Mississippi (US)
Corresponding author
Nafissi, Zohreh
ORCID
Venue
Cogent Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2019-01-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
ISSN
2331-186X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1080/2331186x.2019.1632010
OpenAlex
W2950862971
Cited by
108
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
FWCI
24.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cogent Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Aquila Digital Community (University of Southern Mississippi) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
TPACK, teacher professional development, EFL teachers, novice teachers, experienced teachers, teacher technology knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, teacher collaboration, English language teaching

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review