The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The relationship between technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) self-efficacy belief levels and the usage of Web 2.0 applications of pre-service science teachers
Open accessAbstract
AbstractThe purpose of this study is to determine the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) self-efficacy levels ofpre-service science teachers with respect to variables in their use of Web 2.0 applications. A survey model has beenconducted on a study group consisting of 344 final year pre-service science teachers at six different state universities inTurkey during the academic year of 2017–2018. The ‘personal information form’, the ‘Web 2.0 applications usage situationsurvey’ and the ‘TPACK self-efficacy belief scale’ were employed. Data obtained from the study group have been analysedwith the ‘SPSS Statistics 23’ software, a t-test and the ANOVA test have been carried out, a Pearson correlation analysis and aTamhane test has been conducted. The results show a significant relationship between TPACK self-efficacy belief levels andthe variables involved in pre-service science teachers use of Web 2.0 applications.Keywords: Science education, pre-service science teacher, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), selfefficacybeliefs, Web 2.0 applications.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Subsequent empirical research confirms that while teachers may demonstrate technological familiarity, the integration of TK with PK and CK remains uneven (Fabian et al., 2024;Wright & Akgunduz, 2018).”
From From Digital Consumers to Knowledge Creators: Reconceptualizing Web 2.0 Integration through a Pedagogical Maturity Continuum in Primary Education (2026) · cites this paper as Wright & Akgunduz, 2018
In the citing paper
“Although TPACK remains a foundational framework, the synthesis indicates that its components develop unevenly in practice, with technological knowledge often advancing more rapidly than pedagogical and content integration (Fabian et al., 2024;Wright & Akgunduz, 2018).”
From From Digital Consumers to Knowledge Creators: Reconceptualizing Web 2.0 Integration through a Pedagogical Maturity Continuum in Primary Education (2026) · cites this paper as Wright & Akgunduz, 2018
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gürhan, E. (2026) · Muallimun: Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan dan Keguruan · doi:10.23971/muallimun.v6i1.11267 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Wright, B., & Akgunduz, D.
- Venue
- World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues
- Published
- 2018-01-28
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 52
- ISSN
- 1309-0348 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4253865421
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 9.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- World Journal on Educational Technology Current Issues (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Keywords
- TPACK, self-efficacy, pre-service science teachers, Web 2.0 applications, technology integration in science education, teacher professional development
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
