Original article

doi: 10.1111/jcal.12049

bs_bs_banner

Modeling preservice teachers TPACK

competencies based on ICT usage
I. Kabakci Yurdakul* & A. N. Coklar
*Anadolu Universitesi, Turkey
Necmettin Erbakan University, Turkey

Abstract The purpose of this study was to build a model that predicts the relationships between the
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) competencies and information and
communication technology (ICT) usages. Research data were collected from 3105 Turkish
preservice teachers. The TPACK-Deep Scale, ICT usage phase survey and the ICT usage level
survey were used to collect the research data. The structural regression model was conducted
to test the model regarding the fact that ICT usage phases and ICT usage levels were
predictors of TPACK competencies. The ICT usage phase was a statistically significant
predictor of TPACK competency for all such sub-factors of the TPACK-Deep Scale as design
( = 0.12; p < 0.01), exertion ( = 0.20; p < 0.01), ethics ( = 0.93; p < 0.01) and proficiency
( = 0.41; p < 0.01). Similarly, the ICT usage level was a statistically significant predictor of
TPACK competency for all such sub-dimensions of the scale as design ( = 0.23; p < 0.01),
exertion ( = 0.12; p < 0.01), ethics ( = 0.78; p < 0.01) and proficiency ( = 0.21; p < 0.01).
The research findings demonstrated that ICT use based on ICT usage phase and level and
technology use knowledge and skills also influence overall TPACK competencies. When ICT
usage phases and/or ICT usage levels are increased with the help of ICT training, it could be
stated that TPACK competencies might be influenced; however, certain sub-dimensions might
be influenced more, and some dimensions might be influenced less.

Keywords ICT usage, preservice teachers, structural equation modeling, technology integration, TPACK.

Brush, 2007; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Karaca, Can, &

Introduction
Technology integration into education is a complex
process involving many factors such as technology
competency, lack of time, technical support, and
technological and administrative support. One of the
most influential factors in technology integration is
teacher competency (Belland, 2009; Bingimlas, 2009;
Brinkerhoff, 2006; Chen, Looi, & Chen, 2009; Hew &
Accepted: 23 October 2013
Correspondence: Isil Kabakci Yurdakul, Department of Computer
Education and Instructional Technologies, Anadolu University, 26470,
Eskisehir, Turkey. Email: isilk@anadolu.edu.tr
Yildirim, 2013). Therefore, in recent years, there has
been an increase in the number of studies on helping
preservice teachers gain competency in technology
integration. In other words, it is seen that research on
technology integration in education has focused on
preservice teachers competencies.
Approaches to helping teachers and preservice
teachers gain competency in technology integration
were initially technology-focused, yet in recent years,
there has been a tendency towards pedagogy-focused
approaches. In other words, technology usage was
came into prominence in previous studies conducted to
help become competent in technology integration. The
primary purpose was to help teachers and preservice

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2014), 30, 363376 363
364
teachers acquire the technology use (TU) skills.
However, today, teachers and preservice teachers are
expected to combine their pedagogical knowledge with
technology. Similarly, technology-integration models
reported in related literature could be said to undergo a
change from technology-focused models to pedagogy-
focused models. One of these integration models is
the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK).
TPACK is an integration model that basically
involves including technological knowledge into the
structure of pedagogical content knowledge devel-
oped by Shulman (1986) (Koehler & Mishra, 2005).
The TPACK model is made up of three basic compo-
nents such as content knowledge (CK), pedagogical
knowledge (PK) and technological knowledge (TK).
The other components of the model include the
intersection and combination of these basic compo-
nents. These components are Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (PCK), Technological Content Knowledge
(TCK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)
and TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2005, 2009; Mishra &
Koehler, 2006).
In general, TPACK is referred to as teachers knowl-
edge, skills and competency regarding technology
integration. According to a more comprehensive defi-
nition, it is an integration model that regards teacher
knowledge as a holistic and elaborative combination
and intersection of content, pedagogy and technology
knowledge for technology integration (Koehler &
Mishra, 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Polly &
Brantley-Dias, 2009; Schmidt et al., 2009). In addition,
this model has a deeper structure and meaning than
simple inclusion of TU into the current teaching
process and content field (Koehler & Mishra, 2005).
Moreover, the TPACK model emphasizes not only the
association of three different disciplines for effective
technology integration, but also interdisciplinary inter-
action (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). In other words,
TPACK refers to the teachers knowledge of effective
and efficient use of technology to increase the effec-
tiveness and quality of instruction in the whole teach-
ing process from planning to evaluation in the process
of teaching a specific content. The TPACK model
differs from other integration models reported in
related literature in that it is an integration model
based on the techno-pedagogical approach (Kabakci
Yurdakul et al., 2012). Also, this model puts forward a
I. Kabakci Yurdakul & A.N. Coklar
view of the integration process from the perspective of
teacher competencies.
Theoretical background
Studies reported in related literature regarding TPACK
were generally conducted for recognition purposes and
for the purpose of measuring TPACK. In a study
carried out by Koehler, Mishra, Yahya and Yadav
(2004) with the qualitative research method, first of all,
the researchers defined the TPACK framework. This
study and another one conducted by Koehler and
Mishra (2005) pioneered the first survey-development
research on the TPACK framework. Following this
study, various surveys and questionnaires have been
developed to measure TPACK. Some of these TPACK
scales focused on the components that formed the
TPACK framework (Archambault & Crippen, 2009;
Kabakci Yurdakul et al., 2012; Sahin, 2011; Schmidt
et al., 2009), and some of them were developed to
measure TPACK self-competency (Burgoyne, Graham,
& Sudweeks, 2010). Another TPACK survey aimed at
determining preservice teachers TPACK profiles
(Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2010). In TPACK-related litera-
ture, it is generally seen that various studies on the
development of surveys and scales were conducted
with preservice teachers. Besides these studies, some
other TPACK survey studies reported in related litera-
ture were conducted to develop a TPACK model based
on the TPACK framework. The information and
communication technology (ICT)-TPCK model was
developed by Angeli and Valanides (2009). Another
survey study formed the TPACK-based framework of
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge-Web
(TPCK-W) (Lee & Tsai, 2010). One of these studies
was for the development of the TPACK-Deep Scale
and framework. In related literature, TPACK-deep is
the first scale based on the TPACK component of the
TPACK framework. Figure 1 presents the structure of
the TPACK-Deep Scale (Kabakci Yurdakul et al.,
2012).
The TPACK-Deep Scale has a 4-factor structure.
These factors are design, exertion, ethics and profi-
ciency. Design factor covers designing and developing
the teachinglearning processes using ICTs to increase
learning. Exertion factor covers the ability to apply the
plans regarding the use of appropriate technologies
ranging from evaluating to planning. As for the ethics
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Modeling preservice teachers TPACK compentencies
Figure 1. The Framework of Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK)-Deep Scale
factor within the TPACK-deep framework, it refers to
the demonstration of legal and ethical behaviour
regarding the use of ICTs in the teachinglearning
process. Proficiency factor covers leadership skills in
the process of integration of technological sources into
the teaching process (Kabakci Yurdakul et al., 2012).
With these factors, TPACK-deep provides a new per-
spective regarding the measurement of TPACK.
In addition, it is seen that experimental studies
on TPACK generally focused on determining the
influence of professional development programmes
on teachers TPACK developments. These studies
revealed that the professional development pro-
grammes had positive influence on teachers TPACK
developments (Doering, Veletsianos, Scharber, &
Miller, 2009; Graham et al., 2009; Guzey & Roehrig,
2009; Jimoyiannis, 2010; Richardson, 2009; Shin
et al., 2009; Jang, 2010). In related literature, the focus
of studies on TPACK is now on determining the change
in TPACK via experimental studies rather than on the
development of surveys and scales.
Besides survey and experimental design studies, it is
emphasized in related literature that there is a need for
research on examining the nature and construct validity
of the TPACK framework (Archambault & Barnett,
2010; Chai, Koh, Tsai, & Tan, 2011). In general, these
studies tried to explain the relationship between the
TPACK framework and TPACK components (TK, PK,
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
365
CK, PCK, TCK and TPK) via various methods such as
inferential statistics and structural equation modeling
(Archambault & Barnett, 2010; Chai et al., 2010, 2011;
Chai, Ng, Li, Hong, & Koh, 2013; Koh, Chai, & Tsai,
2012). Another study conducted by Chai et al. (2010)
examined the influence of ICT course on TPACK
competency. The TPACK scale was applied to 439
preservice teachers before the course and to 365
preservice teachers after the course. It was found out
that following the education process, the values of TK,
PK, CK and TPACK all statistically increased, and that
the ICT-related courses increased the teachers TPACK
competencies as well. Another study was carried out in
Singapore by Chai et al. (2011) with 834 primary
school preservice teachers. Following the web-based
ICT course given to the participants, the changes in
their TPACK competencies were examined. The study
revealed that the ICT course had positive influence on
TPACK. On the other hand, the same study also exam-
ined the correlation between TPACK and TU. The
results of the study demonstrated that TU influenced
TPACK positively. In another study conducted by Koh
et al. (2012) with 455 teachers in Singapore, it was
reported that the structural equation model explained
the teachers TPACK perceptions. According to the
results obtained, it was found out that technological
knowledge and pedagogical knowledge had direct
effects on teachers TPACK perceptions. In one other
study carried out with 550 preservice teachers from
China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan using the
structural equation model, it was found out that CK, PK
and TK had indirectly positive effects (Chai et al.,
2013).
Based on these research results reported in related
literature, it could be stated that the TPACK model is
likely to be influenced by ICT usage. In literature, there
are several studies investigating the influence of skills,
beliefs, knowledge and attitudes regarding ICT usage
(Hakkarainen et al., 2001; Kivunike, Ekenberg,
Danielson, & Tusubira, 2011; Ngwenyama &
Morawczynski, 2009; Tearle, 2004). In addition, ICT
training given to preservice teachers also influences
teachers future ICT usage (Hammond et al., 2009).
Therefore, it is suggested that ICT training given in the
teacher training process should constantly be updated
and be given on applied basis regarding the applica-
tions at schools (BECTA, 2004; Lee, Chai, Teo, &
Chen, 2008).
366 I. Kabakci Yurdakul & A.N. Coklar

In literature, TPACK-related studies generally aimed Table 1. Demographic Backgrounds of the Participants
at determining the influence of TPACK components. Variables N Percentage (%)
The studies conducted with the TPACK-related struc-
tural equation modeling, inferential statistics or Gender
explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) Female 1799 57.9
Male 1306 42.1
generally aimed at investigating the construct validity Departments*
and nature of the TPACK framework with TPACK Primary School Teaching 1549 49.9
surveys focusing on TPACK components. In addition, Field Education 1058 34.1
Foreign Languages 432 13.9
in these studies, TPACK was explained directly with Teacher Training Institutions
seven TPACK components (Archambault & Barnett, University A 178 5.7
2010; Chai et al., 2010, 2011, 2013; Koh, Chai, & Tsai, University B 436 14.0
University C 837 27.0
2010; Koh et al., 2012). It is also pointed out that in
University D 205 6.6
such studies, different TPACK surveys could lead to University E 757 24.4
stronger results in explaining the TPACK framework University F 258 8.3
and construct validity (Koh et al., 2012). Also, University G 434 14.0

Archambault and Crippen (2009) and Cox and Graham *Some of the students did not report their departments.
(2009) pointed out that in order to clarify and help
better understand TPACK-focused knowledge, there is
and foreign languages (34.1% and 13.9%, respec-
a need for far more studies on the measurement of this
tively). In geographical terms, Turkey is made up of
knowledge. Therefore, there is a need for far more
seven different regions that differ from one another
studies on the measurement and examination of this
with respect to economic and cultural factors. Thus, the
knowledge. Moreover, examining the influence of ICT
teacher training institutions were selected on random
usage on TPACK in detail could contribute to the
basis from seven different universities, each found in
development of the teacher training process in a way to
one geographical region. Table 1 presents the number
help preservice teachers gain technology integration.
of the preservice teachers participating in the study
The purpose of this study was to build a structural
from these seven teacher training institutions. Depend-
regression model that predicts the relationships
ing on the ethics committee approval of the teacher
between the TPACK competencies and ICT usages.
training institutions, the institutions were named as
Within the scope of the research purpose, the following
University A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
hypotheses were put forward:
Hypothesis 1: ICT usage phases will have significant
influence on TPACK. Instruments

Hypothesis 2: ICT usage levels will have significant
influence on TPACK.
Methodology
Participants
The participants of the present study included 3105
preservice teachers attending teacher training institu-
tions in Turkey. Table 1 presents the demographic
backgrounds of the participants.
As can be seen in Table 1, of all the participating
preservice teachers, 57.9% of them were female, and
42.1% of them were male. The Department of Primary
School Teaching was the one with the highest rate
(49.9%) followed by the departments of field education
In this study, three data collection tools were used to
collect the research data: TPACK-Deep Scale, ICT
Usage Phase Survey and ICT Usage Level Survey.
TPACK-Deep Scale
In the study, the TPACK-Deep Scale developed by
Kabakci Yurdakul et al. (2012) to determine preservice
teachers TPACK competencies was used. In the devel-
opment phase of the scale conducted on a total of 995
Turkish preservice teachers, the participants were
divided into two samples. Exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) was run for the data collected from 498
preservice teachers, and CFA was conducted for the
data collected from 497 preservice teachers. After EFA,
the TPACK-Deep Scale included 33 items and had four

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Modeling preservice teachers TPACK compentencies
factors. These factors were design, exertion, ethics and
proficiency. The Cronbachs coefficient was calcu-
lated as 0.95 for the whole scale. This structure of the
4-factor scale was confirmed through CFA. In addition,
the testretest reliability coefficient of the scale was
calculated as 0.80 (Kabakci Yurdakul et al., 2012).
The design factor refers to competency in designing
the instructional process from planning to assessment
to teach the content by applying technology and peda-
gogy. The examples of some items related to design
factor are as follows:
I can develop appropriate assessment tools using
technology.
I can organize the educational environment in an
appropriate way to use technology.
The exertion factor refers to competency in putting
technology into effect for the execution of the instruc-
tional process designed regarding the subject area as
well as for the measurement and evaluation of the
effectiveness of the process. The examples of some
items related to exertion factor are as follows:
I can use technology-based communication tools
(blog, forum, chat, e-mail, etc.) in the teaching
process.
I can use innovative technologies (Facebook, blogs,
twitter, podcasting, etc.) to support the teaching and
learning process.
The ethics factor refers to competency in conducting
the instructional process as appropriate to the ethical
rules considering the ethics of the teaching profession
in the environments where technology is used. The
examples of some items related to ethics factor are as
follows:
I can provide guidance to students by leading them to
valid and reliable digital sources.
I can behave ethically regarding the appropriate use
of technology in educational environments.
The last factor, proficiency factor, refers to compe-
tency in acting as a leader regarding the integration of
technology into content and pedagogy by getting spe-
cialized in the field of teaching. The examples of some
items related to proficiency factor are as follows:
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
367
I can become a leader in spreading the use of
technological innovations in my future teaching
community.
I can use technology to find solutions to problems
(structuring, updating and relating the content to real
life, etc.).
The Cronbachs coefficient was calculated as 0.95
for the whole scale. This structure of the 4-factor scale
was confirmed through CFA. In addition, the testretest
reliability coefficient of the scale was calculated as
0.80 (Kabakci Yurdakul et al., 2012). The TPACK-
Deep Scale, whose validity and reliability were
verified, was used as the data collection tool in this
study.
ICT Usage Phase Survey
The ICT Usage Phase Survey was developed by the
researchers. In this survey, ICT usage phases were
determined as survival, mastery, impact and innovation
described by Mandinach and Cline (1994). The
preservice teachers ICT usages were also gathered
under the dimensions of problem solving, effective
usage, innovativeness, updating ICT usage knowledge.
In this way, ICT usage phases were examined from
different aspects in the educational process. One option
appropriate to different phases was given for each
dimension, and the preservice teachers were asked to
mark the option that best suited them. In order to deter-
mine the face validity and content validity of the
survey, a total of 10 field experts (one professor, two
assistant professors, one instructor and six research
assistants) were asked for their views. The pilot study
of this data collection tool was carried out with 112
preservice teachers from different teacher education
programmes. The Cronbach value for the reliability
coefficient of the questionnaire was calculated as
0.80.
As an example for the structure of the questionnaire,
the items for the dimension of effective usage of the
ICT Usage Phase Survey are as follows:
As I am specialist in ICT usage, I can lead people in
my environment regarding its use.
I can easily use ICTs without help and also help
others with ICT usage.
I need help to use ICTs.
I have difficulty using ICTs even if I get help.
368
As can be seen, the participants were asked to mark
only one item for the dimension of effective usage of
the ICT Usage Phase Survey. The preservice teachers
technology usage phases for each area were scored as
Survival = 1, Mastery = 2, Impact = 3 and Innova-
tion = 4, and the total scores and mean scores for the
five areas were calculated. Depending on this, the
lowest score received from the survey was 1 demon-
strating that the preservice teacher was in the phase of
survival. As for the highest score, it was 4 demonstrat-
ing that the preservice teacher was in the phase of
innovation.
ICT Usage Level Survey
The ICT Usage Level Survey was developed by the
researchers as well. First of all, 23 technologies were
determined by the researchers. The technologies deter-
mined were gathered under four headings in the data
collection tool such as information processing technol-
ogies, communication technologies, Internet technol-
ogies and instructional technologies. In order to
determine the face validity and content validity of the
survey developed, 10 field experts (one professor, two
assistant professors, one instructor and six research
assistants) were asked for their views. Following this, a
pilot application was conducted with preservice teach-
ers, and the survey was finalized. This survey was made
up of 24 items under four headings such as information
processing technologies (9 items), communication
technologies (4 items), Internet technologies (5 items)
and instructional technologies (6 items). In this data
collection tool, information processing technologies
included such technologies as computer (PC, laptop,
tablet PC), personal digital assistant, printer, scanner,
video recorder, audio recorder, digital camera, flash
memory and MP4 player. Communication technol-
ogies included e-mail, chat software (MSN, Skype),
web camera (WebCam) and smart phone. In the survey,
Internet technologies covered blogs, wikis, remote
sensing system, podcasting and social networks
(Facebook, Twitter). Finally, instructional technologies
were determined as learning management systems
(LMS), class management systems (NetOp School),
projector (data show), overhead projector, interactive
white board and slide projector. The survey items were
5-point Likert type items as I do not know this tech-
nology, I do not use this technology, I use in low nificance was taken as 0.01.
I. Kabakci Yurdakul & A.N. Coklar
level, I use in medium level and I use in high level.
The pilot study was carried out with 112 preservice
teachers from different teacher education programmes.
The internal consistency coefficient of the question-
naire (Cronbachs ) was found to be 0.89. As an
example for the structure of the questionnaire, the
items of the dimension of instructional technologies of
the ICT Usage Level Survey are as follows:
LMS
Class management systems (NetOp School . . .)
Projector (Data Show)
Overhead Projector
Smart Board (Elektronic Board)
Dia Projector
For the ICT usage levels, a competency range of
three dimensions such as low level, medium level
and high level were determined. Accordingly, the
scores ranging between 1.00 and 2.33 were coded as
low level, those between 2.34 and 3.67 as medium
level and those between 3.68 and 5,00 as high
level.
Data analysis
In order to reveal the demographic backgrounds of the
participating preservice teachers and their levels of
TPACK competencies, descriptive statistics were
applied. In this respect, frequencies, percentages,
means and standard deviation were used. For the
purpose of determining the ICT usage phases and
levels, means and standard deviation were used. Also,
such computer programs as the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS) 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago,
IL, USA) and Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS)
16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) were used. In
order to determine whether ICT usage phase and ICT
usage level were predictors of TPACK competencies,
the structural regression model with maximum likeli-
hood estimation, one of structural equation modeling
methods, was used (Arbucle, 2006). The evaluation of
model data fit was based on recommended indices:
chi-square goodness of fit (2), root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA), normed fit index (NFI),
TuckerLewis index (TLI) and comparative fit index
(CFI). For all the statistical analyses, the level of sig-
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Modeling preservice teachers TPACK compentencies 369

Table 2. Mean and Standard Deviations

for TPACK-Deep Scale and ICT Usage Male Female General
Phases and Levels Surveys (n = 1306) (n = 1799) (n = 3105)

TPACK-deep factors X SD X SD X SD

Design 3.85 0.60 3.86 0.55 3.85 0.57

Exertion 3.95 0.61 3.96 0.55 3.96 0.58
Ethics 3.85 0.65 3.90 0.58 3.88 0.61
Proficiency 3.72 0.65 3.60 0.62 3.65 0.64
TPACK-deep 3.84 0.58 3.83 0.52 3.84 0.55
ICT usage phases 2.72 0.60 2.52 0.57 2.61 0.59
ICT usage level 3.80 0.65 3.69 0.60 3.74 0.62

ICT = information and communication technology; SD = standard deviation;

TPACK = Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge.

Findings and results Structural regression analysis

Preservice teachers TPACK competencies
Table 2 presents the mean scores regarding the ICT
usage level and phase survey and TPACK-Deep Scale
and the competency levels for its four factors. The
TPACK overall mean was calculated as 3.84. The sub-
dimension of exertion had the highest mean (3.96),
while proficiency was the sub-dimension with the
lowest mean (3.65). In addition, the preservice teach-
ers mean score for ICT usage phases was found to be
2.61, and their mean score for ICT usage levels was
calculated as 3.74. Accordingly, the presevice teachers
were in the phase of mastery for ICT usage phase and
at high level for ICT usage level. Table 2 lists the mean
and standard deviation values for the male and female
participants TPACK competencies.
On the other hand, Table 3 demonstrates the statis-
tical values and the correlations among the factors of
the TPACK-Deep Scale.
As can be seen in Table 3, the correlation coeffi-
cients for the sub-dimensions of design, exertion,
ethics and proficiency, which all formed the TPACK-
Deep Scale, ranged between .68 and .88. All the sub-
dimensions had a high level of positive relationship
with the TPACK competency levels.
For the purpose of testing the model regarding the fact
that ICT usage phases and ICT usage levels were pre-
dictors of TPACK competencies, the structural regres-
sion model, one of structural equation models, was
conducted using AMOS 16. The use of predictor-
independent variables such as ICT usage phases and
the outcome-dependent variables forming the TPACK-
Deep Scale together in the model developed requires
the structural regression model. Structural equation
models include three different models such as CFA,
path analysis and the structural regression analysis, a
combination of the two models (Meydan & Sesen,
2011). Structural regression models are used to reveal
the relationship between the latent variables which are
found among the observed variables obtained as a
result of the CFA used for a scale and the latent vari-
ables obtained for the factors whose influence on that
scale is being investigated (Arbuckle, 2009; Heck &
Johnsrud, 1994). Therefore, the structural regression
model is an appropriate one to test the model for the
relationship of such latent variables as design, exertion,
ethics and proficiency which are the factors of the
TPACK-deep with the variable of ICT usage phase
as well as with the latent variable of ICT usage

Table 3. Summary of the Statistics And

Correlations Among the TPACK-Deep Variables Design Exertion Ethics Proficiency X SD
Scale Factors (n = 3105)
Design 1.00 0.88* 0.76* 0.80* 3.85 0.57
Exertion 1.00 0.79* 0.76* 3.96 0.58
Ethics 1.00 0.68* 3.88 0.61
Proficiency 1.00 3.65 0.64

*p < .01. SD = standard deviation.

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

370
level which included the observed variables of data
processing, communication, Internet and education.
Kline (2005) refers to the structural regression model
as a method used to determine the relationship between
the scale and the independent variables thought to have
influence on the scale.
As can be seen in Figure 2, in the TPACK-Deep
Scale, the latent variable of design was obtained with
10 items; exertion with 12 items; ethics with six items;
and proficiency with five items. Each of the items con-
stituting these variables was an observed variable, and
the scale sub-factors including these variables were
regarded as latent-endogenous (outcome/dependent)
variables. On the other hand, ICT usage phase is a
directly observed exogenous (predictor/independent)
variable. The variable of ICT usage is a latent variable
obtained via the observed variables of data processing,
communication, Internet and education, and this vari-
able is an exogenous (predictor/independent) one as
well. In the regression model presented in Figure 2, the
curves with two-way arrows connecting two variables
demonstrate the correlation coefficients between inde-
pendent variables, and one-way arrows demonstrate the
influence of one variable on another. In addition, the
circles represent the prediction errors of the dependent-
endogenous variables (Aricak, 2009; Kline, 2005).
In order to determine the fitness of the model
suggested in structural equation modeling, there are
important statistical methods to be applied. Chi-square
Goodness of Fit (2), RMSEA, NFI, TLI and CFI
are among the most suggested statistical methods.
Table 3 presents the value ranges suggested for these
methods (Arbuckle, 2009; Aricak, 2009; Byrne, 2001;
Kelloway, 1998; Kline, 2005; Schumaker & Lomax,
2004; Tabannick & Fidell, 2001). Also, the maximum
likelihood method in a general linear model context
was used in the analysis.
As can be seen in Table 4, in order to determine the
fitness of the model, chi-square statistics and fit indices
of RMSEA, NFI, TLI and CFI were used. It was
considered normal that in the model, the value of
2 supposed to be insignificant was significant
[2 = 5298.804; degrees of freedom (df) = 652;
p > .01] and that 2/df = 8.127 was higher than 5,
which was an unacceptable value. However, Blunch
(2008) states that the chi-square (2) value will be
significant in the case of a big size of sample. In this
model tested with a large group of 3105 participants, it
I. Kabakci Yurdakul & A.N. Coklar
was also normal that the value of 2 was significant.
Especially the value of RMSEA = 0.49 pointed out that
the model demonstrated good fit, while the values of
NFI = 0.934, TLI = 0.941 and CFI = 0.957 referred to
an acceptable value and even close to an excellent
value. All the fit indices revealed the fitness of the
model. In other words, besides the correlation values
presented earlier, the fit indices confirmed the model
demonstrating that ICT usage phases and ICT usage
levels were predictors of TPACK competencies.
ICT usage phases as predictors of
TPACK competencies
In order to reveal that ICT usage phases significantly
predicted TPACK competency, the value of between
ICT usage phases and each factor constituting the
TPACK-Deep Scale was examined. All the factors in
the TPACK-Deep Scale such as design ( = 0.12;
p < 0.01), exertion ( = 0.20; p < 0.01), ethics ( =
0.93; p < 0.01) and proficiency ( = 0.41; p < 0.01) sig-
nificantly predicted TPACK competency. In other
words, when the ICT usage phase increased by one
standard deviation, the standard deviation value of the
TPACK-design factor increased by 0.12 in terms of
standardized regression weights. Similarly, when the
ICT usage phase increased by one standard deviation,
the standard deviation value of the TPACK ethics
factor increased by 0.93. On the other hand, a 1-point
change in the standard deviation value of the ICT usage
phase causes a 0.20-point change in the standard devia-
tion value of the TPACK-exertion factor or a 0.41-point
change in the standard deviation value of the TPACK-
proficiency factor. It could be stated that in line with the
standard deviation values of the standard regression
weight, ICT usage phase predicted such factors of
TPACK competencies at most as ethics, proficiency
and exertion, respectively, and at least the design factor.
This finding confirmed the first hypothesis of the study.
ICT usage level as the predictor of
TPACK competencies
Another point investigated within the scope of the
study was the question of whether ICT usage level
significantly predicted TPACK competency. For this
purpose, the regression values between ICT usage level
and the factors constituting the TPACK-Deep Scale
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Modeling preservice teachers TPACK compentencies 371

Figure 2. Structural Regression Analysis: Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Usage Phase and Level as the Predictors
of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)-deep

2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

372
Fit statistics Excellent fit Acceptable fit
RMSEA 0.05 0.060.08
NFI 0.95 0.940.90
TLI 0.95 0.940.90
CFI 0.97 0.950.96
2/degrees of freedom 3 5
*Corresponding author. CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed fit index;
RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; TLI = TuckerLewis index.
were examined. All the factors of design ( = 0.23;
p < 0.01), exertion ( = 0.12; p < 0.01), ethics ( =
0.78; p < 0.01) and proficiency ( = 0.21; p < 0.01)
were significant predictors of TPACK competency. In
terms of standardized regression weights, the TPACK
design factor increased by 0.23 as the ICT usage level
increased by one standard deviation. Similarly, when
the ICT usage level increased by one standard devia-
tion, the TPACK exertion factor increased by 0.12. This
change was 0.78 for the factor of ethics and 0.21 for
proficiency. This finding confirmed the second research
hypothesis. Thus, ICT usage level, as it was for ICT
usage phase, was a predictor of TPACK competencies.
The factors most influenced were again ethics, design
and proficiency, while the least influenced one was the
factor of exertion. On the other hand, when the ICT
usage phases were examined (Figure 2), it was seen
that the ICT usage level and all the data processing,
Internet and communication technologies constituting
this level had a correlation value ranging from 0.82
(data processing) to 0.71 (education) and that these
technologies thus had almost the same effect on ICT
usage level. In this respect, it could be stated that dif-
ferent technologies had similar influence on TPACK
deep competencies.
Discussions
In related literature, it is seen that there has been a shift
in the focus of TPACK studies from examining the
development of TPACK concept and framework to
examining the TPACK development of preservice
teachers (Voogt, Fisser, Pareja Roblin, Tondeur, &
van Braak, 2013). In addition, studies investigating
the TPACK framework were conducted using the
structural equation modeling, inferential statistics or
explanatory and CFA. However, in these studies, the
TPACK framework developed by Koehler and Mishra
I. Kabakci Yurdakul & A.N. Coklar
Table 4. The Fit Indices For the Structural
Fit value for Equation Model And the Values Obtained
the model in the Model (n = 3105)
0.49
0.934
0.941
0.957
8.127*
(2005) was explained generally by focusing on TPACK
components (Archambault & Barnett, 2010; Chai
et al., 2010, 2011, 2013; Koh et al., 2010, 2012). This
study was carried out based on this gap in related
literature. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to
build a structural equation model that predicts the rela-
tionships between the TPACK competencies and ICT
usage phases and levels.
Depending on this purpose, a model was developed
to explain the TPACK competencies of preservice
teachers. The participants of the present study were
3105 preservice teachers attending seven teacher train-
ing institutions in Turkey. In the model developed, first
of all, the relationships among the factors of the
TPACK scale were investigated. The correlation coef-
ficients ranging between 0.68 and 0.88 demonstrated
that the factors of design, exertion, ethics and profi-
ciency constituting the scale had high levels of rela-
tionships. The two factors with the highest level of
relationships were design and exertion with the corre-
lation coefficient of 0.88, while the two factors with the
lowest levels of relationships were ethics and profi-
ciency with the correlation coefficient of 0.68. The only
moderate level relationship with a correlation coeffi-
cient of 0.68 was between the factors of proficiency and
ethics. Except for this, the relationship among all the
factors had high levels of correlation coefficients
(r 0.70). The highest correlation was between the
factors of design and exertion with a coefficient of
0.88. These correlation values also confirmed the inter-
nal consistency of the scale.
According to the research findings, the structural
regression model demonstrated that ICT usage had
direct influence on TPACK competencies. In the other
words, ICT usage phase and level were significant pre-
dictors of TPACK competency. This finding obtained
in the study is consistent with the results of various
other studies reported in related literature, which
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Modeling preservice teachers TPACK compentencies
pointed out that TU influenced TPACK positively
(Chai et al., 2010, 2011, 2013; Doering et al., 2009;
Harris & Hofer, 2011; Jang, 2010; Jimoyiannis, 2010;
Koh et al., 2012; Wilson & Wright, 2010). However,
the research finding differs from the findings of other
studies because ICT usage levels and phases are both
important for TPACK competency. Archambault and
Crippen (2009) and Cox and Graham (2009) pointed
out that in order to clarify and help better understand
TPACK-focused knowledge, there is a need for far
more studies on the measurement of this knowledge. In
addition, in various experimental studies conducted to
examine the TPACK developments of preservice teach-
ers, it was found out that at the end of the course, TK,
one of the core variables, demonstrated a change as an
important predictor of preservice teachers TPACK
(Koh & Chai, 2014; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2012; Polly,
Mims, Shepherd & Inan, 2010). It is seen that these
results are parallel to the findings obtained in the
present study. However, in a similar study conducted
by Koh and Chai (2014), it was revealed that PCK was
a component demonstrating a change as an important
predictor of teachers TPACK. Thus, the findings
obtained in the present study suggest that ICT usage
levels and phases are both important variables for
preservice teachers TPACK competency.
According to the model developed, as a predictor,
ICT usage phase influences the factors of ethics, pro-
ficiency, exertion and design, respectively. In other
words, when ICT usage phase increases, this will influ-
ence the factor of ethics at most, one of TPACK com-
petencies. This factor will be followed by proficiency,
exertion and design, respectively. Similarly, according
to the model, ICT usage level is a predictor of TPACK
competencies as well. The TPACK competencies influ-
enced by ICT usage level at most were ethics, design,
proficiency and exertion. An increased ICT usage level
will influence again the factor of ethics, one of TPACK
competencies, which will be followed by design, pro-
ficiency and exertion, respectively.
Conclusion and recommendation
The model developed in the present study brings about
a different perspective for the explanation of TPACK.
With the help of the structural regression model devel-
oped in this study, it was found out that ICT usage and
the related variables were among important indicators
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
373
for explaining preservice teachers TPACK competen-
cies. In other words, ICT usage based on ICT usage
phase and level and TU knowledge and skills related to
the dimension of TK, which is only one of the dimen-
sions of TPACK, also influence overall TPACK com-
petencies. Studies in related literature demonstrate that
technology-rich instructional materials, educational
technology courses and ICT-based lessons are influen-
tial on increasing preservice teachers technological
knowledge (Maeng, Mulvey, Smetana, & Bell, 2013;
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2012; Polly, Mims, Shepherd &
Inan, 2010). According to the research findings and
literature review, it could be stated that TPACK com-
petencies will change when ICT courses to be taught to
preservice teachers cover ICT technologies in a way to
involve different technologies and when they are
planned in a way to include activities that will influence
their skills, experiences and attitudes. This increase in
TPACK competencies will influence the factor of
ethics most and that of design and exertion least.
Finally, it is necessary to focus on developing the
ICT usage knowledge and skills for the development of
preservice teachers TPACK competencies within the
teacher training system. This will also contribute to the
development of preservice teachers competencies in
ICT integration in education. Similarly, development of
ICT usage strategies in teacher professional develop-
ment programmes could be more influential on increas-
ing the TPACK development of teachers (Chai et al.,
2013; Koh et al., 2012).
This study is one conducted with preservice teachers
based on the TPACK-deep framework and ICT usage
variables. Future studies to be conducted with teachers
using the structural regression or equation modeling or
correlational statistical methods for the purpose of
examining and explaining the structure of the TPACK
framework will strengthen the findings of the presents
study. In addition, modeling studies to be carried out
based on other surveys and scales developed for the
TPACK framework will help explain and develop the
structure of TPACK from a scientific perspective.
Acknowledgments
The present study was based on a part of a scientific
research project funded by the Scientific and Techno-
logical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)
Grant Number 109K191 called Effect of The
374
Techno-Pedagogical Education on Pre-service Teacher
and a Framework for Techno-Pedagogical Education.
References
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and
methodological issues for the conceptualization, develop-
ment, and assessment of ICTTPCK: Advances in
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK).
Computers & Education, 52(1), 154168.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). AMOS 18 users guide. Chicago, IL:
SPSS Inc.
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), 7188.
Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting tech-
nological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the
TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4),
16561662.
Aricak, O. T. (2009). Psychiatric symptomatology as a pre-
dictor of cyberbullying among university students. Egitim
Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research,
34, 167184.
Belland, B. R. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move
beyond the study of barriers to technology integration.
Computers & Education, 52(2), 353364.
BECTA (British Educational Communications and Technol-
ogy Agency). (2004). A review of the research literature on
barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. British Educa-
tional Communications and Technology Agency.
Bingimlas, K. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of
ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of
the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &
Technology Education, 5(3), 235245.
Blunch, N. J. (2008). Introduction to structural equation
modeling using SPSS and AMOS. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, profes-
sional development academy on technology skills, com-
puter self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and
practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Educa-
tion, 39(1), 2243.
Burgoyne, N., Graham, C. R., & Sudweeks, R. (2010). The
validation of an instrument measuring TPACK. In D.
Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for
Information Technology & Teacher Education Interna-
tional Conference 2010 (pp. 37873794). Chesapeake,
VA: American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with
AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
I. Kabakci Yurdakul & A.N. Coklar
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating
preservice teachers development of Technological, Peda-
gogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Educational
Technology & Society, 13(4), 6373.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Tsai, C., & Tan, L. L. W. (2011).
Modeling primary school pre-service teachers Techno-
logical Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for
meaningful learning with information and communication
technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57(1), 1184
1193.
Chai, C. S., Ng, E. M. W., Li, W., Hong, H. Y., & Koh, J. H.
L. (2013). Validating and modelling technological peda-
gogical content knowledge framework among Asian
preservice teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 29(1), 4153.
Chen, F., Looi, C., & Chen, W. (2009). Integrating technol-
ogy in the classroom: A visual conceptualization of teach-
ers knowledge, goals and beliefs. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 25(5), 470488.
Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in
practice: Using an elaborated model of the TPACK frame-
work to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. Tech
Trends, 53(5), 6069.
Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C.
(2009). Using the technological, pedagogical, and content
knowledge framework to design online learning environ-
ments and professional development. Journal of Educa-
tional Computing Research, 41(3), 319346.
Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L.,
St. Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK development in
science teaching: measuring the TPCK confidence of
inservice science teachers. Tech Trends, 53(5), 7079.
Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with
technology: case studies of science teachers development
of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contem-
porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1),
2545.
Hakkarainen, K., Muukonen, H., Lipponen, L., Ilomki, L.,
Rahikainen, M., & Lehtinen, E. (2001). Teachers infor-
mation and communication technology (ICT) skills and
practices of using ICT. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(2), 181197.
Hammond, M., Fragkouli, E., Suandi, I., Crosson, S., Ingram,
J., Johnston-Wilder, P., . . . Wray, D. (2009). What happens
as student teachers who made very good use of ICT during
pre-service training enter their first year of teaching?
Teacher Development, 13(2), 93106.
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
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Modeling preservice teachers TPACK compentencies
Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211
229.
Heck, R. H., & Johnsrud, L. K. (1994). Workplace stratifica-
tion in higher education administration: Proposing and
testing a structural model. Journal of Structural Equation
Modeling, 1, 8297.
Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into
K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and
recommendations for future research. Educational Tech-
nology Research and Development, 55(3), 223252.
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Laptops in the K-12
classrooms: Exploring factors impacting instructional use.
Computers & Education, 55(3), 937944.
Jang, S. J. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard
and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary
science teachers. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1744
1751.
Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an inte-
grated technological pedagogical science knowledge
framework for science teachers professional development.
Computers & Education, 55(3), 12591269.
Kabakci Yurdakul, I., Odabasi, H. F., Kilicer, K., Coklar, A.
N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A. (2012). The development,
validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge scale. Computers & Edu-
cation, 58(3), 964977.
Karaca, F., Can, G., & Yildirim, S. (2013). A path model for
technology integration into elementary school settings in
Turkey. Computers & Education, 68(1), 353365.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equa-
tion modeling: A researchers guide. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Kivunike, F. N., Ekenberg, L., Danielson, M., & Tusubira, F.
(2011). Perceptions of the role of ICT on quality of life in
rural communities in Uganda. Information Technology for
Development, 17(1), 6180.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural
equation modeling (2nd ed). New York: Guilford Press.
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), 131152.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing technologi-
cal pedagogical knowledge. In AACTE (Ed.), The Hand-
book of technological pedagogical content knowledge for
educators. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group
for the American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological
pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 6070.
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
375
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Yahya, K., & Yadav, A. (2004).
Successful teaching with technology: The complex inter-
play of content, pedagogy, and technology. Proceedings
from the Annual Meeting of the Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education, Atlanta, GA. Char-
lottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Com-
puting in Education.
Koh, J. H. L., & Chai, C. S. (2014). Teacher clusters and
their perceptions of Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK) development through ICT lesson
design. Computers & Education, 70, 222232.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Examining
the technology pedagogical content knowledge of Singa-
pore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 563573.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2012). Examining
practicing teachers perceptions of technological peda-
gogical content knowledge (TPACK) pathways: a struc-
tural equation modeling approach. Instructional Science,
117.
Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., Teo, T., & Chen, D. (2008). Preparing
pre-service teachers for the integration of ICT based
student centred learning (SCL) curriculum. Journal of
Education, 13, 1528.
Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers per-
ceived self-efficacy and technological pedagogical content
knowledge with respect to educational use of the World
Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 121.
Maeng, J. L., Mulvey, B. K., Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L.
(2013). Preservice teachers TPACK: Using technology to
support inquiry instruction. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9434-z
Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (1994). Classroom dynam-
ics: Implementing a technology-based learning environ-
ment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Meydan, H. M., & Sesen, H. (2011). Structural equation
modeling and AMOS applications. (Yapsal esitlik model-
lemesi, AMOS uygulamalar). Ankara: Detay Publishing.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogi-
cal content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowl-
edge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 10171054.
Ngwenyama, O., & Morawczynski, O. (2009). Factors affect-
ing ICT expansion in emerging economies: an analysis of
ICT infrastructure expansion in five Latin American coun-
tries. Information Technology for Development, 15(4),
237258.
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2012). The importance of using
subject-specific technology uses to teach TPACK: A case
study. In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K. Perschitte (Eds.),
Creating technology-rich teacher education programs:
Key issues (pp. 152169). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
376
Polly, D., & Brantley-Dias, L. (2009). TPACK: Where do we
go now? Techtrends, 53(5), 4647.
Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. A. (2010).
Evidence of impact: An analysis of the influence of PT3
Projects designed to transform methods courses and field
experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863
870.
Richardson, S. (2009). Mathematics teachers development,
exploration, and advancement of technological pedagogi-
cal content knowledge in the teaching and learning of
algebra. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(2), 117130.
Sahin, I. (2011). Development of survey of technological
pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). TOJET
The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,
10(1), 97105.
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Koehler, M. J.,
Mishra, P., & ve Shin, T. (2009). Technological Pedagogi-
cal Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and
validation of an assessment instrument for preservice
teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
42(2), 123149.
Schumaker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginners
guide to structural equation modeling. New Jersey: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
I. Kabakci Yurdakul & A.N. Coklar
Shin, T., Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Schmidt, D., Baran, E., &
Thompson, A. (2009). Changing technological pedagogi-
cal content knowledge (TPACK) through course experi-
ences. In C. Crawford, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society
for Information Technology and Teacher Education Inter-
national Conference 2009 (pp. 41524159). Chesapeake,
VA: AACE.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge
growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2),
414.
Tabannick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate
statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tearle, P. (2004). A theoretical and instrumental framework
for implementing change in ICT in education. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 34(3), 331351.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van
Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge A review of the literature. Journal of Com-
puter Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109121.
Wilson, E., & Wright, V. (2010). Images over time: The
intersection of social studies through technology, content,
and pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 10(2), 220233.
2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd