Identifying the Criteria for Techno-Pedagogical Competencies of Faculty Members in Blended Learning Implementation: A Review

Document Type : Review Article

Authors

1 Department of Educational Technology, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Educational Technology in Medical Sciences, Smart University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: The rapid shift toward blended learning in higher education, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, underscores the need for faculty to master Techno-Pedagogical Competencies (TPC). While Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) provides a theoretical foundation, gaps persist in practical frameworks for faculty development. This study identifies and categorizes TPC to guide effective blended learning implementation.
Methods: A qualitative content analysis was conducted for this review. Using Boolean operators, 504 articles (2010–2022) were retrieved from ProQuest, Scopus, Google Scholar, PubMed, and regional databases (SID, Magiran). After screening titles/abstracts and applying inclusion criteria (focus on higher education, faculty TPC, English/Persian language), 14 articles were analyzed in MAXQDA 2020. Open, axial, and selective coding were employed until thematic saturation, yielding 185 initial codes consolidated into 26 components across five categories. Trustworthiness was ensured via peer debriefing (10 experts) and Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio (CVR >70%).
Results: The analysis revealed five key competency areas: EdTech competencies (nine components including instructional design and technology evaluation), professional competencies (four components like innovation adoption and lifelong learning), management and consulting competencies (two components such as progress monitoring), digital teaching competencies (seven components including synchronous/asynchronous strategies), and communication competencies (four components like culturally responsive interaction). Faculty showed particular gaps in technology integration (Technological Knowledge (TK)/Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) domains) despite strong pedagogical knowledge.
Conclusion: This study presents a comprehensive TPC framework addressing faculty readiness for blended learning. Findings highlight the need for targeted professional development, particularly in technology integration. The framework serves as a roadmap for institutions to design training programs, ensuring faculty can leverage technology to enhance student outcomes in blended environments.

Highlights

Sahar Safyari (Google Scholar)

Eisa Rezaei (Google Scholar)

Keywords

References

  1. Wolff J. How is technology changing the world, and how should the world change technology? Global Perspectives. 2021;2(1): 27353. doi:10.1525/gp.2021.27353.
  2. Cabaleiro-Cerviño G, Vera C. The impact of educational technologies in higher education. Gist: Education and Learning Research Journal. 2020;20:155–69. doi:10.26817/16925777.711. 
  3. Karimian Z, Farrokhi MR, Moghadami M, Zarifsanaiey N, Mehrabi M, Khojasteh L, Salehi N. Medical education and COVID-19 pandemic: a crisis management model towards an evolutionary pathway. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2022;27(3):3299-3320. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10697-8. PubMed PMID: 34566468; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8450917.
  4. Mansoori S, Salari Koohfini Z, Ghasemali M. A Comparison Between the Effectiveness of E-learning and Blended Learning in Industrial Training. Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci. 2020;11(1):46-53. doi: 10.30476/ijvlms.2020.84352.1006.
  5. Kazem BS, Rezaei E, Badali M, Ali D. The Impact of Using Blended Learning on Students’ Creativity. Journal of Innovation and Creativity in Human Science. 2014;4(1):113–28. [In Persian]
  6. Qasem AA, Viswanathappa G. Blended learning approach to develop the Teachers’ TPACK. Cont Ed Technology. 2016;7(3):264-76. doi:10.30935/cedtech/6176.
    7.    Dehghani, S., Sheikhi Fini, A. A., Zeinalipour, H., Rezaei, E. The Competencies Expected of Instructors in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci. 2020;11(2):69-83. doi: 10.30476/ijvlms.2020.86482.1036.
  7. Archambault L, Barnett JH. Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education [Internet]. 2010 ;55(4):1656–62. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.009.
  8. Graham CR, Burgoyne N, Cantrell P, Smith LM, Harris R. TPACK Development in Science Teaching: Measuring the TPACK confidence of in-service science teachers. TechTrends [Internet]. 2009 Aug 26;53(5):70–9. doi: 10.1007/s11528-009-0328-0.
  9. Mishra P, Koehler MJ. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 2006;108(6):1017–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.
  10. Alsofyani MM, Aris B, Eynon R. A preliminary evaluation of a short online training workshop for TPACK development. The International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 2013;25(1):118–28.
  11. Swasti IK. Hybrid learning readiness: techno pedagogical skills and digital competence education. Nusantara Science and Technology Proceedings. 2023(33):652-57. doi: 10.11594/nstp.2023.33105.
  12. Çam ŞS, Koç G. A needs analysis study on technological pedagogical content knowledge of faculty members. Education and Information Technologies. 2021;26(5):5337–63. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10540-0.
  13. Akram H, Yu Y, Al-Adwan AS, Alkhalifah A. Technology Integration in Higher Education during COVID-19: An assessment of online teaching competencies through Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge model. Front. Psychol. 2021;12:736522. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.736522.
  14. Houshmandi S, Rezaei E, Hatami J, Molaei B. E-learning readiness among faculty members of medical sciences universities and provide strategies to improve it. Res Dev Med Educ. 2019;8(2):105-12. doi: 10.15171/rdme.2019.020.
  15. Clarke SO, Coates WC, Jordan J. A practical guide for conducting qualitative research in medical education: Part 3 Using software for qualitative analysis. AEM Educ Train. 2021;5(4):e10644. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10644. PubMed PMID: 34589659; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8457694.
  16. DeCarlo M. 7.3 Unit of analysis and unit of observation. Pressbooks; 2018. https://pressbooks.pub/scientificinquiryinsocialwork/chapter/7-3-unit-of-analysis-and-unit-of-observation.
  17. Wagner HR, Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Social Forces. 1968;46(4):555. doi: 10.2307/2575405.
  18.  Larisa S, Semeniako Y, Makhynia N, Baibakova O, Demianenko O. Pedagogical aspects of the development of teacher’s digital competence. Laplage Em Revista. 2021;7(2):527–39. doi: 10.24115/s2446-6220202172851p.527-539.
  19. Мезенцева ДА, Джавлах ЕС, Елисеева ОВ, Багаутдинова АШ. On the Question of Pedagogical Digital Competence. Higher Education in Russia. 2020;29(11):88-97. doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-11-88-97.
  20. Кубрушко ПФ, Alipichev AYu, Козленкова ЕН, Назарова ЛИ, Siman AS. Digital competence as the basis of a lecturer’s readiness for innovative pedagogical activity. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2020;1691(1):012116. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1691/1/012116.
  21. Grunis ML, Golovanova II, Kirilova GI, Levina EY, Sizova ZM. Transformation of Pedagogical Communicative Competence during Creation Digital Online Courses. Contemp Educ Technol. 2020;13(1):ep289. doi: 10.30935/cedtech/9313.
  22. Asad MM, Aftab K, Sherwani F, Churi P, Moreno-Guerrero A-J, Pourshahian B. Techno-Pedagogical Skills for 21st Century Digital Classrooms: An extensive literature review. Education Research International. 2021;2021:1–12. doi: 10.1155/2021/8160084.
  23.    Heilporn G, Lakhal S, Bélisle M. An examination of teachers’ strategies to foster student engagement in blended learning in higher education. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2021;18(1). doi:10.1186/s41239-021-00260-3. 
  24. Pérez KVP, Torelló ÓM. Digital Competence as a cross-cutting axis of higher education teachers’ pedagogical competencies in the European higher education area. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;46:1112–6. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.257.
  25. McAnally-Salas L, Lavigne G, De Vega CA. Online course Instructional design from the professors’ pedagogic knowledge and technological skills. Problems of Education in the 21st Century. 2010;19:84-93.
  26. McPherson R, Noelting DT. Developing technical competence for the virtual classroom: managing technology-driven pedagogy, faculty development, and the hidden workload. The International Journal of Technologies in Learning. 2018;24(3):13–27. doi: 10.18848/2327-0144/cgp/v24i03/13-27. 
  27. Barrera ÁPM, Hernández AAR, Luna JEO. ICT skills in university teachers, the knowledge, use, and pedagogical appropriation of these technologies. In: Uden L, Liberona D, Ristvej J. (eds) Learning Technology for Education Challenges. LTEC 2018. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Springer: Cham; 2018. p. 249–59. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-95522-3_21. 
  28. Akram NM, Batool SH, Hussain Dr, Tauseef Mr, Safdar M, Hussain Shahid Mr. Evolving visual arts’ faculty pedagogical skills through technology integration in higher education. Library Philosophy and Practice. 2021;4913.
  29. Masrur M. Digital leadership to improve the pedagogical competence of university English lecturers in Samarinda. Journal of Social Studies Education Research. 2021;12(4):424-46. Available from: https://jsser.org/index.php/jsser/article/view/3688.
  30. O'Doherty D, Lougheed J, Hannigan A, Last J, Dromey M, O'Tuathaigh C, McGrath D. Internet skills of medical faculty and students: is there a difference? BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1475-4. PubMed PMID: 30700293; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6354327.
  31. Wilson FG, Pan W, Schumsky DA. Recalculation of the critical values for LawsHE’s content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2012;45(3):197–210. doi: 10.1177/0748175612440286.
  32. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology. 1975;28(4):563–75.
  33. Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research. 1992;5(4):194–7. doi: 10.1016/s0897-1897(05)80008-4.
  34. Wang AY. Understanding levels of technology integration: A TPACK scale for EFL teachers to promote 21st-century learning. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2022;27(7):9935-9952. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11033-4. PubMed PMID: 35411200; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8987269.
  35. Jayatilleke A, Shah M. Examining the Technological Pedagogical Content Characteristics of Games for Medical Education. Med Sci Educ. 2020;30(1):529-36. doi: 10.1007/s40670-019-00891-2. PubMed PMID: 34457697; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8368426.
  36. Gutiérrez RC, Del Valle De Moya Martínez M, Hernández-Bravo JA, Hernández-Bravo JR. Conocimiento y Uso de las Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones (TIC) según el Estilo de Aprendizaje de los Futuros Maestros. Formación Universitaria. 2016;9(6):105–18. doi:10.4067/s0718-50062016000600010.
  37. Figueredo ÓRB, Sarmiento JA. The challenge of training university professionals to integrate mobile learning. Educación Médica Superior. 2017;31(1):61–77.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 25 July 2023
  • Revise Date: 20 December 2023
  • Accept Date: 03 January 2024
  • Publish Date: 01 March 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics