The Similarities and Differences between Humanities and Social
Sciences in Taiwan’s Initiative to Embrace Educational Digitization:
Issues, Delivery, and Tools
MENG-LIN CHEN
DAHUI DONG
Department of Translation and Interpretation Studies
Chang Jung Christian University
No.1, Changda Rd., Gueiren District, Tainan City 711301
TAIWAN (ROC)
Abstract: - This comprehensive study delves into technology integration competencies within humanities and
social sciences (H&SS) education, using the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
framework as its guiding lens. Through a careful analysis of course syllabi from higher education institutions in
Taiwan, this research reveals distinctive patterns of emphasis across seven key TPACK knowledge domains.
While both humanities and social sciences educators acknowledge the importance of integrating technology
into their teaching and subject matter, subtle differences emerge. Humanities instructors tend to prioritize
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), aligning this choice with their primary goal of conveying narratives
and preserving cultural heritage. Conversely, their counterparts in social sciences lean more toward
highlighting Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), reflecting the importance of understanding social
phenomena in their field. This study underscores the pressing need for the development of tailored professional
development initiatives and a revamp of pre-service teacher education programs, both of which should
prioritize domain-specific TPACK competencies. This study highlights the critical importance of grounding
training within authentic design tasks to effectively nurture TPACK. It points toward promising future research
avenues, including investigations into the practical translation of TPACK understanding into classroom
implementation and subsequent student outcomes. By shedding light on these distinctions, this research
provides valuable insights for enhancing digital literacy and delivering technology-enriched learning
experiences in the realm of H&SS education.
Key-Words: -Content Analysis, Data Mining, Digital Humanities, Educational Technology, Online Learning,
Teacher Education, TPACK Framework
Received: June 27, 2022. Revised: August 5, 2023. Accepted: September 9, 2023. Published: October 4, 2023.
1 Introduction
Educational technologies have fundamentally
transformed teaching approaches, requiring
instructors to re-envision curriculum design and
instructional practices. However, research indicates
that effective technology integration in classrooms
remains challenging, especially for humanities and
social science (H&SS) educators [1–3]. Studies
have uncovered gaps in digital literacy among
H&SS teachers compared to technical fields like
computer science and engineering [4–6].
Deficiencies exist across areas including
computational analysis, data science skills, and
programming knowledge [7–9]. This persistent
“digital pedagogy divide” results from inadequate
training opportunities and lack of relevant teaching
frameworks tailored to H&SS contexts [10–12].
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK) emerged as an important theoretical
model for examining technology, pedagogy and
content knowledge intersections [13]. However,
most TPACK research has focused on Science,
Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)
contexts, with limited application in humanities and
social science classrooms [14–16]. Furthermore,
few studies have conducted comparative analysis of
variances in TPACK knowledge between academic
disciplines [17]. This study aims to address these
gaps by investigating TPACK skills and integration
approaches in Taiwanese university humanities and
social science courses.
Specifically, we aim to answer:
RQ1: What are the differences in TPACK
knowledge, focus and integration patterns between
humanities and social science instructors?
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2023.20.10
Meng-Lin Chen, Dahui Dong
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
70
Volume 20, 2023
RQ2: How does TPACK application vary across
H&SS disciplines?
RQ3: What recommendations can be made to
improve TPACK based on identified competency
gaps?
This large-scale comparative analysis of 189
courses provides empirical insights into variances
between fields. Our findings provide guidance for
tailored TPACK training for H&SS educators
making an important empirical contribution to the
under-examined area of digital pedagogy in
humanities and social sciences.
2 Literature Review
2.1 TPACK Framework and Digital
Literacy Divide
Rooted in Shulman’s Pedagogical Content
Knowledge concept [18], Mishra and Koehler
formulated the TPACK framework in 2006 [13]. It
delineates seven key knowledge domains:
Technology Knowledge (TK), Content Knowledge
(CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (PCK), Technological Content
Knowledge (TCK), Technological Pedagogical
Knowledge (TPK), and Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK) [13]. TPACK
represents the complex interplay of technology,
pedagogy and content knowledge. Schmidt et al.
summarize TPACK as the specialized knowledge
teachers need to meaningfully integrate technology
in instruction [19].
However, scholars emphasize TPACK requires
more than an additive overlay of the three
knowledge domains [20]. The intersections produce
situated, context-dependent knowledge suited to
one's discipline [21, 22]. Effective technology
integration requires comprehending the nuanced
relationships between technology, pedagogy and
content within particular teaching contexts [13, 23].
This necessitates cultivating TPACK aligned with
one’s educational context and subject matter [13].
Nevertheless, studies reveal alarming digital
literacy gaps among humanities and social science
educators across international contexts [4, 7–9].
Abrosimova et al. [4] noted the shortage of qualified
faculty to teach emerging technologies like virtual
reality in humanities contexts. Analyzing teachers
across disciplines in Nigeria, Richard [5] reported
low competence in utilizing ICT tools, underscoring
the need for intensive digital skills training tailored
to local contexts.
These technical weaknesses result from
insufficient preservice training and professional
development opportunities designed for H&SS [10,
12]. Howard et al. [10] emphasized one-time
technology workshops are inadequate, calling for
continuous TPACK-focused teacher education.
Angeli et al. proposed an e-TPACK framework for
sustained, mentor-guided TPACK development
through e-learning. However, Abid et al. [9] noted
the scarcity of contextualized models to cultivate
humanities educators’ digital literacy. As Pondee et
al. concluded, “Effective use of technology for
H&SS teaching is constrained by the lack of training
in digital literacy and TPACK tailored to discipline
needs” [11].
2.2 TPACK Investigation in Humanities and
Social Sciences
While TPACK has gained popularity as a
technology integration framework, its application in
humanities and social science education remains
limited thus far [14, 17]. Most studies have focused
on preservice teacher training or STEM disciplines
[16, 24–26]. In comprehensive reviews, Chai et al.
[27] and Cahapay [15] found minimal TPACK
research situated in humanities contexts compared
to other fields.
Among the few studies, Mishra et al. [28] traced
teachers' TPACK development through analysis of
humanities course design discourse patterns.
Howard et al. [10] offered recommendations for
improving preservice teachers' TPACK in H&SS
contexts using case-based methods. In foreign
language education, Inpeng and Nomnian [29]
examined TPACK principles in integrating social
media.
However, scholars continue to emphasize the
need for more TPACK research focused on
humanities and social science education [14, 17]. As
Mouza [30][32] stated, “We need more TPACK
studies focusing on...the social studies, language
arts, foreign languages, music, and visual arts.” Barr
[17] asserted “TPACK research in the humanities is
underrepresented.” Our study helps address this gap
by investigating TPACK among Taiwanese
humanities and social science educators.
Furthermore, few studies have conducted
comparative analysis of variances in TPACK
knowledge between academic disciplines [17].
Pondee et al.’s study [11] comparing science
teachers represents one of the few examples. Our
robust cross-disciplinary analysis provides empirical
insights into potential divergence in H&SS
educators' digital literacy and integration
approaches. These findings may inform
development of tailored, discipline-specific TPACK
training.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2023.20.10
Meng-Lin Chen, Dahui Dong
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
71
Volume 20, 2023
This study is situated within a major humanities and
social science digital education initiative launched
by Taiwan's Ministry of Education (MOE) from
2017-2021. The program funded over 189
technology-integrated courses across Taiwanese
universities to enhance digital literacy. An expert
panel selected the courses, representing diverse,
high-quality examples of technology use in H&SS
instructional contexts. This large-scale dataset
provided a substantive basis for comparatively
analyzing TPACK integration patterns between
humanities and social science educators based on
actual course designs. The Taiwanese setting
represents an under-examined yet valuable context
for extending TPACK research to new geographic
and cultural spheres.
3 Research Methods
This study utilized rigorous content analysis
methodology to systematically investigate and
compare TPACK knowledge and integration
approaches between humanities and social sciences
instructors.
3.1 Dataset
Our empirical analysis focused on detailed
curriculum and course descriptions from 189
technology-enhanced humanities, social science,
and scientific methods courses funded through
Taiwan's MOE digital literacy initiative from 2017-
2021. This robust dataset encompassed courses
across diverse disciplines within the humanities and
social sciences.
3.2 TPACK Coding Scheme
We developed a rigorous coding scheme aligned
with the TPACK framework by Mishra and Koehler
[13] to categorize the textual curriculum data. Two
researchers independently coded the course syllabi
contents into seven TPACK domains (see Table 1):
Technology Knowledge (TK), Content Knowledge
(CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), Technological
Content Knowledge (TC), Technological
Pedagogical Knowledge (TP), Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (PCK) and Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPCK). Intercoder reliability
was established through iterative calibration and
consensus building on a subset of data.
Table 1. Coding Rules
Codes
Coding Description
Examples
C
Only H&SS knowledge is
involved in the discourse
content.
There are three
ways to do mine
data.
P
The discourse content relates
only to general pedagogical
knowledge.
Let students
understand the
application of
Python.
T
The course content description
We will use
PPT, and ...
TC
We use sketch
boards to draw
an image.
TP
We added
images to the
introduction
session to get
students’
attention.
CP
We can use it in
life.
TCP
We can use
drawing
software in
Mona Lisa
Table 2 shows the total number of codes and
their percentages in all codes following our coding
process, as well as the frequency and percentage
with which each code appears in the course
descriptions of all 189 courses.
Table 2. Summary of Codes
Code
Count
% Codes
Cases
% Cases
C
25
2.9%
22
11.6%
P
424
49.4%
158
83.6%
T
18
2.1%
15
7.9%
CP
16
1.9%
15
7.9%
TC
122
14.2%
99
52.4%
TP
20
2.3%
16
8.5%
TCP
233
27.2%
160
84.7%
3.3 Qualitative Analysis
Data were imported into Wordstat, a specialized tool
for content analysis, to facilitate the categorization
of subjects according to predefined codes, namely
C, P, T, CP, TC, TP, and TCP. Utilizing Wordstat's
capabilities, we conducted a frequency analysis of
specific words and phrases to derive meaningful
subject categories through word co-occurrence
methodologies. The underlying computational
algorithm identifies words that co-occur within the
same article or sentence, thereby inferring topical
similarity. The normalized Pointwise Mutual
Information (PMI) value serves as an indicator of
the strength of word co-occurrence within a given
topic. For example, the frequent co-occurrence of
the terms "population" and "aging" within the same
sentence underscores the importance of the subject
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2023.20.10
Meng-Lin Chen, Dahui Dong
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
72
Volume 20, 2023
2.3 Research Context
of population aging within that particular topic.
Subsequently, the research team engaged in a
meticulous review of thousands of words and
phrases within these topics to ensure accurate
representation. Ambiguities regarding the inclusion
of specific words or phrases were resolved through
contextual analysis.
3.4 Triangulation of Findings
This mixed-methods approach facilitated a robust
triangulation of the differences and relationships in
TPACK knowledge, focus, and integration
approaches between the disciplines. While the
quantitative analysis provided a broad overview and
generalizability, the qualitative analysis offered
nuanced, contextualized insights into teacher
competencies.
4 Results
Our comparative analyses revealed several key
differences in TPACK focus and integration patterns
between humanities and social science instructors
based on examination of course design data.
4.1 Overview of TPACK Focus Across
Academic Disciplines
Our aggregated data analysis reveals distinct
patterns in the emphasis placed on various TPACK
components across humanities and social science
courses. Specifically, both disciplines showed a
marked focus on Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) and
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPCK), while comparatively lesser attention was
given to Technological Knowledge (TK) and
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK).
Figure 1 shows that P and TCP account for
approximately one-third of the total internal volume
across all three categories and the proportions of the
remaining four groups, C, T, CP, and TP, range
from 1% to 6.8% of the total internal volume,
respectively. This indicates that when discussing
these courses, teachers of the three kinds of courses
highlighted pedagogy (P) and integration of digital
technology pedagogy (TCP) the most, followed by
how to integrate digital technology with course
content (TC). However, teachers provided less detail
regarding the interaction between T, TP, C, and CP.
Fig. 1: TPACK by Field
Interestingly, social science courses demonstrate
a more evenly distributed focus across all TPACK
domains, suggesting a more holistic approach to
integrating technology, pedagogy, and content
knowledge.
4.2 In-Depth Statistical Analysis of TPACK
Codes
To delve deeper into the observed patterns, we
employed chi-square tests of independence to
examine the relationships between TPACK codes
and course categories (see Table 3).
Table 3. P and TCP usages
TPACK
Code
Chi-Square
Value
p-value
Interpretation
P
19.18
0.000
Significant
Association
C
2.95
0.229
No Significant
Association
T
4.75
0.093
No Significant
Association
CP
2.68
0.262
No Significant
Association
TC
0.88
0.645
No Significant
Association
TP
0.97
0.616
No Significant
Association
TPC
43.01
0.000
Significant
Association
The chi-square values for Pedagogical
Knowledge (P) and Technological, Pedagogical, and
Content Knowledge (TPC) were 19.18 and 43.01,
respectively, both with p-values of 0.00. These
results lead us to reject the null hypothesis,
confirming a significant association between these
codes and the course categories under study. For the
remaining TPACK codes (C, T, CP, TC, TP), the p-
values exceeded 0.05, indicating insufficient
evidence to establish a significant relationship with
the course categories.
4.3 Comprehensive Cross-Tabulation and
Correspondence Analysis
Fig. 2: Crosstabulation Results
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2023.20.10
Meng-Lin Chen, Dahui Dong
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
73
Volume 20, 2023
Figure 2 offers a nuanced view of the cross-
tabulation of TPACK codes across three distinct
course categories. The correspondence analysis
further elucidates that, among all subsidized courses,
social science courses provide the most
comprehensive descriptions for four out of the seven
TPACK components. Conversely, humanities
courses were found to concentrate predominantly on
pedagogical aspects, while science methods courses
displayed a focus on technological components.
4.4 Integration of Specific Technologies
Fig. 3: Crosstabulation results of technology
Figure 3 shows the results of an examination of
explicit technology integration. It reveals distinct
preferences for certain tools and digital activities
aligned with discipline-specific goals and contexts.
Humanities course descriptions mainly emphasized
TCP, P and TC, while social sciences courses
mainly emphasized more on TP and C. The
descriptions of TPACK by teachers of scientific
methods courses basically focused more on the
technical aspects of T.
4.5 Pedagogical Knowledge Analysis
Table 4. Topics in Pedagogy
Topic
Keywords
Classroom Material
Classroom; Materials; Planning;
Teaching; Analysis; Explaining;
Cultivation community
Cultivation; Community;
Observation; Teaching;
Reading;
Expert Invitation
Expert; Invitation; Research;
Lecture; Professor;
Achievement;
Brainstorm
agitation; brain power; industry
division;
Problem Solving
problem; solution; caring;
professional; orientation;
Table 4 displays the top five pedagogical techniques
referenced in the course descriptions, revealed
through rigorous keyword analysis. It illuminates a
shift away from traditional comprehension-focused
teaching towards more analytical reasoning and
active, experience-based learning.
Specifically, Classroom Material reflects a
teacher-directed strategy but was only mentioned in
some course descriptions. Meanwhile, learner-
driven pedagogies were prominently featured.
Cultivation Community has students directly
observing and interacting with local contexts to gain
first-hand cultural understanding. Problem Solving
develops analytical skills by having learners
investigate authentic issues and generate solutions.
Brainstorming nurtures evaluative thinking by
synthesizing diverse viewpoints.
These strategies indicate a shift beyond just
comprehension towards more analytical reasoning
compared to traditional teaching in the digitized
humanities and social sciences courses. The
pedagogies showcase community and industry-
connected experiences rather than isolated
classroom learning. For instance, humanities
courses emphasized Cultivation Community while
social sciences prioritized Problem-Solving
approaches. This demonstrates customized
pedagogical orientations, while maintaining some
classroom teaching traditions.
Figure 4 further elaborates pedagogical
differences between disciplines. Humanities courses
emphasized Cultivation Community approaches,
aligning with humanities goals of elucidating culture
and the human experience through situated
engagement. Social sciences prioritized Problem
Solving strategies, fitting aims to model social
phenomena and assess policy impacts. Both
leverage customized active learning pedagogies
suited to their domains while enhancing analytical,
evaluative skills. Additional details on the specific
strategies would provide deeper insights into how
educators are adapting their approaches for
digitally-enhanced education.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2023.20.10
Meng-Lin Chen, Dahui Dong
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
74
Volume 20, 2023
Fig.4: Pedagogy Knowledge by Field
In summary, the results showcase adoption of
field-relevant pedagogies beyond passive learning.
This analysis provides a valuable window into the
student-centered, analytical instructional approaches
educators view as important for digital humanities
education. Further investigation is warranted into
how enhanced pedagogies translate into positive
learning outcomes.
4.6 Technology and Content Pedagogy
Knowledge
Table 5. Topics in Technology and Content
Pedagogy
Topic
Keywords
Social
politics
economics
Parliament; deepening; information
technology; links; awareness; Practice;
politics; In-depth; Community; Focus;
Advanced; Theory; language; System;
Actual; public opinion; utilization; elections;
Data Science; Society; Experience; R; public
opinion; Collection; Lead; elections; skills;
Understanding; training; Research; Surveys;
Projects; Information; literacy; Explore;
studio; Advanced; Empirical; Theory;
political science; Use; politics; management;
Tools; architecture;
Local
Region; Literature; Logic; shooting;
Transmission; digitalization; Context; Text;
place; Schemes; stories; Strengthening;
Problem solving; In-depth; Imagery; depth;
Search; Development; Diversity; Humanities;
issues; Establish; Think; knowledge;
platform; Modules; unity; AR; Films;
tourism; on the ground; sightseeing;
modeling; Guided tours; ..app; collocation;
interaction; Groups; production; Resources;
formation; Teachers; Reporting; Culture;
digital tools; platform; Games; Literature and
history; Thoughts; works; Rendering;
Robotics
fintech
Robots; fintech; Finance; Thoughts; Mode;
Commercial; Import; innovation; Action;
Thinking; Empirical; ..ai; Creativity;
Development; Teaching; ..app; Explore;
Social; Cases; Think; Smart; Encourage;
technology; interface; Practitioners; Impact;
Including; development; field; Understand;
Cross-
culture
cross-cultural; VR; Virtual; Impact;
Communication; era; Reality; Common;
Space; Guided tours; participation;
Understand; Teaching; Industry; digital
humanities; Lead;
Enterprise
Enterprise; teachers; Industry; cooperation;
Practitioners; Guidance; Special topics;
Share; Case-by-case cases; Display; Huge
amount of data; Information; links; grouping;
discussion; Industry-university; Binding;
Teaching; Practice; Results; advertising;
brand; facebook; Consumers; promotion;
Website; Media; Open; marketing;
Operations; Activities; Community; Data;
Instantaneous; Industry-university; Reporting;
End of period
Automatic
artificial
intelligence
Automatic; artificial intelligence; Music;
python; Specialists; programming language;
Scholars; machine learning; AI; Principle;
auxiliary; Introduction; Published; software;
System; writing; Robots; geographic
information;
Program
interactive
creation
Procedures; interaction; works; Design;
training; Entities; units; picture books;
Orientation; Journey; Operations; self-
directed learning; form; Thinking; Creation;
Games; Aesthetics; Theme; structure;
Integration; Field; cross-cutting; skills; cross-
domain;
The topics shown in Table 5 showcase practical,
applied digital humanities curriculum being
promoted by Taiwan's Ministry of Education. The
integration of verbs and nouns in the keywords also
reveal how teachers are combining technical skills,
content, and pedagogical aims. For instance, Cross-
Culture pedagogy includes learning tours, task
assignments, and cultural teachings. The prevalence
of these technology-content-pedagogy connections
demonstrates conscious efforts to link digital
capabilities with humanities and social science
disciplinary goals.
Fig. 5: Technology and Content Pedagogy
Knowledge by Field
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2023.20.10
Meng-Lin Chen, Dahui Dong
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
75
Volume 20, 2023
Figure 5 further illustrates integration of
technology-content-pedagogy across
disciplines. While all seven themes were
present in both humanities and social sciences
courses, Cross-Culture was least prevalent at
only 38% in social sciences. The breadth of
topics covered demonstrates comprehensive
efforts to foster content-specific digital literacy
and applied skills among both faculties.
Additional research into how students respond
to customized technology integration
approaches could further validate these
pedagogical decisions.
In summary, conscious linking of technology
tools and content knowledge with pedagogical
strategies appears widely applied in the
digitized humanities and social science courses.
Educators seem cognizant of the need to move
beyond passive learning about technology to
active application of digital capabilities for
enriching field-specific understanding.
Continued progress in this direction will require
sustained professional development and cross-
disciplinary sharing of successful pedagogical
strategies.
4.7 Technology and Content Knowledge
Table 6. Topics in Technology and Content
Topic
Keywords
Politics
economy
media
Politics; Software; Nowadays; Era;
Community; Combine; Media; Theory;
Life; Information; Phenomenon;
Immediate; Policy; Decision-making;
Media; Value; Community; Society;
Information; Analyse;
Humanistic
literacy
Humanities; Field; Innovation;
Knowledge; Society; Attainment;
Multivariant; Mode; Culture; on the
ground; Specialized; on the ground;
Multivariant; Theory;
Industrial
integration
Enterprise; Study; System; Marketing;
Exploitation; Found; Analyse; Industry;
Products; Operations; Target; Marketing;
Serve; Exploitation; big data;
Ecosystem
Environment; Significance; Space; Life;
Technology; Develop; Process; System;
Society; History;
Cross-
disciplinary
Cooperate; Ability; Attainment; cross-
cutting; Process; Educate; Digit;
Traditional
resources
Tradition; Resource; Technology; digital
tools; Digit; Apply; Interaction; Develop;
Big data AI
tools
Data; Artificial intelligence; Foundation;
big data; Information;
Fig. 6: Technology and Content Knowledge by
Fields
Table 6 outlines seven core themes related to the
connections between technology and
humanities/social sciences subject matter. Figure 6
further elaborates the differences between
disciplines. While humanities comprised
approximately 30% of technology-content
descriptions, social sciences accounted for 50%.
Social sciences also referenced a wider span of
themes, indicating more comprehensive integration
approaches. Additional training focused on
humanities-specific technology applications could
help balance these discrepancies. The breadth of
topics and relatively high frequencies signify both
instructors and reviewers emphasize integrating
digital skills with disciplinary content. Making
connections between emerging technologies and
field-specific knowledge appears widely applied.
Lower emphasis in humanities suggests more
progress may still be needed on cultivating content-
specific technology literacy among some faculties.
In summary, deliberate linkage of digital
capabilities with subject matter expertise appears
strongly prioritized in digitized humanities and
social science education. But the variance suggests
humanities may require more tailored support to
permeate technology throughout the breadth of the
field. Further research should probe optimal
mechanisms for strengthening technology-content
synergies across diverse disciplines.
4.8 Association between TC and TCP Codes
To assess the association between the TC and TPC
codes, we conducted a Chi-Square Test for
Independence with Spearman Rank Correlation (see
Table 7).
Table 7. Association between the TC and TPC
Test
Statistic
p-value
Chi-Square Test for
Independence
51.43
0.000
Spearman Rank
Correlation
1.00
0.000
Table 7 displays the statistically significant
relationship between Technological Content
Knowledge (TC) and Technology-Pedagogy-
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2023.20.10
Meng-Lin Chen, Dahui Dong
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
76
Volume 20, 2023
Content Knowledge (TCP) evident across the
courses. The extremely small p-values indicate
strong correlations, not due to chance. The
correlation coefficient of 1 reflects a perfectly
positive relationship between TC and TCP
frequencies.
These quantitative findings provide empirical
evidence that increased instructor focus on
technology-content links strongly correlates
with more pervasive implementation of overall
TPACK connections. Developing teachers’
skills in identifying and leveraging technology-
content intersections appears to facilitate
broader TPACK integration. This affirms the
interconnected nature of TPACK’s knowledge
domains, quantitatively demonstrating the
cascading benefits of enhancing technology-
content synergies.
While this analysis established correlation,
further research should explore causal
mechanisms. Interviews could provide insights
into how strengthening technology-content
knowledge subsequently motivates and equips
educators to explore fuller technology
integrations encompassing pedagogy and
content. Additional models may also elaborate
the relationships between TPACK domains and
their development.
In summary, these results statistically
validate the intrinsic intersections between
teachers’ technology, content and pedagogy
knowledge bases. Strategic development of
technology-content skills reveals cascading
potential to enrich holistic TPACK and
digitally-enhanced teaching capabilities.
5 Discussion and Implication
This robust, large-scale comparative investigation
provides vital empirical insights into technology
integration competencies among Taiwanese
humanities and social science educators based on
analysis of authentic course designs. Our findings
reveal potential discipline-specific strengths,
weaknesses and opportunities to enhance TPACK
abilities in order to bridge the digital pedagogy
divide.
The prevalence of PK and TPCK indicates both
humanities and social science instructors recognize
the importance of situating technology use within
pedagogical and content contexts during
instructional planning. However, gaps in TK and
TPK integration suggest learning to effectively
leverage new discrete technologies remains a
challenge without focused skills training. TPACK
development frameworks emphasize the need to
move beyond just acquiring technical skills to
situated application within teaching practice [13].
The variance in TC vs TP emphasis also
demonstrates different orientations - a pedagogy-
content focus among humanities educators
compared to a technology-pedagogy emphasis in
social sciences [11, 31]. As scholars explain,
humanities teachers tend to view technology as
merely an “add-on” rather than integral to reshaping
pedagogy [31]. Strengthening TPK and TC
connections could help shift this mindset towards
more embedded, integrative usage of digital tools to
transform instructional practices within specific
content areas [23].
The differences in technology integration
examples also underscore the need to align training
with discipline-specific goals and contexts. For
humanities, priorities include enhancing digital
storytelling, multimedia production, and digital
exhibit capabilities [32, 33], which allow connection
of technology usage to humanities’ focus on
narrative, communication and cultural heritage.
Meanwhile, social sciences integration of
computational tools for analytics, visualization and
modeling reflects field-specific aims of
understanding patterns, systems thinking and
modeling social phenomena [34, 35]. Our findings
provide guidance for developing tailored
professional development programs that situate
training within teachers’ own academic domains.
This contextualization helps concretize abstract
TPACK principles, addressing scholars’ critique
that generalized technology workshops often remain
detached from teachers’ actual practices and needs
[10, 36].
Furthermore, the knowledge gaps indicate
preservice H&SS teacher education may be
inadequately preparing educators with sufficient
field-relevant TPACK skills [10, 36]. This aligns
with findings that “teacher training does not provide
enough authentic experiences for teachers to gain
TPACK confidence to integrate technology in their
specific subjects” [37]. Implementing humanities
and social science-specific TPACK models could
enable continuous situated development within
digital communities of practice [21]. For instance,
the TPACK-in-Future approach incorporates
supports like video analysis, reflection and planning
to deepen technology integration skills [38][40].
More cross-disciplinary collaboration is also needed
to strengthen digital literacy across fields [39]. As
Swallow and Olofson found, making contextual
differences explicit helps teachers see new
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2023.20.10
Meng-Lin Chen, Dahui Dong
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
77
Volume 20, 2023
integration possibilities beyond siloed approaches
[39]. H&SS-specific examples from our study could
provide stimulus materials to expand educators’
TPACK thinking.
Critically, situating training within authentic
design tasks appears essential to meaningfully build
TPACK. Koh et al. concluded that lesson planning
with technology integration substantially increased
teachers’ self-reported TPACK confidence, unlike
stand-alone workshops [40]. Similarly, Tømte et al.
determined extensive planning and preparation time
enabled higher quality ICT integration [41]. Our
findings reinforce the need for sustained, embedded
and context-driven TPACK development.
An important direction for future research
involves tracking how enhanced TPACK
understanding translates to classroom
implementation. While this study focused on course
planning, few studies have linked educator TPACK
to observed technology integration proficiency or
associated student outcomes [13, 42]. Longitudinal
classroom observations could illuminate how
strengthening teachers’ design stage TPACK
ultimately impacts technology-enabled instruction
[42]. Examining student work products and learning
gains would also be valuable [43]. Combining
planning, process and outcome data could provide a
comprehensive perspective on enhancing TPACK’s
real-world impact.
In terms of limitations, this study exclusively
analyzed course syllabi, which may not fully capture
enacted TPACK capabilities. Follow-up through
interviews, surveys and observations could enrich
these findings. Exploring differences across
experience levels would also be worthwhile. While
this study is situated in Taiwan, TPACK has
international relevance for technology integration
skills development. Further cross-cultural
comparative research could yield additional insights
into variances of digital pedagogy integration
competencies globally.
6 Conclusion
This study makes an important empirical
contribution towards understanding technology
integration competencies of humanities and social
science educators through comparative examination
of TPACK knowledge areas. Our findings highlight
potential field-specific strengths, gaps and needs
that can inform development of tailored,
contextualized efforts to strengthen digital literacy.
With concerted cultivation of TPACK abilities
aligned to discipline goals, H&SS teachers can
become better equipped to provide enriching
technology-enhanced learning experiences that help
bridge the digital pedagogy divide in the modern
classroom.
7 Limitations
This study exclusively analyzed course syllabi,
which may not fully capture educators' enacted
TPACK capabilities. Follow-up through interviews,
observations and surveys could enrich these findings.
Exploring differences across seniority levels would
also be worthwhile. While this study is situated in
Taiwan, the TPACK framework has international
relevance. Further cross-cultural comparative
investigations could yield valuable insights into
commonalities and variances of digital pedagogy
integration competencies globally.
References:
[1] P. DiGregorio and K. Sobel-Lojeski, “The
effects of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) on
student performance and learning: A literature
review,” Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 255–312, 2010.
[2] L.-Y. Chung and R.-C. Chang, “The effect of
gender on motivation and student achievement
in digital game-based learning: A case study of
a contented-based classroom,” Eurasia Journal
of Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 2309–2327, 2017.
[3] J. Voogt et al., “Challenges to learning and
schooling in the digital networked world of the
21st century,” Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 403–413, 2013,
doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9249-6.
[4] G. Abrosimova, I. Kondrateva, E. Voronina,
and N. Plotnikova, “Blended learning in
university education,” Humanities & Social
Sciences Reviews, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 6–10, 2019,
doi: 10.18510/hssr.2019.762.
[5] A. Richard, “Effectiveness of ICT integration
in Nigerian educational system,” Journal of
Research in Humanities and Social Science,
vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 16–30, 2021.
[6] A. van der Walt, J. Steyn, A. Trusler, and M.
van Zaanen, “Challenges and opportunities of
digital humanities training in South Africa:
Moving beyond the Silos,” in Digital research
in the arts and humanities, Digital Humanities
Workshops: Lessons Learned, L. Estill and J.
Guiliano, Eds., London, UK: Routledge, 2023,
pp. 55–66.
[7] S. Hardhienata, Y. Suchyadi, and D. Wulandari,
“Strengthening technological literacy in junior
high school teachers in the industrial revolution
era 4.0,” Journal of Humanities and Social
Studies, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 330–335, 2021.
[8] R. I. Tursunovich, “Guidelines for designing
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2023.20.10
Meng-Lin Chen, Dahui Dong
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
78
Volume 20, 2023
effective language teaching materials,”
American Journal of Research in Humanities
and Social Sciences, vol. 7, pp. 65–70, 2022.
[9] T. Abid, G. Zahid, N. Shahid, and M. Bukhari,
“Online teaching experience during the Covid-
19 in Pakistan: Pedagogy–technology balance
and student engagement,” Fudan Journal of the
Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 14, no. 3,
pp. 367–391, 2021.
[10] S. K. Howard, J. Tondeur, J. Ma, and J. Yang,
“What to teach? Strategies for developing
digital competency in preservice teacher
training,” Computers & Education, vol. 165, p.
104149, 2021.
[11] P. Pondee, P. Panjaburee, and N. Srisawasdi,
“Preservice science teachers’ emerging
pedagogy of mobile game integration: a tale of
two cohorts improvement study,” Research and
Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning,
vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 2021.
[12] T. Trust and J. Whalen, “Emergency remote
teaching with technology during the COVID-
19 pandemic: using the whole teacher lens to
examine educator’s experiences and insights,”
Educational Media International, vol. 58, no. 2,
pp. 145–160, 2021.
[13] P. Mishra and M. Koehler, “Technological
pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge,” Teachers College
Record, vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 1017–1054, 2006.
[14] C. Mouza, “Developing and assessing TPACK
among pre-service teachers: A synthesis of
research,” in Handbook of Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for
Educators, M. C. Herring, M. Koehler, and P.
Mishra, Eds., 2nd ed., New York: Routledge,
2016, pp. 169–190.
[15] M. Cahapay, “Navigating the post-COVID-19
era of ‘Next Normal’ in the context of
Philippine higher education,” Asia-Pacific
Journal of Educational Management Research,
pp. 57–64, 2021.
[16] W. Wang, D. Schmidt-Crawford, and Y. Jin,
“Preservice teachers' TPACK development: A
review of literature,” Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, vol. 34, no. 4,
pp. 234–258, 2018.
[17] D. Barr, “Embedding technology in translation
teaching: Evaluative considerations for
courseware integration,” Computer Assisted
Language Learning, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 295–
320, 2013, doi:
10.1080/09588221.2012.658406.
[18] L. S. Shulman, “Those who understand:
Knowledge growth in teaching,” Educational
Researcher, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 4–14, 1986.
[19] J. T. Schmidt and M. Tang, “Digitalization in
education: Challenges, trends and
transformative potential,” in Führen und
Managen in der digitalen Transformation, M.
Harwardt, P. F. Niermann, A. Schmutte, and A.
Steuernagel, Eds.: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden,
2020, pp. 287–312.
[20] C. Angeli and N. Valanides, “Epistemological
and methodological issues for the
conceptualization, development, and
assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in
technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPCK),” Computers & Education, vol. 52, no.
1, pp. 154–168, 2009.
[21] C. Angeli, N. Valanides, A. Mavroudi, A.
Christodoulou, and K. Georgiou, “Introducing
e-TPCK: An adaptive e-learning technology
for the development of teachers’ technological
pedagogical content knowledge,” in
Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge: Exploring, Developing, and
Assessing TPCK, C. Angeli and N. Valanides,
Eds., New York, NY: Springer, 2015, pp. 305–
318.
[22] J. G. Martin, “Exploring College Instructors'
Integration of Technology into Their
Curricula,” Doctoral Thesis, College of
Education, Walden University, Minneapolis,
MN, 2016.
[23] K. Holmes, “Planning to teach with digital
tools: Introducing the interactive whiteboard to
pre-service secondary mathematics teachers,”
Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, vol. 25, no. 3, 2009.
[24] M. Koehler, P. Mishra, K. Kereluik, T. S. Shin,
and C. Graham, “The technological
pedagogical content knowledge framework,” in
Handbook of Research on Educational
Communications and Technology, J. M.
Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, and M. J.
Bishop, Eds., New York, NY: Springer, 2014,
pp. 101–111.
[25] C. S. Chai, J. H. L. Koh, and C.-C. Tsai, “A
review of technological pedagogical content
knowledge,” Educational Technology &
Society, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 31–51, 2013.
[26] M. Niess, “Transforming Teachers’
Knowledge: Learning Trajectories for
Advancing Teacher Education for Teaching
with Technology,” in Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Exploring,
Developing, and Assessing TPCK, C. Angeli
and N. Valanides, Eds., New York, NY:
Springer, 2015, pp. 19–37.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2023.20.10
Meng-Lin Chen, Dahui Dong
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
79
Volume 20, 2023
[27] C. S. Chai, J. H. L. Koh, and C.-C. Tsai,
“Facilitating preservice teachers' development
of technological, pedagogical, and content
knowledge (TPACK),” Educational
Technology & Society, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 63–
73, 2010.
[28] M. Koehler, P. Mishra, and K. Yahya,
“Tracing the development of teacher
knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating
content, pedagogy and technology,” Computers
& Education, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 740–762, 2007.
[29] S. Inpeng and S. Nomnian, “The use of
facebook in a TEFL program based on the
TPACK framework,” Language Education and
Acquisition Research Network, vol. 13, no. 2,
pp. 369–393, 2020.
[30] C. Mouza, “Learning with laptops,” Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, vol. 40,
no. 4, pp. 447–472, 2008, doi:
10.1080/15391523.2008.10782516.
[31] Gérard, Fabienne, and J. Widener, “A
SMARTer way to teach foreign language: The
SMART board interactive whiteboard as a
language learning tool,” San Antonio, Texas,
USA, 1999. [Online]. Available: http://
edcompass.smarttech.com/en/learning/
research/SBforeignlanguageclass.pdf
[32] J. Hutson et al., “Artificial intelligence and the
disruption of higher education: Strategies for
integrations across disciplines,” Creative
Education, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 3953–3980,
2022.
[33] J. Wu and D.-T. V. Chen, “A systematic
review of educational digital storytelling,”
Computers & Education, vol. 147, p. 103786,
2020.
[34] F. Siddiq, A. D. Olofsson, J. O. Lindberg, and
L. Tomczyk, “What will be the new normal?
Digital competence and 21st-century skills:
critical and emergent issues in education,” (in
En;en), Education and Information
Technologies, pp. 1–9, 2023.
[35] M.-T. Kaarakainen and L. Saikkonen,
“Multilevel analysis of the educational use of
technology: Quantity and versatility of digital
technology usage in Finnish basic education
schools,” Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 953–965, 2021.
[36] D. Ifenthaler and D. Gibson, Adoption of data
analytics in higher education learning and
teaching. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2020.
[37] L. Song, “Improving pre-service teachers’ self-
efficacy on technology integration through
service learning,” The Canadian Journal of
Action Research, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 22–32,
2018.
[38] J. Tondeur, R. Scherer, F. Siddiq, and E. Baran,
“A comprehensive investigation of TPACK
within pre-service teachers’ ICT profiles: Mind
the gap!,” Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, vol. 33, no. 3, 2017, doi:
10.14742/ajet.3504.
[39] M. J. C. Swallow and M. W. Olofson,
“Contextual Understandings in the TPACK
Framework,” Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, vol. 49, 3-4, pp.
228–244, 2017.
[40] J. H. L. Koh, C. S. Chai, and C.-C. Tsai,
“Examining practicing teachers’ perceptions of
technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK) pathways: a structural equation
modeling approach,” (in En;en), Instructional
Science, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 793–809, 2013, doi:
10.1007/s11251-012-9249-y.
[41] M. Robertson and A. Al-Zahrani, “Self-
efficacy and ICT integration into initial teacher
education in Saudi Arabia: Matching policy
with practice,” Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, vol. 28, no. 7, pp.
1136–1151, 2012, doi: 10.14742/ajet.793.
[42] M. C. Herring, M. Koehler, and P. Mishra,
Eds., Handbook of Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators,
2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2016.
[43] N. Law and L. Liang, “A multilevel framework
and method for learning analytics integrated
learning design,” Journal of Learning Analytics,
vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 98–117, 2020.
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
The authors equally contributed in the present
research, at all stages from the formulation of the
problem to the final findings and solution.
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
The research is funded by The National Science
Council, Taiwan (ROC) (NSC 111-2410-H-309-007)
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare
that are relevant to the content of this article.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2023.20.10
Meng-Lin Chen, Dahui Dong
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
80
Volume 20, 2023
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US