The European Educational Researcher

Integrating FoK and TPACK in action research: The impact of video creation workshops on pre-service science teachers

Gerald Tembrevilla 1 * ,
Daisy Rosano 2,
Ricky Magno 2,
Maria Teresa Manicio 3
1 Mount Saint Vincent University2 West Visayas State University3 Philippine Normal University* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
The European Educational Researcher, Online-First Articles, pp. 1-24
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 78 DOWNLOADS: 38 Publication date: 15 Oct 2025
ABSTRACT
This mixed-methods study presents an Asian perspective on the impact of a science video creation workshop as an intervention on the technology adoption and utilization of pre-service science teachers. It aims to offer insights relevant to Initial Teacher Education programs in international contexts, including those in Europe and North America, where most of the literature referenced in this study was sourced. Integrating the Funds of Knowledge (FoK), Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK), and action research frameworks, the intervention provided insights into pre-service teachers' professional development. Data collection included pre- and post-test surveys, individual interviews, and focus group discussions. Quantitative analysis using paired samples t-tests revealed statistically significant improvements in technology adoption and utilization across all levels of Morel’s Matrix (2016). Triangulated with qualitative analysis, findings highlighted three key themes: enhancing science teaching through contextualized content, improving pedagogical practices via technology, and fostering inclusivity and cultural responsiveness. These results underscore the workshop’s potential in gradually developing positive beliefs toward technology integration among pre-service teachers. The study's findings emphasize the value of integrating FoK and TPACK within action research to bridge theory and practice. It provides additional evidence for technology adoption in science education. This research contributes to the limited literature on pre-service teacher education in Asia, particularly in the Philippines, and offers insights into the potential of action research to foster meaningful and sustainable changes in teaching practices within broader science teacher preparation programs across international contexts.
KEYWORDS
pre-service teacher, science video workshops, action research, Funds of Knowledge, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
CITATION (APA)
Tembrevilla, G., Rosano, D., Magno, R., & Manicio, M. T. (2025). Integrating FoK and TPACK in action research: The impact of video creation workshops on pre-service science teachers. The European Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.831
REFERENCES
  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2001). Students' ease in crossing cultural borders into school science. Science Education (Salem, Mass.), 85(2), 180-188. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200103)85:2
  2. Baccini, A. (2018, May 28-29). Performance-based incentives, research evaluation systems and the trickle-down of bad science [Paper presentation]. Global Solutions Summit, Berlin, Germany. https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/
  3. research-papers/performance-based-incentives-research-evaluation-systems-and-the-trickle-down-of-bad-science
  4. Bang, M. (2015). Culture, Learning, and Development and the Natural World: The Influences of Situative Perspectives. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 220-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1075402
  5. Ben-David Kolikant, Y., Martinovic, D., Milner-Bolotin, M., SpringerLink, & Springer Education eBooks, E. I. (2020). STEM Teachers and Teaching in the Digital Era: Professional Expectations and Advancement in the 21st Century Schools (1st ed.). Springer International Publishing.
  6. Billaud, O., Vermeersch, R.-L., & Porcher, E. (2021). Citizen science involving farmers as a means to document temporal trends in farmland biodiversity and relate them to agricultural practices. Journal of Applied Ecology, 58(2), 261-273. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13746
  7. Biesta, G. (2013). The beautiful risk of education (1st ed.). Paradigm Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315635866
  8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.
  9. Brown, K., Adger, W. N., Devine-Wright, P., Anderies, J. M., Barr, S., Bousquet, F., Butler, C., Evans, L., Marshall, N., & Quinn, T. (2019). Empathy, place and identity interactions for sustainability. Global environmental change, 56, 11-17. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.003
  10. Calkins, L. M. (1986). The writing project. New York City Board of Education Division of Curriculum and Instruction.
  11. Capobianco, B. M., & Feldman, A. (2010). Repositioning teacher action research in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(8), 909-915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9219-7
  12. Choe, E. (2017). Optimizing video for learning: A case study-based primer of informal, educational, digital video best practices. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2909769
  13. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
  14. Devine-Wright, P. (2013). Think global, act local? The relevance of place attachments and place identities in a climate changed world. Global environmental change, 23(1), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.08.003
  15. DiBattista, J. D., West, K. M., Hay, A. C., Hughes, J. M., Fowler, A. M., & McGrouther, M. A. (2021). Community-based citizen science projects can support the distributional monitoring of fishes. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 31(12), 3580-3593. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3726
  16. Faikhamta, C., & Clarke, A. (2015). Thai pre-service science teachers engaging action research during their fifth year internship. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(2), 259-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2013.860011
  17. Fazio, X. (2009). Development of a community of science teachers: Participation in a collaborative action research project. School science and mathematics, 109(2), 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb17942.x
  18. Feierabend, T., & Eilks, I. (2011). Innovating science teaching by participatory action research - reflections from an interdisciplinary project of curriculum innovation on teaching about climate change. CEPS journal, 1(1), 93-112.
  19. Feldman, A. (1996). Enhancing the practice of physics teachers: Mechanisms for the generation and sharing of knowledge and understanding in collaborative action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 513-540. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199605)33:5<513::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-U
  20. Gao, P., Wong, A. F. L., Choy, D., & Wu, J. (2011). Beginning teachers' understanding performances of technology integration. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31(2), 211-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2011.567003
  21. Gisewhite, R., Tippins, D., Bilbao, P., Tan, A., & Gelvezon, R. (2013). The story of mangrove depletion: Using socio-scientific cases to promote ocean literacy. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 50, 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2013.768952
  22. Gitari, W. (2003). An inquiry into the integration of indigenous knowledges and skills in the Kenyan secondary science curriculum: A case of human health knowledge. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(2), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150309556560
  23. Gomez, K., & Lee, U.-S. (2015). Situated cognition and learning environments: Implications for teachers on- and offline in the new digital media age. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(5), 634-652. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1064447
  24. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practice in households, communities, and classrooms. L. Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613462
  25. Gore, J. M., & Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(2), 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(91)90022-H
  26. Grundy, S. (1982). Three modes of action research. Curriculum Perspectives, 2(3), 431-458.
  27. Han, I., Shin, W. S., & Ko, Y. (2017). The effect of student teaching experience and teacher beliefs on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy and intention to use technology in teaching. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 23(7), 829-842. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2017.1322057
  28. Handa, V. C., & Tippins, D. J. (2012). Cultural memory banking in preservice science teacher education. Research in Science Education (Australasian Science Education Research Association), 42(6), 1201-1217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9241-6
  29. Herring, M. C., Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2016). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771328
  30. Hinde, E. R. (2012). Geography for our youngest learners. Geography Teacher (Erie, Pa.), 9(2), 49-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/19338341.2012.679892
  31. Jamovi Project. (2023). Jamovi (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. https://www.jamovi.org/
  32. Jung, Y. J., Cho, K., & Shin, W. S. (2019). Revisiting critical factors on teachers' technology integration: The differences between elementary and secondary teachers. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39(4), 548-561. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2019.1620683
  33. Kale, U., & Akcaoglu, M. (2018). The role of relevance in future teachers' utility value and interest toward technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(2), 283-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9547-9
  34. Kan, M., & Fabrigar, L. (2018). Exploratory Factor Analysis. In Frey, B. (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation, pp. 648-653. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  35. Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005
  36. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303
  37. Koumi, J. (2015). Learning outcomes afforded by self-assessed, segmented video–print combinations. Cogent Education, 2(1), Article 1045218. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1045218
  38. Laudonia, I., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Abels, S., & Eilks, I. (2018). Action research in science education - An analytical review of the literature. Educational Action Research, 26(3), 480-495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1358198
  39. Lebak, K., & Tinsley, R. (2010). Can inquiry and reflection be contagious? Science teachers, students, and action research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(8), 953-970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9216-x
  40. Llopart, M., & Esteban-Guitart, M. (2018). Funds of knowledge in 21st century societies: Inclusive educational practices for under-represented students. Journal of Curriculum Studies: A Literature Review, 50(2), 145-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1247913
  41. Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting scientific literacy using a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach in chemistry education: Concept, examples, experiences. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4, 131-145.
  42. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3
  43. 201_1
  44. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1476399
  45. Muhaji, U., Sukyadi, D., & Muslim, A. B. (2023). Student Teachers’ Initial Professional Identity: A Case in an EFL Teacher Education Program. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 48(8). https://doi.org/10.14221/1835-517X.6171
  46. Olsen, B., & Sexton, D. (2009). Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers view their work inside current education policy contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 9-44. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208320573
  47. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1321-1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.002
  48. Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  49. Santisteban, B. (2017, December 11). ICT education should bridge tech gaps between teacher, student – DepEd. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/moveph/ict-education-bridge-technology-gaps-teacher-student-deped
  50. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
  51. Smith, R. C., Kim, S., & McIntyre, L. (2016). Relationships between prospective middle grades mathematics teachers’ beliefs and TPACK. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16(4), 359-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1189624
  52. Stolz, M., Witteck, T., Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). Reflecting socio-scientific issues for science education coming from the case of curriculum development on doping in chemistry education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(4), 361. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.945a
  53. Taber, K. (2005). Developing teachers as learning doctors. Teacher Development, 9(2), 219-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530500200262
  54. Taber, K. (2013). Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: An introduction (2nd ed.). SAGE.
  55. Taber, K. (2014). Student thinking and learning in science: Perspectives on the nature and development of learners' ideas. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203695081
  56. Taber, K. (2018). Scaffolding learning: principles for effective teaching and the design of classroom resources. In A. Matthias (Ed.), Effective teaching and learning: Perspectives, strategies and implementation (pp. 1-43). Nova Science Publishers.
  57. Taber, K. S. (2014). The impact of chemistry education research on practice: a cautionary tale. Chemistry Education Research Practice, 15(4), 41-416. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4rp90009j
  58. Tembrevilla, G. (2020). Examining ICT and FoK integration in rural public junior high schools with the Philippines’ new K-12 curriculum : a case study (Publication Number Dissertation/Thesis) University of British Columbia]. https://go.exlibris.link/dytlWtQW
  59. Tembrevilla, G., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2019). Engaging physics teacher-candidates in the production of science demonstration videos. Physics Education, 54(2), 25008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aaf95d
  60. Tembrevilla, G., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2024). Reimagining micro-teaching through collaborative technology implementation: Supporting pre-service teacher STEM teachers as reflective practitioners. In J. Pattison-Meek & C. Phillips (Eds.), Pedagogies of practicum: Post-pandemic reflections on innovation in practice teaching (pp. 267-286). Peter Lang. https://doi.org/https://www.peterlang.com/document/1333313
  61. Tembrevilla, G., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2025). Expanding Teacher's technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge with funds of knowledge: An exploratory STEM professional development model using video creation workshops. Future in Educational Research, 3(1), 127-145. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/fer3.67
  62. Tembrevilla, G., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Gomez, K. (2025). Examining public rural science high school teachers’ use of technology: portraiture in educational action research. Educational Action Research, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2025.2493687
  63. Trucano, M. (2016). SABER-ICT framework paper for policy analysis: Documenting national educational technology policies around the world and their evolution over time. World Bank Education, Technology & Innovation: SABER-ICT Technical Paper Series, 1. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/26107
  64. Trucano, M., & Dykes, G. (2017). Building and sustaining national educational technology agencies: Lessons, models and case studies from around the world (1371-0149). https://go.exlibris.link/p04Szk26
  65. UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023, Southeast Asia: technology in education: a tool on whose terms? UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387214
  66. Vergel de Dios, B. 2016. Building and sustaining national ICT/education agencies: Lessons from the Philippines. SABER-ICT Technical Paper Series. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://saber.worldbank.org.
  67. WeVideo. (2023). WeVideo USA. WeVideo, Inc. Retrieved June 2 from https://www.wevideo.com
  68. World Bank. (2017). World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1096-1
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.