Page 6 - gyhjnmk

Arslan

study in order to have a complete understanding about their studies (Table 2 & 3). At the
instrument-level analysis, together with the target audience each TPACK instrument is
examined in terms of reliability and validity (Table 4).

Table 2. Characteristics of the (N=60) studies in the review.

Category Number %
Study type

Article 40 67%
Conference paper 6 10%
Dissertation 14 23%
Publication Year
2011 1 2%
2012 2 4%
2013 5 8%
2014 9 15%
2015 11 18%
2016 8 13%
2017 11 18%
2018 7 12%
2019 6 10%
Instruments
1 15 25%
2 18 30%
3 19 32%
4 5 8%
5%

5 3

Table 3. Classification of studies in terms of research designs in the review
Study type Quantitative Qualitative Mixed method
Articles N=20 N=17 N=3
Conference papers N=6 N=0 N=0

Dissertations N=7 N=5
N
=2

3.2. Instrument-Level Analysis
Following study-level analysis, each TPACK instrument is counted in the reviewed studies. It
is seen that there are five types of instruments that are not evenly distributed in the reviewed
studies. Self-report instruments (60), interviews (32), and observations (21) are reported to be
most used ones, whereas open-ended questionnaires (9) are identified to be the least preferred
TPACK instruments in the reviewed studies (Table 4).

348