TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK) INSTRUMENT FOR INDONESIA SCIENCE PRE-SERVICE TEACHER: FRAMEWORK, INDICATORS, AND ITEMS DEVELOPMENT

___________________________________________________________________ Teacher education program design using Shulman’s Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) is inadequate in forming the professional capabilities of future teacher to deal with technology integration to enhance teaching and learning in 21 st century. Adding Technology as another core component and its relationship to be Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) by Mishra and Koehler (2005) is widely. The paper presents case that preparing the instrument to measure TPACK for pre-service science teacher is one of important aspect. The research aimed to define indicators and items development of TPACK instrument for Indonesia pre-service science teacher. Seven sub-domain indicators i.e.: Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogy Knowledge (PK), Technology Knowledge (TK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), TPACK itself, and items are developed according to its rational. The paper discuss the rational and its background on 31 indicators with 116 items resulted from this research and seeking for further validation and other necessary statistical processes


INTRODUCTION
Since educational reform waved in 2005, a dramatic improvement in the education sector have been occurred and could not be better since then. A commitment to spend 20% of the national budget for education brings impact in many aspects of educational improvement, including the new movement of the national curriculum (MoEC: 2012). According to Yulaelawati(2000), science and technology education has some shortcomings concerning the curriculum, wherein the science textbooks and instruction frequently brought about lecturing approach rather than an activity-based approach. According to the study finding from Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) held by International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) (2011), science instruction in Indonesia emphasize less on the utilization of laboratory equipment and integration technology as experimenting activities the is rarely performed in the science lesson.
New movement on national curriculum occurred in 2013 and followed by efforts to improve teacher and learning material support such as doubled salary for certified teachers, more on teacher professional development, and reform of curriculum in teacher education institute level. According to the overall objectives of a new curriculum, one of science education is aimed at enabling Indonesian children to utilize technology to solve the problem within daily life (MoEC:2013). This objective is matched with demand for science teacher that " . . . Shall able to elaborate technology updates and its application to support learning . . ." (MoEC:2013) This statement means technology integration, which unfortunately there is no precise definition of technology integration on it.
According to Hew and Brush (2007), researchers lack a unified definition of technology integration; a common element identified by researchers includes variations of a computing device for instruction. Reiser (2007) notes that the initial impact of technology integration on instructional practices included teachers' incorporating less-than-innovative practices for technology use such as drill and practice programs. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) agree that these types of practices are inadequate to meet the needs of 21st-century learners. Inherently, a pervasive gap emerged between technology development and technology used for beneficial and authentic educational purposes (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
Pearson and Smart (2009) describe technology integration as "establishing the best ways to incorporate educational technologies in the curriculum as teaching tools" (p. 333-334). Similarly, Labbo and Place (2010) suggest finding a good fit between technology and the curriculum to integrate technology effectively. Dror (2008) contrasts this perspective and states, "a good fit between the learning and the learners is critical for success and promotes efficient and effective learning." (p. 217). According to Dror, technology-enhanced learning environments should maximize students' cognitive development through active participation rather than through presentations with technology alone. Dror identifies three processes for using technology to activate students' cognitive learning: control, challenge, and commitment.
By gradually shifting control to the learner, teachers promote students' independence and decision-making processes for deciding when, where, and how technology is used to influence metacognitive processes, the pacing of activities, and ownership of the learning process (Dror, 2008). Learning activities should require students to think, reflect, and persevere through challenging and engaging mental processes rather than through activities requiring minimal student effort (Dror, 2008). Dror suggests that the use of technological games can provide students with challenging activities; he cautions that completion of tasks as a progressive attainment toward reaching a goal does not lead to student commitment. Commitment is an intrinsic trait unique to individual learners. Dror promotes a technology-enhanced learning environment which increases engagement, participation, and interaction toward gains in individual student responsibility.

Theoretical Famework. Technology Integration in Science Education
Multiple researchers have discussed technology integration across perspectives of how technology is used to support teaching and learning (Ertmer, 2005;Labbo & Place, 2010;Mishra & Koehler, 2007;Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby, & Ertmer, 2010). The promise and perils of technology integration have been cited in research (Rakes et al., 2006; ), yet the overarching problems of how to effect a change that results in widespread and efficient use remain (Hall, 2010;). Researchers agree that effective technology integration requires teachers to include instructional strategies that use technology as a tool to enhance the curriculum and support pedagogical practices, including student-centered learning (Earle, 2002;Li & Ni, 2010;Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Palak and Walls (2009) indicate that teachers need individual guidance integrating technology within the limitations of their contextual learning environment. Likewise, Lawless and Pellegrino (2007) suggest that researchers should focus on the challenges of defining and evaluating relevant professional development to support technology integration in teaching and learning as recognize that technology provides multiple possibilities for impacting the instructional design of the learning environment.
Dede (2011) views technology integration through a transformational lens that redesigns teaching and learning processes in such unique and seamless ways that the term integration is no longer an accurate description for technology use in 21st-century education. Dede depicts a learning environment in which a combination exists as a natural part of the instructional process. Dede suggests incorporating this goal of teaching, learning, assessment, and productivity within a technology infrastructure enhanced by trained professional educators, including parents, teachers, tutors, and community members.
Ertmer (1999) classifies barriers into two categories: first-order change, or extrinsic, and second-order change, or intrinsic. Training, time, support, and equipment are examples of external barriers, resulting in significant frustrations for teachers during initial implementation efforts (Ertmer, 1999). Ertmer suggests a gradual process of addressing one barrier at a time rather than attempting to resolve contemporary issues. Second-order barriers pertain to teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning and the processes involved in using technology effectively (Ertmer, 1999). Individual teachers may exhibit second-order barriers in response to first-order barriers. Ertmer cautions that removing a barrier does not readily transfer into meaningful technology integration and concludes that educational change requires teachers to confront obstacles presented by both first-order and second-order barriers attentively. Hew and Brush (2007) analyzed 48 studies conducted from 1995 to 2006, identifying 123 common obstacles to technology integration among K-12 schools. The following six overarching categories of barriers emerged based on frequency as defined in the literature: (a) resources, (b) knowledge and skills, (c) institution, (d) attitudes and beliefs, (e) assessment, and (f) subject culture. Four of the categories are classified as first-order barriers (resources, institutions, subject culture, and evaluation), while the remaining two categories (teacher attitudes and beliefs and knowledge and skills) pertained to second-order barriers (Hew & Brush, 2007). In the case of Indonesia, Lim and Pannen (2012) mention the lack of funding and staff support as a barrier to technology integration, which classified as the first-order barrier. Although each wall was identified as a separate category, Hew and Brush (2007) ascertain that both direct and indirect relationships exist among the obstacles. The researchers surmise "that technology integration is thought to be directly influenced by the following four barriers: (a) teacher's attitudes and beliefs towards using technology, (b) the teacher's knowledge and skills, (c) the institution, and (d) resources" (Hew & Brush, 2007, p. 232). Hew and Brush note, "technology integration is also thought to be indirectly influenced by the subject culture and assessment" (p. 232). Teachers and school leaders who incorporate innovative technologies for teaching and learning may use the direct and indirect relationships among barriers identified by Hew and Brush to develop strategies for reducing barriers.
Despite increased access to technology and support, many teachers lack confidence in using technology and are hesitant to integrate technology into the curriculum (Moore-Hayes,2011). Glassett and Schrum (2009) propose that research should focus on "how and why teachers' pedagogical beliefs are formed" and the relationship between pedagogical beliefs and technology integration (p. 148). Zhao and Bryant (2006) contend that continuous training and technology mentors who provide one-onone support and classroom modeling using technology contribute to increasing teachers' confidence and levels of technology integration for teaching and learning. Similarly, Batane (2004) identifies access to technical support and pedagogical support as necessary elements for teachers to know when and how to integrate technology effectively. Ertmer et al. (2012) suggest providing teachers with professional development using the technologies which will be integrated into the curriculum for instruction. Spires et al. (2012) believe that one-to-one expansion initiatives prompt a new learning ecology for transforming educational environments and revising teachers' professional development training. Spires et al. contend, "professional development and ongoing support are critical for teachers as they redesign, recontextualize, and contemporize their instructional practices to take full advantage of available technologies" (p. 9). Spires et al. identify the following five strategies for use with one-to-one teacher professional development models: 1. engaging teachers' technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge; 2. engaging teachers in project-based inquiry; 3. engaging teachers in a new global skill set; 4. engaging teachers in performance-based assessment; and 5. engaging teachers in professional learning communities and networks. Spires et al. suggest that teachers' professional development experiences for instructional planning typically begin with an introduction to the available technologies. With prolonged technology use, teachers' planning includes adding content and pedagogy through a gradual change. Spires et al. note that achieving full technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge requires a "fundamental conceptual change on the part of the teacher" (p. 12), which can be accelerated within the context of a one-toone environment. Spires et al. suggest that teachers' technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge expands as teachers reflect on how technology impacts pedagogical changes for teaching and student learning.
Staples, Pugach, and Himes (2005) explore how the intricate relationship among curriculum, technology, and professional development influences three schools' technology integration efforts. Each school had low levels of technology integration (Staples et al., 2005). The teachers reportedly valued technology integration but did not consistently align technology use with the curriculum or content instruction. Technology integration was limited to drill and practice or free-time activities rather than meaningful integration (Staples et al., 2005). A technology specialist provided teachers with varying levels of professional development training, which increased teachers' technological knowledge, but there was only a slight increase in teacher and student application of technology across the curriculum (Staples et al., 2005). Staples et al. perceive that the administrators endorsed integrating technology into the curriculum. These leaders lacked a vision of how to relate technology to the curriculum to impact substantial student learning. Staples et al. infer that administrators should not only selectively invest in technology but also provide ongoing professional development that aligns technology with the curriculum. Additionally, Staples et al. state that teachers should be knowledgeable in pedagogy and curriculum design to maximize the benefits of technology integration with specific content area instruction.

Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) and its Application
Shulman (1986) states that teachers should be able not only to understand the content being taught but also to discern why the topic is important to a given discipline. Shulman identifies pedagogical content knowledge as "an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult; the conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning of those most frequently taught topics and lessons" (p. 9). Shulman describes the curriculum as a range of materials and resources with which a teacher designs are varying pedagogical approaches to represent the content or subject matter for instruction. In addition to knowledge of content, pedagogy, and curriculum, Shulman (1987) also identifies learner knowledge, context knowledge, and knowledge of goals and beliefs as essential to developing a teacher's knowledge base.
The use of technology as an instructional tool to meet the needs of 21st-century learners provides new perspectives for examining changes in teachers' knowledge, specifically teachers' pedagogical beliefs (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). The way teachers use technology for instruction has been the topic of interest to researchers, policymakers, and school leaders for several decades. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich state, "teaching with technology requires teachers to expand their knowledge of pedagogical practices across multiple aspects of the planning, implementation, and evaluation processes" (p. 260).
Schuck and Kearney (2008) conducted a study to understand teachers' pedagogical practices in two technology-using classrooms: one classroom used digital videos, and the other classroom using an interactive whiteboard. The teachers' roles varied in each classroom, depending on the instructional approach for using the technology. For the digital video project, the students experienced increased autonomy during the learning experience, with the teacher providing minimal assistance with camera operations and video edits. The teacher maintained primary control using the interactive whiteboard to present content information. The researchers (Schuck & Kearney, 2008) identify this approach as replicating a traditional presentation approach with the addition of using technology.
Schuck and Kearney (2008) suggest that each pedagogical approach was influenced by the technology being used to represent the content. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) maintain that when teachers are introduced to a new pedagogical tool, the decision to use the tool is based on the teacher's belief as to whether the tool aligns with the instructional outcome. Schuck and Kearney note that both teachers expressed using technology to enhance student understanding, increase student motivation, and increase student ownership. The school context, including leadership support for using technology, can also impact a teacher's pedagogical beliefs for integrating technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010;Schuck & Kearney, 2008).
The technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework incorporates technology with Shulman's (1987) constructs of pedagogical content knowledge. Koehler and Mishra (2005) developed this framework to represent a pragmatic approach to understanding the teachers' knowledge base essential for integrating technology effectively. The technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework consists of a dynamic relationship of three core knowledge areas: technology, pedagogy, and content. Koehler and Mishra (2005, 2008, 2009 and Mishra andKoehler (2006, 2007) identify seven knowledge components of the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework that comprise an essential knowledge base for teachers. A brief overview of each component of the framework is below: 1. Content knowledge (CK) is knowledge about the subject matter or specific content such as mathematics, science, or social studies. Teachers must have knowledge of concepts, theories, and procedures within a given field to teach effectively (Shulman, 1986 Koehler and Mishra (2009) recognize, "there is no single technological solution that applies to every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching" (p. 66). These components, as illustrated in the model (Figure 1), comprise an interactive framework that emphasizes the connections among technologies, pedagogy, and content and the complexities of planning for technology integration. Using this framework, one avoids the perception that a single pedagogical approach can be used with digital technologies, instead of considering the ways technologies can support various pedagogies and content areas. Similarly, general technological approaches may not be as useful as considering flexible ways that technology can be integrated into specific content areas. Consequently, the diversity of innovative technologies increases options for teachers to cultivate technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge through thoughtful and meaningful technology integration.

METHODS
The researcher designed this instrument background paper to create a measurement of TPACK of Pre-Service Science Teacher in Indonesia. Stages are framework investigation, indicators definition, and items derivation from the indicators are gained through literature review, analyses on the current instrument, finding novelty of designated instrument defining a new instrument for pre-service science teacher in Indonesia case. Seven sub-domain indicators, i.e., Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogy Knowledge (PK), Technology Knowledge (TK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), TPACK itself, and items are developed according to its rational. While this designed instrument adopted a six-point Likert-type scale designed to allow college respondents to rate their perceptions using the following status: "Extremely Poor," "Poor," "Acceptable," "Good," and "Very Good," and "Excellent" corresponding to 1-7 points, respectively.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The TPACK framework has been the focus of professional development and research efforts by school districts and colleges of education pursuing transformational changes in teachers' knowledge base in thinking and planning meaningful ways to integrate technology (Spires et al., 2012). Specifically, researchers have emphasized the importance of teachers' rethinking how technologies can be used for teaching and learning and implementing an action plan based on pedagogy and content knowledge (Spires et al., 2012). Consequently, researchers have explored the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework within a variety of instructional contexts including one-to-one computing environments, online graduate courses, and professional development (Bos, 2011;Hofer & Swan, 2008;Niess, van Zee, & Gillow-Wiles, 2010;Spires et al., 2012).
Hofer and Swan (2008) designed a case study to explore two social studies teachers' experiences implementing a digital documentary project using the TPACK framework. Both teachers, the researchers identified as exhibiting strong knowledge in technology, pedagogy, and content as facilitating student-centered projects; they lacked skills in using technology with students (Hofer & Swan, 2008). The researchers assisted the teachers with planning for technology integration. The process associated with completing a storyboard digitally proved to be challenging for the students, teachers, and researchers during the intersection of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (Hofer & Swan, 2008). Hofer and Swan conclude that the teachers' zone of proximal development regarding technology, pedagogy, and content should be a consideration when implementing technology innovations.
The TPACK framework can be a complex yet dynamic tool for professional development and teacher training. Bos (2011) conducted a mixed-methods study using the TPACK framework with 30 elementary teachers. The teachers used instructional tools to design mathematics units that support students' mathematical communication and manipulation of objects (Bos, 2011). Bos found that the teachers' interaction with technology and math content increased their understanding of the importance of both content and pedagogy in using technology as a creative medium to foster student learning. Ultimately, the teachers realized that applying pedagogical knowledge extended their developing scheme of meaningful mathematics representations (Bos, 2011 (2011) found that professional development extends beyond the main ideas of the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to include differentiated instruction through teacher collaboration and diffusion of innovation and teachers' levels of acceptance for integrating new technologies.
Regarding with current instrument on TPACK, a summary of the literature review can be seen in Table 1 as follow. Moreover, based on the framework, the indicators and item are developed as follow:

Content Knowledge (CK)
It is widely known that knowledge concerned with the actual subject matter that is to be learned or taught. However, as Sulman (1986) noted that this would include: (1) Knowledge of concepts, theories, ideas, organizational framework (2) Knowledge of evidence and proof, and (3) Knowledge of established practices and approaches towards developing such knowledge. In the case of science, this would include knowledge of scientific facts and theories, the scientific method, and evidence-based reasoning. Why this content knowledge is essential because the student can receive incorrect information and develop misconceptions about the content area (NRC:2000). Shulman (1987) then defined content knowledge referred to as the "knowledge, understanding, skill, and disposition that are to be learned (p.9).
Developing items domain of content knowledge for teachers could be different among subjects. The first knowledge domain, content knowledge (CK), refers to the knowledge teachers must know about for the content they are going to teach and how the nature of that knowledge is different for various content areas as shown in Table 2 i.e.

Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)
Pedagogical knowledge (PK), the second subdomain, refers to the methods and processes of teaching and would include fundamental knowledge in areas such as classroom management, assessment, lesson plan development, and student learning in Table 3 as followed.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)
According to Grossmann (1989Grossmann ( , 1990, it consists of four elements, i.e.: (1) Conception of purposes for teaching subject matter; (2) Knowledge of students understanding; (3) Knowledge of instructional strategies; and (3) Curricular knowledge. This definition then improved according to Magnusson, Krajick band Borko (1999), there are 5 components of PCK as knowledge and belief about : (1) Orientation toward science teaching (2) Curriculum (3) Student's understanding (4) Assessment, and (3) Instructional strategies. Meanwhile, Van Driel, Verlop, and Vos (1998), that PCK most include at least two proposed by Grossman, as Knowledge of student's knowledge and misconception of particular topics and Instructional strategies and representation for teaching particular topics.
For this fourth knowledge domain, the researcher then defining pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) refers to the content knowledge that deals with the teaching process with items as following in Table 5.

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)
The fifth knowledge domain, technological content knowledge (TCK), refers to teachers' understanding of how using a specific technology can change the way learners understand and practice concepts in a specific content area, as followed in Table 6. Predicting likely students misconception within a particular topic 69.
Distinguish between genuine concept, not knowing concept and misconception within a particular topic

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)
Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) refers to teachers' knowledge of how various technologies can be used in teaching and understanding that using technology may change the way an individual teaches, as follows in Table 7. The seventh and final knowledge domain, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), refers to the knowledge teachers require for integrating technology into their teaching-the total package. Teachers must have an intuitive understanding of the complex interplay between the three basic components of knowledge (CK, PK, TK) by teaching content using appropriate pedagogical methods and technologies as follow in Table 8.

CONCLUSION
The background and rationale for instrument creation in this study will provide a strong starting point for work designed as an instrument to examine and support preservice science teachers' development of TPACK. The authors plan on seeking further validation and other necessary statistical processes after completing the Likert Scale and different items for each science subject, i.e., physics, chemistry, and biology. Research plans also involve following these instruments to be used by preservice science teachers during their induction years of teaching or teaching practice. Using the specification of science subjects and modification of this instrument should encourage a line of research on measuring the development of TPACK in physics, chemistry, and biology preservice teachers' development.