CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the StudyIn recent issue

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the StudyIn recent issue, technology is part of nearly every aspect of life and it cannot be denied that it affects dramatically on education. There are some advantages that technology offers to the education. One of them as Blake (2008) stated that technology allows student to gain access to the subject material. In classrooms today, because of the access to information and educational opportunity that technology has enabled, we see the teacher’s role shifting to the “guide on the side” and students take more responsibility to gather relevant information for their own learning using technology. Then, technology is changing how teachers and students interact with information and with each other. By integrating technology into teaching, teachers are required to be more interactive and innovative (Chen, Liao, Chen ; Lee, 2011) but it is not merely about integrate technology into teaching or what technology is best for teaching but how technology can enhance and reimagine teaching practice with mindful of pedagogy and rich subject matter (Hunter, 2015). It means that the use of technology means nothing without the consideration of other components namely pedagogy and subject content. As Pamuk (2011, p.2) stated that technology can be effective and support learning only if it is meaningfully integrated into teaching. Hence, technology can help education only with the appropriate integration.

Thenceforth, the journey of integrating technology into the classrooms is not necessarily an easy one. There are some other things that we have to consider about. Pedagogy and content matter are components that we have to have well-consideration to. As Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (as cited in Li et al., 2016, p.2) argued that “teachers did not already integrate technology into classrooms, at least not in a meaningful way.” However, several studies found out that teachers’ technology usage in teaching was not su?cient (Gu¨ lbahar & Guven; Hew & Brush; Hsu; as cited in Li et al., 2016, p.2). Technology
Integration into classroom teaching and learning continue to be a challenging task for many teachers (Shafer, 2008; So & Kim, 2009). Therefore, teacher development on ICT usage for teaching and learning continue to be a concern. Thus, in order to get impacts positively in educational processes and learning outcomes, educators need to explore how we go about integrating technology and how to prepare pre-service teacher as the future teacher with this technological issue.

Pre-service teacher is a student teacher (Ulla, 2016) who enrolled in a teacher preparation program and working toward teacher certification and it also known as teacher candidates (IGI Global, n.d.). In that case, they required to follow practicum of teaching experience in a school setting as well as internship or student teaching (Nuland, 2011). They observed and practiced teaching in a school and apply theoretical, practical and experiential knowledge to construct understanding of professional issues through the practice teaching program. Nuland (2011) also stated that with support provided by an experienced teacher and an advisor assigned by the faculty or school of education, practicum teaching allowed teacher candidates experienced ‘the daily teaching and learning process’ and understand a classroom setting. For this reason, Tuli & File (as cited in Ulla, 2016) believed that the “most important part of teacher education program” is practicum teaching experiences among pre-service teachers. Hence, the writer chose final year students in English department which had followed internship program (PPL) for this study because of their field practicum experience.
Afterward, this study also included perception. According to Angell (1906) defined perception as “the consciousness of particular material things present to sense.” Then, definition of perception for English Language Learners (ELLs) based on Merriam-Webster dictionary is “the way you think about or understand someone or something” it also can be defined as “the way that you notice or understand something using one of your sense.” Another definition of perception according to Munhall (2008) is “a mode of apprehending reality and experience through the sense, thus enabling discernment of figure, form, language, behavior, and action.” Briefly, perception refers to an opinion, belief, thought, based on how thing seem through human sense. Thus, the writer analyse what pre-service teachers feel, believe, and think about their capability on TPACK implementation in the classroom based on their teaching experiences.

Due to pre-service and early career teacher education research, according to Jamieson-Proctor, Finger and Albion (2010) on their study related to ICT confidence and capabilities in pre-service teachers, they found that generally student teachers had good basic IT skills but were less confident on its applications. Furthermore, being able to use technology does not necessarily mean being able to use technology critically, wisely, or meaningfully. Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2013, p.31) argued that technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) as one of theoretical framework has arisen recently to guide research in teachers’ use of ICT to address the challenges. Hence, the writer analysed perception of pre-service teachers viewed from TPACK implementation specifically in language learning.

In former times, Shulman (1986) defined there were two main components as an interchange on teaching and learning environment; pedagogical and content knowledge (PCK). It was used to characterize teachers’ knowledge of how subject matter should be taught. Shulman also stated that PCK “represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction”(Shulman, 1987, p.8) but in current concern, as a result of the increased integration of technology into teaching, Shulman’s idea is built on by adding a new technology component. To describe teachers’ body of knowledge in terms of how they made ‘intelligent pedagogical uses of technology’ Koehler et al. (2007, p.741) used technological pedagogical content knowledge or TPCK as its term. Then, there is a modification of TPCK term in order to ease of pronunciation and also to emphasize the integrated use of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge for effective technology integration. The acronym of TPCK was later changed to TPACK (Thompson & Mishra, 2007). Since its development, TPACK were restructured as an underlying conceptual framework by many teacher education programs (Niess et al.; Burns; Niess; Shoffner; as cited in Koh, Chai & Tsai, 2010).
Based on the background above, the writer identified that for many teachers, technology integration into classroom teaching and learning continue to be a challenging task because pedagogy and content matter should be involved before we integrate technology into education as a well-consideration. From the background above, the writer also found that teachers’ technology usage in teaching was not su?cient. Educators need to explore how to go about integrating technology in the classroom especially for pre-service teachers that generally had good basic IT skills but were less confident with applications. In brief, it can be identified that in this advance technology, educators especially pre-service teachers need to be prepared to explore and make sense of their TPACK for teaching in various subjects during their learning processes (Koh ; Divaharan, 2011; Niess, 2011). So that, describing the TPACK implementation of pre-service teachers would provide valuable insight for organizing and teaching pre-service teachers effective technology integration strategies before they proceed into service. Therefore, writer interest in analysing the perception of pre-service teachers towards implementation of TPACK in language learning.

Scope and LimitationScopeThe scope of the study is to analyse pre-service EFL teachers’ perception towards the implementation of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in language learning.

Limitation
In this research, the writer focused on pre-service EFL teachers’ responses from their cognitive aspect and technology integration from the use of technology device for teaching towards the implementation of EFL-TPACK questionnaire in language learning.

Research QuestionThe research questions of this study are:
How is pre-service EFL teachers’ perception from their cognitive aspect towards TPACK implementation?
How do pre-service teachers integrate technology device into the language learning classroom?
Objective of the StudyThis research is related to the implementation of TPACK issues with a study of pre-service EFL teachers. The purpose of this study is to describe the pre-service EFL teachers’ perception from their cognitive aspect towards TPACK implementation.
Significances of the StudyTheoretically
The result of the research is expected to provide information about EFL teachers’ cognitive perceptions toward TPACK implementation questionnaire.

PracticallyFor teacher education
To know what course is needed for organizing and teaching pre-service teachers. Hence pre-service teachers are able to integrate technology confidently in teaching process.

For researcher
To know pre-service EFL teachers’ perceptions viewed from technological pedagogical content knowledge implementation also to increase the ability of writer in writing scientific papers.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter presents theories that related to the research. There are two main points in this chapter, namely Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Framework.

Theoretical Framework
Pre-service TeachersPre-service teacher is a student teacher who enrolled in a teacher preparation program and working toward teacher certification and it was also known as teacher candidates (Ulla, 2016; IGI Global, n.d.). In that case, they required to follow practicum of teaching experience in a school setting as well as internship or student teaching (Nuland, 2011). They observed and practiced teaching in a school and apply theoretical, practical and experiential knowledge to construct understanding of professional issues through the practice teaching program. Nuland (2011) also stated that with support provided by an experienced teacher and an advisor assigned by the faculty or school of education, practicum teaching allowed teacher candidates experienced ‘the daily teaching and learning process’ and understand a classroom setting. For this reason, Tuli ; File (as cited in Ulla, 2016) believed that the essential part of teacher’s education program is practicum teaching experiences among pre-service teachers.
From the explanation above, Ulla defined pre-service teacher as student teacher. Then, IGI Global defined it as a teacher candidate. These definitions refer to student who enrolled in teacher education program which mean pre-service teachers were future teacher. They were prepared with teaching experience through teaching practicum in the school environment in order to feel and understand students’ condition in real situation. As Tuli ; File argued that teaching practicum program is the most important one in education program for pre-service teacher. The writer chose final year students in English department which had followed internship and teaching practicum program for this study because of their field practicum experience.
PerceptionDefinition of Perception
Afterward, this study also included perception. Angell (1906) defined perception as “the consciousness of particular material things present to sense.” Then, definition of perception for English Language Learners (ELLs) based on Merriam-Webster dictionary is “the way you think about or understand someone or something” it also can be defined as “the way that you notice or understand something using one of your sense.” Another definition of perception according to Munhall (2008) is “a mode of apprehending reality and experience through the sense, thus enabling discernment of figure, form, language, behavior, and action.” Then, Rinantanti et.al (2017) stated that “perception has a very close relationship with the attitude.”
Nonetheless, what actually people perceive will affect how they behave. In line with these definitions, teachers’ attitude toward technology integration also is reflection of their perception which “can guide and set their sight on their own teaching” (Artini, as cited in Rinantanti et al., 2017, p.1182). It often determines teacher instructions decision which affect many aspects of classroom such as students’ engagement, interactions, activities, assessment (Zhu ; Wang; Stipek et al., as cited in Rinantanti et al., 2017) and establish technology use in the classroom and language learning. Thus, it can be concluded that perception refers to a thought, sight, feel, belief and understanding about something based on how thing seem through human sense.

Aspect of Perception
According to Allport (as cited in Walgito, 2003) Perception has three components, namely:
1) Cognitive component is components that are composed on the basis of knowledge or information that someone has about the object of his/her attitude. Then this knowledge will form a certain belief about the object of that attitude. Cognitive component (perceptual component) related with knowledge, view, belief on how people perceive to the object;
2) Affective component deals with pleasure and displeasure. It is evaluative which closely related to the values of culture or value system. Affective component (emotional component) related to pleasure or displeasure on something. Pleasure is a positive thing, while the displeasure is a negative thing;
3) Conative component is a person’s readiness to behave related to the object of his/her attitude. The conative component (the behavioral component, or action component), is the component that deals with the tendency to act toward the attitude object. This component shows the intensity of attitude, which shows the size of the tendency to act or behave towards the object of attitude.
Thus, the writer interest in analysing cognitive perception of pre-service teachers through TPACK framework implementation on what they feel, believe, and think about their capability on integrating technology in the classroom based on their teaching experiences in teaching practicum program.

TPACKDevelopment of TPACK
TPACK framework is a theory which develop from Shulman’s pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) concept (Shulman, 1986) which advanced by Mishra ; Koehler (2006) by adding technology (T) component because of the impact of technology development in 21st century. It transformed becoming TPCK after the addition. The problematic about this framework is appeared due to its construction by unfriendly set of consonant which is difficult to say and even to arrange it in the correct order (Thompson ; Mishra, 2007). Then it altered as the result of 9th Annual National Technology Leadership Summit become TPACK (Thompson ; Mishra, 2007). An individual teacher effectiveness depends not only on their content knowledge (CK) but also their PCK. After technology addition, new consideration was added on teaching and learning in the classroom. Well-consideration goes to how technology can enhance and reimagine teaching practice with mindful of pedagogy and rich subject matter.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is “a theory designed to account for teachers’ ability to integrate technology into the curriculum” (Bostanc?o?lu ; Handley, 2018). TPACK, according to Mishra and Koehler, signifies the ‘Total PACKage’ for teachers in the 21st century, and enables an understanding of how 21st century “teachers’ understandings of technologies and pedagogical content knowledge interact with one another to produce effective teaching with technology” (Koehler ; Mishra, as cited in Jamieson-Proctor et.al., 2010). In the context of integrating technological knowledge in classroom teaching, according to Pamuk (2011, p.2) within the TPACK framework, it included three components which are technology as tools to be used in represent information, pedagogy as methods of teaching and evaluating students learning and content as subject matter. To sum up, Niess et al. (as cited in Tokmak ; Yelken, 2015, p.2) summarize the description of TPACK as “a body of knowledge teachers needed for teaching with and about technology in their assigned subject areas and grade levels.” Thus, TPACK is a theory that can be used as a tool to measure technology integration into the classroom teaching and learning process which has three the main knowledge component namely pedagogy (P) content (C) and technology (T) that related each other.

Afterwards, Committee on Innovation and Technology (AACTE) (as cited in Schmidt, et. al, 2009) said that “The framework focuses on designing and evaluating teacher knowledge that is concentrated on effective student learning in various content areas.” Thus, the frame that conform with the issue for thinking about what knowledge teachers have to consider about technology integration into teaching and how they might develop this knowledge is TPACK. Also, Graham (as cited in Tokmak, 2015, p.3) has advocated that one of potential theoretical background for teacher education program with aim to help students develop technology integration skills is TPACK. “Thus, measuring teaching knowledge through TPACK perspective could potentially have an impact on the type of training and professional development experiences that are designed for both pre-service and in-service teachers” (Schmidt, et. al, 2009). Hence, beside the main purpose of this study to describe perceptions of pre-service EFL teachers’ on TPACK implementation, another benefit by examining pre-service EFL teachers’ perceptions in teaching practices with TPACK framework would provide the teacher education field a valuable insight for organizing and teaching pre-service teachers and propose continual need to rethink for effective technology integration strategies before they proceed into service. For this research, writer used theory from Thompson and Mishra after its changing becoming TPACK.

TPACK Framework

Figure 2. SEQ Figure_3. * ARABIC 1 TPACK Framework Graphic RepresentationChai, Koh, and Tsai (2013) explained seven components of TPACK by combining Cox and Graham (2009), Mishra and Koehler (2006), and Shulman (1986) as follows: 1) TK is a “knowledge about how to use ICT hardware and software and associated peripherals” for example how to use Web 2.0 tools such as Facebook, Wiki, blogs, and other social media; 2) PK is a “knowledge about the students’ learning, instructional methods, different educational theories, and learning assessment to teach a subject matter without references towards content” for example knowledge about how to use silent way method in teaching; 3) CK is a “knowledge of the subject matter without consideration about teaching the subject matter” for example knowledge about English subject; 4) PCK is a “knowledge of representing content knowledge and adopting pedagogical strategies to make the specific content/topic more understandable for the learners” for example knowledge of using Total Physical Response (TPR) to teach vocabulary or a short conversation; 5) TPK is a “knowledge of the existence and specifications of various technologies to enable teaching approaches without reference towards subject matter” for example using ICT as cognitive tool and technology support collaborative learning; 6) TCK is a “knowledge about how to use technology to represent/research and create the content in different ways without consideration about teaching” for example knowledge about online dictionary (English dictionary); 7) TPACK is a “knowledge of using various technologies to teach and/represent and/facilitate knowledge creation of specific subject content” for example knowledge about how to use Canva as an online tool to help in teaching descriptive text in English subject using Project Based Learning (PJBL).

TPACK and Study of Pre-service Teacher
For related previous research in TPACK issue, Jamieson-Proctor, Finger, ; Albion (2010) conducted a study with 345 final year pre-service teacher education students using the TPACK Confidence Survey (TCS). They found that pre-service teachers had high levels of competency such as “ICT ownership and broadband Internet availability, but perhaps less than optimum mobile computing access for the 21st century.” The pre-service teachers also indicated had an interesting feel on ICT use for professional or even personal purposes. But for teaching and learning purposes, they were less in comparison “to their strong belief in the value of ICT to improve student learning outcomes.” The finding also compared with the earlier study authored by Watson et al. (2004) that found pre-service expressed high levels of competency but contrast with their limited range of applications.

Furthermore, Greenhow et al. (2008) compare the differences between in-service and pre-service teachers’ thinking about ICT integration. The finding showed that talk about the relative advantage or disadvantages between different options of ICT tools, both groups lack of consideration. Also, Albion (as cited in Jamieson-Proctor et.al., 2010) “highlighted the trend of increasing access to computers and the Internet, but also demonstrated that this increased access was accompanied by uneven confidence in the skills of pre-service teachers.”
Afterwards, Pamuk (2011) conduct a study about pre-service teacher’ technology use through TPACK framework which consist of 78 pre-service teachers in computer education and instructional technology department. The study revealed that pre-service teacher ability to create other new base (such as TPK) from their previous knowledge base were limited while they were demonstrated a certain level of those knowledge base such as knowledge in technology, pedagogy and content. It was happened because of lack experience on the teaching practicum hence it was also “limit them in effectively using or integrating technology into teaching” (p.11).

In another study about pre-service teacher and their intention to adopt technology in their future classroom, Li et.al. (2016, p.14) stated that the intention of technology adoption to the classroom by pre-service teacher predicted by their self-efficacy about the ease of the technology use. Their study confirmed that “attitudes toward technology is the most influential factor to impact technology adoption intention” (p.15). They offered a solution program such a professional development as an effective way in order to improve both pre and in-service teachers’ attitude toward technology to encourage their technology adoption. They suggested to explore more because the barrier of technology which affected on pre-service teacher intention to adopt technology no longer a serious problem anymore “as digital natives growing up using different technology in life become teachers.” Although they were lack of skill of more advance technology, but they had a strong base of technological knowledge and able to learn easily on an update technology in their own learning.
Then, Szeto and Cheng (2016) examined pre-service teachers’ TPACK pattern of technology integration in teaching various subject domains in small scale (23 participants). The results indicated that in practicing TPACK in teaching seven subjects (Physical Education, Chinese, English, Mathematics, Visual arts, General Studies and Music) pre-service teachers’ (PTs) pedagogical patterns in practicing TPACK “occurred to a relatively wide extent.” In the context of language environment (Chinese and English), this study found that pre-service teacher’s pedagogy was also consider on the culture of target language beside focusing on students’ understanding of the languages by using “up-to-date online videos” in teaching but the finding also reflected that the number of technology integration by language teachers were less than other subject (p.19).

In sum, these studies point to the need helping pre-service teachers to build deeper understanding about TPACK. In those study, technology and pre-service teachers become the main case of their research. Therefore, this study represented an analysis of the usefulness of the TPACK framework to audit the ICT knowledge and capabilities of pre-service teachers in integrating technology to the classroom towards TPACK implementation.

TPACK and Language Teaching
In foreign language education, Tokmak and Yelken (2015) conducted an experimental research on 71 Foreign Language Education (FLE) pre-service teachers “to examine the effect of the digital storytelling creation process on FLE pre-service teachers’ self-con?dence with regard to TPACK.” After the digital stories (DS) creation process, a signi?cant increase was showed in the FLE pre-service teachers’ self-con?dence scores related to TPACK. In this study, it improved significantly for TK, TPK and TPACK while for TCK it was not significant although there was an improvement.

Due to research on English language teaching and TPACK, Ersanl? (2016) explored a five-week workshop and training sessions effectiveness on pre-service English language teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). This study consisted of 59 pre-service English language teachers’ participants who enrolled in an ELT Methodology Course. TPACK Scale developed by Solak and Çak?r (2014) was used to gather the data. The finding of this study indicated that both male and female pre-service English language teachers showed a significant improvement on their TPACK score. They also “displayed better performance in manufacturing and tailoring language learning/teaching materials with specific goals.”
Then, Tseng (2014) developed an instrument for assessing teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge. This study involved Two hundred and ?fty-seven students who learned EFL in the classroom. The result of this study revealed that Thirty-?ve survey questions as “the TPACK instrument was a valid and reliable tool for measuring EFL students’ perceptions of their teachers’ TPACK” and this study suggested a future research to measure students’ perception on their teacher TPACK implementation though this instrument.

Continuing the study of instrument for measurement of TPACK in language learning, Bostanc?o?lu & Handley (2018) introduced “new self-report questionnaire” to assess TPACK for English language teaching. Interestingly it does not specify to a particular approach to language teaching or the use of particular technologies. The results of this study “provide support for approaches to English language teacher education which attempt to integrate TK, PK, and CK, rather than introduce them separately…” and the validity and reliability of this EFL TPACK instrument was confirmed.

As a conclusion, those researchers explore the issue of technology integration in language learning. Some of them also developed instrument for measuring technology integration in language teaching. As Tseng (2014) who developed TPACK instrument that can be used for measuring student perception and Bostanc?o?lu & Handley (2018) who developed an instrument that can be used for measuring teacher perception. From the explanations above, the writer interest to analyse the pre-service teachers’ perception in technology integration toward TPACK implementation in the classroom. The writer also interested to use EFL TPACK instrument derived from Bostanc?o?lu & Handley instrument development for pre-service teacher self-assessment.

Conceptual Framework1421130147320TPACK
00TPACK

18935701066800094107011620500
2303145110490Language Learning
00Language Learning
331470186690Pre-service Teacher
00Pre-service Teacher

31984951619250
2297807251879TPACK Components
(Koehler & Mishra)
00TPACK Components
(Koehler & Mishra)
4693920260985TK
00TK
941070323850
411289513144500331470150495Perception
00Perception

411655838233004116558281840041165592818400411289530480004141470125730004693920125730PK
00PK
411289527306009410701924060
4703445243840CK
00CK

33147047625Cognitive Aspect
00Cognitive Aspect

4703445108585PCK
00PCK
941070895340094107089535004076709906000
4703445236220TPK
00TPK

1664970259080Belief
00Belief
931545259080View
00View
-59055262890Knowledge
00Knowledge

4703445110490TCK
00TCK

4703445130810TPACK
00TPACK

Figure 2. SEQ Figure_3. * ARABIC 2 Conceptual Framework of The StudyBased on the theoretical framework, this study analysed the perception of pre-service teacher from cognitive aspect about technology integration in the classroom which included TPACK framework that implemented by pre-service teacher in the language learning. It covered seven constructs of TPACK, namely: 1) Technological Knowledge (TK); 2) Pedagogical Knowledge (PK); 3) Content Knowledge (CK); 4) Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK); 5) Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK); 6) Technological Content Knowledge (TCK); 7) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). The writer interest to know how pre-service teachers’ knowledge, view and belief about their capability in integrating technology. These knowledge, view and belief as cognitive aspect of perception was covered in seven components of TPACK in a close-ended questionnaire for this study.

CHAPTER IIIRESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research MethodFor the research method, the writer conducted Qualitative research. Qualitative research requires collecting primarily textual data, examines using interpretive analysis and focuses on the participants – how participants experience and interact with a phenomenon (Heigham & Croker, 2009). It is more alphabetic than numeric (Yin, 2011, p. 233). Then, Cresswell (2013) stated that in qualitative theory use, it was deal with perspective or theoretical lens in order to provide an overall orienting lens for the study of questions of class, gender, and race (or other marginalized groups issues) increasingly. In line with this theory, the writer used TPACK framework as a theoretical lens in this study.

Based on the theory above, it can be concluded that this research has similar characteristics with qualitative research. This study used qualitative research because it involved words than numbers, prefer to take little number of the participants and cases be researched, use a theoretical lens and to answer the question of how participants experience and interact with a phenomenon. In this case, how pre-service teachers experience and interact with the issue of technology integration into the classroom. Therefore, it classified as qualitative research.

Research DesignThe writer employed case study in this research. Yin (2011) described case study as “A study of a particular case or set of cases, describing or explaining the events of the case(s)” which usually involves some field-based data. Afterwards, to point out what a case is, Merriam as cited in Heigham and Crocker (2009) defined it as “a ‘bounded system’ or a defined individual or entity (like a student, program, school, institution) that the researcher wishes to explore.”
There are three types of case study according to Yin (as cited in Heigham and Crocker, 2009) who categorized them based on its purpose, namely; 1) Exploratory case study, it is used “when little is known about the case being examine” (p.70); 2) Explanatory case study, it aims to “explain cause– effect relationships related to a phenomenon” (p.71); 3) Descriptive case study, it has a purpose to “present a detailed, contextualized picture of a particular phenomenon” (p.71). This study aims to analyse perceptions of pre-service teachers and their technology integration into the classroom, also what technology usually use by them in the teaching and learning process. Due to the explanation above, the writer interest to conduct a research in descriptive case study with technology integration by pre-service teachers as the main case. Therefore, the writer tends to gain a deep insight and understanding of the case itself.

ParticipantThe study included 17 final year students of H class at English department which had followed internship and teaching practicum program in the academic year 2017/2018. There are eight classes at English department in this academic year. Those are 4A-4H. However, the writer only used one class for the sample of this study which consist of two males and fifteen females that had followed practicum program. The data sources of this study were collected from a questionnaire and semi-structured interview.
Setting and ContextThe data for this study was collected in Cirebon, a specific region of West Java, Indonesia. This study was conducted within an English Education Department at one university in Cirebon. Because of the curriculum requirement, the institution held a teaching practicum program for education department. Thus, this study involved a number of participants who had followed teaching practicum. In this case, the participants were 17 pre-service teachers who had experienced teaching practicum program for about one semester (4-5 months). Thereby, they had experiences in teaching in real situation of the school environment. Hence, they were purposely selected because of their field practicum experience. It was in line with this study which analysed pre-service teacher and their technology integration in the classroom setting.

Technique of Data CollectionIn line with, the characteristics of qualitative research which familiar with multiple data sources, the writer used two data collection, those are questionnaire with close-ended questions and interview. Writer distributed questionnaire to the participant and it had a purpose to collect data and information related to the research questions. In order to reinforce the data, the writer conducted interview with open-ended questions related to the issue of the study. As Cresswell (2013) stated that in qualitative research, typically the writer did not rely on a single data source but employ multiple forms of data collection, such as interviews, observations, documents, and audio-visual. Thenceforth, all information used in this analysis was derived from questionnaire data and interview.

Questionnaire
Firstly, the questionnaire administered using Google Form as online survey tool and posted it on WhatsApp for participants to access. They were presented with an informed consent document that described the study’s purpose and were told that their participation in the study was voluntary when the pre-service teachers accessed the questionnaire online the first time. They were also informed that there were no right or wrong answers. What was important was that they answered according to their experience and capability in TPACK implementation.

The questionnaire took approximately 10-15 minutes for participants to complete. This questionnaire had been developed and validated by Bostanc?o?lu & Handley (2018) before its use in this research. The aim of this questionnaire is to answer first research question.
Interview
Afterward, the writer conducted a face-to-face interview session to the respondents. The writer used interview was to gain more depth information and data from the participants (Kothari, 2004). However, this interview intended to answer second research question. The interview that is conducted by the writer is semi-structured interview. According to Richards in Heigham and Crocker (2009, p.186) it means that the interview conducted based on the guide or a plan prepared before to cover key topics and questions. However, when the interviewer found an important and interesting new insight from the interview process, it is allowed to develop and not necessarily in the planned order. The interview is not only done at face-to-face situation but also the data will be recorded while interviewing the participants. Hence, the writer can rehear the result of interview to avoid any miss material while noted taking in interview process. Furthermore, the participants were not asked at the same time, but it took in different time.
Instruments of Data CollectionQuestionnaire
The writer was used the EFL-TPACK questionnaire adopted from Bostanc?o?lu & Handley (2018) with some eliminations based on the appropriate items with the object of the study. The EFL-TPACK instrument in this study contained 28 items for measuring pre-service teachers’ self-assessments of the seven TPACK domains: 6 TK items, 3 PK items, 3 CK items, 4 TCK items, 2 PCK items, 3 TPK items, and 2 TPACK items. For these 23 items, participants answered each question using the following five-level Likert scale: 1) Strongly disagree 2) Disagree 3) Neither agree nor disagree (Neutral) 4) Agree 5) Strongly agree. The instrument also included items addressing personal information (i.e. name, age, and gender). The list of EFL TPACK questions was attached in the appendices of this study.
Interview
For the instrument in the interview process, the writer demands several questions as a guide in this study that are illustratively as follows:
In teaching practicum, what kind of technology device did you ever use in the language teaching?
How did you integrate technology device into the language teaching?
What was the most useful technology device in your language teaching when you were in teaching practicum?
As this is a semi-structured interview, these questions were a guideline for the writer to conduct interview process. When the writer found an interesting information during the interview process, the writer can improve the question out of the guideline questions if it is necessary.

Technique of Data AnalysisAfter getting the data from questionnaire, the next step is analysing it. In this study writer is going to use descriptive analysis. It was used to compute the frequency of responses for each item. By describing general tendencies in the data and the overall spread of the scores, it helps us to summarize findings (Dörnyei, 2011). The writer obtained the data frequency of each item from the questionnaire, then analysed those frequency, and describing it to make an interpretation for the conclusion. Therefore, the scores for each element of TPACK were not added together or averaged.

For interview result, the writer analysed data by identifying categories, themes, and patterns that help explain the phenomena under consideration and the contexts in which they occur. In this study, it was help to explain how pre-service teachers integrate technology device into their classroom. The writer begins immediately after the interview by transcribing the data, coding them, and looking for patterns or recurring themes that might be significant.

The interview data transcribed into written text. The conversation in the interview session with pre-service teacher recorded using voice recorder. It was done in order to avoid any miss material during the process of obtaining data. While the writer interviewing the participant, the writer noted taking the answer. After that, the writer played the recorder and transcribed the data from interview into written text. Then, the writer grouped participant answer related to the second research question about device technology integration, on how they integrated it in the classroom. The last, the writer made a conclusion for the data from interview result.
2436496363855001618706-46082Descriptive Case Study
00Descriptive Case Study

1514441410000
10726635197How is pre-service EFL teachers’ perception from their cognitive aspect towards TPACK implementation?
00How is pre-service EFL teachers’ perception from their cognitive aspect towards TPACK implementation?
262699440640How do pre-service teachers integrate technology device into the language learning classroom?
00How do pre-service teachers integrate technology device into the language learning classroom?

433197011303000110766310160000
3714624165058Interview
00Interview
2629402205252TK
00TK
63679346990TPACK
00TPACK

295095018352243275741804880215713067861011081876477000
2958988265430262940211067PK
00PK
21571311566640046493282550Cognitive Aspect
00Cognitive Aspect

262826588377CK
00CK
2157130215321109929710604500369316059055Grouping
00Grouping

2965450750422629402168575PCK
00PCK
319210978140006297782550Close-ended questionnaire (23 items classified into 7 TPACK constructs)
00Close-ended questionnaire (23 items classified into 7 TPACK constructs)

2157130146845029514801427632628900236220TPK
00TPK
2156858211362156858131668215713013468900
2941320228488
262890051958TCK
00TCK

2628900130698TPACK
00TPACK
294576529098
294090211080400
2498997116205Frequency
00Frequency

295095013768300
1825535266679Pre-service Teachers’ Perception
00Pre-service Teachers’ Perception

Figure 3. 1 Design Framework of The Study
Based on the first research question, the writer tried to find out how the pre-service teachers’ perception about their technology integration into the classroom. To answer this question, the writer distributed 23 items close-ended questionnaire to the participants which include cognitive aspect and classified into 7 TPACK constructs. Afterwards, the writer analysed the data using data description of the frequency for each item. Meanwhile, the second research question was answered by conducting an interview. The data collected from the interview then analysed and grouped based on the second research question about how pre-service teachers integrate technology device in the classroom. The result of these two data collections were finally covered a perception of pre-service teachers in this study.

CHAPTER IV
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the evaluation and analysis of all data gathered by the writer during the research. The explanations of this chapter are divided into data description and research finding. The research finding also divided as well into data analysis and discussion.

The Data DescriptionIn this part, the writer presented the results along with the discussion of the research which had been conducted. The writer firstly elaborated the step to collect the data for this research and its finding. The writer distributed questionnaire to the respondents and the data were gathered. The writer further analysed it using frequency. Pre-service teachers from class 4H took a participation in this study. There were 17 pre-service teacher who participated in this study, two males and fifteen females. They have experienced in teaching from teaching practicum program. In this study, the writer employed a qualitative method with two kinds of data collection namely a closed-ended questionnaire and interview to answer two research questions.

When the writer conducted a research, the writer found an obstacle in gathering data from questionnaire. One respondent who agreed to participate in the study was lack of internet connection and cannot access to the questionnaire link. Hence, it took a little longer time to obtain the data completely until the respondent can access to the questionnaire link. As the result of waiting this respondent, she decided not to participate in this study and the total participant of this research were 17 pre-service teachers. Not only in the questionnaire session but also in the interview process, the writer faced a situation where some respondents were difficult to meet for the interview session. The reasons why they hard to be interviewed because they were busy with their own business and did not have any free time. Then, the writer come to the decision to interviewing them via phone calling.

The procedure of this phone interview was identic with the face-to-face interview. The writer noted taking the information during a call and also recording it at the same time. It was conducting in order to avoid any miss information. Thus, all of the respondents were interviewed and the data were gathered completely.

Questionnaire
The writer distributed an online questionnaire using Google Form as the survey tool to all of the respondents. However, thanks to several reasons there were 17 pre-service teachers who were willing to be the respondents of this study. This questionnaire was conducted to find how they feel, believe, view and know about technology integration into teaching towards TPACK implementation. This meant to answer the first research question. There are 23 items in this questionnaire which classified into seven constructs of TPACK. Those are 6 items in TK, 3 items in PK, 3 items in CK, 4 items in TCK, 2 items in PCK, 3 items in TPK and 2 items in TPACK. The data from closed-ended questionnaire was analysed using frequency. Afterwards, the frequency for each items of the questionnaire were described qualitatively. The writer made frequency of the whole items from the questionnaire answer sheet and then it was described in details.

Interview
After the writer collected the data from questionnaire, the writer then conducted an interview to the respondents to get more data. Afterwards the writer started analysing the data from the interview process to answer the second research question. Basically, the data from both closed-ended questionnaire and interview were analysed in different ways yet presented in the same way. The data from interview, meanwhile, were analysed and described qualitatively. The writer made data reduction by making the abstract which is noted the content of recording. Then, the writer was finding for the pattern and grouping the result of the interview data. There are three interview guide questions in this study; 1) In teaching practicum, what kind of technology device did you ever use in the language teaching? 2) How did you integrate technology device into the language teaching? 3) What was the most useful technology device in your language teaching when you were in teaching practicum?
Research FindingsThe Data AnalysisIn this part, the writer elaborated the data analysis from two different methods which are employed to collect the data related to the two research questions. The first one is data analysis from questionnaire and the second one is the data analysis from interview process.
Questionnaire
The data from EFL TPACK questionnaire were analyse using frequency and were described in qualitative way. The respondents have sufficient experience in teaching as a result of teaching practicum program that held by the faculty. Furthermore, the following data analysis of EFL TPACK questionnaire explains about how pre-service EFL teachers’ cognitive perception towards TPACK implementation. The following chart explains how far the students’ knowledge, feel, believe, and view in technology integration into the language teaching. This data answers the first question of the study. Then, the responses of EFL TPACK questionnaire classified into 7 constructs of TPACK.

Technological Knowledge (TK)
The items in this language area referred to various aspects of the individual’s potential in technological knowledge. There are six items in this area. First item asked about how pre-service teacher learn to use technology. The second one asked about new technology or its development. The third one asked about their knowledge on how they use Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) technologies. The fourth item asked about multimedia in technology. The fifth item was talked about mobile technology and the last one discussed about author-ware technology.

Chart:

Figure 4. 1 Technological KnowledgeAnalysis:
The chart above showed a positive response from pre-service teachers. There were no respondents who answer disagree and strongly disagree in these six statements. From those statements, the highest number was in statements 5. The majority of pre-service teachers (14 out of 17) were strongly agreed and confident with their capability in using mobile technology such as tablet and smart phone. A large number also was seen in the chart for the third statement about the use of computer mediated communication (CMC) technologies such as email and chat. Ten of pre-service teachers were strongly agreed that they know how to use CMC technologies. While, the other statements had a low number of strongly agree responses. There were 4 respondents in statement 1 about the use of technology easily and 6 respondents for statement 2 which asked about keep in touch with new technology. However, the lower number of responses (3 out of 17) of strongly agree was in the statement 4 about multimedia usage.

Respectively, the responses of agree scale were also showed a high number. The highest number of responses was in statement one. There were 12 pre-service teachers who chose agree. Afterwards, statement two and four had a same number of responses. Although the number of responses in these two statements were lower than statement 1, it was still had a good number. There were 11 responses for each statement. However, more than a half of respondents (10 out of 17) were agreed on statement six which asked about how to use author-ware and seven of pre-service teachers agreed on the issue of CMC use (St3). Lastly, the lowest agree responses (3 out of 17) was in statement 5 which discussed about pre-service teachers’ capability in using mobile technology.

In line with their confidence in using Author-ware and multimedia technology, the writer indicated that there was a doubt about it. It was indicated due to the chart above which showed neutral responses. There were 3 respondents in statement 4 and 7 respondents in statement 6 who answered neither agree nor disagree. A low number (1 out of 17) of neutral responses also can be seen in statement one about pre-service teachers believe that they can learn how to use technology easily.

Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)
This area covered pre-service knowledge about pedagogy in teaching and learning process such as instructional methods, different educational theories, the students’ learning, and learning assessment to teach a subject matter without references towards content. There are three items in this area. It covered about teaching style for different learners’ issue, teaching material with students’ need, and the way of assessing students learning.

Chart:

Figure 4. 2 Pedagogical KnowledgeAnalysis:
From the questionnaire result, the writer found that four respondents strongly agreed on the statement that pre-service teacher can adapt their teaching style to different learners (St7). Then, there were three of pre-service teachers who strongly agreed that they sure about their capability on selecting appropriate teaching material based on the needs of learners (St8). For the next item, pre-service teachers were asked to rate the way of assessment in a classroom setting (St9). Two respondents were strongly agreed.
The majority of pre-service teachers (11 out of 17) were agreed that they can select an appropriate teaching material for the learners (St8) and assess students in many ways (St9). The result also showed a good number (10 out of 17) in statement 7. They were agreed that they can do an adaptation on teaching towards learners’ types
Furthermore, a plenty amount (4 out of 17) of pre-service teachers were not sure on their knowledge in students’ assessment. Meanwhile, a small number of respondents (3 out of 17) were in neither agree nor disagree for statement 7 and 8. Respectively, in PK items also there were no respondents who answer disagree and strongly disagree in these three statements.

Content Knowledge (CK)
The next three items were related to content knowledge. There are three items in this area. The first item in this area discussed about English grammatical features. The second item asked pre-service teacher about their comprehension of English text and the last one talked about pre-service teachers’ confidence in comprehending English speech accurately.

Chart:

Figure 4. 3 Content KnowledgeAnalysis:
For this item, pre-service teachers were asked to rate their ability on explaining the grammatical features (St10). Two of the pre-service teachers were really confident and strongly agreed on this statement. However, there was only one response for strongly agree option in statement 11 and statement 12.

The highest number (10 out of 17) of agree responses were in statement 10 about grammatical features while the other two statements had a lower number of respondents. Seven pre-service teachers were agreed that they can comprehend English text accurately (St11). However, statement 12 were asked to rate their English speech comprehension and six respondents were agreed on it.
Furthermore, a large amount (10 out of 17) of pre-service teacher had some doubts on their capability in comprehending English speech accurately. Thenceforth, more than half (9 out of 17) of the pre-service teachers were neutral regarding pre-service teachers’ opinion towards the comprehension of English text. However, the lowest number (5 out of 17) for neutral response was in statement 10.

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)
The items in this area concern the knowledge about how to use technology to represent or research and create the content in different ways without consideration about teaching. There are four items in this area. Here, pre-service teachers asked about technology that they used to teach four skills in English teaching (Reading, Speaking, Listening and Writing) during their practicum program.

Chart:

Figure 4. 4 Technological Content Knowledge
Analysis:
Pre-service teachers’ responses to item about technology which can be used to teach listening in English (St13). The writer indicated that some of them (2 out of 17) had strong confidence about their ability to teach English listening through technology. Then, there were also two pre-service teachers who strongly agreed that they can involve technology in teaching reading (St15). Whereas, one of respondent were very confident about technology that can be used to teach English speaking (St14) and writing (St16).

Respectively, the majority of them (12 out of 17 respondents) were positive in statement 13 and 16 and the highest number of agree response (13 out of 17) was in statement 15 which indicated that they know about technologies that can be used to teach reading in English. While, in statement 14, there were only 11 respondents who chose agree.
Based on the chart, there were three respondents who neutral about their ability to teach listening and writing with technology in the classroom. In line with teaching listening, a better number also appeared as a result of pre-service teacher responses to the statement about the ability to teach English speaking. They know about technologies to teach speaking in English. Five pre-service teachers were neutral in this view. For the rest item, two were neutral for technology usage in teaching reading. While, there was no respondent who answered disagree and strongly disagree on these beliefs.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)
TPACK items in this area address knowledge of representing content knowledge and adopting pedagogical strategies to make the specific content/topic more understandable for the learners. There are two items in this area. The first item in this area talked about authentic English resources and the second one asked about appropriate approach for the learners.
Chart:

Figure 4. 5 Pedagogical Content KnowledgeAnalysis:
In this area, three pre-service teachers were strongly agreed that they can choose an appropriate approach to teach learners (St18). Whereas, two respondents were really confident and chosen strongly agree for statement 17. Furthermore, a majority of the pre-service teachers (13 out of 17) believed that they can select an authentic English language resource to suit students need such as magazine and newspaper (St17). Similarly, pre-service teachers in the present study agreed (12 out of 17) that they have ability to choose an appropriate approach to teach learners such as direct method and communicative approach (St18).

Interestingly, there was one respondent who disagreed for the item which discussed about choosing an authentic English language resources for the students (St17). Nonetheless, the result was still positive and the respondent who answered strongly disagree was 0. Correspondingly, the remaining of pre-service teacher (1 out of 17) chosen neither agree nor disagree for statement 17. While two of them were neutral in statement 18.

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)
These items refer to knowledge of the existence and specifications of various technologies to enable teaching approaches without reference towards subject matter. There are three items in this area. Here, pre-service teacher asked about their aim of technology use such as enhancing teaching approaches, students learning for a lesson and assessment tool.
Chart:

Figure 4. 6 Technological Pedagogical KnowledgeAnalysis:
The findings showed that in these three items on the TPK area, there was one respondent who chose strongly agree as their answer for each three statements. Afterwards, the majority of the pre-service teachers (12 out of 17) agreed with the statement about ability to choose technologies that enhance the teaching approaches for a lesson (St19). Also, a good number (11 out of 17) of pre-service teachers in this study agreed that they have ability to choose technologies that enhance students’ learning for a lesson (St20). Meanwhile, the next statement (St21) had 10 respondents in agree option.
Although, generally it was agreed. However, there were three respondents who chose neither agree nor disagree for statement 19. Then, the use of technology appropriateness for assessing a lesson was addressed by statement 21. The pre-service teachers were divided on this as well. There were five respondents who chose neutral. Similar with the previous item, there were also five pre-service teachers who chose neither agree nor disagree for statement 20.
Nevertheless, one respondent disagreed with statement that pre-service teacher can choose technologies which can enhance teaching approaches and helping in students’ assessment. In one hand, there was one respondent in disagree. On the other hand, there was no respondent who answered strongly disagree on these two views.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
The items in this area concern the confidence of pre-service teachers associate with knowledge of using various technologies to teach and/represent and/facilitate knowledge creation of English subject. There are two items in this area. The items in this area asked pre-service teacher about their technology usage to teach English in the classroom with an appropriate approach. All of aspects of TPACK, technology, pedagogy, and content, were considered here.
Chart:

Figure 4. 7 Technological Pedagogical Content KnowledgeAnalysis:
Pre-service teachers’ response to this item was very encouraging as it speaks of a positive attitude towards selecting technologies to use in the classroom that enhance what to teach, how to teach, and what students learn (St22). Three respondents were strongly agreed with this belief and four pre-service teachers were strongly agreed for the other statement (St23).

Respectively, the large amount of them (11 out of 17) agreed regarding technology selection for teaching English in the classroom setting (St22). In terms of students’ active participation in the classroom towards technology, eight pre-service teachers were agreed in this view (St23).

Nevertheless, in neutral option, the pre-service teachers were divided as well. Five respondents were neither agree nor disagree in using technology to improve their teaching. Moreover, there were three pre-service teachers who chose neutral for statement 22. They were not sure in using a range of technologies that enable students to become active participants in the classroom. However, for disagree and strongly disagree scale, the response was 0.

Interview
The writer has done a research and conducting an interview process to obtain more data. The data from this interview were analysed and described in qualitative way. The writer was interviewing H class which contained 17 pre-service teachers. The respondents have sufficient experience in teaching as a result of teaching practicum program that held by the faculty. Furthermore, the following data analysis of interview process explained about the way of pre-service EFL teachers integrate technology devices into language learning.
In this part, the writer explained the interview result for each respondent about how pre-service teachers’ steps of integrating technology into their classroom during teaching practicum program. After that, the writer tried to make a pattern for the identic answers as the conclusion of this finding. The writer grouped participant answer related to the second research question about technology device integration in the classroom. Last, the writer made a conclusion for the data from interview result. This data answered the second question of the study.

Respondent 1
Transcribe:
“pake aplikasi (I used application) eu…aplikasi…kayaknya udah dihapus deh aplikasinya, tapi pernah kayak grammar gitu tuh (eu…application… I think, I already deleted the application, but i ever used like a grammar application) buat ngajarin passive voice (for teaching passive voice) eu…jadi gini tuh..apasi itu bukan..bukan buat media si tapi cuma buat alat pendukung aja tuh…kalo misalkan eu…siswa bikin kalimat terus kalimatnya salah grammarnya tuh jadi kalo di…tulis di aplikasi grammar itu jadi bener ci, tau…tau mana salahnya (eu…it was…it was not…not a media but only a tool to support…such as eu… the students make a sentence and the sentence was wrong gramatically…if it was written in that grammar application, it will be right, know…know where was the wrong) iya, grammarly kalo ga salah (yes, it was Grammarly if I have not mistaken) ya ngarahin…ya ngga atuh perkelompok… ya biar efektif….eu… 4 kalo ga salah. Jadi 2 yang megang aplikasi itu, 2 orang yang bikin kalimat (Yea guiding…No, it was in a group….it was more effective…eu…4 students if I have not mistaken. So, 2 students used that application, and 2 other students made sentences) jadi…banyak tuh ada yang pake Canva,ada yang pake Pics….bikin undangan (So… many. There was students who used canva and others used Pics… to make an invitation letter) jadi tuh, pertemuan pertama langsung bikin bikin gitu buat latihan bikin undangan. Eu…pake alat yang disekitar dulu tuh, pake kertas segala macem yang dihias hias. Nah, baru pertemuan kedua bikin undangan yang itu tuh, yang design design dikomputer gitu (In the first meeting, we directly make it for the practice to make invitation. Eu… we used things around like paper and all of stuffs for decorating and in the second meeting, we make invitation that design in computer digitally) terus hasil karyanya ditayangin di proyektor (then, I showed the result of students work through projector) Iya, pake ci..Ya… biasa, bikin dulu PPT materinya, terus di jelasin didepan murid pake proyektor (Yes, I used it. As usual, I prepared the PPT slide of my material and explained it in front of my students through projector) pake laptop? Eu..ga tiap hari si. Cuma buat materi tertentu aja. Tadi sama…passive voice sama undangan (used laptop? Eu…it was not everyday. Only for specific materials. As i toldbefore, passive voice and invitation letter) Proyektor! Ya karena satu untuk semua ci. Tapi ga sering soalnya terbatas. (Projector! Because it was one for all, but I seldom used it beacuse of the lack of facility)”
Analysis:
Based on the interview result, respondent 1 explained about his experienced on using technology for teaching passive voice and invitation card when he was in the teaching practicum program. The writer can get the conclusion that the technology device that used by this respondent can be divided based on the user. The first one is used by the teacher and the second one is used by the students.
In line with the interview result, Grammarly mobile application which is an application in a cell phone was used by the student as a tool to help them in doing a correction task from the teacher. The teacher only gave it and become a guide also a facilitator. The second one is used by the teacher. Laptop, projector and Microsoft power point were the technology that used in his teaching practicum. That technology was used to help him to presenting the material. Firstly, he prepared the material in the laptop and made a slide in the PPT after that showed it to the students through projector. When he asked about the most useful technology device for him, he answered projector because it can be beneficial for all of students in the class (one thing for all). He seldom used it because of the lack of facilitation.

Respondent 2
Transcribe:
“pake laptop terus pake handphone (used laptop and cellphone) …. dilaptop itu murid aku eu… nonton video. terus mereka kalo pake handphone itu… mereka bikin tugas. waktu itu aku ngasih tugas, bikin untuk discribing gitu, deskripsi, dia pake handphone, dia deskripsiin sekolah itu loh, sama deskripsi person. Gitu… (in that laptop, my students eu… watching video. Then, for the cellphone… they do the task. I gave them a task to describe, they used cellphone, they described school and person) … Mereka melakukan wawancara dan ngeshoot video sekolah (they did an interview and take a video shooting of the school) …He’em…pake handphone. dan ini, pake yang lainnya. Seperti apa tuh, handy-cam camera digital. Kalo akunya pake laptop. (He’em…used cellphone. And this, used another devices. Such as, handycam, camera digital. But I used laptop) …Iya, proyektor juga pake. Sering banget, tiap belajar aku pake proyektor (Yes. I also used projector. Always. I always used projector) …Laptop, handphone, aplikasinya paling yang buat ngedit ngedit video itu. Terus kalo dilaptop aku ngajar aku bikin PPT… terus bikin apalagi ya aku waktu itu, kayak bikin design-design gitu. Terus juga aku ngeshow gambar juga kan ngeshow video gitu. (Laptop, cellphone, and the application for video editing. I used laptop to make a PPT slide for my teaching material, then also for the design. I also showed a video and pictures) … Iya, aku juga ngasih contoh videonya sama…aplikasi buat ngedit videonya tuh. Aplikasinya itu aku dikasih sama guru pamong disekolah (Yea, I also gave the video example and video editor that I got from my supervisor teacher at the school) Hmmm… Abis itu aku tampilin hasil video anak-anak didepan kelas pake projector (Hmmm…after that I showed the students’ work infron of the class through projector).”
Analysis:
Based on the statement above, that respondent explained about her experienced on using technology for teaching descriptive text. In line with the previous respondent, the technology use divided based on the user, teacher and student. The respondent clarified that she used laptop, PPT and projector while the student used cell phone and handy-cam. She used that kind of technology devices to present the descriptive text material, showing picture and video example before asked her students to make it by their own self.

The teacher gave video editor and she acted out as facilitator and guide. The students recording and interviewing for the task using cell phone and handy cam to help them finished it. They also used video editor that teacher gave them before. After the student did their task, the teacher showed students’ work in front of class using projector and laptop. Afterwards, the most useful technology devices for the second respondent were laptop, projector and cell phone. She always used it when she was in teaching practicum.

Respondent 3
Transcribe:
“Euu…Jarang sih… (Rarely) … pernah kayak pake… apasih buat kayak ngajar listening… gitu… kita pake audio. Cuma ya…ada ruangan khusunya, jadi kita ga dikelas (I ever used… like for teaching listening… we used audio speaker. But… there is a special room, so we were not stay in the class) …Euu…ada projector diruangan itu, apasih kayak…jadi kalo pengen pake kayak proyektor gitu mending diruangan itu… (Euu…there was a projector at that room, like if we want to used that kind of devices, projector, we go to that room) …jarang pake laptop, paling pake media itu bukan media kayak teknologi sih, kayak media gambar… ditempelin ke whiteboard…Iya, di print gambarnya…iya karena fasilitasnya kurang, gantian. Jadi males ke kitanya (rarely used laptop, maybe I was not used digital media, such as pictures… I sticked it in the white board…Yes, I print the pictures. Yea, because of the lack of facilities, wait for our turn. So, i was lazy to use technology) …Kita kayak nyetel video (We played the video)…. jadi nyiapin bahan ajar terus ditayangin pake projector… (So, I prepared the material of my teaching. Then, I showed it through projector) …gimana ya, jarang pake teknologi… listrik juga, kayak dikelas tujuh tuh ada yang ada listriknya, ada yang ngga… (rarely used technology, the electricity also, in 7th grade there were some clasess that do not have electricity) Iya, aku juga pernah pake lagu buat nagajar, buat sebelum ngajar, apersepsinya waktu ujian PPL. Lagunya aku dikasih sama guru pamong, aku disuruh pake lagu itu, lagunya tuh apasi…yang dance penguin gitu (Yes. I also ever used a song for teaching, it was for Apperception for my teaching practicum examination. I got the song from my supervisor teacher. I was asked to use that song, It was a dance penguin song) ….yang tadi sih, laptop sama audio speaker (laptop and audio speaker).”
Analysis:
From the explanation above, interestingly the third respondent seemed like did not really frequent in integrating technology into the classroom. She used technology mostly only for teaching listening. She used audio speaker and projector. She also used laptop to support her teaching process. Firstly, she prepared the materials, made a power point presentation, and present it. After that she also played a video for her students but it rarely applied because the facilitation of that school was very limited. This condition made her lazy to used technology there. She also explained that she ever used a song in apperception section for her teaching examination. She got the song from her supervisor and she claimed that if she asked about what technology which useful for her it was laptop and audio speaker.
Respondent 4
Transcribe:
“Pernah! Pake…laptop. Pake proyektor juga (Ever! I used… laptop. Also projector) …Itu tuh… pas kita nerangin tentang… things around (it used when we explained about… things around) …Iya jadi kan ditampilin tuh ci di PPT. Iya kan pertamanya ngasih tau dulu nih, misalnya ini tuh meja, meja tuh gini gini… nah kita make, makenya tebak tebakan tuh ci… kita nampilin gambar, anaknya nebak (Yes, I showed it in PPT slide. Firstly, I tell them, for example; this is table, table is bla bla bla….we used guessing game… we showed pictures, the students guess) …Ya itu, dua alat itu, projector sama laptop (Yea, those two devices, laptop and projector)”
Analysis:
Same as the previous respondent, the fourth respondent was also used projector and laptop. She used PPT to present the material. She taught things around with guessing game as an approach. Firstly, she prepared the material and the picture. Then, she taught the material using prepared-pictures before. She argued that the most useful technology devices for her were laptop and projector.
Respondent 5
Transcribe:
“Engga… (No, I did not) …SMPnya tuh… engga mendukung sama sekali prasarananya… (The school… It was not really support, the facilities) …Iya, cuma whiteboard… (Yes, I only used whiteboard).”
Analysis:
Surprisingly, the next respondent did not use any technology in her teaching process. She explained that the school was really lack of facility. Hence, she cannot integrate any technology there. She only used white board and traditional method.

Respondent 6
Transcribe:
“Pake…ini…power point (I used Microsoft power point) …He’eh, laptop sama proyektor (He’eh, laptop and projector) …di…tampilin. Eu…materi akunya… ngajar…apasih aku teh lupa. Text kayak surat gitu, apa ya… aku teh lupa. Iya surat juga ada kayak pengumuman gitu tuh. Ditampilin pake proyektor (showed it… eu…my materials… I taught…I forgot. Like a letter text…I forgot. Yea, letter seems like announcement, it was showed through projector) …Handphone, paling buat cuma nyuruh nyari ini doang si, suruh nyari dulu materinya, terus ini… nanti di rangkum (Cellphone, only for searching the materials. Then I summarized it) …laptop, handphone sama proyektor (Laptop, cellphone and projector
Analysis:
Based on the statement above, that respondent explained about her experienced on using technology for teaching announcement when she was in the teaching practicum program. Similar with the first respondent, the writer can get the point that the technology devices used by this respondent can be divided based on the user, teacher and student.
In line with the interview result, cell phone was used by the students to find any related information about the material which they were going to discussed with the teacher at that time. The teacher filtered the materials from the students and chose an appropriate one as the conclusion.
The second one is used by the teacher. She used laptop, projector and Microsoft power point to support her teaching process. That technology was used to help her to presenting the material. Firstly, she prepared the material in the laptop and made a slide in the ppt. After that, she showed it to the students through projector. Lastly, she argued that the most useful technology for her during teaching practicum were three kinds of technology. It was laptop, projector and cell phone.

Respondent 7
Transcribe:
“Ya…sebatas projector aja sama laptop (Yea… limited to projector and laptop) …ya…dipergunakan untuk menunjang aku ngajar (Yea….to support my teaching) …Jadi aku…kayak materi expression, ya aku kayak gambar gambar gitu aja. Karena kan aku…Ya kan tau sendiri aku ngejer materi… ngejer nilai, jadi aku banyak tugasnya dibanding materi. Jadi banyak tugas udah gitu doang (So, I…such as the material about expression, yea, I used pictures. Because I focused on the target of material and scoring ) …Ya…laptop wae sama proyektor he’eh (Yea… laptop and projector) …Ya biasa, nyiapin dulu materinya, browsing di google, yang mana yang cocok terus dibikin di PPT. Terus dipresentasiin (Yea, as usual, I prepared the materials, and browsed in the google for the appropriate one. Then I made it in the PPT slide. Then present it) … Gambarnya dari google lah!… di download, dipilih mana yang cocok sama materinya… (The pictures was gotten from Google! I download it, and chosen for the correlated picture with my material) …Oh iya, aku juga pernah nampilin video. Videonya tentang cuaca… nah iya, climate change. Videonya dari YouTube (Oh, yea. I ever showed a video. It was about season…yea, it was about climate change. I got it from YouTube) …Laptop sama proyektor (Laptop and Projector)”
Analysis:
Similar with the previous respondents, this pre-service teacher used technology to teach in her classroom but it was limited to the use of projector and laptop only. She said that it was helped her to deliver the material to the students. The steps of integrating technology were also similar with others respondents. She prepared the material through laptop and made a power point slide to be presented for her explanation. After that, she gave the students task to be finished. She also put an image in her presentation that she had browsed before in the Google. She also ever used a video from YouTube to support her teaching about climate change. Then, she claimed that the most useful devices for her were laptop and projector.
Respondent 8
Transcribe:
“Ga jauh jauh kayak notebook sama proyektor… (Notebook and projector…) Ya…paling kalo notebooknya sendiri buat olah materi ya…paling ya…pake aplikasi lah. (Yea… for notebook, it was used for data/material processing… and used application) …Waktu itu si, aku pernah pake ini, canva, yang online itu. Sama… oh..itu buat ngajarin bikin ini, ah iya iya, surat undangan, invitation letter itu. Sama poster (at that time, i ever used canva, the online one. And… it was to teach…yeah, invitation letter. And poster) …Iya, dicontohin dulu, terus anaknya bikin. Terus kirimnya lewat handphone, Whatsapp (Yes. I gave the example. Then the students made. Afterwards it was sent via cellphone, Whatsapp application) …Yang sifatnya offline, paling ga jauh jauh dari power point (the offline one, suvh as Microsoft power point) …Iya… laptop sama proyektor (Yes… Laptop and Projector) …Kalo ga salah, aku juga pernah pake video buat ice breaking waktu ngajarin analytical exposition… (…If I have not mistaken, I ever used video for ice breaking in teaching analytical exposition…) …hmm…caranya sih sama, disiapin dulu materinya terus di tampilin pake proyektor (Hmm…The step was same, I prepared it first then showed it off towards projector screen).”
Analysis:
From the explanation above, the writer got the same point of this respondent with others. She used technology devices during her teaching practicum. She integrated notebook and projector. She mentioned some devices that she used to teach English material such as Canva to teach invitation letter and poster, Video showing to stimulate students’ apperception in teaching analytical exposition and PPT for her material presentation. The task that had been finished was send via WhatsApp mobile application. The step of her teaching was similar with other which were preparing, showing, presenting and giving task as an evaluation. She argued that the most useful technology devices for her teaching were devices that can be used offline such as Microsoft power point in laptop and projector.
Respondent 9
Transcribe:
“Hape… (Cell phone) …apa…kayak ininya tuh… jadi kayak bentuk ini, PPT dikirim tuh di group. Kayak gitu… nanti dibahas… (like…PPT slide was sent via group. Something like that…after that, we discussed it…) …aku bikin PPT dulu nanti dishare digroup WA siswa, terus merekanya buka lewat Hape…. (I made the PPT slide first, then I shared it in students WhatsApp group. And they opened the PPT material via Cellphone) …Soalnya, kadang kendalanya, apa…ga kebagian… he’em…jadi kan gabisa (because, the problem was…did not have a turn to use…he’em…I cannot use it) …apa tadi? yang sering dipake? laptop, hape juga (what? The most used? Laptop, also cell phone).”
Analysis:
Interestingly, this respondent showed her material in a PPT form through cell phone. She actually used technology for example laptop and used Microsoft power point. She prepared the material first before she spread it into the students’ WhatsApp group. She explained the material in from of the class while the students were listening to her explanation and opened the PPT via cell phone. She said that she did not use projector because there was only limited projector. Nevertheless, she decided to used cell phone to help her teaching process. Hence, the most useful device for her were laptop and cell phone.

Respondent 10
Transcribe:
“Pake video pernah… (I ever used video) …He’eh, pake laptop…iya, pake proyektor. Ngajar pernah, sama… waktu itu ujian… (He’eh, I used laptop…Yea, projector also. For teaching and… for teaching practicum examination) …He’eh pake ppt…ya di show ke anak-anak, bikin dulu baru dishow…materi apa ya… Hmm… congratulations kalo ga salah. Kan harus ada congratulations to ini to ini to ini… terus dikasih tau contoh videonya…gitu, yang PowToon… (He’eh, I used PPT slide…I showed it to the students, I made the material slide firstly… then I showed it. What material is that…Hmm…If I have not mistaken it was about Congratulations. There should be congratulations for this, for that….then I gave the example in a video form… through PowToon) …ya itu sih, karena aku Cuma pake itu doang, laptop sama proyektor, ya… ngebantu aja sih (Yea, those devices, because I only used it. Laptop and projector. Yea…only to support my teaching).”
Analysis:
Based on the transcribe above, the respondent was used laptop and projector to support her teaching in the classroom. She used technology for teaching and examination. Like the other respondent, laptop was used to make a presentation slide that contained her teaching material. Then, she showed and explained it in front of the class through projector screen. She gave them an example first though video that was adopted from PowToon. She taught expression of congratulation at the time. Afterwards, she argued laptop and projector were the most useful technology device for her when she followed teaching practicum program.
Respondent 11
Transcribe:
“Laptop sama proyektor ci (laptop and projector) …Ya awalnya bikin PPTnya dulu, terus besoknya dikelas aku nyiapin proyektor, ya nyolokin kabel-kabelnya gitu… (Yea, I made the PPT slide first, and in tomorrow morning, I prepared the projector, yea…the technical preparation with the cables…) …abis itu ya tinggal di jelasin materinya… waktu itu tuh… aku ngajarin… jenis-jenis teks ci… (explained the material. I taught kind of texts at that time) …waktu itu juga aku pernah pake video buat ngajarin expressions… (at that time, I also ever used video for teaching expressions) …ga sering sih ci… semua kelas ada proyektornya…maksudnya kadang si kabelnya tuh ga nyambung sama laptopnya… jadi kudu minjem dulu ke kesiswaan… jadi kadang kadang pake media tradisional aja (sometimes…every class has a projector…but I mean the cables were not connected to the laptop…so I have to borrow the other on in the students division… I sometimes used traditional media).”
Analysis:
The interview result of this respondent was a bit similar with others respondent. She used projector and laptop. The steps of her teaching were preparing the material before the class. After that she prepared the devices. She did the setting system of laptop and projector. Then, she explained the material to the students. The material that she taught was about kind of text in English. She also ever used video to teach expression in English. She argued laptop and projector were the most useful technology device for her when she followed teaching practicum program.
Respondent 12
Transcribe:
“engga…engga…beneran. Engga sama sekali ci… (No… No… Seriuously. Never used ci…) …Padahal itu tuh ada proyektor tapi sama sekali ngga biasa digunain…malah ga pernah digunain…katanya tuh (but actually, there was a projector but it never used) …Ya kita pake…yang manual… pas ujian PPL juga kan manual. Manual semua. Ga pake PPT sama sekali (Yea… we used traditional method… for the teaching practicum examination also, we used traditional approach. Everything was traditionally. Never used PPT slide) …Eu…oh aku…biasanya nih ya…kalo kertas kertas karton gitu, apasih…nah terus pake ini…eu…apasih gabus-gabus kayak gitu tuh ci… nah he’eh ditempel-tempelin. Biasanya Kertas dibulet buletin dibikin semenarik mungkin (Eu…oh…I usually used papers…nah, I also used styrofoam… He’eh I sticked it. I made a rolled paper and make it interesting for the students) …Eu…pernah writing juga…pernah… (Eu… for writing) …Nah kita tuh buat persiapan colok-colok…kita harus nyari stopkontak dan lain sebagainya itu butuh waktu… ya kalo itu mah.. buang waktu ya kalo itu mah… pasang-copot-pasang copot… anak smp nih ya… pengalaman banget, baru pertama masuk, Ms izin, Ms izin…iya.. ngehandlenya susah juga (We need preparation to connect everything… we have to find the electric socket and other stuff which need additional time… plug-unplug-plug-unplug… for the junior high school, based on my experience, when I entered the class in the first time, they did many excuses and permissions…Yea… abit hard to handle the class),”
Analysis:
From the interview result with this respondent, it can be pointed out that she did used any technology to teach her student during her practicum program. She argues that it was a bit hard to manage the class if she used technology at that time. she also explained that it wasted her time for its preparation because she taught junior high school which the student did many excuses and permission. It was a distraction for their teaching and learning process. So that, she taught her student with traditional method. She prepared the preparation first, for example she prepared some paper and Styrofoam for her teaching. Actually, there was a projector in her school but she never used it both for her teaching process and her teaching examination.
Respondent 13
Transcribe:
“Ngga. Karena sekolah aku ga ada proyektor. Eh bukan, bukan ga ada. Ada proyektor, cuma untuk eu… proses minjemnya tuh ribet. Kudu kesini…kudu kesini… aku jadi males… (No. Because in my school, there was no projector. Eh, no, no. There was a projector, but the bureaucracy of borrowing the projector is difficult. I should go here, there, here. So, I was lazy) …Ya pake buku doang (Yea, only book) …Ya paling medianya pake media tradisional gitu. Gambar gambar atau ngga kertas kertas gitu… apa ya aku pake itu tuh…things around us (Maybe the traditional media, such as pictures or papers. What is that…it was for things around us) …pernah aku bawa laptop…aku ngasih…ngasih video, videonya teh tentang apa ya ci… tapi ga pake proyektor, jadi cuma laptop (I ever brought laptop…I gave…gave a video…what was that about…but I did not use projector, it was only laptop) …videonya ya ngambil dari Google… eh bukan googling, YouTube (I took the video from Google… Eh, No. It was from YouTube) …sebagai contoh si, bahwa di video itu kan ada macam macam bendanya, biar mereka tau. Oh ini, benda ini bahasa inggrisnya ini… ga hanya dari gambar aja si, dari video juga iya (only as an example that in the video there were kinds of things, they will know, the english of this and that things. Not only from the picture but also from the video) …Browsing dulu…baru diprint…tapi ga di tempel cuma aku tunjukkin aja (Browsed first, the printed…but i did not stick it, only showed).”
Analysis:
This respondent was ever used video and picture for her teaching once. The technology that she used were limited to laptop and its connection also a printer. She googling her material and example as an addition from the main resource, book. She showed her video through laptop. She did not use a projector because of the bureaucracy of its borrowing system. Firstly, she searched a video from YouTube then she showed it as an example of her material, things around us, as her apperception. After that she showed the appropriate picture and explained the material.
Respondent 14
Transcribe:
“Iya pernah pake laptop sama proyektor, tapi jarang… (Yes, I ever used laptop and projector, but seldom) …biasanya sih pake media tradisional kayak kertas sama gambar gitu (I usually used traditional media such as papers and pictures) …jadi tuh ada yang diprint, ada juga yang…ditampilin di proyektornya, terus ada yang di eu… kayak bikin dari kertas, apasi…eu…manila tuh yang besar…waktu itu tuh yang aku ngeprint mah eu…kan awalnya ditampilin dulu pake power point, yang eu…tentang apa ya eu…the things in the bedroom…kayak gitu… nah pas tugasnya tuh, nanti kita kasih…eu…gambar dapet ngeprint, gitu tuh. Dapet ngeprint terus kita bagiin terus mereka suruh nyari eu… kosa katanya tuh ci… nama bendanya gitu (there was a printed and showed-media. Then, I made media from a big manila paper. Firstly, I showed the prepared media in the PPT slide, about eu… things in the bedroom…and for the task, the printed media was given to the students to find the name of that thing on the papers) …kalo yang dari kertas manila mah, waktu itu ngajar tentang family. Ya soalnya harus dibikin dulu eu…apa ya eu…kayak pohon pohon apa gitu heuheu… iya jadi tuh kayak yang semakin kebawah…terus kosa katanya juga ditulis pake spidol biasa yang buat papan tulis tuh (for the manila paper, I taught about family. Yea, because I have to make tree diagrams first and the vocabulary was written using marker for white board) …Waktu itu pernah mau pake aplikasi yang kayak tekateki tuh ci, tapi ga jadi soalnya ya kendalanya itu, proyektor, sama kata guru pamongnya suruh banyakin pake tradisional media aja (at that time, I ever want to use crosswords application but I was not. The problem was in the projector and my supervisor also asked me to use traditional media) … biasanya sih aku browsing dulu di google sebelum nyampein materi (I usually browsed the material before I delivered it in the classroom).”
Analysis:
The respondent 14 explained that she rarely used technology in the classroom, but she ever used laptop and projector. She used laptop for browsing and making a power point slide. Firstly, she made a power point slide. It was consisted of video, pictures and material. It was showed through projector. The material was about things in the bedroom. She showed the students a digital picture first and the explanation of her material. After that she gave them a printed picture for the evaluation. The students have to give the English name of that things on the printed picture. She also used a picture for teaching family. She made a family tree before the class. This respondent also did a research first for her traditional media before she taught an English material. She browsed it in a Google. She did a research because she cannot use technology such as projector in her school.

Respondent 15
Transcribe:
“…Ya pakenya itu terus, Power Point, apa sih itu namanya Infocus terus kalo ngajar… (…Yea, I always used power point, what is that name, projector, for my teaching) Mmm… Iya Ci pake proyektor sama laptop. Nah.. sumbernya tuh.. dari buku yang ada di Perpustakaan. Terus, step step mengajar aku pake langsung pake PPT sih…Nah sebelum materi yang disampaikan itu biasanya saya cerita-cerita dulu, yang mengaitkan materi tersebut baru langsung saya jelasin materinya. Udah sih… (Mmm… Yes, I used projector and laptop. Nah, for the source, it was from book in the library. Then, my teaching steps were direcly used PPT. Before I delivered my material, usually, I told a story first which related to the material) Pernah sih waktu ngasih tugas suruh pada buka HP terus nyari materi. Kan, materiku kan Narrative text. kaya gitu tuh terus suruh nyari text Narrative bebas yang ada di internet… (Yes, Ever. When I gave a task, I asked to open their phone then find the material…because my material was narrative text) Yang paling membantu ya laptop. Kan buat browsing juga, buat ngajar juga, sama itu, proyektor, bikin PPT… (the most helpful device was laptop. It was for browsing and teaching. And projector to show PPT…).”
Analysis:
From the explanation above, the respondent said that she used technology such as laptop and projector. She made a power point slide of her material first, after that she presented it and explained it to her students. But she did an apperception before the explanation. She was told a story which related to her material at that time. She also ever asked her students to use cell phone as a media for browsing the material about narrative text. Then, she argued that technology devices which useful for her were laptop for browsing her additional material and help her in teaching process and projector to show the power point slide of her material.

Respondent 16
Transcribe:
“ngga pernah ci… (Never used, ci…) soalnya waktu itu pernah tuh pengen ngajar pake…proyektor kan…nah ternyata proyektornya itu, khusus buat guru-gurunya aja…jadi eu… praktikan pplnya… gaboleh, gaboleh pake itu… jadi gapake teknologi… (because, at that time, I ever want to use projector, but actually it was only for the teachers. So, pre-service teachers were not allow to use it…So, did not use technology) Iya ci, pas ngajar aku semuanya pure pake media tradisional, kayak gambar-gambar kayak gitu…misalkan tentang waktu nih, aku gambar jam…kayak gitu. Terus, yang..family tree, aku bikin gambar, eh… gambar bagan, gitu pake kertas asturo yang gede kayak gitu. Terus di tempel dipapan tulis. (Yes, my teaching used traditional media purely such as pictures… for example about time, I drawn a clock…then the family tree, I made a picture, eh… the diagram, used a big asturo paper. Then, I sticked it in the white board) …Kalo yang pas jam itu ngga ditempel dipapan tulis cuma kayak bentuk bentuk gambar eh… jam jamnya aja aku liatin ke anak anak, kayak gitu ci… (for the clock, I did not stick it in the board. It was only the picture eh…the clocks, I showed it to the students) Nah kalau sumber gitu aku biasanya browsing dulu Ci, buka… YouTube gitu medianya apa gitu media tradisional buat materi aku gitu kalo akunya keabisan ide tuh mau ngapain ya… gitu biasanya sih aku searching dulu nih medianya apa gitu soalnya kan… gapake teknologi tuh aku kadang bingung mau bikin apa gitu media tradisionalnya kalo yang mat.. sumber mah aku engga.. engga dari buku aja sih, browsing dulu. (For the sources, I opened… YouTube to find what traditional media for specific material if I was limited of ideas. I browsed first because I did not use technology, so sometimes I felt confused what media was match for my material… for the resource, not only from the book but also browsed) Oh.. iya itu mah pasti banget sih Ci, laptop yang paling penting, sama printer gambar-gambar kaya gitu, aku search dari google, terus aku liat-liat video dari YouTube, dari laptop itu, ya itu yang paling penting sih, laptop, yang ngebantu aku banget (Oh…Absolutely, laptop was the most important one, and printer for the pictures, I find in the Google then I watched Youtube Video from the laptop).”
Analysis:
This respondent explained that she did not use technology devices for her teaching. She used a traditional media like a picture but she used laptop and its connection to help her in browsing her idea for that traditional media. She has an obstacle if she used projector because it was not allowed to be borrowed by the pre-service teacher it also for the teacher in that school. She taught about clock and family tree at that time. Firstly, she made a design for family tree in a paper then she put it in the board but for a clock picture she did not put it in the white board. She only showed it to her students. She used YouTube for her additional idea of her traditional teaching media. Lastly, the most useful technology devices for her was laptop.

Respondent 17
Transcribe:
“Pernah sih cuma sekali pake proyektor sama…laptop doang. Cuma sebagai perantara aja sama.. maksudnya gini saya menyampaikan materi menggunakan laptop. Nah laptop itu cuma sebagai perantara… (I ever used once, projector and laptop, It was only as a media…) Kalau seberapa sering sih waktu PPL tuh cuma sekali, karena apa yah, ribet juga sih harus bawa bawa proyektor, terminal, laptop, gotong-gotongnya tuh ribet, kalau bahan ajar mah dari buku, eu.. 60% dari buku sisanya paling contoh-contohnya dari browsing, gambar-gambar biar menarik aja sih, cuma itu aja kalo yang dari internet. (only once during my teaching practicum program, because it was hard to bring projector and all of its stuff. I got the material from the book as the resource, eu… 60% from book, the rest of it was from the internet, like a picture to make it more interesting) Kalo untuk… pake aplikasi buat nyari materi di hap.. dari HP mah gapernah sih paling dari apa ya, Cuma buka HP, goog… cari di google, udah itu aja sih.. kebanyakan pakenya di google sih kalo misalnya buat contoh, terus eu… nyari materi, gitu aja sih (I never used application for searching the material, only googling for the examples and find the material) …Paling teknologinya, HP, laptop, printer aja sih, soalnya kalo make proyektor kan satu agak ribet, buang waktu juga, paling eu..(The technology were Cellphone, laptop and printer. Because laptop was a bit tricky and wasting time).”
Analysis:
From the explanation above, the writer pointed out that this respondent was rarely used technology devices. He ever used technology once during his practicum program. It was laptop and projector. He did not used it often because he has to prepare all of the things related to that kind of devices. He thought that it was complicated. Then, he preferred to use traditional media. For the source of the material, he used book as the main resource but sometimes he used an internet connection for his additional data. It was done both in laptop or cell phone. Hence, he claimed that the useful technology devices for him were laptop, cell phone and printer.
FindingsThis study proposed to find out pre-service teachers’ perception toward TPACK implementation and the way they integrated technology devices into the language learning. The findings of questionnaire and interview were separated as well.
Questionnaire
Firstly, from the explanation above, it can be concluded that pre-service teachers’ perceptions in technology integration towards TPACK implementation was positive. The majority of them were confident with their knowledge about technology pedagogy and content in language teaching. It can be seen in the table below.

Item code Item Frequency
SA A N D SD
Technological Knowledge
St1 I can learn how to use technology easily 4 12 1 – –
St2 I keep up with new technologies 6 11 – – –
St3 I know how to use computer mediated communication (CMC) technologies (e.g. email, chat) 10 7 – – –
St4 I know how to use multimedia (e.g. graphics, texts, audio, and video) 3 11 3 – –
St5 I know how to use mobile technologies (e.g. tablet computing, smart phones) 14 3 – – –
St6 I know how to use author-ware (customizable software that allows users to generate their own content by integrating different types of media such as graphic and text) – 10 7 – –
Pedagogical Knowledge
St7 When I was in teaching practicum, I can adapt my teaching style to different learners 4 10 3 – –
St8 I can select teaching materials appropriate to the needs of learners 3 11 3 – –
St9 I can assess student learning in multiple ways 2 11 4 – –
Content Knowledge
St10 When I was in teaching practicum, I can explain the grammatical features of the English language 2 10 5 – –
St11 I can comprehend English texts accurately 1 7 9 – –
St12 I can comprehend English speech accurately 1 6 10 – –
Technological Content Knowledge
St13 When I was in teaching practicum, I know about technologies that I can use to teach listening in English 2 12 3 – –
St14 I know about technologies that I can use to teach speaking in English 1 11 5 – –
St15 I know about technologies that I can use to teach reading in English 2 13 2 – –
St16 I know about technologies that I can use to teach writing in English 1 12 3 – –
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
St17 When I was in teaching practicum, I can select authentic English language resources to suit student needs (e.g. news, magazines…) 2 13 1 1 –
St18 I can choose an appropriate approach to teach learners (i.e. communicative approach, direct method) 3 12 2 – –
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge
St19 When I was in teaching practicum, I can choose technologies that enhance the teaching approaches for a lesson 1 12 3 1 –
St20 I can choose technologies that enhance students’ learning for a lesson 1 11 5 – –
St21 I can choose technologies to be used in assessment 1 10 5 1 –
Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
St22 When I was in teaching practicum, I can select technologies to use in my classroom that enhance what I teach, how I teach, and what students learn 3 11 3 – –
St23 I can use a range of technologies that enable students to become active participants 4 8 5 – –
Table 4. SEQ Table_4. * ARABIC 1 The frequency of each TPACK itemsA number of responses in strongly agree and agree scale were chosen by more than a half of respondents in all of TPACK area. It indicated a high number for their confidence of that TPACK area. However, in CK area there were two items with a good number of neutral responses scale which revealed there were doubts on those two statements (St11 and St12). Nine neutral responses for St 11 and ten neutral responses for St12. While, the other items were had a lower number of neutral responses. The writer also got a small number of responses in disagree scale. It only found in 4 items of the questionnaire (St 16, St 17, St 19, and St 21).
Interview
Secondly, from the result of interview, it can be summarized that pre-service teachers’ technology integration were divided into two categories. It was integrated technology in the classroom and non-integrated technology in the classroom.

Integrated Technology in The Classroom
In this part, pre-service teachers used technology in their classroom directly. They used technology during their teaching process in the classroom. The technology devices that used by them limited to Laptop, Cell Phone and Projector. The used of laptop here included its program such as Microsoft Offices and cell phone included kind of its applications. The way how they integrated those devices also can be divided as well.

Laptop/Notebook
The majority of pre-service teachers were integrated technology in a way of used these devices. They made a preparation first for their material using laptop and made a slide through Microsoft power point, then presented and explained it to the students. The platform that mentioned in this study were Canva, Pics and PowToon.

Projector
This device was used to show the material and the task for the students’ evaluation. It also used to show pre-service teachers work through projector screen.

Cell phone
Pre-service teachers claimed that this device was used to help them in finding appropriate material for teaching. This device also can be used by the students to help them find out the additional material and help them doing their task during teaching process in the classroom. The application on the cell phone also helped pre-service teacher in language learning process. The mobile applications that mentioned in this study were Grammarly, YouTube and Google as its browser application. One of respondent in this study, interestingly, explained that she used laptop as usual to make a material preparation, then make a slide of power point. The different step was in the presentation and explanation the material. She did not use a projector but she used a cell phone. After the power point slide is finished she spread it in her students WhatsApp group. Thus, all of the students got the material from that PPT slide.

Handy-cam
This device was used to support students’ task as second respondent said in the interview. She asked the student to made a video description of thing or person and some of her students used this kind of device.
Audio Speaker
Third respondent of this study argued that she used this audio speaker to teach listening skill to her students. This audio speaker also completed with the other devices such as laptop and projector. The third respondent explained that she also used this audio to support her teaching when she had to show a video in her language learning.
Non-Integrated Technology in the Classroom
Pre-service teachers were divided as well in this session. There was pre-service teacher who did not use any technology in their language learning and the one who did not integrate technology obviously in the classroom but they still use technology device to help them in their language teaching. These devices were used in a way as described below.
Laptop
This device was used to help pre-service teacher in searching additional material before they teach in the classroom. Pre-service teachers also used this device to find out any ideas in teaching English without any technology involved. When they had no concept of teaching, they explored the internet on a laptop. They also used Google and YouTube as a source of their teaching idea. After got the idea for teaching traditionally from their browsing activity, they made the media and used it in the classroom soon.
Printer
Pre-service teacher did not use technology directly in the classroom but they used it before. To make a media in teaching, after browsed the material and media which appropriate with the learning process, pre-service teacher printed the media using this device. Several pre-service teachers claimed that they used printed picture as their teaching media.
Cell phone
Similar with laptop cell phone was used to find the additional material or even media by the pre-service teacher.

DiscussionBased on the data analysis above, this study revealed pre-service teachers’ perception toward TPACK implementation through EFL TPACK questionnaire and the way of pre-service teacher technology devices integration into their classroom. The discussion of this study also divided as well.

Questionnaire
The questionnaire result indicates that there is a positive confidence in pre-service teacher about their knowledge in technology integration towards TPACK framework. This study parallel with the result of Jamieson-proctor, Finger and Albion (2010) who studied about pre-service teacher confidence on TK and TPACK. They reported that they found high level of competency in TK area where it was talked about ICT software applications such as email, web browser, word processing, web searching and presentation software. It was parallel with St3 in this study. But it was contrast when come to keeping informed about new update technology, multimedia and any of the web 2.0. They result indicated pre-service teacher did not have a high level of their perceived competence in that issue. While in this study, the writer had a good number of that issue which can be found in TK area on St2, St4 and St6.

Interview
After that, the result of interview was limited to the use of some devices such as Laptop, Projector, Cell Phone, Audio Speaker and Printer. The writer also found the used of Handy-Cam, but it was used by students not the pre-service teachers. The way they used these devices also limited to presenting and showing the materials that they were going to deliver during their teaching practicum.

In line with the findings of this study, the writer comes to this sugessions for academic institution to be discussed. First of all, auditing pre-service teachers’ confidence on using technology in the classroom setting continuously and providing them digital technology update for teaching is needed. Hence, the institution can provide the appropriate course for them. Afterward, a solution for the result of this study is giving the pre-service teachers more practices on the skill of English comprehension both in speaking and writing. Thus. they will have a sufficient comprehension and necessary knowledge bases. This is parallel with the previous study. In their study, Jamieson-proctor, Finger and Albion (2010) argued that examining pre-service teachers’ knowledge in technology integration regularly was imperative drawn attention. It was crucial because these knowledge bases (TK, PK, and TPACK) should change in line with the rapidly technology development. In other research, they also argued that “if pre-service teachers unjustifiably high level of confidence, … there is a risk that current and future graduates from the program may not have the desired TPACK capabilities.” (Albion, Finger and Jamieson-proctor, 2010).

Secondly, both school and university, increasing the quality and quantity of technology devices should be done. According to Kay (as cited in Aslan ; Zhu, 2015, p.104) it is essential to provide technology devices and its support in order to ensure that every pre-service teacher have an access to the ICT sources without any difficulty.

Last but not least, pre-service teachers should be brave conducting an experiment with new technology for teaching in the classroom. Hence, the integration of technology into the classroom is not limited to technology devices that mentioned in the result of this study.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
ConclusionTo sum up, the majority of pre-service teachers performed positive responses towards EFL TPACK questionnaire. The first research question was answered that pre-service teachers’ technology integration towards TPACK implementation were on sufficient level. Although, there was some doubts on pre-service teachers’ comprehension of English text and speech accurately which indicated from their high responses on neutral scale. However, there were also a low number of disagree responses in PCK and TPK items. The second research question was answered by the interview result which discussed about the way of pre-service teachers’ technology device integration. The majority of them integrate technology in their language classroom used laptop and projector. Some of them also used cell phone and audio speaker. While a handy-cam that mentioned in the interview result, it was used by the students. However, there were also some pre-service teachers who did not integrate any technology on their language learning. Thus, they used traditional method. Meanwhile, several pre-service teachers did not integrate technology devices in the classroom but they were indicated using some devices for their teaching without involved it in the classroom setting such as printer, laptop and cell phone to support their conventional teaching media.
Suggestion
In accordance with this research finding, to promote the confidence of pre-service teachers in integrating technology into the classroom, here are some suggestions for the academic institution who held teacher education program.

Auditing pre-service teachers’ confidence on using technology in the classroom setting continuously and providing them digital technology update for teaching is needed in order to give the appropriate course for pre-service teachers.

Giving the pre-service teachers more practices on the skill of English comprehension both in speaking and writing to fulfil their necessary knowledge bases and sufficient comprehension.

Increasing the quality and quantity of technology devices should be done
Pre-service teachers should be brave conducting an experiment with new technology for teaching in the classroom.