Examination of four L2 teachers’ pedagogical knowledge base in face-to-face and online classroom settings: Can academic degrees make a difference?

Examination of four L2 teachers’ pedagogical knowledge base in face-to-face and online classroom settings: Can academic degrees make a difference? | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Examination of four L2 teachers’ pedagogical knowledge base in face-to-face and online classroom settings: Can academic degrees make a difference? Ahmad Goodarzi, Afsheen Rezai, Parisa Ashkani This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4785778/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Teacher pedagogical knowledge base (PKB) has always attracted a great deal of attention in research concerning teachers’ cognition. However, the interplay between the second/foreign (L2) teachers' academic degrees and different classroom settings has remained under-explored. Hence, this study seeks to explore the influences of classroom settings (i.e., face-to-face vs. online) and academic TESOL degrees (i.e., B.A. vs. M.A. graduates) on shaping L2 teachers' PKB. In so doing, four L2 teachers working at four private English language institutes in Iran volunteered to participate in the research. Drawing upon an exploratory mixed-methods approach, qualitative and quantitative data were obtained using stimulated recall technique. The recalled pedagogical knowledge (PK) categories were analyzed across the two groups by extracting the PK categories, reporting their type and frequency, and running chi-square statistics. The findings showed no significant differences between the sum of pedagogical thoughts (PTs) of B.A. and M.A. L2 teachers in face-to-face classroom settings; however, there were minor differences in the rankings of PK categories between the groups of teachers. On the contrary, the L2 teachers holding M.A. outperformed their B.A. counterparts in generating PK categories in online classes. Moreover, it was revealed that both groups of teachers could produce new contextual PK categories when reflecting on their online classes. In tune with the findings, various suggestions were offered for designing teacher training courses that focus more on the practical side of L2 teachers’ PKB in face-to-face and online L2 teaching settings. face-to-face classes L2 teachers online classes pedagogical knowledge base pedagogical thought Introduction In the early 20th century, there was a growing interest in understanding teachers' pedagogical knowledge (PK) and pedagogical knowledge base (PKB). Initially, the mainstream perspective in teacher education, especially before the 1970s, was dominated by a process-product approach. This approach viewed teachers as mere implementers of predetermined ideas from teacher training programs, with their performance primarily evaluated based on student outcomes (Akbari & Dadvand, 2014; Karimi & Norouzi, 2017 ). The aim was to identify "desirable" teaching behaviors believed to enhance student achievement, with teaching seen as transferring content through specific techniques (Freeman, 2002 ; Verloop et al., 2001 ). This simplistic view of teaching, focusing on observable classroom behaviors and interactions, began to be questioned in the late 20th century. Researchers acknowledged the importance of considering teachers' thought processes, knowledge, and beliefs, collectively known as "teacher cognition," which significantly influence instructional decisions (Freeman & Johnson, 1998 ; Walberg, 1977 ). Studies revealed that a comprehensive knowledge base guides L2 teachers' classroom behaviors, necessitating a re-conceptualization of L2 teacher education (Freeman, 2002 ). Since then, researchers like Gatbonton ( 1999 ) have defined PKB as the accumulated beliefs and thoughts shaping teachers' classroom performance. Pedagogical thoughts (PTs), enacted by teachers through utterances, form the unit of analysis called the pedagogical thought unit (PTU) (Mullock, 2006 ). The accumulation of these thoughts’ structures teachers' PKB. Researchers have suggested that PKB can predict teachers' ability to implement language teaching theories and achieve student learning goals (Burns et al., 2015 ; Dadvand & Behzadpoor, 2020 ; Freeman, 2016 ; Gess-Newsome et al., 2019 ). Various studies in language teachers’ PKB have employed qualitative methods to scrutinize the underlying structure of teachers’ thinking processes while teaching. They generally reported an identifiable core of PKB that indirect observations can reveal (e.g., Gatbonton, 2008 ; Mullock, 2006 ). Utilizing the procedures of quantitative data analysis, some of these studies have investigated the modifications and differences between teachers’ PKB induced by the instructors’ teaching experience (Gatbonton, 2008 ), their academic degrees (Akbari & Dadvand, 2011 ), their participation in professional development courses (Karimi & Norouzi, 2018), teachers’ individual differences (Shabani et al., 2022 ), and their students’ English proficiency level (Moradkhani & Rahimi, 2019 ). However, the literature in the field lacks studies examining the variations in teachers’ PKB caused by the interaction of academic degrees with the teaching space, from face-to-face to online classes. Moreover, due to the lack of empirical evidence supporting the possible interactions of the teaching environment with the L2 teachers’ academic degrees in shaping teachers’ PKB, this study sets out to investigate the role of teachers’ educational degrees in modifying TESOL teachers’ PKB across face-to-face and online classes. Identifying TESOL teachers’ PKB across different teaching environments and academic degrees can reveal their teaching expertise in L2 and is, therefore, a practical technique to elucidate the interactions of a teacher-related factor with the teaching environment on the PTs produced by L2 teachers. The results of this research can establish a basis for the data-driven documentation of the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) for TESOL, which consequently deepen the understanding of L2 teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and L2 teacher education. Literature Review Teachers’ Cognition For nearly three decades, the terms "teacher cognition" and "teacher thinking" have been used interchangeably (Clark & Peterson, 1986), with substantial research investigating these concepts (Burns et al., 2015 ). Initially, the cognitive aspects of teaching were neglected (Jackson, 1968 ), as traditional research focused on behavioral aspects, excluding teachers' perceptions and contextual factors (Shulman & Shulman, 2004 ). Teachers were expected to learn necessary skills through training, without considering their mental states, which were considered rudimentary (Freeman, 2002 ). However, this view has evolved, recognizing teaching as a complex mental activity involving active, reflective decision-making (Borg, 2003 ). The shift towards understanding teachers' cognitive processes began when Walberg ( 1977 ) emphasized a mentalistic approach, introducing the concept of "teachers' mental lives." This approach highlighted the intricate networks of knowledge, thoughts, and beliefs that teachers use to make instructional decisions. Teacher cognition encompasses what teachers know, believe, and think, influencing their teaching practices (Borg, 2003 ). Significant research into teachers' mental lives, particularly in language teaching, began in the 1990s (Borg, 2003 ). Several frameworks describe teacher cognition or knowledge base, such as pedagogical content knowledge, which includes knowledge from content, training, and experience (Grossman, 1990 ). Clandinin ( 1985 ) introduced "personal, practical knowledge" to describe teachers' professional, personal, and experiential backgrounds. Other frameworks include pedagogic content knowledge (Shulman, 1986 ), experiential knowledge (Wallace, 1991 ), and the pedagogical knowledge base (Allwright, 2003 ; VanPatten, 1997 ). Mullock ( 2006 ) defines teachers' PKB as encompassing the goals, processes, and methods underpinning classroom performance. Current research focuses on the cognitive changes teachers undergo while helping students acquire second language (L2) communicative and formal characteristics. For example, Gatbonton ( 1999 ) explored the pedagogic thought patterns of experienced L2 teachers. This research aims to understand teachers' thinking processes and changes as they support L2 learning. Teachers' classroom behaviors are analyzed to gain insights into their knowledge structures and mental lives. In language education, PKB is crucial for teacher recruitment (Akbari & Dadvand, 2014). Scholars have examined PKB to develop practical frameworks that form the basis of language teacher performance, emphasizing the importance of accumulated knowledge in guiding teachers' actions, consciously or unconsciously. Teachers’ pedagogical knowledge base The roots of teachers’ PK can be traced back to the heydays of the paradigm shift from traditional teacher education programs to modern pedagogy-oriented teacher training programs (Darling-Hammond, 2016 ; Peercy et al., 2019 ). In the traditional programs, which were mainly led by behavioristic perspectives, teaching was confined to creating conditioned behaviors and injecting the content into the learners’ memories (Cohen & Waite-Stupiansky, 2022 ). The teachers entering such programs were asked to follow the exact steps modeled by the trainers (Freeman, 2002 ). Therefore, teachers’ thoughts and beliefs were marginalized in these inflexible teacher education programs. In the 1980s, when the role of teachers’ cognition in educational programs culminated (Johnson, 2006 ), teachers’ role as the active creators of contextually personalized knowledge and thoughts was highlighted more than ever (Borg, 2003 ). At that time, as noted by Kubanyiova and Feryok ( 2015 ), educationists disclosed that alongside teacher education, teachers’ thoughts and knowledge modify the teachers’ perspectives. It was also found that, to a large extent, the beliefs that teachers bring to classrooms as their personal language learning experience, known as the apprenticeship of observation, direct their classroom practices (Lortie, 1975 ; Westrick & Morris, 2016 ). Thus, teachers’ PKB (Loughran, 2019 ; Mullock, 2006 ) establishing procedures and implementing strategies has become a great concern for researchers in education (Mann, 2005 ). The unexplored nature of PKB has opened a window to L2 classroom research through a study conducted by Shulman ( 1986 ). In this study, three dimensions of teachers’ PKB were introduced as subject matter content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge. According to Shulman ( 1986 ), the first dimension corresponds to what teachers already know; the second shapes teachers’ knowledge of techniques used to present particular contents to learners comprehensively; and the last dimension includes teachers’ knowledge of the materials and the curricular needs and goals. Despite the popularity of this teachers’ PKB model, little empirical evidence avails to support its dimensions. Additionally, the reported dimensions seem universal, which sets the model back from proposing the detailed specifications of teachers’ PKB in a particular discipline (Dyches & Boyd, 2017 ). In order to resolve these issues, empirical studies in specific subject matters have been conducted to obtain the models of teachers’ PKB, which are basically data‐driven (e.g., Monte‐Sano, 2011; Moradkhani et al., 2013 ). In this regard, Gatbonton ( 1999 ) carried out the first empirical research to categorize teachers’ PKB in the L2 classes. Drawing upon the stimulated recall technique, she examined the PKB of seven experienced teachers, reporting that the teachers mainly called 21 pedagogical knowledge (PK) categories into play while teaching L2 learners. In addition, it was revealed that almost 70 percent of the teachers’ PTs could be grouped into seven main categories, namely “ language management, knowledge of learners, procedure check, progress review, beliefs, note learner reaction and behavior , and decision ” (Gatbonton, 1999 , p. 12). Language management , the most frequently reported PK category, focuses on the learners’ produced output and received input. The next one in the row is knowledge of learners, which includes teachers’ awareness of the learners’ personalities and needs. The next frequently observed PK categories were procedure check (making learners engaged with classroom procedure), progress review (monitoring and correcting learners’ performance while doing activities), beliefs (teachers’ thoughts about teaching), and note learner reactions and behavior (observing learners’ behaviors), respectively. Decision concerned with teachers’ pedagogical choices made in the classroom was the last in ranking of the PK categories. After Gatbonton’s ( 1999 ), similar studies were conducted to document L2 teachers’ PKB (e.g., Akbari & Dadvand, 2011 ; Karimi & Asadnia, 2022 ; Karimi & Norouzi, 2018; Moradkhani & Rahimi, 2019 ; Shabani et al., 2022 ) in which the PK categories remained approximately stable. Research on pedagogical knowledge base Taking the years of teaching experience as an independent variable, Karimi and Asadnia ( 2022 ) explored and compared six novice and experienced L2 teachers’ PKB at a tertiary education level in an online reading class. All the classes were video-recorded to be used as a stimulus for extracting teachers’ PTs. The results showed outstanding differences in the teachers’ PK categories between the novice and experienced teachers. They reported that, while the novice teachers resorted more to their research-based knowledge and teacher education courses, the experienced teachers embarked on their teaching experience, learners’ feedback, and peers’ advice in their PTs. Nevertheless, this study was conducted in an online environment; the lack of data from the teachers’ face-to-face classes impeded the researchers from tracing the effects of the online environment on the L2 teachers’ PKB. Similarly, Karimi and Norouzi (2018) compared the L2 teachers’ PTs at different stages of their teaching careers. They assigned 21 L2 teachers to five groups with varied years of teaching experience. Having video-recorded two sessions of each teacher, they conducted follow-up stimulated recall interviews to examine their PTs. Their findings revealed that there were significant differences across the groups regarding the type and frequency of the PTs. They concluded that in the initial years of teaching, the effects of teaching experience are more perceptible in modifying the L2 teachers’ PTs and then undergoes a steady trend in the following years. Such conclusions, however, may not be much reliable, as this study did not enjoy a longitudinal data collection procedure that followed the variances in each L2 teachers’ PTs over a period of time in their career. In an attempt to explore the impacts of individual differences on producing PTs, Shabani et al. ( 2022 ) examined the influence of levels of grit on the frequency and type of L2 teachers PTs. Four High-Grit and four Low-Grit L2 teachers took part in the stimulated recall interviews to probe into the PTs underlying their instructions. They found significant differences between the groups of L2 teachers in terms of the type of PTs they produced. The High-Grit L2 teachers produced language management, procedure check, affective, self-reflection, progress review, beliefs , and problem check , whereas their Low-Grit counterparts’ PTs comprised language management, procedure check, time check, progress review , and problem check . However, they did not report the effects of the individual differences variable, i.e., teachers’ grit, on the frequency of the shared PTs. Jacob et al. ( 2020 ) investigated the specialized knowledge of experienced teachers, focusing on content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge and their effects on student learning outcomes. They also explored the complexity of teacher knowledge, its application in the classroom, and its impact on student achievement. Findings suggested that teacher quality significantly influences student performance, and a deeper understanding of various types of teacher knowledge is crucial for enhancing educational outcomes. Another study by Paidican and Arredondo ( 2022 ) reviews scientific literature based on Kitchenham’s (2004) proposal concerning the technological pedagogical knowledge of content within the TPACK model. A total of 622 articles from Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and Google Scholar databases, spanning from the model's inception to May 2019, were analyzed. The findings reveal limited research on the TPACK model in primary education. However, there has been an increase in the application of the TPACK model for enhancing teacher pedagogical knowledge and integrating information and communication technology in educational settings. Hirpa et al. ( 2024 ) assessed upper primary English teachers' PKB, revealing moderate proficiency in student assessment but inadequate classroom management and organization skills. Despite a strong correlation between content knowledge and classroom practice, pedagogical content knowledge did not correlate as strongly. The findings highlighted the need for EFL teachers to improve their understanding of student characteristics and diversify instructional strategies. Enhancing their content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge is crucial for effective instruction. Strong communication and collaboration among educational stakeholders are essential for strengthening teachers' knowledge bases and classroom practices. The reviewed studies above confirmed the interplays of PTs with the individual differences variables and teaching experience. Seeking the effects of other modifying factors, Akbari and Dadvand ( 2011 ) investigated the differences in PTs between the L2 teachers holding a B.A. and those holding an M.A. in TESOL. Eight L2 teachers with teaching experiences between 2 and 3 years participated in this research. The whole procedure of the two sessions of each participant was video-recorded, and then the teachers’ PTs were explored by the stimulated recall technique. The findings indicated that, generally, with average PTs of 5.18 per minute, the frequency of the PTs in the M.A. holders was significantly more compared to the B.A., which was 2.58 of such units per minute. Similar types of PK categories were observed for both groups. In a similar study, Moradkhani and Rahimi ( 2019 ) attempted to investigate the influence of learners’ proficiency levels and the TESOL teachers’ academic degrees on L2 teachers’ PKB. Drawing upon an exploratory mixed-methods approach, they collected data from eight L2 teachers through the stimulated recall technique. Their findings evidenced that there was no significant difference between the overall PK units of the L2 teachers who taught beginner and advanced L2 learners. In terms of the PK categories, however, they reported that minor differences in the rankings and significant differences in the frequency were observed. Instead, confirming the results of Akbari and Dadvand ( 2011 ), they found no significant difference between the L2 teachers who held a B.A. and those who held an M.A. Practically, the last two studies documented that, although the academic degree of the L2 teachers had little influence on the type of PTs, it can increase the frequency of the PTs. However, there is little empirical evidence to show the impacts of the TESOL academic credentials (B.A. and M.A.) in producing PTs face-to-face compared to online classes in which technology may play a modifying role. Sticking these issues in mind, this research seeks to address the gap and explore the interactions of the academic degrees of L2 teachers with their teaching space in terms of producing PTs. This research sought to investigate the L2 teachers' PK across TESOL degrees and face-to-face and online classes. Hence, the following research question (RQ)s were raised to guide the study:RQ1. Do L2 teachers’ TESOL degrees (B.A. and M.A.) make any difference in the type and frequency of L2 teachers’ PK categories in the face-to-face classroom setting? RQ2. Do L2 teachers’ TESOL degrees (B.A. and M.A.) make any difference in the type and frequency of L2 teachers’ PK categories in the online classroom setting? Methodology Design An exploratory mixed-methods approach was employed to answer the research questions (Creswell, 2008 ). In this approach, the qualitative data is collected and analyzed to extract the leading themes and then support the obtained data; the research proceeds with collecting and analyzing quantitative data. In such designs, the qualitative side of the research, as the foundation of the quantitative examinations, is central. Thus, at first, the teachers’ PTs were qualitatively examined, and then quantitative procedures were utilized to compare different settings (face-to-face and online). The main purpose of this case study research is to examine and report events in authentic contexts. As underscored by Shakir (2002, p. 191), “case study research is deemed suitable when the proposed research is largely exploratory; and addresses the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions.” Context of the study The Learners To control the possible impacts of context-based factors, the researcher collected data from two private English institutes in Doroud, a town in the west of Iran. The learners in the present study were learning English in four English classes aged between 15 to 27 years (M = 21.08; SD = 2.21). On average, each class included around 8 to 14 English learners with an identical first language (i.e., Persian) and ethnicity (i.e., Lorish) who had taken English placement tests to enroll in their suitable classes. To be more precise, 41 learners attended the four intermediate L2 English classes in which American English File 2 and 3 (second edition), as the English course books, were being taught. As the principles of the two institutes alleged, all the English institutes in this study had selected communicative language teaching as the main teaching methodology and had their teachers follow its principles. As a selection criterion, this similarity diminished the possible discrepancy among the two English institutes in this research to its minimum amount. The Teachers This study recruited four TESOL teachers who will be referred to as teachers A, B, C, and D. To eliminate the effects of the intervening variables, purposive sampling (Ary et al., 2010 ) was utilized to choose the teachers with some predetermined features, including the level of teaching, the hybrid policy of the institutes, the university degrees, the sex, and the attendance in Teacher Training Courses (TTC). Teachers A and B were female, and teachers C and D were male. All the teacher participants in this study aged between 28 and 39 years old, with teaching experience ranging between 6 to 10 years. Moreover, teachers A and C held B.A. degrees, and teachers B and D held M.A. in TESOL, and they all had been teaching intermediate and upper-intermediate English courses for at least two years. They also had participated in TTCs before they were employed in the institutes. The Courses The selected teachers taught different classes at the time of the study; however, in order to observe the homogeneity of levels, the classes opted for the second edition of American English File (AEF) 2 and 3 (Latham-Koenig et al., 2013 ) was being taught. The textbooks included a Multimedia DVD and two textbooks: a learners’ book, which was used as the main source, and a workbook, which included written practices of introduced topics in the main book. According to the regulations of the institutes, the courses consisted of 15 to 18 sessions of instruction along with an exam given in the last session. Each class was held twice a week and lasted about one and a half hours. As obligated by the institutes’ managers and recommended in the TTCs, these courses were being taught per the principles of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). In these courses, all four language skills were practiced simultaneously to facilitate learners’ communication in English. As this study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, both selected institutes maintained a hybrid policy toward their classes, in a way that with the upsurge of Corona, they resorted to online platforms to avoid the stoppage of their training. Besides, due to the fact that sheltering in online platforms was temporary, they preferred to use the WhatsApp application as an interim classroom setting. The teachers shared voice recordings, videos, links, audio, and images in the online classes. They asked the learners to upload their own voice recordings, writings, and pictures of their assignments in the groups. The Lessons As mentioned earlier, all four teachers followed a CLT lesson plan that emphasized listening, speaking, reading, and writing using the course book AEF 2 and 3 (Latham-Koenig et al., 2013 ). The teachers covered two to four pages of their course books in each session and conversed various questions and answers. Teacher A taught units 7a and 7b of AEF 2, which had “saving the first days in different places” as the main theme and “infinitives” as the underlying grammar. The unit included reading, listening, grammar, pronunciation, and speaking tasks. On the other hand, teacher B taught units 2b and 2c of AEF 3 entitled “Changing lives,” which depicted attempts of a family to help Ugandan children. In this unit, which reflected the contextualized differences between “Present Perfect” and “Present Perfect Continuous,” all four skills were practiced along with pronunciation and grammar activities. Teacher C had units 5a and 5b of AEF 3 as the teaching blocks, which discussed “sporting superstitions” and dug into learners’ athletic background and their current beliefs about sporting superstitions. In this unit, reading, speaking, and writing tasks accompanied a vocabulary section and a pronunciation activity. In teacher D’s class, units 11b and 11c of AEF 2 were being taught to the learners in which “decision-making” was main theme, and the use of “might” and “used to” were the leading structures. In this unit, the learners practiced grammar, listening, speaking, and pronunciation tasks along with short answer writing activities. Data Collection Procedures As noted by Meijer et al ( 2002 ), the stimulated recall technique is enumerated as the main data collection instrument in order to tap into teachers’ cognition. Therefore, this technique was employed in the present research to explore teachers’ PTs. As mentioned earlier, according to the policies of the language institutes, they held hybrid English classes, as whenever the society was approaching the peak of the pandemic, they temporarily resorted to the WhatsApp application to pass the condition. Therefore, the data collection procedure included both face-to-face and online settings. For the face-to-face classes, the first step was to videotape three 90-minute teaching sessions of all the teachers. Following each session, the participants were then asked to take part in follow-up interviews in which they watched and reviewed their performance in that session and tried to express their ongoing thoughts when they were teaching. A similar procedure was adopted to investigate the teachers’ pedagogical thoughts in the online classes, with the difference that, instead of video recording, the teachers and one of the researchers reviewed the class procedures in a 90-minute class on the WhatsApp groups of the classes. The teachers manipulated texts, voice recordings, pictures, videos, and hyperlinks to lead a communicative language class. The students were also able to share their language-based outputs in texts, voice recordings, and pictures. In the interviews, simple questions were used to dig into the teachers’ thoughts, such as “ What were you doing here? ”, “ Why did you do/say that ?”, and “ Why do you think it was important for the learners? ”. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, Persian, as the participants’ mother tongue, was used in the interviews. On average, each interview lasted about 2 hours. Moreover, a voice recorder was used to record all the interviews, and the teachers’ informed consent was obtained before starting each interview session. Having transcribed the interviews verbatim, member checking (Creswell, 2007 ) was utilized to increase the credibility of the transcribed interviews. Thus, the transcripts were sent via WhatsApp to the teachers to endorse their authenticity. Additionally, as the attendance of an outsider could threaten the reliability and validity of the data, the video recordings of classes were carried out without the physical presence of the researchers. Also, since all the classes in the institutes were equipped with security cameras and microphones, the teachers and learners were mindful that their practices were being recorded; therefore, the probably of affected performance of the teachers and learners due to the video recording was diminished. As suggested by Gass and Mackey ( 2000 ), to keep the teachers’ minds fresh in remembering their classroom pedagogical thoughts, the lapse between the offline /online classes and the stimulated recall sessions was curtailed from 10 minutes to 5 hours. Besides, before the interviews, the mechanism of stimulated recall was fully explained to the teachers to hinder the possible impacts of their inaccurate assumptions from their pedagogic thoughts (Meijer et al., 2002 ). Furthermore, preliminary to the study, one of the researchers attended all the classes to receive the participating teachers’ and learners’ informed consent and assure them of their voluntary participation and the confidentiality of all the gathered data. Data Analysis Procedures The data analysis in this research included a qualitative and a quantitative stage. At the qualitative stage, the three stages of open coding, axial coding, and labeling were used to identify the flowing themes in the data (Charmaz, 2006 ). More precisely, the teachers’ talks on their practices were grouped into small PTs in the open coding. Then, in the axial coding, the similarity criterion was used to codify the PTs into different categories. Finally, the categories were labeled based on their internal shared themes. Notably, a reiterative approach was utilized to identify and categorize the pedagogical thoughts. Meanwhile, when the thematic categorization of the qualitative data was completed, the researchers consulted other similar research to check the availability of the obtained categories in previous studies. Then, to hinder any disorientation, the labels available in the literature were used for the pedagogical thoughts of the present research. Furthermore, in line with the recommendations of Gass and Mackey ( 2000 ), the interrater reliability of the qualitative data analysis was ensured through a collaborative process. A third-party academic researcher, specialized in qualitative studies, reexamined 20% of the qualitative data. This collaborative effort resulted in a high consistency of 93% between the outsider researcher's thematic analysis and the researchers' analyses. Additionally, to check for any statistically significant differences across the classroom settings and the academic degrees of the L2 teachers, chi-quare analyses were conducted, further reinforcing the collaborative nature of the research. Results Results of the First Research Question The first question of this research examined whether L2 teachers’ TESOL degrees (B.A. and M.A.) make any difference in the type and frequency of L2 teachers’ PK categories in the face-to-face classroom setting. Table 1 compares the frequency and ranking of PK categories recalled by L2 teachers with bachelor’s and master’s degrees in the face-to-face classroom setting. This table reveals that the type and ranking of the most frequently generated PK categories between B.A. and M.A. L2 teachers were comparatively steady in the face-to-face classes. As reported, the top five PK categories for both groups, which embraced over 75% of all PTs ( language management , knowledge of students , procedure check , progress review , feedback , and probe prior knowledge ), specify that both B.A. and M.A. L2 teachers showed a high tendency toward the produced and received language input by the L2 learners. However, regarding the next two categories, the L2 teachers with M.A. produced procedure check as the second in the ranking. In contrast, the B.A. teachers emphasized more on the knowledge of the learners in comparison to the procedure check . The last rows of Table 1 also indicate that both groups had the least inclination toward comprehensibility and past experience in face-to-face classes (f < 1%). Table 1 PK categories of the L2 teachers in the face-to-face classroom setting B.A. L2 Teachers M.A. L2 Teachers Categories A C Total Categories B D Total Language management 26(32%) 21(28%) 47(30%) Language management 24(27%) 26(28%) 50 (28%) Knowledge of students 15(18%) 16(22%) 31(19%) Procedure check 16(18%) 15(17%) 31 (17%) Procedure check 11(13%) 14(17%) 25(16%) Knowledge of students 13(15%) 15(17%) 28 (16%) Progress review 6 (7%) 5 (6%) 11 (7%) Feedback 7 (8%) 6 (7%) 13 (7%) Feedback 5 (6%) 2 (3%) 7 (4%) Probe prior knowledge 5 (6%) 5 (6%) 10 (6%) Probe prior knowledge 3 (3%) 3 (4%) 6 (4%) Progress review 4 (5%) 5 (6%) 9 (5%) Beliefs 3 (3%) 2 (3%) 5 (3%) Group/pair work 3 (4%) 3 (4%) 6 (3%) Group/pair work 3 (3%) 2 (3%) 5 (3%) Time check 3 (4%) 2 (2%) 5 (3%) Curriculum fit 2 (2%) 2 (3%) 4 (3%) Curriculum fit 2 (2%) 3 (4%) 5 (3%) Affective 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 3 (2%) Beliefs 2 (2%) 2 (2%) 4 (2%) Time check 1 (1%) 2 (3%) 3 (2%) Affective 3 (4%) 1 (1%) 4 (2%) Content 2 (2%) 1 (2%) 3 (2%) Problem check 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 3 (2%) Note student behavior 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 3 (2%) Note student behavior 1 (1%) 2 (2%) 3 (2%) Problem check - 2 (3%) 2 (2%) Content 1 (1%) 2 (2%) 3 (2%) Comprehensibility - 1 (1%) 1 (< 1%) Comprehensibility 1 (1%) - 1 (< 1%) Past Experience 1 (1) - 1 (< 1%) Past Experience - 1 (1%) 1 (< 1%) Total 82 75 157 Total 87 89 176 Thoughts per minute 1.52 1.40 2.92 Thoughts per Minute 1.59 1.43 3.02 Table 2 The chi-square results for differences in the dominant PT categories in the face-to-face classroom setting Groups Pedagogical thought categories Chi-square DF Asymp. Sig. B.A. and M.A. Language management 3.58 1 0.058 B.A. and M.A. Knowledge of students 0.61 1 0.434 B.A. and M.A. Procedure check 3.86 1 0.055 B.A. and M.A. Progress review 0.46 1 0.495 B.A. and M.A. Feedback 1.26 1 0.260 B.A. and M.A. Probe prior knowledge 0.23 1 0.627 B.A. and M.A. Beliefs 0.2 1 0.654 B.A. and M.A. Group/pair work 0.16 1 0.683 B.A. and M.A. Curriculum fit 0.2 1 0.654 B.A. and M.A. Affective 0.25 1 0.617 B.A. and M.A. Time check 0.25 1 0.617 B.A. and M.A. Content 0.33 1 0.563 B.A. and M.A. Note student behavior 0.25 1 0.617 B.A. and M.A. Problem check 0.33 1 0.563 B.A. and M.A. Comprehensibility 0.5 1 0.479 B.A. and M.A. Past Experience 0.5 1 0.479 *Significant at the 0.05 level. On the other hand, Table 1 informs that the B.A. L2 teachers produced a sum of 157 PTs (2.92 thoughts per minute), while the M.A. L2 teachers generated a total number of 176 PTs (3.02 thoughts per minute). Therefore, no discernable disparity was observed in the number of produced PTs between the two groups. Plus, comparing the frequency of the recalled PK categories through the chi-square analyses disclosed no significant difference between the groups concerning the categories (Table 2 ). This indicates that the overall PTs produced by the L2 teachers in each group were almost homogeneous, stipulating that the teachers’ TESOL degrees play little role in the L2 teachers’ PKB. Results of the Second Research Question The second research question of this study explored whether L2 teachers’ TESOL degrees can make any difference in the type and frequency of L2 teachers’ PK categories in the online classroom setting. Table 3 shows the frequency and ranking of PK categories produced by B.A. and M.A. L2 teachers in online classroom settings. As seen, the change in the classroom setting from face-to-face to online necessitated the teachers to generate new PK categories which are more or less technologically inclined (i.e., outsourcing to multimedia links , multimedia check , virtual classroom management , technological problem check ). Nevertheless, in both groups of teachers, the first ranking was occupied by language management , also available in the face-to-face classroom setting. Table 3 indicates that, when escalated to the second rank in face-to-face and online classes, feedback comprised an average of 20% of both groups of teachers in online classes. Outsourcing to multimedia links and multimedia check , as the main technologically-induced PK categories, held higher rankings in the M.A. teachers with an approximate percentage of 20 compared to their B.A. counterparts incorporating 15% of the whole PK frequencies. Additionally, self-critique as a new PK category was generated by both B.A. teachers in speculating on their online classes. Moreover, compared to the M.A. L2 teachers, B.A. teachers showed more inclination toward time check by producing it three times more than the M.A. holders. Notably, both groups of teachers in online classes did not recall procedure check compared to face-to-face classroom settings (around 4%). Beliefs and note student behavior holding around 1% of the PK frequencies in both groups of teachers were settled in the last two rows of the PK categories. Table 3 PK categories of the L2 teachers in online classroom setting B.A. L2 Teachers M.A. L2 Teachers Categories A C Total Categories B D Total Language management 21(26%) 18(26%) 39(27%) Language management 25(26%) 20(26%) 45(26%) Feedback 15(18%) 14(20%) 29(19%) Feedback 18(19%) 17(22%) 35(21%) Time check 12(14%) 11(16%) 23(16%) Outsourcing to multimedia links 11(12%) 13(17%) 24(13%) Outsourcing to multimedia links 6 (7%) 7 (10%) 13 (9%) Multimedia check 8 (9%) 5 (7%) 13 (8%) Knowledge of students 5 (6%) 2 (3%) 7 (6%) Time check 6 (7%) 5 (7%) 11 (5%) Multimedia check 3 (4%) 3 (5%) 6 (5%) Progress review 5 (5%) 3 (4%) 8 (3%) Procedure check 2 (3%) 3 (5%) 5 (4%) Knowledge of students 3 (3%) 4 (5%) 7 (4%) Probe prior knowledge 2 (3%) 2 (3%) 4 (2%) Virtual Classroom management 4 (4%) 3 (4%) 7 (4%) Virtual Classroom management 3 (4%) 1 (3%) 4 (2%) Language Problem check 2 (2%) 2 (2%) 4 (3%) Language Problem check 3 (4%) 1 (1%) 4 (2%) Technological Problem check 2 (2%) 2 (2%) 4 (3%) Technological Problem check 2 (3%) 2 (3%) 4 (2%) Content 3 (3%) 1 (1%) 4 (3%) Progress review 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 3 (2%) Procedure check 3 (3%) 1 (1%) 4 (3%) Self-Critique 1 (2%) 1 (1%) 2 (1%) Probe prior knowledge 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 3 (2%) Content 1 (2%) 1 (1%) 2 (1%) Comprehensibility 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 2 (1%) Beliefs 1 (2%) 1 (1%) 2 (1%) Note student behavior 1 (1%) - 1 (< 1%) Note student behavior - 1 (1%) 1 (< 1%) Beliefs 1 (1%) - 1 (< 1%) Total 79 69 148 Total 95 78 173 Thoughts per minute 1.40 1.32 2.72 Thoughts per Minute 1.52 1.39 2.91 Table 4 The chi-square results for differences in the dominant PT categories in the online classroom setting Groups Pedagogical thought categories Chi-square DF Asymp. Sig. B.A. and M.A. Language management 40.5 1 0.00001* B.A. and M.A. Feedback 29.54 1 0.00001* B.A. and M.A. Time check 18.06 1 0.000021* B.A. and M.A. Outsourcing to multimedia links 17.47 1 0.000029* B.A. and M.A. Knowledge of students 4.5 1 0.033895* B.A. and M.A. Multimedia check 8.14 1 0.004323* B.A. and M.A. Procedure check 1.66 1 0.196715 B.A. and M.A. Probe prior knowledge 2.5 1 0.113846 B.A. and M.A. Virtual Classroom management 4.25 1 0.03925* B.A. and M.A. Language Problem check 2.33 1 0.126633 B.A. and M.A. Technological Problem check 2.33 1 0.126633 B.A. and M.A. Progress review 2.3 1 0.129374 B.A. and M.A. Self-Critique 1 1 0.317311 B.A. and M.A. Content 1.33 1 0.248219 B.A. and M.A. Beliefs 1 1 0.317311 B.A. and M.A. Note student behavior 0 1 1.00 B.A. and M.A. Beliefs 0 1 1.00 B.A. and M.A. Comprehensibility 0 1 1.00 *Significant at the 0.05 level. Discussion This study sought to explore whether academic degrees make a difference in PKB of four L2 teachers across face-to-face and online classroom settings. By analyzing the frequency and type of PTs, this study aimed to uncover subtlety insights into how higher academic qualifications may influence teaching practices. The research questions of the present study aimed to explore the variations induced by academic degrees in L2 teachers’ PKB across face-to-face and online L2 classes. The chi-square analysis revealed no significant difference in the overall frequency of PTs produced by B.A. and M.A. teachers in face-to-face setting. This finding corroborates the work of Moradkhani and Rahimi ( 2019 ), who also found minimal impact of academic degrees on PT frequency. However, our study noted a slight increase in PTs per minute among M.A. teachers, suggesting that advanced degrees might contribute to a marginally higher pedagogical engagement. This aligns with Basturkmen et al. (2004), who suggested that more qualified teachers might be more reflective and hence produce more PTs. In face-to-face settings, both B.A. and M.A. teachers predominantly focused on language management, knowledge of students, and procedural checks . This is consistent with Gatbonton ( 1999 ), who identified these categories as central to L2 teaching. The findings further echo those of Farrell ( 2013 ), who highlighted that knowledge of students and language management remain foundational regardless of the teaching environment. In face-to-face classes, although there were trivial variations in the order of the PK categories, the L2 teachers generated comparatively similar types of PK categories. This finding suggests that the academic degree may not play a significant role in shaping the overall body of teachers’ PKB in face-to-face classes. Therefore, the L2 teachers are liable to employ their PKB in L2 classes irrespective of their academic degrees. Transitioning to online settings, new PK categories emerged, such as multimedia management and technological problem-solving , particularly among M.A. teachers. This suggests that higher academic qualifications may enhance teachers’ abilities to adapt to technology-integrated teaching environments. This is in line with Hampel and Stickler ( 2005 ), who emphasized the need for digital literacy in online language teaching. The study found that traditional PK categories remained dominant across both settings, indicating their foundational role in L2 teaching. However, the integration of technology-specific categories in online settings underscores the dynamic nature of PKB. This supports findings by Comas-Quinn ( 2011 ), who argued that effective online teaching requires specific technological skills and pedagogical strategies. The results suggest that M.A. teachers are better equipped to manage and integrate technological tools in online classrooms, likely due to more extensive training in digital pedagogies. This finding aligns with the conclusions of Blake (2013), who noted that advanced training can better prepare teachers for the complexities of online teaching. The M.A. L2 teachers in online classes showed a different pattern in recalling PK categories. The M.A. holders outperform their B.A. colleagues in generating a relatively higher number of PTs. This difference proceeded so that in almost 85% of the PK categories (the top seven categories), the groups held significant differences in the number of produced PTs. Moreover, the inevitabilities of online classes compelled both groups of L2 teachers to generate new PK categories, including outsourcing to multimedia links, multimedia check, virtual classroom management, and technological problem check . Despite being in line with the findings of Moradkhani and Rahimi ( 2019 ), the gained results were in sharp contrast with those of Akbari and Dadvand ( 2011 ). Akbari and Dadvand ( 2011 ) reported that M.A. L2 teachers outshine their B.A. colleagues in generating PTs in face-to-face classes. However, no significant difference was found between these two groups in Moradkhani and Rahimi ( 2019 ), as confirmed in this study. Nevertheless, M.A. plays a significant role in increasing the number of teachers’ PTs in online classes. Therefore, what Akbari and Dadvand ( 2011 ) found is confirmable only in an online classroom setting, whereas the findings of Moradkhani and Rahimi ( 2019 ) cannot be generalized to online classroom contexts. One probable reason for the attained findings may lie in the content and requirements of undergraduate and postgraduate TESOL programs in Iran. In postgraduate programs in Iran, the theoretical foundations need to be more fruitful to equip the holder with a rich repertoire of PKB, in contrast to the undergraduate TESOL graduates in face-to-face classes. Furthermore, their research-oriented propensity may induce a higher level of familiarity and comfort with technology as a consequence of teaching online classes (Bond et al., 2020; Dunn & Kennedy, 2019 ). Hence, neither the superficial theoretical contents of B.A. programs nor its insufficient practical orientation is supportive enough to prepare students for internalizing a ponderous PKB accessible in all classroom settings (e.g., online settings) (Loncar et al., 2023 ; Wang et al., 2023 ). Thus, this focus on research and publication in TESOL programs, mainly conducted online through technology, impels the postgraduates to obtain a moderate or high level of computer literacy in online venues. One further line of discussion is that while B.A. TESOL programs in Iran mainly emphasize improving students’ language proficiency (more than half of the credits are allocated to general English courses), M.A. students are chiefly steered toward a broader research-based theoretical basis in TESOL, which certainly includes technology as a core (Kessler, 2006 ). Therefore, theory-based approaches in Iranian teacher education programs may lead to this feeble body of PKB in M.A. and B.A. TESOL graduates. In order to supply the under-and postgraduate TESOL students with a higher level of PKB, Western teacher education programs have undertaken a paradigm shift where theory-based approaches are being substituted by performance‐based assessment (Darling‐Hammond, 2012). Accordingly, König et al. ( 2016 )d nig et al. (2017) noted that although theory‐based teacher education programs may provide teachers with PKB, they cannot ensure the teachers’ practice‐oriented PKB in classrooms. However, in addition to a rich PKB, Mishra and Koehler (2006) claim that, in a technology-ruled world, TESOL teachers need to gain technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) to be able to manage online teaching situations and furnish their face-to-face classes with technological aids. TPACK, known as the knowledge of how to conjoin the facilities of technologies in teaching (Koh et al., 2010), plays the role of an intersection among subject-matter knowledge, pedagogy, and technologies (Harris & Hofer, 2009 ). Conclusion In the current research, the emerged PK categories offered that university degrees played little role in specifying the type and ranking of the PK categories in different classroom settings (e.g., face-to-face and online), as a core set of PK categories, which comprised almost two-thirds of the frequencies, remained relatively stable. Except for the emerged PK categories in online classes ( Outsourcing to Multimedia Links , Multimedia Check , Virtual Classroom Management , and Technological Problem Check ), practically in this research area, similar dominant categories have been obtained in similar studies (e.g., Akbari & Dadvand, 2011 ; Gatbonton, 1999 , 2008 ; Moradkhani & Rahimi, 2019 ; Mullock, 2006 ). Therefore, along with Shulman’s ( 1986 ) generic framework, a universal PKB model can be designed for categorizing the TESOL teachers’ PKB. On the other hand, to enhance the quality of TESOL programs and prepare the graduates for various classroom settings and challenges, the programs’ content should be organized so that the students can apply language teaching and learning theories alongside technology. Furthermore, the administrators of teacher education programs are strongly recommended to meticulously equip L2 teachers according to the TESOL teachers’ PKB and the PK categories generated by L2 instructors in the current study. Holding reflective roundtables stimulated by videotaped classroom procedures after teachers’ practicums in teacher education programs (Zeichner & Liston, 2013 ) can shape an invaluable PKB for L2 teachers. Accordingly, Golombek (2012, p. 461) opines, “Reflection in response to their own classrooms helps teachers contextualize their practical knowledge, thus making meaning of this knowledge.” Therefore, the pedagogical knowledge piled up in teachers’ crania can be practically used in language classes if verbalized, discussed, and shaped in stress-free collaborative ambiances. Moreover, to familiarize the L2 teachers with the perks of technology in teaching, the stakeholders, administrators, and educators of teacher education programs and education systems are required to extend the use of technology in pre-service and in-service programs. It can achieved by offering the attendees to keep electronic portfolios (Chye et al., 2019 ), employing online communication technologies, including e-mails and social media (König et al., 2020 ), using teaching and learning computer and mobile applications (Nazari & Xodabande, 2022 ), integrating different multimedia materials in teaching (Kennedy et al., 2017 ), and benefiting from the assistance of artificial intelligences such Chat GPT for learning and receiving computerized assessment and feedback (Roll & Wylie, 2016 ). In addition, what was found in the present research might also encourage other researchers in this strand to design and carry out future studies exploring L2 teachers’ PKB in different contexts and settings. As random sampling was applied in this research, the findings are required to be interpreted considering the research context. Despite the meticulous endeavors to diminish the subjective aspects of the stimulated recall technique, replications of this study with a larger number of TESOL teacher participants, especially in online classroom settings, might pave the way to validate the obtained results in this study. Replications of the present study are also able to enrich the literature with more technology-induced PK categories, such as the ones found in this research. It is also arguable thatemploying various data collection methods to collect the PK categories from many of L2 teachers might resolve the possible data collection confinements in this study. Plus, it is highly recommended to investigate the impacts of other variables, including the number of students, private and governmental education, the type of online platforms, and the nature of teacher education programs on the type and frequency of the produced by L2 teachers. Declarations DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT We offer data on request. CONFLICT OF INTEREST We declare no conflict of interest. ETHICS APPROVAL The first author was granted ethics approval. FUNDING We have received no funding. Author Contribution All the authors, A, B, and C contributed at all the stages of the study. Also, no funding was received by any of the authors for this research. References Akbari, R., & Dadvand, B. (2011). Does formal teacher education make a difference? A comparison of pedagogical thought units of B.A. versus M.A. teachers. Modern Language Journal , 95 , 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01142.x. Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory Practice: rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113-141. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168803lr118oa Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Sorensen, C., & Razavieh, A. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8 th ed.). Cengage Learning. Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers' stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied linguistics, 25 (2), 243-272. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.243 Blake, R. J. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning . Georgetown University Press. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 17 (1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8 Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching , 36 , 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903. Burns, A., Freeman, D., & Edwards, E. (2015). Theorizing and studying the language‐teaching mind: Mapping research on language teacher cognition. Modern Language Journal , 99 , 585–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12245 . Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers' development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Educational Technology & Society , 13 (4), 63-73. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory . Sage. Chye, S., Zhou, M., Koh, C., & Liu, W. C. (2019). Using e-portfolios to facilitate reflection: Insights from an activity theoretical analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education , 85 , 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.002 Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Personal Practical Knowledge: A Study of Teachers’ Classroom Images. Curriculum Inquiry , 15 (4), 361–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1985.11075976 Cohen, L. E., & Waite-Stupiansky, S. (Eds.). (2022). Theories of early childhood education: Developmental, behaviorist, and critical . Taylor & Francis. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2 nd ed.). Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative approaches to research (3rd ed.). Merrill/Pearson Education. Dadvand, B., & Behzadpoor, F. (2020). Pedagogical knowledge in English language teaching: A lifelong-learning, complex-system perspective. London Review of Education . Darling‐Hammond, L. (2012). The right start: Creating a strong foundation for the teaching career. Phi Delta Kappan , 94 , 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209400303 . Darling‐Hammond, L. (2016). Research on teaching and teacher education and its influence on policy and practice. Educational Researcher , 45 , 83–91. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16639597. Dunn, T. J., & Kennedy, M. (2019). Technology Enhanced Learning in higher education; motivations, engagement and academic achievement. Computers & Education , 137 , 104-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.004 Dyches, J., & Boyd, A. (2017). Foregrounding equity in teacher education: Toward a model of social justice pedagogical and content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education , 68 , 476–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117705097. Farrell, T. S. (2013). Reflecting on ESL teacher expertise: A case study. System , 41 (4), 1070-1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.10.014 Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge‐base of language teacher education. TESOL quarterly , 32 (3), 397-417. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588114 Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. Language Teaching , 35 , 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444801001720. Freeman, D. (2016). Educating second language teachers: The same things done differently . Oxford University Press. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language acquisition . Lawrence Erlbaum. Gatbonton, E. (1999). Investigating experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. Modern Language Journal , 83 , 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00004 . Gatbonton, E. (2008). Looking beyond teachers’ classroom behaviour: Novice and experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. Language Teaching Research , 12 , 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086286 . Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. (2019). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education , 41 (7), 944-963. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1265158 Golombek, P. R. (1998). A study of language teachers' personal practical knowledge. TESOL quarterly , 32 (3), 447-464. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588117. Grossman, P. (1990). The Making of a Teacher . Teacher’s College Press Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 18 (4), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220500335455 Harris, J. & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional Planning Activity Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development. In I. Gibson, R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2009--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4087-4095). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved July 15, 2023 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/31298/ Hirpa, T., Simegn, B., Amogne, D., & Getnet, M. (2024). Evaluation of EFL teachers’ knowledge bases and classroom practice: upper primary schools. Cogent Education , 11 (1), 2339557. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2339557 Jackson, J. A. (Ed.). (1968). Social Stratification: Volume 1, Sociological Studies (No. 1). Cambridge University Press. Jacob, F. I. L. G. O. N. A., John, S. A. K. I. Y. O., & Gwany, D. M. (2020). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and students’ academic achievement: A theoretical overview. Journal of Global Research in Education and Social Science , 14 (2), 14-44. Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly , 40 , 235–257. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264518 Karimi, M. N., & Asadnia, F. (2022). Customizing Web 2.0 tools to writing pedagogy: TPACK-based professional development of L2 writing teachers. In H. Kayi-Aydar & J. Reinhardt (Eds), Language Teacher Development in Digital Contexts (pp. 157-178). John Benjamins. Karimi, M. N., & Norouzi, M. (2017). Scaffolding teacher cognition: Changes in novice L2 teachers’ pedagogical knowledge base through expert mentoring initiatives. System , 65 , 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.015 . Kennedy, M. J., Rodgers, W. J., Romig, J. E., Lloyd, J. W., & Brownell, M. T. (2017). Effects of a multimedia professional development package on inclusive science teachers’ vocabulary instruction. Journal of Teacher Education , 68 (2), 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116687554 Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training: What are we doing and what could we do better. Teacher education in CALL , 14 , 23-42. König, J., Jäger-Biela, D. J., & Glutsch, N. (2020). Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. European Journal of Teacher Education , 43 (4), 608-622. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650 König, J., Lammerding, S., Nold, G., Rohde, A., Strauß, S., & Tachtsoglou, S. (2016). Teachers’ professional knowledge for teaching English as a foreign language: Assessing the outcomes of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education , 67 , 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116644956 . König, J., Tachtsoglou, S., Lammerding, S., Strauß, S., Nold, G., & Rohde, A. (2017). The role of opportunities to learn in teacher preparation for EFL teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Modern Language Journal , 101 , 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12383 . Kubanyiova, M., & Feryok, A. (2015). Language teacher cognition in applied linguistics research: Revisiting the territory, redrawing the boundaries, reclaiming the relevance. Modern Language Journal , 99 , 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12239 . Latham-Koenig, C., Oxenden, C., & Seligson, P. (2013). American English File Series: Students Book and Workbook . Oxford University Press. Loncar, M., Schams, W., & Liang, J. S. (2023). Multiple technologies, multiple sources: Trends and analyses of the literature on technology-mediated feedback for L2 English writing published from 2015-2019. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 36 (4), 722-784. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1943452. Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study . University of Chicago Press. Loughran, J. (2019). Pedagogical reasoning: The foundation of the professional knowledge of teaching. Teachers and Teaching , 25 (5), 523-535. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1633294 Mann, S. (2005). The language teacher’s development. Language Teaching , 38 , 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444805002867 . Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D. (2002). Multi-method triangulation in a qualitative study on teachers' practical knowledge: An attempt to increase internal validity. Quality and Quantity , 36 , 145-167. Monte‐Sano, C. (2011). Learning to open up history for students: Preservice teachers’ emerging pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education , 62 , 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110397842 . Moradkhani, S., Akbari, R., Samar, R. G., & Kiany, G. R. (2013). English language teacher educators' pedagogical knowledge base: the macro and micro categories. Australian Journal of Teacher Education , 38 (10), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n10.7 Moradkhani, S., & Rahimi, M. (2019). The impact of students’ English proficiency level and teacher education on L2 teachers’ pedagogical knowledge: A mixed‐methods study. TESOL Journal , 11 (2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.496. Mullock, B. (2006). The pedagogical knowledge base of four TESOL teachers. Modern Language Journal , 90 , 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00384.x. Nazari, M., & Xodabande, I. (2022). L2 teachers’ mobile-related beliefs and practices: Contributions of a professional development initiative. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 35 (7), 1354-1383. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1799825 Paidican, M. A., & Arredondo, P. A. (2022). The technological-pedagogical knowledge for in-service teachers in primary education: A systematic literature review. Contemporary educational technology , 14 (3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11813 . Peercy, M.M., Varghese, M. and Dubetz, N. (2019), Critically Examining Practice-Based Teacher Education for Teachers of Language Minoritized Youth. TESOL Quarterly, 53 , 1173-1185. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.533 Comas-Quinn, A. (2011). Learning to teach online or learning to become an online teacher: an exploration of teachers’ experiences in a blended learning course. ReCALL , 23 (3), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344011000152 Roll, I., & Wylie, R. (2016). Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , 26 , 582-599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0110-3. Shabani, M. B., Ashkani, P., & Karimi, M. N. (2022). EFL Teachers’ pedagogical thoughts: Variations across teachers with varying levels of grit. Frontiers in Education , 7 , 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.890834 Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher , 15 , 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004 Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: a shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 36 (2), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000148298 Vanpatten, B. (1997). How Language Teaching Is Constructed Introduction to the Special Issue. The Modern Language Journal , 81 (1), 1–5. http://www.jstor.org/stable/329156 Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International journal of educational research , 35 (5), 441-461. Walberg, H. J. (1977). Decision and Perception: New constructs for research on teaching effects. Cambridge Journal of Education , 7 (1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764770070105 Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach . Cambridge university press. Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Pan, Z., & Ortega-Martín, J. L. (2023). The predicting role of EFL Students’ achievement emotions and technological self-efficacy in their technology acceptance. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher , 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00750-0 Westrick, J. M., & Morris, G. A. (2016). Teacher education pedagogy: Disrupting the apprenticeship of observation. Teaching Education , 27 , 156–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2015.1059413 Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (2013). Reflective teaching: An introduction . Routledge. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4785778","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":334964893,"identity":"db1172d2-a903-4093-9e50-401babf20f74","order_by":0,"name":"Ahmad Goodarzi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Ayatollah Ozma Borujerdi","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ahmad","middleName":"","lastName":"Goodarzi","suffix":""},{"id":334964898,"identity":"c33de58f-2979-4853-9d6f-78fa4300bd3c","order_by":1,"name":"Afsheen Rezai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Ayatollah Ozma Borujerdi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Afsheen","middleName":"","lastName":"Rezai","suffix":""},{"id":334964900,"identity":"85b1d273-9987-4360-839f-ad7c45c99bae","order_by":2,"name":"Parisa Ashkani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lorestan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Parisa","middleName":"","lastName":"Ashkani","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-07-23 05:25:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4785778/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4785778/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":81070419,"identity":"93ef0527-916e-4900-a85b-ec8c26170e53","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-22 01:23:50","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1092598,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4785778/v1/d5d9c190-276e-49e7-a205-70fcb7014bf6.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Examination of four L2 teachers’ pedagogical knowledge base in face-to-face and online classroom settings: Can academic degrees make a difference?","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the early 20th century, there was a growing interest in understanding teachers' pedagogical knowledge (PK) and pedagogical knowledge base (PKB). Initially, the mainstream perspective in teacher education, especially before the 1970s, was dominated by a process-product approach. This approach viewed teachers as mere implementers of predetermined ideas from teacher training programs, with their performance primarily evaluated based on student outcomes (Akbari \u0026amp; Dadvand, 2014; Karimi \u0026amp; Norouzi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The aim was to identify \"desirable\" teaching behaviors believed to enhance student achievement, with teaching seen as transferring content through specific techniques (Freeman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Verloop et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis simplistic view of teaching, focusing on observable classroom behaviors and interactions, began to be questioned in the late 20th century. Researchers acknowledged the importance of considering teachers' thought processes, knowledge, and beliefs, collectively known as \"teacher cognition,\" which significantly influence instructional decisions (Freeman \u0026amp; Johnson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Walberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e). Studies revealed that a comprehensive knowledge base guides L2 teachers' classroom behaviors, necessitating a re-conceptualization of L2 teacher education (Freeman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSince then, researchers like Gatbonton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) have defined PKB as the accumulated beliefs and thoughts shaping teachers' classroom performance. Pedagogical thoughts (PTs), enacted by teachers through utterances, form the unit of analysis called the pedagogical thought unit (PTU) (Mullock, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). The accumulation of these thoughts\u0026rsquo; structures teachers' PKB. Researchers have suggested that PKB can predict teachers' ability to implement language teaching theories and achieve student learning goals (Burns et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Dadvand \u0026amp; Behzadpoor, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Freeman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Gess-Newsome et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVarious studies in language teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB have employed qualitative methods to scrutinize the underlying structure of teachers\u0026rsquo; thinking processes while teaching. They generally reported an identifiable core of PKB that indirect observations can reveal (e.g., Gatbonton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Mullock, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Utilizing the procedures of quantitative data analysis, some of these studies have investigated the modifications and differences between teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB induced by the instructors\u0026rsquo; teaching experience (Gatbonton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), their academic degrees (Akbari \u0026amp; Dadvand, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), their participation in professional development courses (Karimi \u0026amp; Norouzi, 2018), teachers\u0026rsquo; individual differences (Shabani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and their students\u0026rsquo; English proficiency level (Moradkhani \u0026amp; Rahimi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the literature in the field lacks studies examining the variations in teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB caused by the interaction of academic degrees with the teaching space, from face-to-face to online classes. Moreover, due to the lack of empirical evidence supporting the possible interactions of the teaching environment with the L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; academic degrees in shaping teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB, this study sets out to investigate the role of teachers\u0026rsquo; educational degrees in modifying TESOL teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB across face-to-face and online classes. Identifying TESOL teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB across different teaching environments and academic degrees can reveal their teaching expertise in L2 and is, therefore, a practical technique to elucidate the interactions of a teacher-related factor with the teaching environment on the PTs produced by L2 teachers. The results of this research can establish a basis for the data-driven documentation of the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) for TESOL, which consequently deepen the understanding of L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical knowledge and L2 teacher education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTeachers\u0026rsquo; Cognition\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor nearly three decades, the terms \"teacher cognition\" and \"teacher thinking\" have been used interchangeably (Clark \u0026amp; Peterson, 1986), with substantial research investigating these concepts (Burns et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Initially, the cognitive aspects of teaching were neglected (Jackson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1968\u003c/span\u003e), as traditional research focused on behavioral aspects, excluding teachers' perceptions and contextual factors (Shulman \u0026amp; Shulman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers were expected to learn necessary skills through training, without considering their mental states, which were considered rudimentary (Freeman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). However, this view has evolved, recognizing teaching as a complex mental activity involving active, reflective decision-making (Borg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe shift towards understanding teachers' cognitive processes began when Walberg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e) emphasized a mentalistic approach, introducing the concept of \"teachers' mental lives.\" This approach highlighted the intricate networks of knowledge, thoughts, and beliefs that teachers use to make instructional decisions. Teacher cognition encompasses what teachers know, believe, and think, influencing their teaching practices (Borg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Significant research into teachers' mental lives, particularly in language teaching, began in the 1990s (Borg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral frameworks describe teacher cognition or knowledge base, such as pedagogical content knowledge, which includes knowledge from content, training, and experience (Grossman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). Clandinin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e) introduced \"personal, practical knowledge\" to describe teachers' professional, personal, and experiential backgrounds. Other frameworks include pedagogic content knowledge (Shulman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e), experiential knowledge (Wallace, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e), and the pedagogical knowledge base (Allwright, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; VanPatten, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMullock (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) defines teachers' PKB as encompassing the goals, processes, and methods underpinning classroom performance. Current research focuses on the cognitive changes teachers undergo while helping students acquire second language (L2) communicative and formal characteristics. For example, Gatbonton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) explored the pedagogic thought patterns of experienced L2 teachers. This research aims to understand teachers' thinking processes and changes as they support L2 learning. Teachers' classroom behaviors are analyzed to gain insights into their knowledge structures and mental lives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn language education, PKB is crucial for teacher recruitment (Akbari \u0026amp; Dadvand, 2014). Scholars have examined PKB to develop practical frameworks that form the basis of language teacher performance, emphasizing the importance of accumulated knowledge in guiding teachers' actions, consciously or unconsciously.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTeachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical knowledge base\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe roots of teachers\u0026rsquo; PK can be traced back to the heydays of the paradigm shift from traditional teacher education programs to modern pedagogy-oriented teacher training programs (Darling-Hammond, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Peercy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In the traditional programs, which were mainly led by behavioristic perspectives, teaching was confined to creating conditioned behaviors and injecting the content into the learners\u0026rsquo; memories (Cohen \u0026amp; Waite-Stupiansky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The teachers entering such programs were asked to follow the exact steps modeled by the trainers (Freeman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, teachers\u0026rsquo; thoughts and beliefs were marginalized in these inflexible teacher education programs. In the 1980s, when the role of teachers\u0026rsquo; cognition in educational programs culminated (Johnson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), teachers\u0026rsquo; role as the active creators of contextually personalized knowledge and thoughts was highlighted more than ever (Borg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). At that time, as noted by Kubanyiova and Feryok (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), educationists disclosed that alongside teacher education, teachers\u0026rsquo; thoughts and knowledge modify the teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives. It was also found that, to a large extent, the beliefs that teachers bring to classrooms as their personal language learning experience, known as the apprenticeship of observation, direct their classroom practices (Lortie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1975\u003c/span\u003e; Westrick \u0026amp; Morris, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB (Loughran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Mullock, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) establishing procedures and implementing strategies has become a great concern for researchers in education (Mann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). The unexplored nature of PKB has opened a window to L2 classroom research through a study conducted by Shulman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, three dimensions of teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB were introduced as subject matter content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge. According to Shulman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e), the first dimension corresponds to what teachers already know; the second shapes teachers\u0026rsquo; knowledge of techniques used to present particular contents to learners comprehensively; and the last dimension includes teachers\u0026rsquo; knowledge of the materials and the curricular needs and goals. Despite the popularity of this teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB model, little empirical evidence avails to support its dimensions. Additionally, the reported dimensions seem universal, which sets the model back from proposing the detailed specifications of teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB in a particular discipline (Dyches \u0026amp; Boyd, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In order to resolve these issues, empirical studies in specific subject matters have been conducted to obtain the models of teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB, which are basically data‐driven (e.g., Monte‐Sano, 2011; Moradkhani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this regard, Gatbonton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) carried out the first empirical research to categorize teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB in the L2 classes. Drawing upon the stimulated recall technique, she examined the PKB of seven experienced teachers, reporting that the teachers mainly called 21 pedagogical knowledge (PK) categories into play while teaching L2 learners. In addition, it was revealed that almost 70 percent of the teachers\u0026rsquo; PTs could be grouped into seven main categories, namely \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003elanguage management, knowledge of learners, procedure check, progress review, beliefs, note learner reaction and behavior\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003edecision\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Gatbonton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e, p. 12). \u003cem\u003eLanguage management\u003c/em\u003e, the most frequently reported PK category, focuses on the learners\u0026rsquo; produced output and received input. The next one in the row is knowledge of learners, which includes teachers\u0026rsquo; awareness of the learners\u0026rsquo; personalities and needs. The next frequently observed PK categories were \u003cem\u003eprocedure check\u003c/em\u003e (making learners engaged with classroom procedure), \u003cem\u003eprogress review\u003c/em\u003e (monitoring and correcting learners\u0026rsquo; performance while doing activities), beliefs (teachers\u0026rsquo; thoughts about teaching), and note learner reactions and behavior (observing learners\u0026rsquo; behaviors), respectively. Decision concerned with teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical choices made in the classroom was the last in ranking of the PK categories. After Gatbonton\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e), similar studies were conducted to document L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB (e.g., Akbari \u0026amp; Dadvand, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Karimi \u0026amp; Asadnia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Karimi \u0026amp; Norouzi, 2018; Moradkhani \u0026amp; Rahimi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Shabani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) in which the PK categories remained approximately stable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch on pedagogical knowledge base\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaking the years of teaching experience as an independent variable, Karimi and Asadnia (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) explored and compared six novice and experienced L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB at a tertiary education level in an online reading class. All the classes were video-recorded to be used as a stimulus for extracting teachers\u0026rsquo; PTs. The results showed outstanding differences in the teachers\u0026rsquo; PK categories between the novice and experienced teachers. They reported that, while the novice teachers resorted more to their research-based knowledge and teacher education courses, the experienced teachers embarked on their teaching experience, learners\u0026rsquo; feedback, and peers\u0026rsquo; advice in their PTs. Nevertheless, this study was conducted in an online environment; the lack of data from the teachers\u0026rsquo; face-to-face classes impeded the researchers from tracing the effects of the online environment on the L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, Karimi and Norouzi (2018) compared the L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; PTs at different stages of their teaching careers. They assigned 21 L2 teachers to five groups with varied years of teaching experience. Having video-recorded two sessions of each teacher, they conducted follow-up stimulated recall interviews to examine their PTs. Their findings revealed that there were significant differences across the groups regarding the type and frequency of the PTs. They concluded that in the initial years of teaching, the effects of teaching experience are more perceptible in modifying the L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; PTs and then undergoes a steady trend in the following years. Such conclusions, however, may not be much reliable, as this study did not enjoy a longitudinal data collection procedure that followed the variances in each L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; PTs over a period of time in their career.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn an attempt to explore the impacts of individual differences on producing PTs, Shabani et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) examined the influence of levels of grit on the frequency and type of L2 teachers PTs. Four High-Grit and four Low-Grit L2 teachers took part in the stimulated recall interviews to probe into the PTs underlying their instructions. They found significant differences between the groups of L2 teachers in terms of the type of PTs they produced. The High-Grit L2 teachers produced \u003cem\u003elanguage management, procedure check, affective, self-reflection, progress review, beliefs\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eproblem check\u003c/em\u003e, whereas their Low-Grit counterparts\u0026rsquo; PTs comprised \u003cem\u003elanguage management, procedure check, time check, progress review\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eproblem check\u003c/em\u003e. However, they did not report the effects of the individual differences variable, i.e., teachers\u0026rsquo; grit, on the frequency of the shared PTs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eJacob et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) investigated the specialized knowledge of experienced teachers, focusing on content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge and their effects on student learning outcomes. They also explored the complexity of teacher knowledge, its application in the classroom, and its impact on student achievement. Findings suggested that teacher quality significantly influences student performance, and a deeper understanding of various types of teacher knowledge is crucial for enhancing educational outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother study by Paidican and Arredondo (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) reviews scientific literature based on Kitchenham\u0026rsquo;s (2004) proposal concerning the technological pedagogical knowledge of content within the TPACK model. A total of 622 articles from Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and Google Scholar databases, spanning from the model's inception to May 2019, were analyzed. The findings reveal limited research on the TPACK model in primary education. However, there has been an increase in the application of the TPACK model for enhancing teacher pedagogical knowledge and integrating information and communication technology in educational settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHirpa et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) assessed upper primary English teachers' PKB, revealing moderate proficiency in student assessment but inadequate classroom management and organization skills. Despite a strong correlation between content knowledge and classroom practice, pedagogical content knowledge did not correlate as strongly. The findings highlighted the need for EFL teachers to improve their understanding of student characteristics and diversify instructional strategies. Enhancing their content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge is crucial for effective instruction. Strong communication and collaboration among educational stakeholders are essential for strengthening teachers' knowledge bases and classroom practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe reviewed studies above confirmed the interplays of PTs with the individual differences variables and teaching experience. Seeking the effects of other modifying factors, Akbari and Dadvand (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) investigated the differences in PTs between the L2 teachers holding a B.A. and those holding an M.A. in TESOL. Eight L2 teachers with teaching experiences between 2 and 3 years participated in this research. The whole procedure of the two sessions of each participant was video-recorded, and then the teachers\u0026rsquo; PTs were explored by the stimulated recall technique. The findings indicated that, generally, with average PTs of 5.18 per minute, the frequency of the PTs in the M.A. holders was significantly more compared to the B.A., which was 2.58 of such units per minute. Similar types of PK categories were observed for both groups. In a similar study, Moradkhani and Rahimi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) attempted to investigate the influence of learners\u0026rsquo; proficiency levels and the TESOL teachers\u0026rsquo; academic degrees on L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB. Drawing upon an exploratory mixed-methods approach, they collected data from eight L2 teachers through the stimulated recall technique. Their findings evidenced that there was no significant difference between the overall PK units of the L2 teachers who taught beginner and advanced L2 learners. In terms of the PK categories, however, they reported that minor differences in the rankings and significant differences in the frequency were observed. Instead, confirming the results of Akbari and Dadvand (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), they found no significant difference between the L2 teachers who held a B.A. and those who held an M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePractically, the last two studies documented that, although the academic degree of the L2 teachers had little influence on the type of PTs, it can increase the frequency of the PTs. However, there is little empirical evidence to show the impacts of the TESOL academic credentials (B.A. and M.A.) in producing PTs face-to-face compared to online classes in which technology may play a modifying role. Sticking these issues in mind, this research seeks to address the gap and explore the interactions of the academic degrees of L2 teachers with their teaching space in terms of producing PTs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research sought to investigate the L2 teachers' PK across TESOL degrees and face-to-face and online classes. Hence, the following research question (RQ)s were raised to guide the study:RQ1. Do L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; TESOL degrees (B.A. and M.A.) make any difference in the type and frequency of L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; PK categories in the face-to-face classroom setting?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ2. Do L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; TESOL degrees (B.A. and M.A.) make any difference in the type and frequency of L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; PK categories in the online classroom setting?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDesign\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn exploratory mixed-methods approach was employed to answer the research questions (Creswell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). In this approach, the qualitative data is collected and analyzed to extract the leading themes and then support the obtained data; the research proceeds with collecting and analyzing quantitative data. In such designs, the qualitative side of the research, as the foundation of the quantitative examinations, is central. Thus, at first, the teachers\u0026rsquo; PTs were qualitatively examined, and then quantitative procedures were utilized to compare different settings (face-to-face and online). The main purpose of this case study research is to examine and report events in authentic contexts. As underscored by Shakir (2002, p. 191), \u0026ldquo;case study research is deemed suitable when the proposed research is largely exploratory; and addresses the \u0026lsquo;how\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;why\u0026rsquo; questions.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eContext of the study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Learners\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo control the possible impacts of context-based factors, the researcher collected data from two private English institutes in Doroud, a town in the west of Iran. The learners in the present study were learning English in four English classes aged between 15 to 27 years (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21.08; SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.21). On average, each class included around 8 to 14 English learners with an identical first language (i.e., Persian) and ethnicity (i.e., Lorish) who had taken English placement tests to enroll in their suitable classes. To be more precise, 41 learners attended the four intermediate L2 English classes in which American English File 2 and 3 (second edition), as the English course books, were being taught. As the principles of the two institutes alleged, all the English institutes in this study had selected communicative language teaching as the main teaching methodology and had their teachers follow its principles. As a selection criterion, this similarity diminished the possible discrepancy among the two English institutes in this research to its minimum amount.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Teachers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study recruited four TESOL teachers who will be referred to as teachers A, B, C, and D. To eliminate the effects of the intervening variables, purposive sampling (Ary et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) was utilized to choose the teachers with some predetermined features, including the level of teaching, the hybrid policy of the institutes, the university degrees, the sex, and the attendance in Teacher Training Courses (TTC). Teachers A and B were female, and teachers C and D were male. All the teacher participants in this study aged between 28 and 39 years old, with teaching experience ranging between 6 to 10 years. Moreover, teachers A and C held B.A. degrees, and teachers B and D held M.A. in TESOL, and they all had been teaching intermediate and upper-intermediate English courses for at least two years. They also had participated in TTCs before they were employed in the institutes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Courses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe selected teachers taught different classes at the time of the study; however, in order to observe the homogeneity of levels, the classes opted for the second edition of American English File (AEF) 2 and 3 (Latham-Koenig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) was being taught. The textbooks included a Multimedia DVD and two textbooks: a learners\u0026rsquo; book, which was used as the main source, and a workbook, which included written practices of introduced topics in the main book. According to the regulations of the institutes, the courses consisted of 15 to 18 sessions of instruction along with an exam given in the last session. Each class was held twice a week and lasted about one and a half hours. As obligated by the institutes\u0026rsquo; managers and recommended in the TTCs, these courses were being taught per the principles of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). In these courses, all four language skills were practiced simultaneously to facilitate learners\u0026rsquo; communication in English. As this study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, both selected institutes maintained a hybrid policy toward their classes, in a way that with the upsurge of Corona, they resorted to online platforms to avoid the stoppage of their training. Besides, due to the fact that sheltering in online platforms was temporary, they preferred to use the WhatsApp application as an interim classroom setting. The teachers shared voice recordings, videos, links, audio, and images in the online classes. They asked the learners to upload their own voice recordings, writings, and pictures of their assignments in the groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Lessons\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs mentioned earlier, all four teachers followed a CLT lesson plan that emphasized listening, speaking, reading, and writing using the course book AEF 2 and 3 (Latham-Koenig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The teachers covered two to four pages of their course books in each session and conversed various questions and answers. Teacher A taught units 7a and 7b of AEF 2, which had \u0026ldquo;saving the first days in different places\u0026rdquo; as the main theme and \u0026ldquo;infinitives\u0026rdquo; as the underlying grammar. The unit included reading, listening, grammar, pronunciation, and speaking tasks. On the other hand, teacher B taught units 2b and 2c of AEF 3 entitled \u0026ldquo;Changing lives,\u0026rdquo; which depicted attempts of a family to help Ugandan children. In this unit, which reflected the contextualized differences between \u0026ldquo;Present Perfect\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Present Perfect Continuous,\u0026rdquo; all four skills were practiced along with pronunciation and grammar activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher C had units 5a and 5b of AEF 3 as the teaching blocks, which discussed \u0026ldquo;sporting superstitions\u0026rdquo; and dug into learners\u0026rsquo; athletic background and their current beliefs about sporting superstitions. In this unit, reading, speaking, and writing tasks accompanied a vocabulary section and a pronunciation activity. In teacher D\u0026rsquo;s class, units 11b and 11c of AEF 2 were being taught to the learners in which \u0026ldquo;decision-making\u0026rdquo; was main theme, and the use of \u0026ldquo;might\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;used to\u0026rdquo; were the leading structures. In this unit, the learners practiced grammar, listening, speaking, and pronunciation tasks along with short answer writing activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Collection Procedures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs noted by Meijer et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), the stimulated recall technique is enumerated as the main data collection instrument in order to tap into teachers\u0026rsquo; cognition. Therefore, this technique was employed in the present research to explore teachers\u0026rsquo; PTs. As mentioned earlier, according to the policies of the language institutes, they held hybrid English classes, as whenever the society was approaching the peak of the pandemic, they temporarily resorted to the WhatsApp application to pass the condition. Therefore, the data collection procedure included both face-to-face and online settings. For the face-to-face classes, the first step was to videotape three 90-minute teaching sessions of all the teachers. Following each session, the participants were then asked to take part in follow-up interviews in which they watched and reviewed their performance in that session and tried to express their ongoing thoughts when they were teaching.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA similar procedure was adopted to investigate the teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical thoughts in the online classes, with the difference that, instead of video recording, the teachers and one of the researchers reviewed the class procedures in a 90-minute class on the WhatsApp groups of the classes. The teachers manipulated texts, voice recordings, pictures, videos, and hyperlinks to lead a communicative language class. The students were also able to share their language-based outputs in texts, voice recordings, and pictures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the interviews, simple questions were used to dig into the teachers\u0026rsquo; thoughts, such as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eWhat were you doing here?\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eWhy did you do/say that\u003c/em\u003e?\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eWhy do you think it was important for the learners?\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, Persian, as the participants\u0026rsquo; mother tongue, was used in the interviews. On average, each interview lasted about 2 hours. Moreover, a voice recorder was used to record all the interviews, and the teachers\u0026rsquo; informed consent was obtained before starting each interview session. Having transcribed the interviews verbatim, member checking (Creswell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) was utilized to increase the credibility of the transcribed interviews. Thus, the transcripts were sent via WhatsApp to the teachers to endorse their authenticity. Additionally, as the attendance of an outsider could threaten the reliability and validity of the data, the video recordings of classes were carried out without the physical presence of the researchers. Also, since all the classes in the institutes were equipped with security cameras and microphones, the teachers and learners were mindful that their practices were being recorded; therefore, the probably of affected performance of the teachers and learners due to the video recording was diminished. As suggested by Gass and Mackey (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), to keep the teachers\u0026rsquo; minds fresh in remembering their classroom pedagogical thoughts, the lapse between the offline /online classes and the stimulated recall sessions was curtailed from 10 minutes to 5 hours. Besides, before the interviews, the mechanism of stimulated recall was fully explained to the teachers to hinder the possible impacts of their inaccurate assumptions from their pedagogic thoughts (Meijer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, preliminary to the study, one of the researchers attended all the classes to receive the participating teachers\u0026rsquo; and learners\u0026rsquo; informed consent and assure them of their voluntary participation and the confidentiality of all the gathered data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis Procedures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data analysis in this research included a qualitative and a quantitative stage. At the qualitative stage, the three stages of open coding, axial coding, and labeling were used to identify the flowing themes in the data (Charmaz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). More precisely, the teachers\u0026rsquo; talks on their practices were grouped into small PTs in the open coding. Then, in the axial coding, the similarity criterion was used to codify the PTs into different categories. Finally, the categories were labeled based on their internal shared themes. Notably, a reiterative approach was utilized to identify and categorize the pedagogical thoughts. Meanwhile, when the thematic categorization of the qualitative data was completed, the researchers consulted other similar research to check the availability of the obtained categories in previous studies. Then, to hinder any disorientation, the labels available in the literature were used for the pedagogical thoughts of the present research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, in line with the recommendations of Gass and Mackey (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), the interrater reliability of the qualitative data analysis was ensured through a collaborative process. A third-party academic researcher, specialized in qualitative studies, reexamined 20% of the qualitative data. This collaborative effort resulted in a high consistency of 93% between the outsider researcher's thematic analysis and the researchers' analyses. Additionally, to check for any statistically significant differences across the classroom settings and the academic degrees of the L2 teachers, chi-quare analyses were conducted, further reinforcing the collaborative nature of the research. Results\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResults of the First Research Question\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first question of this research examined whether L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; TESOL degrees (B.A. and M.A.) make any difference in the type and frequency of L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; PK categories in the face-to-face classroom setting. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e compares the frequency and ranking of PK categories recalled by L2 teachers with bachelor\u0026rsquo;s and master\u0026rsquo;s degrees in the face-to-face classroom setting. This table reveals that the type and ranking of the most frequently generated PK categories between B.A. and M.A. L2 teachers were comparatively steady in the face-to-face classes. As reported, the top five PK categories for both groups, which embraced over 75% of all PTs (\u003cem\u003elanguage management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eknowledge of students\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eprocedure check\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eprogress review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003efeedback\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eprobe prior knowledge\u003c/em\u003e), specify that both B.A. and M.A. L2 teachers showed a high tendency toward the produced and received language input by the L2 learners. However, regarding the next two categories, the L2 teachers with M.A. produced \u003cem\u003eprocedure check\u003c/em\u003e as the second in the ranking. In contrast, the B.A. teachers emphasized more on the \u003cem\u003eknowledge of the learners\u003c/em\u003e in comparison to the \u003cem\u003eprocedure check\u003c/em\u003e. The last rows of Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e also indicate that both groups had the least inclination toward \u003cem\u003ecomprehensibility\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003epast experience\u003c/em\u003e in face-to-face classes (f\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePK categories of the L2 teachers in the face-to-face classroom setting\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. L2 Teachers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM.A. L2 Teachers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26(32%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21(28%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47(30%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24(27%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26(28%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50 (28%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKnowledge of students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15(18%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16(22%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31(19%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedure check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16(18%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15(17%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31 (17%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedure check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11(13%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14(17%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25(16%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKnowledge of students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13(15%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15(17%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28 (16%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProgress review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 (7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11 (7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 (8%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 (7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13 (7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProbe prior knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProbe prior knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProgress review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 (5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeliefs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup/pair work\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup/pair work\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurriculum fit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurriculum fit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeliefs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNote student behavior\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNote student behavior\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComprehensibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComprehensibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePast Experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePast Experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e157\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e176\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThoughts per minute\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThoughts per Minute\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe chi-square results for differences in the dominant PT categories in the face-to-face classroom setting\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroups\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePedagogical thought categories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChi-square\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAsymp. Sig.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.058\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKnowledge of students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.434\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedure check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.055\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProgress review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.495\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.260\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProbe prior knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.627\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeliefs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.654\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup/pair work\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.683\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurriculum fit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.654\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.617\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.617\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.563\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNote student behavior\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.617\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.563\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComprehensibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.479\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePast Experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.479\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*Significant at the 0.05 level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e informs that the B.A. L2 teachers produced a sum of 157 PTs (2.92 thoughts per minute), while the M.A. L2 teachers generated a total number of 176 PTs (3.02 thoughts per minute). Therefore, no discernable disparity was observed in the number of produced PTs between the two groups. Plus, comparing the frequency of the recalled PK categories through the chi-square analyses disclosed no significant difference between the groups concerning the categories (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). This indicates that the overall PTs produced by the L2 teachers in each group were almost homogeneous, stipulating that the teachers\u0026rsquo; TESOL degrees play little role in the L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResults of the Second Research Question\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second research question of this study explored whether L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; TESOL degrees can make any difference in the type and frequency of L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; PK categories in the online classroom setting. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows the frequency and ranking of PK categories produced by B.A. and M.A. L2 teachers in online classroom settings. As seen, the change in the classroom setting from face-to-face to online necessitated the teachers to generate new PK categories which are more or less technologically inclined (i.e., \u003cem\u003eoutsourcing to multimedia links\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003emultimedia check\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003evirtual classroom management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003etechnological problem check\u003c/em\u003e). Nevertheless, in both groups of teachers, the first ranking was occupied by \u003cem\u003elanguage management\u003c/em\u003e, also available in the face-to-face classroom setting. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e indicates that, when escalated to the second rank in face-to-face and online classes, feedback comprised an average of 20% of both groups of teachers in online classes. \u003cem\u003eOutsourcing to multimedia links\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003emultimedia check\u003c/em\u003e, as the main technologically-induced PK categories, held higher rankings in the M.A. teachers with an approximate percentage of 20 compared to their B.A. counterparts incorporating 15% of the whole PK frequencies. Additionally, \u003cem\u003eself-critique\u003c/em\u003e as a new PK category was generated by both B.A. teachers in speculating on their online classes. Moreover, compared to the M.A. L2 teachers, B.A. teachers showed more inclination toward \u003cem\u003etime check\u003c/em\u003e by producing it three times more than the M.A. holders. Notably, both groups of teachers in online classes did not recall \u003cem\u003eprocedure check\u003c/em\u003e compared to face-to-face classroom settings (around 4%). \u003cem\u003eBeliefs\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003enote student behavior\u003c/em\u003e holding around 1% of the PK frequencies in both groups of teachers were settled in the last two rows of the PK categories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePK categories of the L2 teachers in online classroom setting\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. L2 Teachers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM.A. L2 Teachers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21(26%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18(26%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39(27%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25(26%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20(26%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45(26%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15(18%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14(20%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29(19%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18(19%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17(22%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35(21%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12(14%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11(16%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23(16%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutsourcing to multimedia links\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11(12%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13(17%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24(13%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutsourcing to multimedia links\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 (7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 (10%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13 (9%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultimedia check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 (9%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 (7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13 (8%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKnowledge of students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 (7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 (7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11 (5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultimedia check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 (5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProgress review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 (5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedure check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKnowledge of students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProbe prior knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVirtual Classroom management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVirtual Classroom management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage Problem check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage Problem check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnological Problem check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnological Problem check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProgress review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedure check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-Critique\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProbe prior knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComprehensibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeliefs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNote student behavior\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNote student behavior\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeliefs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e148\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e173\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThoughts per minute\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThoughts per Minute\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe chi-square results for differences in the dominant PT categories in the online classroom setting\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroups\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePedagogical thought categories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChi-square\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAsymp. Sig.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.00001*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.00001*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000021*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutsourcing to multimedia links\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000029*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKnowledge of students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.033895*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultimedia check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.004323*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedure check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.196715\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProbe prior knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.113846\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVirtual Classroom management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.03925*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage Problem check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.126633\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnological Problem check\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.126633\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProgress review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.129374\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-Critique\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.317311\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.248219\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeliefs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.317311\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNote student behavior\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeliefs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.A. and M.A.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComprehensibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*Significant at the 0.05 level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study sought to explore whether academic degrees make a difference in PKB of four L2 teachers across face-to-face and online classroom settings. By analyzing the frequency and type of PTs, this study aimed to uncover subtlety insights into how higher academic qualifications may influence teaching practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research questions of the present study aimed to explore the variations induced by academic degrees in L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB across face-to-face and online L2 classes. The chi-square analysis revealed no significant difference in the overall frequency of PTs produced by B.A. and M.A. teachers in face-to-face setting. This finding corroborates the work of Moradkhani and Rahimi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), who also found minimal impact of academic degrees on PT frequency. However, our study noted a slight increase in PTs per minute among M.A. teachers, suggesting that advanced degrees might contribute to a marginally higher pedagogical engagement. This aligns with Basturkmen et al. (2004), who suggested that more qualified teachers might be more reflective and hence produce more PTs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn face-to-face settings, both B.A. and M.A. teachers predominantly focused on \u003cem\u003elanguage management, knowledge of students, and procedural checks\u003c/em\u003e. This is consistent with Gatbonton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e), who identified these categories as central to L2 teaching. The findings further echo those of Farrell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), who highlighted that \u003cem\u003eknowledge of students\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003elanguage management\u003c/em\u003e remain foundational regardless of the teaching environment. In face-to-face classes, although there were trivial variations in the order of the PK categories, the L2 teachers generated comparatively similar types of PK categories. This finding suggests that the academic degree may not play a significant role in shaping the overall body of teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB in face-to-face classes. Therefore, the L2 teachers are liable to employ their PKB in L2 classes irrespective of their academic degrees.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransitioning to online settings, new PK categories emerged, such as \u003cem\u003emultimedia management\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003etechnological problem-solving\u003c/em\u003e, particularly among M.A. teachers. This suggests that higher academic qualifications may enhance teachers\u0026rsquo; abilities to adapt to technology-integrated teaching environments. This is in line with Hampel and Stickler (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), who emphasized the need for digital literacy in online language teaching. The study found that traditional PK categories remained dominant across both settings, indicating their foundational role in L2 teaching. However, the integration of technology-specific categories in online settings underscores the dynamic nature of PKB. This supports findings by Comas-Quinn (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), who argued that effective online teaching requires specific technological skills and pedagogical strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results suggest that M.A. teachers are better equipped to manage and integrate technological tools in online classrooms, likely due to more extensive training in digital pedagogies. This finding aligns with the conclusions of Blake (2013), who noted that advanced training can better prepare teachers for the complexities of online teaching. The M.A. L2 teachers in online classes showed a different pattern in recalling PK categories. The M.A. holders outperform their B.A. colleagues in generating a relatively higher number of PTs. This difference proceeded so that in almost 85% of the PK categories (the top seven categories), the groups held significant differences in the number of produced PTs. Moreover, the inevitabilities of online classes compelled both groups of L2 teachers to generate new PK categories, including outsourcing to \u003cem\u003emultimedia links, multimedia check, virtual classroom management, and technological problem check\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite being in line with the findings of Moradkhani and Rahimi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), the gained results were in sharp contrast with those of Akbari and Dadvand (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Akbari and Dadvand (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) reported that M.A. L2 teachers outshine their B.A. colleagues in generating PTs in face-to-face classes. However, no significant difference was found between these two groups in Moradkhani and Rahimi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), as confirmed in this study. Nevertheless, M.A. plays a significant role in increasing the number of teachers\u0026rsquo; PTs in online classes. Therefore, what Akbari and Dadvand (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) found is confirmable only in an online classroom setting, whereas the findings of Moradkhani and Rahimi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) cannot be generalized to online classroom contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne probable reason for the attained findings may lie in the content and requirements of undergraduate and postgraduate TESOL programs in Iran. In postgraduate programs in Iran, the theoretical foundations need to be more fruitful to equip the holder with a rich repertoire of PKB, in contrast to the undergraduate TESOL graduates in face-to-face classes. Furthermore, their research-oriented propensity may induce a higher level of familiarity and comfort with technology as a consequence of teaching online classes (Bond et al., 2020; Dunn \u0026amp; Kennedy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Hence, neither the superficial theoretical contents of B.A. programs nor its insufficient practical orientation is supportive enough to prepare students for internalizing a ponderous PKB accessible in all classroom settings (e.g., online settings) (Loncar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, this focus on research and publication in TESOL programs, mainly conducted online through technology, impels the postgraduates to obtain a moderate or high level of computer literacy in online venues.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne further line of discussion is that while B.A. TESOL programs in Iran mainly emphasize improving students\u0026rsquo; language proficiency (more than half of the credits are allocated to general English courses), M.A. students are chiefly steered toward a broader research-based theoretical basis in TESOL, which certainly includes technology as a core (Kessler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, theory-based approaches in Iranian teacher education programs may lead to this feeble body of PKB in M.A. and B.A. TESOL graduates. In order to supply the under-and postgraduate TESOL students with a higher level of PKB, Western teacher education programs have undertaken a paradigm shift where theory-based approaches are being substituted by performance‐based assessment (Darling‐Hammond, 2012). Accordingly, K\u0026ouml;nig et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e)d nig et al. (2017) noted that although theory‐based teacher education programs may provide teachers with PKB, they cannot ensure the teachers\u0026rsquo; practice‐oriented PKB in classrooms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, in addition to a rich PKB, Mishra and Koehler (2006) claim that, in a technology-ruled world, TESOL teachers need to gain technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) to be able to manage online teaching situations and furnish their face-to-face classes with technological aids. TPACK, known as the knowledge of how to conjoin the facilities of technologies in teaching (Koh et al., 2010), plays the role of an intersection among subject-matter knowledge, pedagogy, and technologies (Harris \u0026amp; Hofer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the current research, the emerged PK categories offered that university degrees played little role in specifying the type and ranking of the PK categories in different classroom settings (e.g., face-to-face and online), as a core set of PK categories, which comprised almost two-thirds of the frequencies, remained relatively stable. Except for the emerged PK categories in online classes (\u003cem\u003eOutsourcing to Multimedia Links\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eMultimedia Check\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eVirtual Classroom Management\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eTechnological Problem Check\u003c/em\u003e), practically in this research area, similar dominant categories have been obtained in similar studies (e.g., Akbari \u0026amp; Dadvand, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Gatbonton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Moradkhani \u0026amp; Rahimi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Mullock, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, along with Shulman\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e) generic framework, a universal PKB model can be designed for categorizing the TESOL teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, to enhance the quality of TESOL programs and prepare the graduates for various classroom settings and challenges, the programs\u0026rsquo; content should be organized so that the students can apply language teaching and learning theories alongside technology. Furthermore, the administrators of teacher education programs are strongly recommended to meticulously equip L2 teachers according to the TESOL teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB and the PK categories generated by L2 instructors in the current study. Holding reflective roundtables stimulated by videotaped classroom procedures after teachers\u0026rsquo; practicums in teacher education programs (Zeichner \u0026amp; Liston, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) can shape an invaluable PKB for L2 teachers. Accordingly, Golombek (2012, p. 461) opines, \u0026ldquo;Reflection in response to their own classrooms helps teachers contextualize their practical knowledge, thus making meaning of this knowledge.\u0026rdquo; Therefore, the pedagogical knowledge piled up in teachers\u0026rsquo; crania can be practically used in language classes if verbalized, discussed, and shaped in stress-free collaborative ambiances.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, to familiarize the L2 teachers with the perks of technology in teaching, the stakeholders, administrators, and educators of teacher education programs and education systems are required to extend the use of technology in pre-service and in-service programs. It can achieved by offering the attendees to keep electronic portfolios (Chye et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), employing online communication technologies, including e-mails and social media (K\u0026ouml;nig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), using teaching and learning computer and mobile applications (Nazari \u0026amp; Xodabande, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), integrating different multimedia materials in teaching (Kennedy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), and benefiting from the assistance of artificial intelligences such Chat GPT for learning and receiving computerized assessment and feedback (Roll \u0026amp; Wylie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, what was found in the present research might also encourage other researchers in this strand to design and carry out future studies exploring L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB in different contexts and settings. As random sampling was applied in this research, the findings are required to be interpreted considering the research context. Despite the meticulous endeavors to diminish the subjective aspects of the stimulated recall technique, replications of this study with a larger number of TESOL teacher participants, especially in online classroom settings, might pave the way to validate the obtained results in this study. Replications of the present study are also able to enrich the literature with more technology-induced PK categories, such as the ones found in this research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is also arguable thatemploying various data collection methods to collect the PK categories from many of L2 teachers might resolve the possible data collection confinements in this study. Plus, it is highly recommended to investigate the impacts of other variables, including the number of students, private and governmental education, the type of online platforms, and the nature of teacher education programs on the type and frequency of the produced by L2 teachers.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eDATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe offer data on request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCONFLICT OF INTEREST\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe declare no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eETHICS APPROVAL\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first author was granted ethics approval.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFUNDING\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe have received no funding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll the authors, A, B, and C contributed at all the stages of the study. Also, no funding was received by any of the authors for this research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkbari, R., \u0026amp; Dadvand, B. (2011). Does formal teacher education make a difference? A comparison of pedagogical thought units of B.A. versus M.A. teachers. \u003cem\u003eModern Language Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e95\u003c/em\u003e, 44\u0026ndash;60. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01142.x.\u003c/u\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllwright, D. (2003). Exploratory Practice: rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113-141. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168803lr118oa\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAry, D., Jacobs, L., Sorensen, C., \u0026amp; Razavieh, A. (2010). \u003cem\u003eIntroduction to research in education \u003c/em\u003e(8\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e ed.). Cengage Learning.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBasturkmen, H., Loewen, S., \u0026amp; Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers\u0026apos; stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. \u003cem\u003eApplied linguistics, 25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 243-272.\u003cu\u003e \u003c/u\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.243\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlake, R. J. (2013). \u003cem\u003eBrave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning\u003c/em\u003e. Georgetown University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., \u0026amp; Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-30. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what teachers think, know, believe, and do. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e, 81\u0026ndash;109. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurns, A., Freeman, D., \u0026amp; Edwards, E. (2015). Theorizing and studying the language‐teaching mind: Mapping research on language teacher cognition. \u003cem\u003eModern Language Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e99\u003c/em\u003e, 585\u0026ndash;601. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12245\u003cu\u003e.\u003c/u\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., \u0026amp; Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers\u0026apos; development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Technology \u0026amp; Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(4), 63-73.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCharmaz, K. (2006). \u003cem\u003eConstructing grounded theory\u003c/em\u003e. Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChye, S., Zhou, M., Koh, C., \u0026amp; Liu, W. C. (2019). Using e-portfolios to facilitate reflection: Insights from an activity theoretical analysis. \u003cem\u003eTeaching and Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e85\u003c/em\u003e, 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClandinin, D. J. (1985). Personal Practical Knowledge: A Study of Teachers\u0026rsquo; Classroom Images. \u003cem\u003eCurriculum Inquiry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(4), 361\u0026ndash;385. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1985.11075976\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen, L. E., \u0026amp; Waite-Stupiansky, S. (Eds.). (2022). \u003cem\u003eTheories of early childhood education: Developmental, behaviorist, and critical\u003c/em\u003e. Taylor \u0026amp; Francis.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W. (2007). \u003cem\u003eQualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions \u003c/em\u003e(2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e ed.). Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W. (2008). \u003cem\u003eEducational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative approaches to research \u003c/em\u003e(3rd ed.). Merrill/Pearson Education.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDadvand, B., \u0026amp; Behzadpoor, F. (2020). Pedagogical knowledge in English language teaching: A lifelong-learning, complex-system perspective. \u003cem\u003eLondon Review of Education\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDarling‐Hammond, L. (2012). The right start: Creating a strong foundation for the teaching career. \u003cem\u003ePhi Delta Kappan\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e94\u003c/em\u003e, 8\u0026ndash;13. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209400303\u003cu\u003e.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDarling‐Hammond, L. (2016). Research on teaching and teacher education and its influence on policy and practice. \u003cem\u003eEducational Researcher\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e, 83\u0026ndash;91. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16639597.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDunn, T. J., \u0026amp; Kennedy, M. (2019). Technology Enhanced Learning in higher education; motivations, engagement and academic achievement. \u003cem\u003eComputers \u0026amp; Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e137\u003c/em\u003e, 104-113. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.004\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDyches, J., \u0026amp; Boyd, A. (2017). Foregrounding equity in teacher education: Toward a model of social justice pedagogical and content knowledge. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e68\u003c/em\u003e, 476\u0026ndash;490. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117705097.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarrell, T. S. (2013). Reflecting on ESL teacher expertise: A case study. \u003cem\u003eSystem\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1070-1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.10.014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreeman, D., \u0026amp; Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge‐base of language teacher education. \u003cem\u003eTESOL quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(3), 397-417. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588114\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e, 1-13. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444801001720.\u003c/u\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreeman, D. (2016). \u003cem\u003eEducating second language teachers: The same things done differently\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGass, S. M., \u0026amp; Mackey, A. (2000). \u003cem\u003eStimulated recall methodology in second language acquisition\u003c/em\u003e. Lawrence Erlbaum.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGatbonton, E. (1999). Investigating experienced ESL teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical knowledge. \u003cem\u003eModern Language Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e83\u003c/em\u003e, 35\u0026ndash;50. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00004\u003cu\u003e.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGatbonton, E. (2008). Looking beyond teachers\u0026rsquo; classroom behaviour: Novice and experienced ESL teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical knowledge. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Teaching Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e, 161\u0026ndash;182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086286\u003cu\u003e.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., \u0026amp; Stuhlsatz, M. A. (2019). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Science Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(7), 944-963. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1265158\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGolombek, P. R. (1998). A study of language teachers\u0026apos; personal practical knowledge. \u003cem\u003eTESOL quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(3), 447-464. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/3588117.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrossman, P. (1990). \u003cem\u003eThe Making of a Teacher\u003c/em\u003e. Teacher\u0026rsquo;s College Press\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHampel, R., \u0026amp; Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages online. \u003cem\u003eComputer Assisted Language Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(4), 311\u0026ndash;326. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09588220500335455\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarris, J. \u0026amp; Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional Planning Activity Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development. In I. Gibson, R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen \u0026amp; D. Willis (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eProceedings of SITE 2009--Society for Information Technology \u0026amp; Teacher Education International Conference\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 4087-4095). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved July 15, 2023 from \u003cu\u003ehttps://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/31298/\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHirpa, T., Simegn, B., Amogne, D., \u0026amp; Getnet, M. (2024). Evaluation of EFL teachers\u0026rsquo; knowledge bases and classroom practice: upper primary schools. \u003cem\u003eCogent Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2339557. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2339557\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJackson, J. A. (Ed.). (1968). \u003cem\u003eSocial Stratification: Volume 1, Sociological Studies\u003c/em\u003e (No. 1). Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJacob, F. I. L. G. O. N. A., John, S. A. K. I. Y. O., \u0026amp; Gwany, D. M. (2020). Teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical content knowledge and students\u0026rsquo; academic achievement: A theoretical overview. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Global Research in Education and Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 14-44. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. \u003cem\u003eTESOL Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e, 235\u0026ndash;257. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264518\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarimi, M. N., \u0026amp; Asadnia, F. (2022). Customizing Web 2.0 tools to writing pedagogy: TPACK-based professional development of L2 writing teachers. In H. Kayi-Aydar \u0026amp; J. Reinhardt (Eds), \u003cem\u003eLanguage Teacher Development in Digital Contexts\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 157-178). John Benjamins.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarimi, M. N., \u0026amp; Norouzi, M. (2017). Scaffolding teacher cognition: Changes in novice L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical knowledge base through expert mentoring initiatives. \u003cem\u003eSystem\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e, 38\u0026ndash;48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.015\u003cu\u003e.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKennedy, M. J., Rodgers, W. J., Romig, J. E., Lloyd, J. W., \u0026amp; Brownell, M. T. (2017). Effects of a multimedia professional development package on inclusive science teachers\u0026rsquo; vocabulary instruction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e68\u003c/em\u003e(2), 213-230. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116687554\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training: What are we doing and what could we do better. \u003cem\u003eTeacher education in CALL\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e, 23-42.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eK\u0026ouml;nig, J., J\u0026auml;ger-Biela, D. J., \u0026amp; Glutsch, N. (2020). Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(4), 608-622. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eK\u0026ouml;nig, J., Lammerding, S., Nold, G., Rohde, A., Strau\u0026szlig;, S., \u0026amp; Tachtsoglou, S. (2016). Teachers\u0026rsquo; professional knowledge for teaching English as a foreign language: Assessing the outcomes of teacher education. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e, 320\u0026ndash;337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116644956\u003cu\u003e.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eK\u0026ouml;nig, J., Tachtsoglou, S., Lammerding, S., Strau\u0026szlig;, S., Nold, G., \u0026amp; Rohde, A. (2017). The role of opportunities to learn in teacher preparation for EFL teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical content knowledge. \u003cem\u003eModern Language Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e101\u003c/em\u003e, 109\u0026ndash;127. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12383\u003cu\u003e.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKubanyiova, M., \u0026amp; Feryok, A. (2015). Language teacher cognition in applied linguistics research: Revisiting the territory, redrawing the boundaries, reclaiming the relevance. \u003cem\u003eModern Language Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e99\u003c/em\u003e, 435\u0026ndash;449. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12239\u003cu\u003e.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLatham-Koenig, C., Oxenden, C., \u0026amp; Seligson, P. (2013). \u003cem\u003eAmerican English File Series: Students Book and Workbook\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLoncar, M., Schams, W., \u0026amp; Liang, J. S. (2023). Multiple technologies, multiple sources: Trends and analyses of the literature on technology-mediated feedback for L2 English writing published from 2015-2019. \u003cem\u003eComputer Assisted Language Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(4), 722-784. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1943452.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLortie, D. (1975). \u003cem\u003eSchool teacher: A sociological study\u003c/em\u003e. University of Chicago Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLoughran, J. (2019). Pedagogical reasoning: The foundation of the professional knowledge of teaching. \u003cem\u003eTeachers and Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(5), 523-535. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1633294\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMann, S. (2005). The language teacher\u0026rsquo;s development. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e, 103\u0026ndash;118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444805002867\u003cu\u003e.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeijer, P. C., Verloop, N., \u0026amp; Beijaard, D. (2002). Multi-method triangulation in a qualitative study on teachers\u0026apos; practical knowledge: An attempt to increase internal validity. \u003cem\u003eQuality and Quantity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e, 145-167.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMonte‐Sano, C. (2011). Learning to open up history for students: Preservice teachers\u0026rsquo; emerging pedagogical content knowledge. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e, 260\u0026ndash;272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110397842\u003cu\u003e.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoradkhani, S., Akbari, R., Samar, R. G., \u0026amp; Kiany, G. R. (2013). English language teacher educators\u0026apos; pedagogical knowledge base: the macro and micro categories. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(10), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n10.7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoradkhani, S., \u0026amp; Rahimi, M. (2019). The impact of students\u0026rsquo; English proficiency level and teacher education on L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical knowledge: A mixed‐methods study. \u003cem\u003eTESOL Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1-15. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.496.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMullock, B. (2006). The pedagogical knowledge base of four TESOL teachers. \u003cem\u003eModern Language Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e90\u003c/em\u003e, 48\u0026ndash;66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00384.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNazari, M., \u0026amp; Xodabande, I. (2022). L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; mobile-related beliefs and practices: Contributions of a professional development initiative. \u003cem\u003eComputer Assisted Language Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1354-1383. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1799825\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaidican, M. A., \u0026amp; Arredondo, P. A. (2022). The technological-pedagogical knowledge for in-service teachers in primary education: A systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eContemporary educational technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1\u0026ndash;15. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11813\u003c/u\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeercy, M.M., Varghese, M. and Dubetz, N. (2019), Critically Examining Practice-Based Teacher Education for Teachers of Language Minoritized Youth. \u003cem\u003eTESOL Quarterly, 53\u003c/em\u003e, 1173-1185. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.533\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eComas-Quinn, A. (2011). Learning to teach online or learning to become an online teacher: an exploration of teachers\u0026rsquo; experiences in a blended learning course. \u003cem\u003eReCALL\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(3), 218\u0026ndash;232. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344011000152\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoll, I., \u0026amp; Wylie, R. (2016). Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e, 582-599. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0110-3.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShabani, M. B., Ashkani, P., \u0026amp; Karimi, M. N. (2022). EFL Teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical thoughts: Variations across teachers with varying levels of grit. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e, 1-8. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.890834\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. \u003cem\u003eEducational Researcher\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e, 4\u0026ndash;14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShulman, L. S., \u0026amp; Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: a shifting perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Curriculum Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(2), 257\u0026ndash;271. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000148298\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVanpatten, B. (1997). How Language Teaching Is Constructed Introduction to the Special Issue. \u003cem\u003eThe Modern Language Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e81\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;5. \u003cu\u003ehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/329156\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVerloop, N., Van Driel, J., \u0026amp; Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal of educational research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(5), 441-461.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalberg, H. J. (1977). Decision and Perception: New constructs for research on teaching effects. \u003cem\u003eCambridge Journal of Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 33\u0026ndash;39. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/0305764770070105\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWallace, M. J. (1991). \u003cem\u003eTraining foreign language teachers: A reflective approach\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge university press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, Y., Wang, Y., Pan, Z., \u0026amp; Ortega-Mart\u0026iacute;n, J. L. (2023). The predicting role of EFL Students\u0026rsquo; achievement emotions and technological self-efficacy in their technology acceptance. \u003cem\u003eThe Asia-Pacific Education Researcher\u003c/em\u003e, 1-12. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00750-0\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWestrick, J. M., \u0026amp; Morris, G. A. (2016). Teacher education pedagogy: Disrupting the apprenticeship of observation. \u003cem\u003eTeaching Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e, 156\u0026ndash;172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2015.1059413 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZeichner, K. M., \u0026amp; Liston, D. P. (2013). \u003cem\u003eReflective teaching: An introduction\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"face-to-face classes, L2 teachers, online classes, pedagogical knowledge base, pedagogical thought","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4785778/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4785778/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eTeacher pedagogical knowledge base (PKB) has always attracted a great deal of attention in research concerning teachers\u0026rsquo; cognition. However, the interplay between the second/foreign (L2) teachers' academic degrees and different classroom settings has remained under-explored. Hence, this study seeks to explore the influences of classroom settings (i.e., face-to-face vs. online) and academic TESOL degrees (i.e., B.A. vs. M.A. graduates) on shaping L2 teachers' PKB. In so doing, four L2 teachers working at four private English language institutes in Iran volunteered to participate in the research. Drawing upon an exploratory mixed-methods approach, qualitative and quantitative data were obtained using stimulated recall technique. The recalled pedagogical knowledge (PK) categories were analyzed across the two groups by extracting the PK categories, reporting their type and frequency, and running chi-square statistics. The findings showed no significant differences between the sum of pedagogical thoughts (PTs) of B.A. and M.A. L2 teachers in face-to-face classroom settings; however, there were minor differences in the rankings of PK categories between the groups of teachers. On the contrary, the L2 teachers holding M.A. outperformed their B.A. counterparts in generating PK categories in online classes. Moreover, it was revealed that both groups of teachers could produce new contextual PK categories when reflecting on their online classes. In tune with the findings, various suggestions were offered for designing teacher training courses that focus more on the practical side of L2 teachers\u0026rsquo; PKB in face-to-face and online L2 teaching settings.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Examination of four L2 teachers’ pedagogical knowledge base in face-to-face and online classroom settings: Can academic degrees make a difference?","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-08-21 06:32:05","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4785778/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7033b1c4-7e40-44c9-bae2-7d1d0c1e2f9e","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 21st, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-04-22T01:23:09+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-08-21 06:32:05","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4785778","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4785778","identity":"rs-4785778","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}