Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Descriptive Indicators of Future Teachers’ Technology Integration in the PK-12 Classroom: Trends from a Laptop-Infused Teacher Education Program
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Descriptive Indicators of Future Teachers’ Technology Integration in the PK-12 Classroom: Trends from a Laptop-Infused Teacher Education Program

30,261
views

Published on

This research examined preservice teacher graduates' positioning toward integrating technology in future teaching. Participants included 115 preservice teachers across three cohorts in 2008-2009 who …

This research examined preservice teacher graduates' positioning toward integrating technology in future teaching. Participants included 115 preservice teachers across three cohorts in 2008-2009 who graduated from a laptop-infused teacher education program. The study implemented a case study methodology that included a survey administered upon graduation.Indicators of positioning toward technology integration included: digital technology self-efficacy, attitude toward learning technologies, pedagogical perspective, personal/educational digital technology behaviors during the program, and TPACK knowledge used to rationalize their most valued technologies for future teaching. Results indicated graduates held moderate digital technology self-efficacy, positive attitude toward learning technologies,and moderate constructivist philosophy. During their preparation,productivity software activities were used most widely for educational purposes.Their most valued technologies for teaching subject matter were predominantly productivity software as well as general hardware, such as computers, projectors, and document cameras. They described teacher-centric uses three times more often than student-centered. Graduates showed low depth of TPACK. Teacher education programs need to consider the degree to which their candidates are exposed to a range of contemporary ICTs, especially content-specific ICTs, and the candidates' development of TPACK, which supports future technology-related instructional decision making. Such knowledge is developed across the teaching career, and technological induction programs may support continued TPACK development.Future research should employ longitudinal studies to understand TPACK development and use across novice and veteran teachers.

Published in: Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
30,261
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION   1   Descriptive Indicators of Future Teachers’ Technology Integration in the PK-12 Classroom: Trends from a Laptop-Infused Teacher Education Program Joan E. Hughes The University of Texas at Austin Curriculum and Instruction Department 1912 Speedway STOP D5700 Austin TX 78712-1293 USA Phone: 512.232.4145; Fax: 512.471.8460 Email: joanh@austin.utexas.edu Acknowledgment The author graciously acknowledges and thanks Yu-Chi (Nikki) Wen for her participation in data preparation and analysis. Abstract This research examined preservice teacher graduates’ positioning towards integrating technology in future teaching. Participants included 115 preservice teachers across three cohorts in 20082009 who graduated from a laptop-infused teacher education program. The study implemented a case study methodology that included a survey administered upon graduation. Indicators of positioning towards technology integration included: digital technology self-efficacy, attitude toward learning technologies, pedagogical perspective; personal/educational digital technology behaviors during the program; and TPACK knowledge used to rationalize their most valued technologies for future teaching. Results indicated graduates held moderate digital technology self-efficacy, positive attitude toward learning technologies, and moderate constructivist philosophy. During their preparation, productivity software activities were used most widely for educational purposes. Their most valued technologies for teaching subject matter were predominantly productivity software as well as general hardware, such as computers, projectors, and document cameras. They described teacher-centric uses 3 times more often than studentcentered. Graduates showed low depth of TPACK. Teacher education programs need to consider the degree to which their candidates are exposed to a range of contemporary ICTs, especially content-specific ICTs, and the candidates’ development of TPACK, which supports future
  • 2. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION technology-related instructional decision-making. Such knowledge is developed across the teaching career, and technological induction programs may support continued TPACK development. Future research should employ longitudinal studies to understand TPACK development and use across novice and veteran teachers. 2
  • 3. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 3 Descriptive Indicators of Future Teachers’ Technology Integration in the PK-12 Classroom: Trends from a Laptop-Infused Teacher Education Program Involving mobile technologies, such as laptops, within professional teacher preparation moves the discipline away from the one-course technology skills approach, which can be isolationist and lack content connections (Friedman & Kajder, 2006; Kay, 2006a; Lipscomb & Doppen, 2004/2005; Polly & Shepherd, 2007; Wang, 2002), to an ongoing, integrated learning approach that infuses technology across the curriculum, including content and methods coursework, field experiences, and student teaching. This integrated approach affords mobile computing ubiquity and subject-specific use during preparation, may scaffold development of preservice teachers’ knowledge, understanding, and dispositions of technology integration in PK12 learning (e.g., Clift, Mullen, Levin, & Larson, 2001), and may reduce obstacles that prevent technology integration, such as lack of time, teaching philosophy, education faculty’s technological skills, technological problems, and insufficient access (Kay, 2006a). Very few teacher education programs have adopted laptop requirements across certification areas and preparatory experiences, such as described by Meyers (2006), Tothero (2005), and in research by MacKinnon, Aylward, and Bellefontaine (2006). Thompson, Schmidt, and Davis (2003) describe a K-6 program renewal involving laptops but indicate involvement of two preservice cohorts, about 45 students. Laptops have been introduced programmatically to specific certification areas,
  • 4. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 4 such as special education (Allsopp, McHatton, & Cranston-Gingras, 2009) or STEM (Kay, 2006b; 2007a; 2007b) or only to the education faculty (Savery & Reed, 2006). Empirical research from the few laptop/mobile-intensive programs indicates preservice teachers’ increased perceptions of their abilities to integrate technology into teaching and consistent high attitudes towards integration (Allsopp et al., 2009), gender equalization in computer attitudes and computer ability by graduation (Kay, 2006b), increased positive emotions and reduced negative emotions correlated with computer use at the university and student-use and teacher-use in the field (Kay, 2007a), and a preference for authentic tasks and collaborative strategies predicting teacher use of computers (Kay, 2007b). This research study was situated in a preservice teacher education program with ubiquitous mobile laptop computing. It examined preservice teacher graduates’ positioning in terms of key concepts that influence future technology integration: digital technology selfefficacy, attitude towards learning technologies, pedagogical perspective, and most-valued content area technologies for future teaching. Based on the literature, these key concepts influence future choices regarding technology integration within content area teaching. Research Questions The research question guiding the inquiry was: To what degree are graduates of a laptopinfused teacher preparation program prepared to integrate technology in their future classrooms?
  • 5. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 5 Several indicators, such as graduates’ self-reported beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge, framed the sub-questions: • What levels of digital technology self-efficacy, attitude toward learning technologies, and constructivist pedagogical perspective do preservice teacher graduates possess? • What were preservice teachers’ personal and educational digital technology behaviors during the program? • What digital technologies do preservice teacher graduates most value for future contentspecific teaching and learning, and how do they use their knowledge to rationalize their choice(s)? This research focused on a moment-in-time, specifically the transitional moment from preservice to certified teacher. Learning to use innovative technologies to positively influence teaching and learning also necessitates learning across the career (Borko, Whitcomb, & Liston 2009), which represents another important but broader research topic. Conceptual Frames I conceptualize “technology integration” as the use of digital information communication technologies (ICT) by teachers and/or students that support constructivist and socioconstructivist instruction and learning (Cole, 1996; Greeno, 1989; Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978) of subject area content (e.g., math, science, social sciences, languages,
  • 6. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 6 etc.). Optimal learning, from this perspective, is a social practice that involves individual or group participation in activities that make use of contextually- and culturally-relevant (i.e., global, community, cultural, and individual) artifacts across time and spaces. Similar to the role of technology within contemporary standards (e.g., Common Core, 2010a; 2010b; Jenkins, 2006), ICT integration occurs when it extends content area learning. The Common Core (2010a) depicts students “employ[ing] technology thoughtfully,” “efficiently,” and understanding technology’s “strengths and limitations” (p. 7). ICT is adopted when it strategically adds value to content area learning, not as a content topic itself (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011). Content-based technology integration occurs as teachers employ their knowledge, beliefs, and pedagogy to choose particular ICT adoptions to support content learning (Fullan, 2007; Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). As new teachers enter their classrooms, they face many decisions concerning the use, purposes, availability, and capabilities of ICT for teaching/learning. Instructional Decision Making In a learning context in which ICT is situated within all the preservice learning experiences, such as university courses, fieldwork, and student teaching, preservice teachers may establish more developed knowledge and experience of how ICT informs their pedagogy and content area curriculum. Novice teachers will draw on this personal knowledge and experience
  • 7. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 7 with ICT, along with information about their classroom and school, to plan how to use technology as novice teachers (Carter, 1990). In preparing teachers to integrate ICT for teaching and learning, certain characteristics or program experiences may more likely lead to future technology integration in the classroom. Teachers who are self-efficacious towards digital technologies (Anderson, Groulx, & Maninger, 2011; Cassidy & Eachus, 2002; Chen, 2010; Sang, Valcke, van Braak, & Tondeur, 2010), have positive attitudes toward the use of learning technologies in education (Anderson et al., 2011; Anderson & Maninger, 2007; Brinkerhoff, 2006; Cullen & Greene, 2011; Sang et al., 2010), and possess more constructivist philosophy and pedagogy (Ravitz, Becker, & Wong, 2000; Overbay, Patterson, Vasu, & Grable, 2010; Sang et al., 2010) are more likely to consider using technologies in teaching (Chen, 2010; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Sang et al., 2010). Therefore, in this study, I was particularly interested in preservice teachers’ technological self-efficacy, attitude toward the integration of ICT in teaching and learning, and current pedagogical perspective as they graduate and are poised to become new teachers. Self-Efficacy, Attitude, and Pedagogical Perspective Self-efficacy is a belief in one’s capability to accomplish a task (Bandura, 1977) and digital technology self-efficacy measures individual self-efficacy beliefs regarding computer and ICT-related tasks. In a study of 25 exemplary technology-using teachers, Ertmer, Ottenbreit-
  • 8. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 8 Leftwich, and York (2007) found that teachers with higher self-efficacy were more likely to overcome barriers to technology integration. Some consider ‘attitude’ as a predictor variable, such as Anderson and Maninger (2007), who discovered a positive relationship between preservice teachers’ attitude about technology integration and their potential use of technology in their future classrooms. Ravitz, Becker, and Wong (2000) found that constructivist-oriented teachers tended to have higher Internet use and value the Internet more compared with teachers with traditional pedagogy. Overbay et al.’s (2010) recent study with 474 North Carolina teachers discovered that teachers’ beliefs about technology as a constructivist teaching tool were significant predictors of teacher technology use. Therefore, in this research, I aimed to understand preservice teachers’ digital technology self-efficacy, attitudes towards learning technologies, and current pedagogical perspective at their moment of degree completion and teacher certification. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge I employed the conceptual frame, Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK or TPACK) (Angeli & Valanides, 2005; 2009; Cox & Graham, 2009; Hughes, 2005; MargerumLeys & Marx, 2002; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Mouza & Wong, 2009; Niess, 2011), which clarifies what knowledge teachers develop as they learn about the use of digital technologies within educational settings. While definitions of the model’s constructs (i.e., CK, PK, PCK, TK,
  • 9. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 9 TCK) have considerable variation and “fuzzy” boundaries (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Cox & Graham, 2009; Graham, 2011; Jimoyiannis, 2010), I possess a transformative view (Graham, 2011; Mouza & Wong, 2009) that each of these constructs is distinct, but that integrated together, they form the construct of TPACK. When teachers begin to consider how digital ICT plays a role in teaching a content-related concept and students’ learning about content, they are developing TPACK. Teachers ultimately draw upon TPACK to guide their choices of how to involve ICT in teaching and learning. Research of preservice education that conceptually employ TPACK (e.g., Cavin & Fernandez, 2007; Koh & Divaharan, 2011; Niess, 2005; Ozgun-Koca, Meagher, & Edwards, 2010; Schmidt et al., 2009) highlight the importance of experiences and/or modeling of content-specific, technology-supported lessons to develop preservice teachers’ TPACK, which, in turn, helps learners of content transition into teachers of content. Employing a TPACK framework in this research study offers insight into how preservice teacher graduates’ current knowledge may inform their future instructional decisions, as represented in a choice of their most-valued technologies. These conceptual frames–digital technology self-efficacy, learning technology attitudes, pedagogical positioning, and TPACK–outline the research-based indicators of future classroom technology use and enable an understanding of graduates’ dispositions that research has shown influences future decision-making and technology-supported pedagogy.
  • 10. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 10 Method Research Design This research employed a descriptive case study methodology to provide insight into the case of technology-rich preservice teacher preparation, a type of instrumental case (Stake, 1995). The sampling was purposeful and guided by a theoretical/operational construct (Patton, 2002), specifically –a preservice program that had established ubiquitous mobile laptop integration by students and teachers across the program. Thus, the case is one teacher preparation program. Research Context This research occurred within one teacher education program at a large U.S. university. With support of its faculty and administration, in 2002 the program created a ubiquitous laptop environment designed to immerse preservice teachers in technology-rich learning environment with ample tools, Internet access, support, and learning/content management systems. All preservice teacher certification programs, with the exception of secondary science and math1, required students to purchase a Macintosh laptop. During the first few years, extensive effort focused on integrating technology into the curriculum through technology training workdays in which faculty developed lesson plans,                                                                                                                 1 A requirement was not instituted because cross-platform technological practices were already in use, and data indicated most faculty and students already owned a laptop.
  • 11. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 11 technology-enriched assignments, and assessment rubrics. Such work allowed faculty to integrate and model technology within their content expertise areas. In the last five years, faculty support became individually-focused, on-demand, and/or ongoing through a professionallystaffed center for instructional design and ICT integration. All faculty are required to incorporate technology into university courses. Examples of technology integration within preservice teacher education courses include: development of multimedia lessons, newsletters, and presentations; exploration of subject-specific software; use of databases, spreadsheets, simulation software, VoiceThreads, ComicLife, class management systems, such as BlackBoard, and online discussions; designing webpages; classroom reflections blog or course blog; video-reflection of self-teaching; iMovie projects; exploration of webquests, Inspiration, United Streaming, and iPhoto. New students attend a half-day technology orientation for preliminary introduction to their computer, operating system, applications, and college and university resources. Students may attend optional workshops about using their laptop as a learning tool, and faculty may organize within-class workshops as needed to support specific content and project needs. Faculty and students have access to Atomic Learning online software tutorials. A college-level technology center provides workshops, a student-staffed help desk for student software/hardware support, technology check-out, technology-enhanced meeting areas or classrooms, high-end
  • 12. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 12 computers for media production, and high-speed wireless Internet. Participants Enrolled students in this U.S. university preservice teacher education program participated in this research. Students who participated included graduates from three preservice cohorts who voluntarily consented according to IRB-approved research protocols in: Fall 2008 (n = 42), Spring 2009 (n = 53), and Fall 2009 (n = 20). Participants were certified in a range of programs, including: Early Childhood through 6th Grade (n = 64), Kinesiology (n = 8), Special Education (n = 2), Middle/Secondary English (n = 18), Middle/Secondary Languages Other Than English (n = 5), Middle/Secondary Social Studies (n = 12), and All-level Fine Arts, including Art, Music and Theater (n = 6). Data Sources Data include a 20-30 minute end-of-program survey. The survey items used in this research include: • A 17-item digital technology self-efficacy measure adapted from Holcomb, King, & Brown (2004) who reported reliability ∝=0.80. Language was updated replacing computer with digital technology. Items were measured with a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A 1.0 score reflects low digital technology self-efficacy, while a 4.0 represents high digital technology self-efficacy.
  • 13. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION • 13 A 12-item attitude toward learning technologies measure, from the “Technology Beliefs” section of Brinkerhoff (2006) who reported reliability of  ∝=0.69. Items were measured on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A measure of 1.0 reflects a negative perspective while a 4.0 represents a positive outlook on utilizing learning technologies in the classroom. • A modified 10-item version of Becker and Anderson’s (1998) pedagogical perspective measure. The 10 items were measured on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A measure of 1.0 reflects a preference for direct instruction while a 4.0 reflects a more constructivist orientation. • Use, frequency, purpose (personal/educational), and skill level of Technology Activities during the preservice program in the following themes: (a) communication (12 items), (b) web (eight items), (c) productivity (six items), (d) creation (seven items), and (e) and education-specific software/hardware (three items). Items were adapted from ECAR 2008 survey (Students, 2008). Frequency of use was measured on a 4-point scale from monthly or less, weekly, daily, or many times per day. Purpose was measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (All Personal Use) to 7 (All Educational Use) with a 4.0 representing equal use for personal and educational. Skill was measured on a 5-point scale including: 1 (not at all skilled), 2 (not very skilled), 3 (fairly skilled), 4 (very skilled), to 5 (expert).
  • 14. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION • 14 Two open-ended questions about future uses of technology and content-connections: o Q1: “Describe the most valuable learning technology (a technology you could not imagine teaching without) that you or your students will use in the future, if available.” o Q2: “Please explain why your chosen learning technology (listed above) is so valuable, such as its value to you and your students, how you or your students will use it, and what objectives it helps you reach.” Consenting participants were emailed an invitation to complete the online survey two weeks prior to graduation. Three email reminders across two weeks were sent before the survey closed. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics were calculated for survey items within SPSS. Scale scores (digital technology self-efficacy, attitude toward learning technologies, and pedagogical perspective) were calculated and reliability established for the participant pool. Internal reliability, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was good (above .7) or high (above .8) for the three scales (see Table 1). This means the three scales each measure a single construct. Table 1 Reliability of Scales by Graduate Cohort
  • 15. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION Scale 15 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 (n=42) (n=53) (n=20) Cronbach’s Alpha Digital Technology Self-Efficacy (17 .960 .956 .956 .849 .880 .730 .786 .750 .812 items) Attitude toward Learning Technologies (12 items) Disposition toward Constructivism (10 items) We2 engaged in qualitative analysis procedures regarding analysis of two open-ended questions in the survey. The data from these questions were analyzed in several ways. First, we counted how many learning technologies each respondent mentioned in the answer to Q1. Second, we coded the answers to Q1 and Q2 for the explanatory ideas and the knowledge that such explanations represented using an a priori TPACK codebook generated from earlier studies (Hughes, 2005; Mouza & Wong, 2009) (see Appendix for codebook). We collaboratively coded Q1 and Q2 to assure 100% agreement. We identified explanatory chunks. In some cases, an explanatory chunk would be an entire sentence; in other cases, it was a phrase within a sentence. We coded each explanatory chunk for the TPACK code (see Appendix) that best represented the                                                                                                                 2  See Acknowledgments.  
  • 16. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 16 meaning of the chunk. We chose the knowledge type that represented the chunk’s essence rather than assigning codes that represents parts of the chunk’s essence. For example, if the respondent wrote about using the technology because it motivates children, this was coded as TPK (rather than TK + PK) because the writer presents the reasoning as an integrated idea. Likewise, if a respondent discusses how it is difficult for learners to read Shakespeare texts because these texts are meant to be performed, not read, this explanatory idea was coded as PCK (rather than CK+PK) because the writer presents the reasoning as an integrated idea rather than separate ideas. The value of the TPACK framework is to understand the degree to which teachers are integrating their knowledge, so we were more interested capturing integrated ideas through our coding than breaking integrated ideas down into individual concepts. Next, we coded the frequency and type (student vs. teacher) of technology uses described in these preservice teachers’ LT choice and/or rationale for their future PK-12 students. For example, when a respondent described a teacher using PowerPoint to show pictures or information, such a use was coded as a teacher use. Student uses were situations in which students would physically manipulate a technology. For example, when a respondent described students researching on the Internet, such a response was coded as a Student Use. In rare cases, the respondent would describe a use that potentially involved both teachers and students, such as using MS Word “to help students publish work;” in such cases we coded that use as both teacher
  • 17. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 17 and student use. All codes were quantified and disaggregated by graduate cohort for display. Results The research aimed to understand how the graduates of this teacher preparation program were prepared to integrate technology in their future classrooms, as represented by several indicators at their graduation and formal certification. Results are reported by each research question. Preservice Teachers’ Digital Self-Efficacy, Learning Technology Attitude, and Pedagogical Philosophy All three cohorts completed their program with moderate digital technology self-efficacy. Fall 2009 cohort had the highest mean score of 3.15 (n = 19, variance = 0.29, SD = 0.54), followed by fall 2008 cohort with a mean score of 3.08 (n = 37, variance = 0.31, SD =0.55), and spring 2009 graduates had slightly lower mean score of 3.06 (n = 48, variance = 0.27, SD = 0.52). The participants held moderate confidence in using digital technologies for general purposes. The preservice graduates reported working with digital technology to be easy, had sufficient abilities to use digital technology, and did not experience many problems when trying to use digital technology. In relation to learning technologies, defined as digital tools put to use for teaching and learning purposes, all three cohorts reported strong positive dispositions towards the use of
  • 18. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 18 learning technologies in classroom instruction. Fall 2008 graduates’ mean score, 3.32 (n = 40, variance = 0.153, SD = 0.39), spring 2009 graduates’ mean score of 3.20 (n = 48, variance = 0.155, SD = 0.39), and fall 2009 graduates’ mean score of 3.35(n = 18, variance = 0.091, SD = 0.30) were all high. The high mean scores in their attitudes toward learning technologies revealed that preservice graduates perceived more affordances than constraints for learning technologies to support teaching and learning. All three cohorts reported moderate constructivist beliefs with fall 2008 graduates reporting a mean score of 2.93 (n= 32, variance = 0.147, SD = 0.38), spring 2009 cohort with a mean score of 3.04 (n = 37, variance = 0.113, SD = 0.34), and Fall 2009 cohort reporting the highest mean score of 3.09 (n =17, variance = 0.156, SD = 0.39). Participants generally place value on student-centered learning and teaching, including an active role for learners. Their mean scores reflect that these preservice graduates also indicated some preference toward direct instruction in their teaching. In summary, these graduates appear to be moderately positioned in terms of their selfefficacy, attitudes, and philosophy. The literature has established that more positive scores on these indicators increase the possibility for technology integration in future teaching. Preservice Teachers’ Personal and Educational Digital Technology Behaviors During Preparation
  • 19. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 19 As Kay (2006a) noted, it is imperative to understand preservice teachers’ technology use. The extent to which technologies are used during the program generates new teachers’ technological experience base. Several distinctive patterns exist in the preservice teachers’ technological activities (see Table 2). First, most (between 52-71%) preservice teachers reported using technologies for education-specific, communication, or productivity activities. Second, preservice teachers used communication technologies most often, almost daily, and used web activities weekly. Third, the only technologies put to use more for educational purposes were productivity activities while all the other technologies were more used more for personal purposes. Fourth, preservice teachers perceived similarly high skill across all technology activities. Overall, these preservice teachers primarily used word processing, Internet browsing, and presentation (e.g., Powerpoint/Keynote) for educational purposes almost weekly.
  • 20. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION   20   Table 2 Participants’ Reported Technology Usage and Skill Level Participants Participants’ Type of Skill reporting use frequency of use1 usage2 level3 during program (mean) Communication activities (e.g., email, blog, wiki, Fall 08 52% 2.59 3.29 3.82 instant messaging, discussion board and online Spring 09 64% 2.60 3.16 3.89 audio/video interactions) Fall 09 68% 2.39 3.24 3.79 Total 60% 2.55 3.22 3.85 Web activities (e.g., podcasts, online videos, social Fall 08 43% 1.89 2.31 3.78 networking sites, online multiuser computer games, Spring 09 46% 2.24 2.74 4.00 online virtual worlds, and social bookmarks) Fall 09 50% 2.39 3.05 3.61 Total 46% 2.14 2.64 3.85 Productivity activities (e.g., word processing, Fall 08 54% 1.88 5.48 3.80 spreadsheets, presentation software, concept maps and Spring 09 52% 1.87 5.66 3.69 desktop publishing) Fall 09 49% 1.90 5.70 3.78
  • 21. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 21 Total 52% 1.88 5.60 3.74 Creation activities (e.g., digital arts/audio/video, Fall 08 36% 1.34 3.13 3.49 webcasts, photo galleries and web pages) Spring 09 41% 1.26 4.09 3.39 Fall 09 36% 1.40 4.09 3.39 Total 38% 1.32 3.74 3.42 Education specific technologies (e.g. E-portfolios, Fall 08 68% 1.78 N/A 3.38 course management systems and subject-specific Spring 09 72% 2.04 N/A 3.45 software) Fall 09 76% 1.92 N/A 3.29 Total 71% 1.93 N/A 3.40 Note: 1Reported on a scale of 1 (Monthly or less), 2 (Weekly), 3 (Daily) to 4 (Many times per day) 2 Reported on a scale of 1 (All personal use), to 4 (Uses equally for personal and educational use) to 7 (All educational use) 3 Reported on a scale of 1 (Not at all skilled) to 5 (Expert).
  • 22. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION   22   Preservice Teachers’ ‘Most Valued’ Digital Technologies and Use of TPCK in Rationales We conducted several examinations of the preservice graduates’ responses generated from “what is the most valuable learning technology that you cannot imagine teaching without that you or your students will use in the future, if available?” Each participant across all cohorts generated a mean of 1.6 learning technology items (see Table 3). Preservice graduates seem to most value productivity software, such as PowerPoint and Word, as well as general hardware, such as computers, projectors, and document cameras (e.g., Elmo). There were few contentspecific learning technologies mentioned: Word and iMovie (related to English Language Arts writing process activities and publishing), math/reading games, digital audio creation (for fine arts/music), and theater performance videos on YouTube. Table 3 Type and Frequency of Learning Technologies Identified Graduate Cohorts Type of Learning Fall 2008* Spring 2009* Fall 2009* Total Technologies (Frequency (Frequency (Frequency Cited) Cited) Cited) PowerPoint, Keynote 12 8 5 25 Computer, laptop 7 7 2 16 Internet access, The web 4 7 4 15
  • 23. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 23 Computer Projector 6 3 3 12 Document Camera, 2 3 3 8 3 4 1 8 MS Word 1 6 iMovie 2 2 2 6 Smart Board/Promethean 1 1 2 4 3 1 4 ELMO YouTube, Online Videos, United Streaming 7 Whiteboard Movie clips, Videos (not online) Kidspiration, Inspiration 1 Email 3 3 Music 2 3 2 2 iPhoto, Images 1 iTunes 1 Stereo with input (CD, 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 iPod) MS Excel Digital audio creation 1 1 1 1 system Blackboard Math or Reading games 1 1
  • 24. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION Weblog Total LTs, Mean, SD 24 1 43, 1.6, 0.80 53, 1.5, 0.98 1 26, 1.6, 0.81 121 *Note: n=27; n=35; n=16, respectively. We also examined the extent to which these learning technologies were used by teachers and/or students. In fall 2008, 12 student uses (M = 0.44; SD = 0.64) and 36 teacher uses (M = 1.33; SD = 1.39) were described; in spring 2009, 16 student uses (M = 0.46; SD = 0.82) and 41 teacher uses (M = 1.17; SD = 1.01) were described; in fall 2009, 7 student uses (M = 0.44; SD = 0.63) and 14 teacher uses (M = 0.88; SD = 0.81) were described. The three graduate cohorts all identified 2 or 3 times as many teacher uses of learning technologies than student uses, which may dispose these graduates to use more teacher-centric technologies when they become novice teachers. Finally, we examined how their written rationales for choosing valuable learning technologies represented types of knowledge that teachers use in pedagogical decision-making. Conceptually, we argue that a preservice graduate’s rationale reflects more depth when it contains a range of knowledge types (e.g., TCK, TPK, CK). To gauge the depth of reasoning, we examined the number of explanatory ideas present (number of blocks on x-axis) as well as the type(s) of knowledge associated with each idea (color coded blocks) (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). These visualizations are an approximation of the TPACK employed to rationalize their choices,
  • 25. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 25 as it shows both the number and type of TPACK-coded explanatory ideas. On average, a respondent provided two explanatory ideas to rationalize their valuable learning technology choices (Fall 2008: 50 explanatory ideas (M = 1.9; SD = 1.23); Spring 2009: 63 explanatory ideas (M = 1.8; SD = 1.05); Fall 2009: 32 explanatory ideas (M = 2; SD = 1.21)). Preservice graduates relied mostly on technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK, the blue bar) to justify why they determine certain technologies to be most valuable for their future. The frequency of TPK may indicate that preservice graduates have more knowledge regarding how technology may be used for general pedagogical purposes. TPK is a broad category of knowledge (see Appendix for coding categories) that captures ideas related to instruction, assessment, classroom management, National Educational Technology Standards (NETS), and lesson planning. The most frequently cited TPK evidence included use for general pedagogical tasks (#6 in the codebook), such as displaying information in a more visible way (“Elmo projectors allow teachers to effectively display information so that all students are able to see it”), supporting research (“It is valuable because the opportunities for exploration and research are endless”), accessing more information (“The internet will just give additional information”). Other frequent evidence cited was motivating students (“It [technology] is also something of interest to them [students]”; #1 in codebook) and using technology to support lesson planning (“It’s valuable to me to see new teaching ideas and creative lesson plans”; #14 in codebook).
  • 26. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 26 TPK Respondent # TK CK TCK PK PCK Knowledge References in Rationale Figure 1. Visualization of Depth of Rationalization. Cumulative Number of Knowledge Types Evidenced in each Rationale by Fall 2008 Respondents TPK   Respondent  #   TK   CK   TCK   PK   PCK   Knowledge  References  in  Rationale   Figure 2. Visualization of Depth of Rationalization. Cumulative Number of Knowledge Types
  • 27. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 27 Evidenced in each Rationale by Spring 2009 Respondents TPK   Respondent  #   TK   CK   TCK   PK   PCK   Knowledge  References  in  Rationale   Figure 3. Visualization of Depth of Rationalization. Cumulative Number of Knowledge Types Evidenced in each Rationale by Fall 2009 Respondents There are only a handful of rationales evidencing TPACK depth (e.g., including more than 1-2 ideas that represent more than 1-2 types of knowledge). Respondent #2 and #18 in fall 2008 used five explanatory ideas, the brackets, to support their rationale, but all ideas were TPK. LT: Microsoft Applications: Word, Powerpoint, Excel: Rationale: Word can be used [to write lesson plans,] [help students publish work], [communicate with students and parents.] Excel can be used [to organize data and create graphs of student progress.] [Powerpoint can be used to supplement lessons - the visuals it can help teachers create are great!] (Respondent #2, Fall 2008)
  • 28. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 28 Respondent #25’s rationale included three explanatory ideas reflecting TCK, PK, and PCK. LT: [Video clips usually from Youtube.] Rationale: [In English students almost always read Shakespeare,] and [it is hard to read something that is suppose to be performed and get students actively engaged in the content] (Respondent #25, Spring 2009) This rationale shows depth, as the respondent begins referencing her content knowledge: Shakespeare is taught in English. She then referenced her PCK: It is difficult to engage students in reading texts that are meant to be performed. In this case, the YouTube videos, which we infer are theater productions of Shakespeare, are a form of TCK, a content ICT that would not be applicable in another content area. Respondent #11 from fall 2009 shows more depth within her rationale, citing four explanatory ideas that reference TPK, TK and PK. LT: I have to say that I became much more comfortable with Powerpoint throughout my teacher preparatory semesters. I also really enjoyed learning how to make an imovie. Rationale: [I have used numerous Powerpoint presentations in my college classes as well as in my placement.] Just recently [I was able to make a Powerpoint slide show showing the first graders pictures of kids in Ghana.] [We talked about the similarities and differences between our school and theirs.] [I also was able to help a group of third
  • 29. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 29 graders with their imovies on animals. I felt confident enough to answer their questions.] (Respondent #11, Fall 2009) The respondent indicates her TK (use of PowerPoint and iMovie) as well as TPK when she describes making a PowerPoint to show students pictures. Finally, she references PK when she describes a general pedagogical technique of facilitating a similarity/difference discussion. In summary, we found across these cohorts, preservice teachers found presentation software, computers, laptops, Internet access, computer projectors, document cameras, and online video content to be most frequently identified as most valuable. Preservice teachers identified teacher-centric learning technologies 3 times more often than student-centered uses. When rationalizing their valued learning technologies, respondents predominantly drew upon their TPK, TK, and PK. Their rationales tended to lack breadth by reference to only one or two reasons and use of only one or two knowledge types. Discussion and Future Research Across these cohorts, productivity activities (e.g., Word, PowerPoint) dominated as the ICT most used for educational purposes, while communication activities are the most used overall (60% report use) and most frequently used at a daily to weekly basis. Creation and web activities (e.g., digital art, audio, and video, web pages, podcasting) tend to be associated with Web 2.0 affordances (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009; Jenkins, 2006) that support creation,
  • 30. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 30 collaboration, and co-construction of knowledge–activities that may be more student-centered. While only 38% of the graduates reported using creation activities, it is promising that they used creation tools almost equally for personal and educational purposes. Across these results, I worry about the domination of productivity activities and teacher-centric uses mainly because there are many other media activities that are also worthwhile for technology integration efforts and likely provide more content-specificity for student use, the essence of my definition of technology integration. Kay’s (2007a) study of preservice teachers in a laptop program also found a predominance of teacher uses, such as creating lesson plans, handouts, worksheets, resources, and searching the web for teaching ideas, and student uses, such as engaging in Internet research or word processing. Preparation programs need to extend beyond productivity software and begin articulating, supporting, leveraging, and modeling how new media and its capabilities (Martinez, 2010), such as those used in creation and web activities in this study, can be used in content-area teaching for student learning. While no typical range or depth of media activity use for a teacher graduate has been identified, I believe exposure to ICTs is extremely important. Enabling all graduates to have engaged in a wide range of contemporary ICT activities at some frequency level could provide more images of the possible for ICT to play a role in teaching and learning (Hughes, 2004). In this way, novice teachers will have more experience evaluating and considering new digital technologies, perhaps moving beyond the entrenched productivity tools,
  • 31. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 31 to be better prepared for a range of technological resources that may be available at their future school. Despite the fact that current society uses a range of contemporary ICTs, such as data visualization, geomapping, and transmedia storytelling, to solve problems and create new knowledge through creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, and visualization, this study reveals that preservice teachers in a technology-rich preparation program are predominantly exposed to and report using the same technological activities (i.e., PowerPoint, Word, Internet) as preservice teachers reported five years ago (Kay, 2007a) and 12-15 years ago (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999; Willis & Mehlinger, 1996). Even after years of technological advancements in society and time for technological adoption and transformation, this case study reveals preservice teacher graduates with a technological experience base similar to graduates from the last fifteen years. The analysis of the respondents’ rationalization for their most valuable learning technologies indicates a well-developed sense of TPK, yet they generally do not draw on more than TPK to explain their valued learning technologies. This result might have occurred because productivity activities, reported most often used for educational purposes by respondents, are often adopted for general pedagogical purposes. The rare mention of content-specific technologies as most valued may indicate lack of exposure to content-specific technologies,
  • 32. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 32 which would limit development of TCK, CK, and ultimately TPACK. Alternatively, this result may be considered developmentally-appropriate even in a technology-rich setting, as OzgunKoca et al. (2010), whose study was set in a technology-rich math methods course, found preservice teachers’ initial attempts to integrate technology were “naïve and incorporate[d] technology superficially” (p. 18). It appears there is great difficulty for beginning teachers to identify, understand, and value technology that supports content-specific teaching and learning. It also appears to require more than cursory exposure. Some researchers are investigating what learning experiences during preservice preparation might develop depth of knowledge beyond TPK. Cavin and Fernandez (2007) found microteaching lesson study with instructor modeling assisted in developing TPACK. Borko et al.’s (2009) special issue on uses of technology for teacher learning revealed that media experiences, especially with video, enables preservice teachers to critically analyze students’ thinking, self-reflect about their teaching, and examine the complexity of teaching in multiple/varied contexts (Hatch, Sun, Grossman, Neira, & Chang, 2009; Rich & Hannafin, 2009; Santagata, 2009; Sherin & van Es, 2009). Advances in digital video now allow recording and analysis of one’s own teaching experiences (e.g., Calandra & Brantley-Dias, 2010; Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, & Terpstra, 2008; Sherin & van Es, 2005; Yerrick, Ross, & Molebash, 2005). Further research is needed to see if and how these video and media-based tools
  • 33. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 33 for inquiry, reflection, and noticing might promote preservice teachers’ greater awareness of and development of knowledge, such as TPACK, and how such knowledge might inform practice. This research area is, as of yet, unexplored. This case study reveals graduates with moderately positive digital technology selfefficacy and attitudes towards learning technologies but markedly non-contemporary digital technology experiences that focus on productivity technologies like PowerPoint, Word, and web searching. One way to grapple with the evidence of productivity predominance and naïve and less-complex TPACK among preservice teacher graduates is to consider TPACK a life-long learning pursuit. Thus, teacher educators should expect after teacher preparation, some evidence, perhaps similar to what is evident in this research, that preservice teachers are developing TPACK and beginning to use such knowledge to think about how to teach with technology for content-specific purposes. However, more TPACK development should occur as novice teachers become more experienced. Future research should involve longitudinal study of graduates’ experiences from preservice into novice and veteran teaching, which can provide better evidence of the long-range impact of the technological preparation of teachers and ongoing development in specific teaching contexts. Positioning TPACK development as a life-long learning process, however, should not abdicate teacher education institutions’ responsibility in supporting such development through
  • 34. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 34 content-rich, contemporary technological experiences. Such an environment needs to involve (a) unrestricted ubiquitous access to digital technologies, especially content-specific technologies, with annual purchases to refresh resources; (b) ample technical support; (c) university faculty who model content-specific technology integration across program experiences; (d) ongoing faculty technology development, of which most is content-specific; and (e) strong partnerships with PK-12 schools to increase opportunities for technology-rich field placements and student teaching opportunities. Establishing these programmatic elements begins the process of technological development for preservice teachers. A technological induction program that begins upon initial placement as a new teacher would support the continued development of teachers’ TPACK. The induction program might involve cohorts of content or grade-specific teachers who could work closely with PK-12 technology or curriculum specialists and/or content and technology integration scholars. Teachers would use problems-of-practice to investigate role(s) digital technologies might play in content-specific student learning while considering their contextual challenges. Cohort members might engage in technology-infused lesson/case/problem study (Hughes, 2005; Mouza & Wong, 2009; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999; Tee & Lee, 2011) or reflective writing in a supportive group environment that offers ample access to class sets of content-specific digital technologies. In this way, teaching with technology becomes a life-long learning pursuit that may reflect contemporary technological advancements in society.
  • 35. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 35 Limitations A case study naturally limits statistical generalizability of the results. By focusing on and describing the technology-rich laptop preservice program setting, reader-based generalization of the results, common in qualitative data and case studies (Firestone, 1993), may occur. If preservice teacher preparation programs aim to provide preparation that is current with societal expectations and trends such as mobile computing within PK-12 schools (Johnson, Adams & Haywood, 2011), teacher preparation programs need to become more technologically ubiquitous. Research within technology-rich preservice settings, such as this case study, may provide key understandings to support redefining and redesigning preservice programs to explicitly build content-focused, ubiquitous, technology integration expertise within graduates. The prolonged engagement with the program, as evidenced in three participating cohorts across two years’ time, serves to increase trustworthiness of the results (Creswell, 1998). Including multiple forms of data (observations and interviews) and a range of informants (e.g., faculty and field coordinators) in addition to the self-reported data I was able to collect in this study would have enabled more triangulation, further increasing trustworthiness of the results. Greater funding for research on teacher education, a rare priority for funding agencies (CochranSmith & Zeichner, 2005), would allow for fewer limitations in research design, enable the field to answer more questions, and yield more trustworthiness and credibility in the findings.
  • 36. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION Appendix: TPACK Codebook Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) Evidence: 1. Motivating students through technology 2. Differentiating instruction when technology is used 3. Ability to organize collaborative work with technology 4. Holding students accountable for equipment used 5. Developing strategies for assessing student work with technology 6. Knowing about the existence of a variety of technological tools for particular general pedagogical tasks 7. Ability to choose a tool based on fitness with content and learning goals 3 8. Ability to repurpose commercial software for general teaching 9. Knowing about the time required to teach with particular technologies 10. Ability to envision potential student problems with particular technologies and plan relevant activities to support those students 11. Generating alternatives in the event of technological failures 12. Ability to explain a computer procedure to students (e.g., through modeling) 13. Knowledge of NETS-S – expectations for students’ technological literacy 14. Using technology for lesson planning preparation 15. Using technology for general assessment (e.g., grading, portfolios) 16. Knowledge of infrastructure at school site Technology Knowledge (TK) Evidence: 1. Operating computer hardware 2. Using standard software tools (e.g., MS Word etc.) for non-educational use 3. Installing and removing peripheral devices (e.g., USB drives, microphones etc.) 4. Troubleshooting equipment 5. Using appropriate vocabulary 6. Knowledge of current and emergent technologies in society Content Knowledge (CK) Evidence: 1. Knowledge of concepts, principles, and relationships in a curricular domain 2. Knowledge of the rules of evidence and proof                                                                                                                 3 We removed this code from our codebook but did not reassign the Evidence number (7) in order to facilitate cross-study comparison, if applicable. 36
  • 37. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) Evidence: 1. Knowing about the existence of a variety of content tools for particular content tasks; especially tools that experts in this field might use. 2. Operating / knowledge of content-based technologies in which content learning is foregrounded 3. Knowledge about the ways in which content and technology reciprocally related to one another Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) Evidence: 1. Knowledge of general teaching methods and strategies 2. Checking for understanding 3. Knowledge of learners and their background 4. Knowledge of general assessment strategies (e.g., tests, oral, project-oriented tasks) 5. Classroom management techniques 6. Lesson planning activities and preparation Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) Evidence: 1. Knowledge of teaching /representing subject matter to students (e.g., techniques, representations, analogies) 2. Identifying and addressing student subject-specific misconceptions or mistakes 3. Content-specific assessment strategies 37
  • 38. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 38 References Allsopp, D. H., McHatton, P. A., & Cranston-Gingras, A. (2009). Examining perceptions of systematic integration of instructional technology in a teacher education program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(4), 337-50. Anderson, S. E., & Maninger, R. M. (2007). Preservice teachers' abilities, beliefs, and intentions regarding technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 151-172. Anderson, S. E., Groulx, J. G., & Maninger, R. M. (2011). Relationships among preservice teachers' technology-related abilities, beliefs, and intentions to use technology in their future classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 321-338. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: An instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 292-302. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154-168. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. Becker, H. J., & Anderson, R. E. (1998). Teacher's survey: Combined versions 1-4. In Teaching, learning and computing: 1998 survey. Irvine, CA. Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2009). Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of technology and teacher learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 3-7. Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 22-43. Calandra, B., & Brantley-Dias, L. (2010). Using digital video editing to shape novice teachers: A generative process for nuturing professional growth. Educational Technology, (1), 13-17. Carter, K. (1990). Teachers' knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston, M. Huberman & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York: MacMillan. Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the Computer User Self-Efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender, and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(2), 133-153.
  • 39. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 39 Cavin, R., & Fernandez, M. (2007). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice math and science teachers. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 18(4), 2180. Chen, R. (2010). Investigating models for preservice teachers' use of technology to support student-centered learning. Computers & Education, 55(1), 32-42. Clift, R. T., Mullen, L., Levin, J., & Larson, A. (2001). Technologies in contexts: implications for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 33-50. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education. The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Common core state standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. (2010a). Retrieved June 14, 2011, from http://www.corestandards.org/ Common core state standards for Mathematics. (2010b). Retrieved June 14, 2011, from http://www.corestandards.org/ Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: Using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60–69. Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Cullen, T. A., & Greene, B. A. (2011). Preservice teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and motivation about technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(1), 29-47. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (2006-2007). Exemplary technologyusing teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(2), 55-61. Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16-23. Friedman, A., & Kajder, S. (2006). Perceptions of beginning teacher education students regarding educational technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(4), 147-151. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College.
  • 40. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 40 Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953-1960. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259. Greeno, J. (1989). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York: MacMillan. Hatch, T., Sun, C., Grossman, P., Neira, P., & Chang (2009). Learning from the practice of veteran and novice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 68-9. Holcomb, L., King, F. B., & Brown, S. W. (2004). Student traits and attributes contributing to success in online courses: Evaluation of university online courses. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 2(3), 1-16. Hughes, J. (2004). Technology learning principles for preservice and in-service teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 4(3). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol4/iss3/general/article2.cfm Hughes, J. E. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-302. Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st Century. Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation. Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers’ professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259-1269. Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Haywood, K. (2011). The NMC Horizon Report: 2011 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Kay, R. H. (2006a). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 383-408. Kay, R. (2006b). Addressing gender differences in computer ability, attitudes, and use: The laptop effect. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 187-211. Kay, R. (2007a). The impact of preservice teachers' emotions on computer use: A formative analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 455-479. Kay, R. (2007b). A formative analysis of how preservice teachers learn to use technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 366-383.
  • 41. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 41 Koh, J. H. L., & Divaharan, S. (2011). Developing pre-service teachers' technology integration expertise through the TPACK-developing instructional model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 35-58. Lipscomb, G. B., & Doppen, F. H. (2004/2005). Climbing the stairs: Pre-service social studies teachers' perceptions of technology integration. International Journal of Social Education, 19(2), 70-87. MacKinnon, G. R., Aylward, M. L., & Bellefontaine, J. (2006). Electronic discussion. Computers in the schools, 23(1-2), 59-71. Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. W. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A case study of student/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 427-462. Martinez, M. (2010). How a new generation of teachers will change schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 74-75. Meyers, E. (2006). Using electronic journals to facilitate reflective thinking regarding instructional practices during early field experiences. Education, 126(4), 756-762. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Moursund, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Educational Technology. Available: http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=154 Mouza, C., & Wong, W. (2009). Student classroom practice: Case development for professional learning in technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(2), 175-202. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523. Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299-317. Overbay, A., Patterson, A. S., Vasu, E. S., & Grable, L. L. (2010). Constructivism and technology use: findings from the IMPACTing Leadership project. Educational Media International, 47(2), 103-120. Ozgun-Koca, S. A., Meagher, M., & Edwards, M. T. (2010). Preservice teachers' emerging TPACK in a technology-rich methods class. Mathematics Educator, 19(2), 10-20. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • 42. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 42 Polly, D., & Shepherd, C. E. (2007). Preservice teachers' perceptions of appropriate technologies. In T. Kidd & H. Song (Eds.), Handbook of research on instructional systems and technology (pp. 198-215). Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116. Ravitz, J.L., Becker, H.J., & Wong, Y-T. (2000). Constructivist compatible beliefs and practices among U.S. teachers. (Teaching, Learning & Computing Report 4.) Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California. . [On-line]. Available: http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/findings/report4/ Rich, P.J., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation tools. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52-67. Rosaen, C., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). Noticing noticing: How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347-360. Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers' thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103-112. Santagata, R. (2009). Designing video-based professional development for mathematics teachers in low-performing schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 38-51. Savery, J. R., & Reed, C. K. (2006). Wireless laptops for faculty: Boon or bane? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 167-172. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149. Sherin, M., & van Es, E. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475-491. Sherin, M.G., & van Es, E.A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20-37. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Stigler, J. & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: Summit. Students and information technology in higher education: 2008 survey questionnaire. (2008). The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2008, EDUCAUSE. Accessed June 15, 2008 from: http://www.educause.edu/ers0808
  • 43. DESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS OF FUTURE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 43 Tee, M.Y., & Lee, S.S. (2011). From socialisation to internalisation: Cultivating technological pedagogical content knowledge through problem-based learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 89-104. Thompson, A., Schmidt, D. A., & Davis, N. E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 73-89. Tothero, M. L. (2005). University of Texas at Austin explores LIFE. T.H.E. Journal, 33(3), 4445. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, Y. (2002). When technology meets beliefs: Preservice teachers' perception of the teacher's role in the classroom with computers. Journal of Research on Technology in Teacher Education, 35(1), 150-161. Willis, J., & Mehlinger, H. D. (1996). Information technology and teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 978-1029). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Yerrick, R., Ross, D., & Molebash, P. (2005). Too close for comfort: Real-time science teaching reflections via digital video editing. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(4), 351375. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.