Preparing Teachers to Integrate Technology into K-12 Instruction Comparing a Stand-alone Technology Course with a Technology-infused Approach

INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY Preparing Teachers to Integrate Technology into K-12 Instruction: Comparing a Stand-alone Technology Course with a Technology-infused Approach Ray R Buss, Keith A Wetzel, Teresa S Foulger, and LeeAnn Lindsey Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College Arizona State University This paper was presented April 6, 2014 at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA The authors of this paper received the American Educational Research Association Technology as an Agent of Change in Teaching and Learning (TACTL) Special Interest Group Best Paper Award, which was presented to them on April 3, 2014 at the Annual Meeting Please not cite or quote without first obtaining permission from the first author INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY Abstract We compared the effectiveness of learning TPACK domain knowledge in a new technologyinfused approach for teaching technology to teacher candidates with a more traditional, standalone course In the new approach, learning to use technology is infused into program methods courses Candidates all improved their TPACK domain scores (post-test scores were higher) Interestingly, there were interactions of cohort (stand-alone vs technology-infused) x time of testing (pre- vs post-test scores) on the TPACK measures From pre- to post-test assessment, candidates’ scores from the standalone course increased more rapidly for TK and TPK; whereas candidates’ pre- to post-test scores from the technology-infused courses increased faster for CK and PK Qualitative data also supported the quantitative results In the discussion, we accounted for the differences, connected the results to the literature, and posed questions for consideration in future research We concluded by offering implications for technology-infused courses in teacher preparation programs INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY Preparing Teachers to Integrate Technology into K-12 Instruction: Comparing a Stand-alone Technology Course with a Technology-infused Approach Purpose In this paper, we report on the second phase of a five-phase project designed to describe and measure the effectiveness of a new integrative approach in which learning to use technology is infused into methods courses within a teacher preparation program We contrast this approach with a traditional, stand-alone course in which teacher education candidates (hereafter candidates) learned to use technology to aid their future classroom instruction Context and Related Literature An institutional change in program requirements that provided for substantially more content coursework and a full year of student teaching necessitated removal of a required foundational, educational technology course and infusion of that content into methods courses This change in requirements was consistent with concerns that stand-alone technology courses were ineffective in providing teacher education candidates with appropriate preparation to successfully integrate technology into their instruction (Bielefeldt, 2001) Others have also written about the value of integrating technology into methods and content courses to foster technology skills more strongly connected to use in PK-12 instruction and cognitive development of candidates (Pierson & Thompson, 2005; Tonduer van Braak, Sang, Voogt, Fisser, & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2012) Nevertheless, due to the historical contexts in which educational technology courses were initially offered in desktop labs, stand-alone courses have continued to be a critical element in many initial teacher preparation programs (Gronseth et al., 2010; Kleiner, Thomas, and Lewis, 2007) Given the ubiquitous availability of mobile devices, we suggest that it may be time to once again consider Bielefeldt’s (2001) observation that standalone courses in INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY computer labs may not provide optimal preparation for candidates to integrate technology into their teaching Further, careful consideration of the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework (see next section) provides a tentative rationale and a potential model by which technology infusion might be situated in methods courses because technology, pedagogy, and content can be brought together and taught in meaningful ways in these courses Theoretical Perspective The TPACK Framework As educational technology leaders, we consider the transition from an isolated educational technology course in the candidates’ first semester to infusion of technology into two technology intensive methods courses through an educational framework known as TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) The TPACK framework has its roots in Shulman’s (1986) work who suggested good teaching involves blending content and pedagogical knowledge and extends the model to include incorporating technological knowledge and blending it with the others Thus, Mishra and Koehler suggested the integration of technology requires teachers to not only have strong content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), technology knowledge (TK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), but, to seamlessly weave these knowledge bases together as they develop technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) See Figure Insert Figure about here INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY As a result of the interactive nature of the three knowledge bases, we began to question the effectiveness of the stand-alone course for technology integration that had been the tradition in our college, because the stand-alone course may not provide the much-needed, concurrent, authentic content and pedagogy that methods courses can supply Additionally, the TPACK framework is widely accepted internationally by teacher educators who recognize that explicitly addressing the development of teacher candidates’ TPACK knowledge is a more appropriate pathway to foster technology integration than merely addressing fluency with technological tools (Niess, 2011) Development of TPACK in Preservice Teacher Candidates Before reviewing the literature on development of TPACK in preservice teachers, we briefly digress to review the work of Niess and her colleagues (Niess, 2011; Niess et al., 2009) Niess and her associates have examined the development of TPACK among inservice teachers They suggested the development of TPACK included five steps: (a) recognizing (knowing about) the alignment of technology with content, but not yet integrating technology into teaching content; (b) accepting (being persuaded about) the use of technology for teaching specific content; (c) adapting (making a decision about) technology to assist in teaching a content area; (d) exploring (implementing), that is, actively integrating technology into teaching, and (e) advancing (confirming) by evaluating the results of the instructional technology integration efforts Recent, additional research evidence suggested inservice teachers attained TPACK through unique pathways where they focused on one domain, e.g., TK or TPK, more than others (Author, under review) Others have explored the development of TPACK in preservice teacher candidates (Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2010; Hofer & Grandgenett, 2012; Mouza & Karchmer-Klein, 2013; Özgün-Koca, INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY Meagher, & Edwards, 2010; Pamuk, 2011) For example, Pamuk (2011) studied TPACK growth in 78 preservice teachers taking an information and communication technologies (ICT) course where they designed “educational materials for teaching subject matter to learners who are either distant-located or are using computers independently” (p 427) These students would become technology teachers at the middle or high school level or work in other technology positions Results showed participants struggled with developing new TPACK knowledge Moreover, Pamuk concluded limited pedagogical knowledge may have inhibited technology integration In a quantitative study, Chai et al (2010) also observed TPACK development in an ICT course for 365 secondary, preservice teachers Participants completed both a pre- and post-course TPACK survey adapted from the work of Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Mishra, Koehler, and Shin (2009) The adaptations included use of only TK, PK, CK, and TPACK subscales; a 7-point Likert format rather than a 5-point format; and revision of CK to make them appropriate to teaching of secondary content Results indicated there were gains on all the subscales Moreover, regression analyses indicated TK, PK, and CK all predicted secondary preservice teachers’ TPACK with PK having the greatest influence Özgün-Koca et al (2010) examined the development of TPACK using surveys and assignments of preservice, secondary mathematics teachers enrolled in a mathematics methods course Data indicated TPACK development among preservice teachers was related to a shift in identity from learners to teachers of mathematics Hofer and Grandgenett (2012) investigated TPACK development among eight secondary, preservice teachers who participated in an 11month M.A.Ed program Results from surveys, reflections, and instructional plans showed considerable development of TPK and TPACK, but limited growth of TCK Finally, Koh and Divaharan (2011) examined the development of TPACK among 74 primary, preservice teachers, INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY using an instructional model they formulated, which was called the TPACK-developing instructional model (TPACK-DIM) TPACK-DIM was based on the five developmental TPACK stages observed by Niess (2011; Niess et al 2009) and it was composed of three instructional stages: (a) fostering acceptance, (b) technological proficiency and pedagogical modeling, and (c) pedagogical application The TPACK-DIM model was applied in a seven-week ICT course focused on instruction on the use of Interactive Whiteboards Data revealed participants chiefly improved their TK, how to use the technical capabilities of the Whiteboard, and TPK To develop other TPACK areas, Koh and Divaharan recommended, “More emphasis on subjectfocused pedagogical modeling, product critique, and peer sharing may better develop their Technological Content Knowledge and TPACK” (p 35) Given the recent wide-ranging work on the development of TPACK, we were interested in examining how TPACK developed in two technology-infused methods courses offered over several semesters of the teacher preparation program as compared to its development in a standalone course As noted in the research reviewed above, many of the studies that have been conducted to examine the development of TPACK have been carried out in single-semester, ICT course (Chai et al., 2010; Koh & Divaharan, 2011; Pamuk, 2011) rather than in technologyinfused methods courses, which are offered over time throughout the program Of interest to us, was the question of whether a different type of educational technology curriculum that spanned multiple contexts, was iterative and developmental in nature, and was not isolated in one semester afforded teacher education candidates better preparation? Further, infusing technology into the methods courses is consistent with Niess’ (2008) conceptualization, in which she suggested that “guiding preservice teachers in developing TPCK” could best be accomplished by INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY incorporating technological knowledge into methods courses where teacher education candidates would be concurrently developing pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge Research Questions The research questions guiding the study were: To what extent standalone and technology-infused courses facilitate learning of TPACK domains? Are there any differences in the rates of learning of TPACK domains across the two types of courses? What accounts for TPACK learning and perceptions of technology integration abilities of preservice teacher education candidates? Quantitative data were used to answer the first two research questions whereas; qualitative data were used to answer the third research question Method Context for the Courses The required standalone educational technology course, TEL 313, was taken by all candidates during the first semester of their junior year at the beginning of their program The course was designed to help candidates: (a) learn how to use technology tools for teaching and learning, (b) stay updated and adopt a mindset of being innovative with technology, (c) apply ethical principles of using technology with their students, (d) attain experiences with a variety technologies and their use in classroom settings, and (e) integrate technology into teaching standards-based content Further, this course content was reflected in what we asked students to in major assignments such as digital video storytelling, a micro-teaching situation employing the TPACK framework, and development of unit that integrated technology INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY The two tech-infused courses for elementary and special education candidates were EED 433—Language Arts Methods, Management, and Assessment; and EED 324—Social Studies in Elementary Schools For secondary candidates, the two courses tech-infused courses were SED 464—Middle School Curriculum and Organization, and RDG 323—Content Area Reading The technology component of these courses was designed to afford students opportunities like those in the standalone course such as learning about technology tools, applying ethical principles, attaining experiences with various technologies, and integrating technology into their teaching Importantly, these technology aspects of the courses were conducted within the context of the methods candidates were learning A “digital media” component was included in EED 433 and SED 464, which assisted candidates in developing skills associated with conducting research such as identifying and evaluating web-based resources, fair use, plagiarism, and proper citation of sources Participants In all, 282 undergraduate teacher candidates had complete data for the two quantitative data collections in the spring 2012 (standalone course) and fall, spring, fall 2012-2013 semesters (technology-infused courses; offering of tech-infused courses varied by program) There were 94 candidates in the first cohort, the stand-alone course, and 188 in the second cohort, technologyinfused courses In both cohorts, candidates came from elementary, secondary, and special education programs The mean age of the participants was 23.17 years with a SD of 6.04 years Ethnic makeup was 70.8% Caucasian, 3.2% African American, 18.5% Hispanic, 3.0% Asian or Pacific Islander, and 2.6% Native American Approximately 55 candidates participated in the nine focus groups INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 10 Design of the Study We employed a mixed method design to gather both quantitative and qualitative data Consistent with Greene’s (2007) explanation for using a mixed method procedure, we sought a deeper more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena we were examining by allowing qualitative data to provide complementarity to the quantitative data Greene suggested, “In a complementarity mixed methods study, results from the different methods serve to elaborate, enhance, deepen, and broaden the overall interpretations and inferences from the study” (p 101) Quantitative measures included pre- and post-test measures of various TPACK knowledge domains See the next section on Instruments Qualitative data came from candidates’ responses to as set focus group questions Instruments Knowledge of the TPACK domains including CK, TK, PK, TPK, CPK, and TPACK were assessed using a 53-item instrument based on the work of Schmidt et al (2009) Candidates responded to the items on a 5-point Likert scale, = Strongly disagree to = Strongly agree Examples of items were: “I have the technical skills I need to use technology;” “I can adapt my teaching style to different learners;” and “I can use strategies that combine content, technologies, and teaching approaches in the classroom.” Those three items were representative of items on the TK, PK, and TPACK scales, respectively Quantitative data were analyzed using multivariate and univariate repeated measures analysis of variance procedures Qualitative data were obtained in nine focus group interviews in which groups of to candidates responded to a series of nine interview items Interview items included: How well you feel prepared to teach elementary students to use technology to work toward content standards? INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 25 second matter, participants, especially secondary education candidates, suggested that they would like to see more modeling of subject-matter appropriate technology, which is aligned with a recommendation made by Koh and Divaharan (2011) We may attain some additional insights by considering two other ideas in the extant literature The first is the “wickedness” of technology integration using the TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Niess, 2008, 2011) The second is a thoughtful analysis of the developmental nature of TPACK Koehler and Mishra (2008) contend that learning to apply technology integration (TI) approaches to teaching through TPACK is a complex, multifaceted and “wicked” problem Specifically, Koehler and Mishra advise, Technology integration has often been considered a kind of problem-solving, the goal of which is to find the appropriate technological solutions to pedagogical problems However, matters are not this clear cut Integrating technology in the classroom is a complex and ill-structured problem involving the convoluted interaction of multiple factors (p 9-10) Further, Niess (2008, 2011) suggests learning TPACK is wicked because teacher candidates have not learned the content by using technology Nevertheless, we believe the learning of TPACK by teacher candidates may be more wicked than initially considered, especially in light of the complexity of TPACK and the limited amounts of PK that teacher candidates may possess Consistent with Koehler and Mishra’s (2008) arguments, teaching with technology, hereafter technology integration, involves multiple complex factors When we begin to unpack TPACK, the complex nature of the construct becomes more evident especially as we consider its development in preservice teacher candidates Thus, INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 26 TPACK, the interaction of technological pedagogical content knowledge, which is represented by the intersection of three circles (see Figure 1), is infinitely more complex for several reasons First, teacher candidates are learning TK, CK, PK, PCK, PTK, TCK, and TPACK simultaneously Briefly, let us consider only one TPACK domain, for example, PCK As teacher candidates are learning PCK, they are actually learning four components: (a) conceptions of purposes for teaching subject matter; (b) knowledge of students’ understanding; (c) knowledge of instructional strategies; and (d) curricular knowledge (Grossman, 1989, 1990) Simultaneously, they must also consider TK, CK, PK, TPK, TCK, and the formidable matter of integrating all of these in TPACK The description of these interactions illustrates how concurrently drawing upon knowledge from multiple domains influences TI (Niess, 2011) Importantly, findings from our study indicate students struggle with the complexity of combining the TPACK domains as evidenced in their expressions about their limitations with respect to implementing technology integration These concerns may reflect the competenceperformance distinction, which originated in the child and development literature (Flavell & Wohlwill, 1969) Briefly, it is the difference between ‘knowing’ something and ‘doing’ something with that knowledge In the current situation, competence, knowledge of TPACK domains likely precedes performance, actual technology integration Typically, before performance proceeds, there is a consolidation of previous learning or development, which provides the foundation for advancement to the next stage or level of knowledge or performance Based on our current findings and as we look toward future research efforts, for example, we might ask what is the nature of the consolidation process and how does consolidation influence learning of TPACK? What is the role of instruction in fostering learning of TPACK and the INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 27 implementation of technology integration? What is the nature of the “stages” or “levels” in TPACK learning and technology integration among preservice teacher candidates? Given the competence-performance distinction noted previously, it appears the extent to which students possess TK, CK, and PK may greatly influence the levels of competence that are attained with respect to PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK and perceptions about their performances related to technology integration For example, some of our older students suggest their TK is restricted Moreover, given that our candidates are preservice educators, they may possess very limited amounts of PK Additionally, the extent to which TK, CK, and PK overlap to form the higher interactive levels of PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK may be extremely modest in preservice teachers and probably develops over time For example, based on our data, candidates indicated they needed to see more modeling of TPK and TCK These ideas about limited interaction of the TPACK domains in preservice teacher candidates is consistent with the findings of Hofer and Grandgenett (2012) and Koh and Divaharan (2011) who suggest there was a need for greater emphasis in teaching/modeling of TCK Taken together, we expect limits on knowledge in these domains may constrain the development of candidates’ TPACK competence and their perceptions of their abilities to integrate technology into instruction As a result, offering technology-infused courses over the course of a teacher preparation program may facilitate the development of the various TPACK competencies and ultimately technology integration Thus, the proposed research question becomes: does repeated exposure to TPACK, working with TPACK, and reflection on TPACK over the course of a teacher preparation program foster better developed technology integration skills? Further, how does developing TPACK strategic knowledge—“knowing when, where, and how to use domain-specific knowledge and strategies” (Niess, 2011, p 307) influence INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 28 technology integration skills? We will continue to investigate these and other important questions about the development of TPACK in our next round of research In sum, the results demonstrate the ‘wickedness’ of infusing technology into methods courses (Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Niess, 2008) As Niess (2008) suggested, Incorporating TPCK [TPACK] as a way of thinking strategically into the curriculum of the preservice methods courses exposes the “wickedness” … of the preservice teacher preparation problem because preservice teachers have not traditionally experienced learning their subjects with these new and emerging technologies They have not learned how to learn their content with these technologies as tools for learning (p 224) Moreover, the developmental nature of TPACK offers some intriguing research opportunities as we have noted above Nevertheless, we are encouraged by the progress we have made in implementing technology-infused methods courses For example, consistent with Niess’ (2011; Niess et al., 2009) model our candidates readily exhibit steps 1-3 in which they recognize, accept, and adapt appropriate technologies and integrate them into classroom instruction Implications/Conclusions We offer the following implications related to tech-infused courses in teacher preparation programs with the caveat that the reader carefully considers her context and circumstances to determine the transferability (Guba, 1981) of our suggestions First, our college and the university made a strategic decision to transform student teaching from a one semester to a year-long experience School district leaders, teacher education students, and faculty agreed that students needed more experiences in actual teaching to improve INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 29 their preparation to teach As a result, student teachers are able to participate throughout a complete school year including beginning and ending activities, for example, setting class management guidelines and end-of-year testing procedures, respectively Further, principals claim that when they hire our student teachers, the following year they conduct themselves more like second-year teachers rather than first-year educators Yes, we had to sacrifice a semester of education courses (including TEL 313—Educational Technology in the K-12 Curriculum course), but it enabled our university to address a real need Second, we typically offered 16 sections of the TEL 313 course each semester Let us assume that on the average four full-time instructors were required With the new technology infused in methods courses approach we hired 1.5 technology infusion specialists to work full time with the instructors of the methods courses This constitutes a consistent year after year savings to the college Now we proceed to the balancing act The outcomes of our study are just emerging and we will want to replicate this study to determine whether the findings endure over time Nevertheless, it appears there are no differences in learning PCK and TPACK between the standalone courses and the technology-infused methods courses Although interaction results favored TK and TPK for the standalone course, it may be balanced by the superior results of the technology- infused courses in the areas of CK and PK Consequently, we suspect revision and strengthening of technology-infused methods courses along with careful data collection and analyses may be beneficial to enable the attainment of broader college goals and financial benefits In summary, the research findings suggest that the new approach to technology infusion is promising Moreover, the realization of the broader goals also justifies use of the new technology-infused approach INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 30 References Author (under review) Bielefeldt, T (2001) Information technology in teacher education: A closer look Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(4), 4-15 Chai, C S., Koh, J H L., & Tsai, C C., (2010) Facilitating preservice teachers’ development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) Educational Technology and Society, 13(4), 63-73 Cohen, J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) New York: Academic Press Creswell, J W (2009) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc Flavell, J H., & Wohlwill, J F (1969) Formal and functional aspects of cognitive development In D Elkind & J H Flavell (Eds.) Studies in cognitive development: Essays in honor of Jean Piaget New York, NY: Oxford University Press Greene, J C (2007) Mixed methods in social inquiry Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA Gronseth, S., Brush, T Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Strycker, J Abaci, S., Easterling, W … van Leusen, P (2010) Equipping the next generation of teachers: Technology preparation and practice Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(1), 30-36 Grossman, P L (1989) A study in contrast: Sources of pedagogical content knowledge for secondary English Journal of Teacher Education, 45(5), 24-31 Grossman, P L (1990) The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education New York, NY: Teachers College Press INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 31 Guba, E G (1981) Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries Educational Communication and Technology, 29(2), 75-91 Hofer, M., & Grandgenett, N (2012) TPACK development in teacher education: A longitudinal study of preservice teachers in a secondary M.A.Ed program Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1), 83-106 Kleiner, B., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L (2007) Educational technology in teacher education programs for initial licensure (NCES 2008-040) National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Educational Sciences, U.S Department of Education, Washington, DC Koehler, M J., & Mishra, P (2008) Introducing TPCK In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp 3-29) New York, NY: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education and Routledge Koh, J H L., & Divaharan, S (2011) Developing preservice teachers’ technology integration expertise through the TPACK-developing instructional model Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 35-58 doi: 10.2190/EC.44.1.c Mishra, P., & Koehler, M (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054 Mouza, C., & Karchmer-Klein, R (2013) Promoting and assessing preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in the context of case development Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 127-152 Niess, M L (2008) Guiding preservice teachers in developing TPCK In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Eds.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 32 knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp 223-250) New York, NY: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and Routledge Niess, M L (2011) Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44, 299-317 Niess, M L., Ronau, R N., Shafer, K G., Driskell, S O., Harper S R., Johnston, C.,…, & Kersaint, G (2009) Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 9(1) Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/mathematics/article1.cfm Olejnik, S., & Algina, J (2000) Measures of effect size for comparative studies: Applications, interpretations, and limitations Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(3), 241-286 Özgün-Koca, S A., Meagher, M., & Edwards, T E (2010) Preservice teachers’ emerging TPACK in a technology-rich methods class The Mathematics Educator, 19(2), 10-20 Pamuk, S (2011) Understanding preservice teachers’ technology use through TPACK framework Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 425-439 doi: 10.1111/j1365-2729.2011.00447x Pierson, M., & Thompson, M (2005) The re-envisioned educational technology course: If addition isn’t possible, try division Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(1), 31-36 Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Mishra, P., Koehler, M J., & Shin, T, (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, 123-149 INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY Shulman, L (1986) Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14 Strauss, A L., & Corbin, J M (1998) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc Tonduer, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A (2012) Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence Computers & Education, 59(1) 134-144 33 INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 34 Table Univariate ANOVAs of Within-subject Effects for Time and Time x Cohort Interaction Time Effect (Pre- vs Post-test Scores) partial η2 Measure F(1,280) p Technological Know (TK) 23.52 001 077 93 Content Knowledge (CK) 14.25 001 048 89 105.60 001 274 90 PCK 79.06 001 220 85 TPK 42.65 001 132 94 TPACK 93.58 001 250 93 TK 14.76 001 050 CK 3.87 05 014 PK 5.07 025 018 PCK 2.53 NS - TPK 22.86 001 075 1.05 NS Pedagogical Know (PK) Time x Cohort Interaction Effect TPACK α INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 35 Table Means and Standard Deviations by Cohort and Time of Testing Cohort Cohort Measure Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Technological Know (TK) 3.63 (0.90)* 4.01 (0.81) 3.75 (0.93) 3.79 (0.91) Content Knowledge (CK) 3.91 (0.61) 4.00 (0.61) 4.05 (0.82) 4.35 (0.71) Pedagogical Know (PK) 3.87 (0.61) 4.28 (0.54) 3.69 (0.77) 4.33 (0.54) PCK 3.42 (0.89) 3.89 (0.70) 3.43 (0.87) 4.10 (0.80) TPK 3.76 (0.85) 4.29 (0.62) 3.88 (0.79) 3.96 (0.75) TPACK 3.63(0.74) 4.15 (0.59) 3.70 (0.77) 4.11 (0.67) *Note: Standard deviations are presented in parentheses INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 36 Table Theme-related Components* with Examples of Codes, Themes, and Assertions for the Focus Group Data Theme-related Components* with Examples of Codes       Themes adequacy of preparation o somewhat prepared o quite prepared opportunities to learn TPACK o understand various tech tools o understand tech use instructors aided learning of TPACK o faculty had students create o faculty embedded tech into assignments o faculty facilitated student sharing P-12 students must be critical media consumers o critical media consumers o copyright and fair use o critical thinking emphasis With respect to technology integration (TI), candidates suggested the courses were beneficial in developing their abilities to integrate technology into PK-12 instruction indications of using TPACK for technology integration o science exam o research o digital story o communication and collaboration claims of limits on their abilities o didn’t learn a specific technology o would use technology occasionally Candidates communicated their visions for TI in their future classrooms, but they expressed concerns about their abilities to engage in practical classroom applications of technology to implement technology integration INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY   limitations of courses o lack of time o lack of faculty expertise o lack of technology access improving instruction o faculty more modeling o faculty show more age appropriate tools o faculty more instruction on pedagogy with technology 37 Candidates suggested there were limitations to the courses and technology-infused courses could be improved *Note: Theme-related components are preceded by a filled in bullet and examples of codes are indented under the theme-related components and preceded by an open bullet INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY Figure Graphic Representation of Technical Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Adapted from http://tpack.org/ website and used by permission 38 ... implications for technology- infused courses in teacher preparation programs INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY Preparing Teachers to Integrate Technology into K-12 Instruction: Comparing a Stand-alone Technology. .. approach in which learning to use technology is infused into methods courses within a teacher preparation program We contrast this approach with a traditional, stand-alone course in which teacher... Quantitative data were analyzed using multivariate, repeated measures analyses of variance procedures with follow-up ANOVAs as appropriate Qualitative data were analyzed in the following way Responses