Ej 1096803
Ej 1096803
Ej 1096803
2016
Recommended Citation
Liu, P. (2016). Technology Integration in Elementary Classrooms: Teaching Practices of Student Teachers. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 41(3).
http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.6
Ping Liu
California State University Long Beach
U.S.A.
Introduction
often related to connection between technology use and classroom practices (Mouza, 2009;
Wells, 2007).
In the past decade, research topics on technology application in teaching and
learning extend from barriers (Butler & Sellborn, 2002; Kopcha, 2012), subject specific
instruction such as math and social studies (Fraser, Garofalo, & Juersivich, 2011;
Henning, Peterson, & King, 2011; Keiper, Harwood, & Larson, 2000; Menard, 2010;
Whitney, 2007) to practices of new teachers after program completion (Wright & Wilson,
2005). The participants of the above studies involve teachers and pre-service teachers in
K-12 school setting. Pre-service teachers are in the process of developing teaching
abilities through applying a variety of instructional strategies and resources. To increase
quality of teacher preparation, more research is needed to examine how pre-service
teachers apply technology in an instructional context.
Empirical evidence indicates that a large number of pre-service teachers have
acquired technology skills, but they are yet to develop abilities to integrate technology
(Liu, 2012; Maddux & Cummings, 2004; Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999; Selinger, 2001).
During field experiences or student teaching, mentor teachers play a major role in
assisting pre-service teachers to integrate technology into their teaching (Kopcha, 2012;
Liu, 2012). This impact of mentor teachers is confirmed in the synthesis of qualitative
evidence in preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology (Tondeur et. al., 2011):
13 of the 19 selected studies highlighted teacher educators serving as a role model for
pre-service teachers. One aspect that Tondeur and colleagues (2011) proposed for further
research is the “influence of cultural and contextual factors on the development of pre-
service teachers’ capacity to apply technology in daily classroom practices” (p. 10).
Similarly, others (Kopcha, 2012; Rosenberg & Koehler, 2015) call for more research that
looks into the complexity of practices and context of technology integration instead of
relying on the self reports (Hew & Brush, 2007; Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009; Lawless
& Pellegrino, 2007).
In teacher preparation, studies have been conducted on technology integration of
pre-service teachers (Choy, Wong & Gao, 2009; Jaipai & Figg, 2010, 2015; Margerum-
Leys & Marx, 2000). The focus of these studies is on the change of intention and action
related to a technology course, acquisition of knowledge about educational technology of
student teachers and mentor teachers, or application of a collaborative model to support
technology integration. All of these studies were conducted on the field-based practice of
pre-service teachers in an elementary school setting, and below is a brief review of each
of them.
Choy, Wong, and Gao (2009) explored the change of pre-service students’
intention and action to integrate technology into their teaching before and after taking a
technology course. Over 100 pre-service teachers completed a survey at different times of
the program. Findings indicate that the participants increased intention of using
technology in instruction with their development of pedagogical knowledge about
technology integration. However, a gap existed when the pre-service teachers took
actions primarily due to various external factors such as “software availability, plug-in
problems, and Internet connection speed” (p. 190). As a result, the pre-service teachers
were not able to fully translate their intention of integrating technology to enhance
instruction and promote student centered learning.
Research Design
Mixed methods of descriptive survey research and case study of the group
(Lodico, Spaulding & Voegtle, 2010) were applied in this study. Both quantitative and
qualitative data were collected throughout a student teaching assignment. Multiple sets of
data at different time or places and directly from or about the participants were collected
and analyzed to answer the research questions.
Participants
Data Collection
Multiple sets of data were collected on a weekly basis from and about the participants
during the 8-week period. The data extended from observation logs of the participants’ actual use
of technology in teaching the 347 lessons, report of access to technology in the classroom to the
student teachers’ reflection on their application and evaluations by their mentors. In particular,
the following types of data were collected: 1) classroom observation logs of the student teachers’
technology integration into teaching as well as after lesson debriefing, 2) written lesson plans
with reflection, 3) summative reflection on technology integration with justification, and 4) a
survey regarding access and general use of technology in a classroom. In addition, student
teaching evaluations were collected to analyze their technology integration. All types of data
were obtained from the three key groups: student teacher, mentor teacher and university
supervisor, who were directly involved in the process. The written information provided by the
student teachers or participants included lesson plans, reflection journals and their summative
reflection on technology integration. A mentor teacher and supervisor were present in the lessons
taught for observation. They participated in the after teaching debriefing with a student teacher
and wrote formative and summative evaluation. Additional informal information was also
collected from other professionals such as school administrators and staff.
Data triangulation (Johnson & Christensen, 2007) regarding the student teachers
and the three key groups was applied to answer the two research questions. Observation
logs of technology integration in the lessons taught by the student teachers were
maintained on weekly basis. The logs provided a brief summary of the technology means
they used and how they applied it in teaching. Original written lesson plans were attached
to the observation logs. Additionally, all student teachers wrote reflection journals after
their teaching in addition to a summative reflection on technology integration. The
participants also explained why they utilized technology to enhance teaching.
NVivo 10 was selected to summarize the data. Coding (Johnson & Christensen,
2007) was applied to analyze data for emergent themes (Wolcott, 1990). After repeated
readings, overlap shown among codes was reduced when similar codes were clustered
together. Then numerous codes were combined into a number of broad themes (see Table
2 of the Results section below). Additionally, all data were analyzed for generative
themes using a constant comparison process in an iterative and recursive manner. When
the themes within and across different types of data were studied and organized, they
were used to answer the research questions and draw conclusions.
To provide more detailed background information of the data, the themes were
tallied to reveal frequency of responses. Tables were used to summarize the themes with
examples as appropriate, a presentation of the most frequently cited items at the top and
the least at the bottom. The themes were also converted to percentage for easier view of
the data summary.
Results
All sets of data were analyzed to answer the two research questions. Findings would be
reported by the research questions in order. The primary data to answer the first research
question were the observation logs of the participants’ use of technology during their actual
teaching, lesson plans of the observed lessons as well as their report of access and use of
technology. For the second research question, the focal data were the student teachers’
summative reflection on their teaching practices with justification and lesson-based reflection. In
the meantime, all other types of data were used to enrich, further explain or clarify in answering
the research questions.
All of the student teachers integrated some types of technology into their teaching
and non-teaching practices during the assignment. However, none of them used all
technology means available in a classroom, and technology was not integrated into all of
the lessons for observation. Among the observed lessons, the use of technology ranged
from none to all with the majority in between. In data processing, lessons were first
grouped into technology integrated (197 lessons or 57%) and non-technology integrated
(150 lessons or 43%). In the 197 technology-applied lessons, some participants integrated
more than one type of technology, and all types of technology utilized were recorded for
classification. Also, it is important to specify that major differences revealed in how the
participants used the same technology means to engage and support their students in
instruction.
Table 1 is a summary of all types of technology used when the participants taught
the lessons for observation. Each of them taught approximately six lessons with 347 in
total. The analysis of these lessons was also converted to percentage for a quick review of
summary. Of all the observed lessons, although 43% did not involve technology
integration, the participants used one or more traditional means such as whiteboard, chart
paper, sentence strips, pictures, flash cards, mini whiteboard and other environmental
print in the classroom to provide visuals in instruction. For the rest 57% of the lessons, at
least one type of technology was integrated.
Type # of use %
Of all the lessons taught and observed, 150 (or 43%) did not show any technology integration.
Table 1: Technology Used in the Teaching of 347 Lessons
As Table 1 shows, the most frequently used technology (70.89%) was document
camera or Elmo to show a variety of visuals related to a lesson. The visuals extended
from learning goals, part of textbooks, graphic organizers to written summary of
text/information and recorded oral discussion highlights. Sometimes, the student teachers
also displayed manipulatives and realia or demonstrated experiments to engage their
students in learning or discuss steps of problem solving procedures. Still other times,
Elmo was switched on but was not appropriately used to present information along with
progression of a lesson. Or it was only used to at the beginning, middle or end of a lesson.
Furthermore, even for the same activity with Elmo, differences were clear in
procedures, time management and level of student participation. For example, Elmo was
used to share student written work. Some student teachers chose the work of their
students for display as an example or for making clarifications as appropriate. Other
times, they called some students to Elmo one at a time to write and then explain their
written work. When several students were called to the front to re-write their answers
under Elmo followed by an oral explanation, time for each part of the activity must be
allocated.
Evidence of teacher and student interaction shows that both parties benefited from
the above sample sharing activity on Elmo in various aspects. The teacher had an
opportunity to understand the students’ thinking process in problem solving, assess
learning, and use the assessment information to redirect instruction. For the students, they
Why did the participants decide to use technology? They provided summative
responses and wrote reflection on the lessons they taught to explain their choices and
action taken. Some of them contributed to more than one theme in their responses. Table
2 is a summary of the reasons to integrate technology given by the group.
Student - “I made a lot more connections to the texts and found it more 15 /
engagement and entertaining when content was presented with technology.” 31.91%
motivation - “This made both teaching and learning fun as all students
were engaged, curious, and eager to discuss.”
Get organized in - “…save time as compared to writing the same information on 9/
lesson planning a whiteboard.” 19.1%
& teaching to - “When using the white board, I have to constantly step out of
improve time the way so the students can see. Using the Elmo allows all
efficiency the students a clear view of the information.”
As Table 2 presents, the top one reason on the list stated by 15 (31.91%)
participants was to engage the K-5 students through attracting or holding their attention
and making a lesson interactive and entertaining. One participant commented: “I made a
lot more connections to the texts and found it more entertaining when content was
presented with technology.” Another student teacher shared her students’ excitement by
describing their responses to the use of technology in teaching:
The students in the Kindergarten class were engaged as soon as they entered the
classroom after recess. They said things like, “Wow! Are we going to see a
movie!” … A somewhat dry content of comparison between apples and pumpkins
became a very exciting subject for the students.
On the other hand, the comments made by a different participant focused on the
interactive aspect through asking questions to make the students think.
While watching the videos, I paused at strategic points to pose questions and
engage students in brief discussions. After watching all three video clips, I posed
the big question and the vast majority of students could express specific reasons,
which dealt with safety and survival.
The second most frequently cited reason to enhance teaching was related to
getting organized in planning and teaching (9 or 19.15%). The student teachers specified
time management or organization in their use of technology. They were able to make it
more efficient when they prepared e-information for effective display, or they saved
instructional time when they minimized writing on whiteboard during teaching. Another
way they increased efficiency was to get familiar with operation of equipment: “I’ve
learned how to quickly switch projection between the ELMO and the computer so that we
don’t waste class time on technical issues.” Without the required technical skills, the
effect would be different as it was in the case below.
I’m still getting used to teaching with the Elmo (zooming in and out of text,
getting the lighting right, etc.). So I feel that it affects my teaching at times
because I get distracted trying to figure out how to use it and lose my train of
thought. Fortunately, it doesn’t happen often but it’s helped me realize that
successfully using any piece of technology for instruction requires investing time
(non-instructional time) getting familiar with the equipment.
The third reason is related to behavior management or routines when students
were encouraged to stay on task and be active participants in learning (8 or 17.02%). The
student teachers were able to use technology to reward students with points for
participation. Moreover, technology application was perceived as a means to set up or
enforce classroom routines and procedures. For example, an audio player was to “help
create the routine and establish an atmosphere of learning” in a first grade classroom. The
comment was echoed by another student teacher: “Consistent use of the technology made
it a routine for the classroom. The students become used to it as a method of learning.”
Also, effective use of technology would allow a student teacher to sweep the classroom
for behavior management and progress monitoring during a lesson.
I have found that the first grade class loves to socialize as well as get up move.
When writing with your back to the class they tend to socialize more. With the
Elmo, I can place myself in front of the class while also facing them. This makes
it really easy to survey the class during instruction and assess if the class is able to
understand the different teaching points I am trying to get across.
The fourth reason regarding technology integration was to address the needs of
individual students (7 or 14.89%). One type was to create a meaningful context with
visuals and sounds for English language development. Some other needs were associated
with physical disabilities such as hearing impairment or hand injury, which could be
temporary or long term.
Last but not the least, although only seven of the participants made specific
comments on the influence of their mentors, practically all student teachers were more or
less affected by their mentor teachers and other staff. One student teacher tried an
application in teaching as result of a staff meeting.
I decided to use the Popplet app, because during a staff meeting, one of the
teachers modeled how she used it to make a thinking map with her students. She
also mentioned how students were excited about using this app to create thinking
maps. It was a great way to show vivid realistic pictures of the different parts of
plants.
In addition to the influence of other staff, the above participant also shared that she
received assistance from a family member in using the application. She brought in an
ipad to teach the lesson for better student engagement. Several other student teachers also
used laptops (unavailable in the classroom) to show video clips or pictures in their
teaching of a group or whole class.
On the other hand, five student teachers had to reduce their initially planned level
of technology integration due to lack of support from their mentors, set up of facilities or
quality of equipment. Two were unable to integrate technology as they had hoped
because trying a new technology went beyond the comfort zone of their mentors. In other
instances, they were not able to use the facilities in the classroom because of hardware set
up or quality. For instance, it was challenging to address classroom management when
one had to use the technology station in the classroom with his/her back to the class.
Similarly, Elmo was not used because the lighting of projection was of low quality.
The participants’ report of technology integration was reflected in the evaluation
of their mentors. The average rating of the student teachers’ technology use on a 1-4
point scale (with 4=Exceptional Beginning Practice and 1=Inconsistent Beginning
Practice) was over 3.5. Some mentors made specific comments to elaborate their rating.
One praised a student teacher for using “Power Points and videos to develop schemata
around the theme of patriotism and perseverance”. Another wrote: “She used technology
in the classroom on several of the lessons she taught. The students loved it” because she
made learning exciting. A third mentor complimented her student teacher for taking
initiative to help her “set up the technology system of laptop, Elmo, speakers and Internet
connection and search online resources to enrich teaching”. However, the majority of the
mentors did not provide any specific comments about their student teachers’ technology
application in the written evaluations.
Discussion
Findings reveal that all of the student teachers applied some types of technology
into their instruction and demonstrated knowledge about content appropriate technology
related to the TCK-in-practice. The evidence was not only revealed in the participants’
work, self reports and reflection but was also confirmed in observations by the second or
third party. Their use of technology was directly influenced or restricted by available
resources in the classroom or external factors (Butler & Sellborn, 2002; Choy, Wong, &
Gao 2009; Kopcha, 2012). In other words, the participants tended to apply the technology,
software or hardware, already available in the classroom, which was also often used by
their mentor teachers. Among different types of technology, the predominant top choice
was to provide visuals via Elmo to engage and support K-5 students in learning, and
traditionally presented visuals were also used in the teaching of all other lessons without
application of technology.
It was essential for the student teachers to possess technology skills in order to
enhance their teaching with smooth transition between activities or lessons for time
efficiency. In addition to technology skills, appropriate equipment set up or upgrade was
also important for the participants to use technology effectively. In the context of field
experience or student teaching, mentor teachers played a major role (Kopcha, 2012)
either because of their level of technology integration or because of their support and
readiness for student teachers to explore new applications. Findings show that most of the
student teachers decided to use a certain type of technology after observing successful
practices of their mentor teacher. Furthermore, when a mentor was not competent enough
to provide the expected support in technology integration, the personal attitude of a
student teacher would lead to either maintaining the status quo or taking initiative to
explore alternative ways to reach their goal. Some participants were able to apply
additional technology to their teaching, and the action, supported by their mentor, turned
into an opportunity for a pair to develop new skills. This allowed them both to explore
and improve technologically and pedagogically together instead of having a student
teacher contribute in technology and a mentor contribute in pedagogy (Margerum-Leys &
Marx, 2000). Consequently, the experience was beneficial for them to develop
professionally as equal partners.
Results indicate that classroom access to technology was the main factor in
technology integration for the group. In other words, the technology means that the
participants primarily utilized were already equipped or available in the classroom. These
means included Elmo, LCD projector, desktop, Smartboard, audio player or microphone.
Their technology use was affected by a variety of external factors such as availability,
plug-in problems and Internet connection (Choy, Wong & Gao, 2009; Kopcha, 2012).
However, for some participants, the external factors alone did not stop them from
exploring other ways to integrate technology. Their personal attitude or beliefs (Inan &
Lowther, 2010; Kopcha, 2012) made a difference in their professional development as
student teachers. They took initiative to help their mentors expand the horizon of
technology application with additional software or facilities, getting the existing
equipment connected or updated, and obtaining online information to enrich teaching and
learning. Another contribution made by some participants was to bring in extra resources.
The implication of this finding for teacher preparation is that pre-service teachers should
be encouraged and guided to find alternatives such as portable electronic devices outside
of the classroom to make full use of their existing skills and strengths in technology
integration. Identifying issues and exploring ways to address the issues are essential for a
classroom teacher to be successful. Information of portable electronic resources that pre-
service teachers can tap into for use in a classroom would be helpful to enrich learning
and teaching experience. Also, while mentors can be role models, student teachers should
not mimic but find their own teaching style during student teaching. By playing an active
part in technology integration, student teachers have an opportunity to grow
independence and develop capacity to collaborate with others in the moment and the
future.
Unfortunately, some student teachers were not able to use a desirable devise
because of classroom set up or incompatibility. For example, a participant had hoped to
show a video clip to a small group of students at a table in the back of the classroom but
was unable to do so with the monitor equipped at the front. Opportunities to enhance
teaching would be lost when hardware was not set up properly for maximal use. Such
issues could be prevented if input and feedback of classroom teachers were elicited and
considered. It would be helpful for schools or school districts to maintain effective
communication with classroom teachers so that issues can be tracked for adjustments to
be made in a timely manner.
All of the student teachers considered technology integration important to
enhance the quality of teaching. The technology facilities or software they decided to use
were primarily to engage their students in the senses of sight, hearing or sight and hearing
The participants’ use of the same type of technology also diverged significantly to
meet content learning goals in TPCK-in-practice. The primary models of instruction
revealed in the observed lessons were direct instruction (e.g., a lesson on alphabet letters
or division) and question-based (e.g., a lesson on Native Americans with posed open-
ended questions) for students to process information and develop target concepts. For the
direct instruction model, a learning goal stated in a complete sentence was projected on
screen. The students’ understanding of the learning goal was unknown when they were
only asked to read it chorally. Discussion of the learning goal related to previous lessons
and asking the students questions about the goal would allow a teacher to assess
understanding. In this context, the use of visuals per se does not directly lead to effective
instruction, helping students reach learning goals. The critical element was when and how
to make full use of the displayed visuals via technology to facilitate and assess student
learning, and then use the information to redirect instruction.
Difference was also obvious in how the participants applied technology to address
lesson flow or sequence. Most of them used technology at the beginning, middle or end
of a lesson. Some others had Elmo on throughout a lesson, but few were able to make
effective transition between activities in a lesson. Therefore, pre-service teachers would
benefit more when they are trained to appropriately use technology to maximize student
learning (Liu, 2012; Maddux & Cummings, 2004; Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999;
Selinger, 2001). The aspects to consider for professional development should include
features of a target subject, student engagement, lesson flow and transition related to the
use of identified technology to increase efficiency and effectiveness in instruction.
In summary, technology application does not automatically yield high quality
instruction. In addition to familiarity with technology, the student teachers needed to
learn how to most effectively utilize technology in lesson planning and actual teaching.
When technology was applied to show information not directly related to learning target
or relevant information displayed was not appropriately processed, visuals, sounds, or
visuals/sounds alone or combined did not serve the purpose of helping the students reach
learning goals. Abrupt transition between activities also posed a challenge in instruction
when the students were lost and had to ask many questions for clarifications despite use
of technology.
For elementary pre-service teachers, they should lay a good foundation to
integrate technology in planning and teaching lessons when taking methodology courses.
The primary types of technology can be selected in response to the most commonly
available resources in classrooms of the local school districts. For example, almost all of
the classrooms, regardless of the students’ socioeconomic status, had access to a
desktop/laptop, LCD projector and Elmo. Application of these means aligned with
subject matter in course work would better prepare pre-service teachers to integrate
technology into instruction. Also, pre-service teachers should be encouraged to take
Limitations
Due to its scope, this study focused on examining the practices of student
teachers. Although multiple sets of data were collected about the student teachers from all
key groups, it would strengthen the study when actual technology use of the paired
mentor teachers was also investigated. That would provide an opportunity to better
understand the mentors’ practices in comparison to their student teachers in the same
classroom. In addition, the student teachers were placed at different schools. Besides
access to technology facilities, the impact of school vision on technology could also be
discussed through the action taken by the mentors.
The quality of teaching related to technology integration was examined through
informal assessment of attention, participation, and competence demonstrated by the K-5
students in completing tasks aligned with learning goals in the observed lessons. The
informal assessment was conducted by a student teacher as well as a mentor teacher and
university supervisor. If other types of informal and formal assessments of student
learning outcomes were available for more comprehensive analysis, that would also serve
to enrich the data collection.
Conclusion
References
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: why it isn’t
happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546.
Butler, D. L., & Sellborn, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and
learning. Educause Quarterly, 9(4), 105–127.
California Department of Education (2009). California Standards for the Teaching
Profession. Retrieved May 16, 2015 from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-
prep/program-standards.html
Choy, D., Wong, A. F. L., & Gao, P. (2009). Student teachers’ intention and actions on
integrating technology into their classrooms during student teaching: A Singapore
study. ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 42(2), 175-195.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782546
Fraser, V., Garofalo, J., & Juersivich, N. (2011). Enhancing lesson planning and quality of
classroom life: A study of mathematics student teachers' use of technology. Journal
of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(2), 169-188.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in US
public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Henning, M. B., Peterson, B. R., & King, K. P. (2011). Infusing science, technology, and
society into an elementary teacher education program: The impact on preservice
teachers. Teacher Education and Practice, 24(1), 46-65.
Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning:
current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools:
implications for professional development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 130–
146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07380560902906070
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Laptops in the K-12 classrooms: Exploring factors
impacting instructional use. Computers & Education, 55(3), 937–944.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.004
Jaipai, K., & Figg, C. (2010). Unpacking the "Total PACKage": Emergent TPACK
characteristics from a study of preservice teachers teaching with technology.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,18(3), 415-441.
Jaipai, K., & Figg, C. (2015). The framework of TPACK-in-practice: Designing content-
centric technology professional learning contexts to develop teacher knowledge of
technology-enhanced teaching. In C. Angeli & N. Valanides, (Eds.), Technological
pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring, developing and assessing TPCK (pp.
137-163). New York: Springer
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2007). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and
mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Keiper, T., Harwood, A., & Larson, B. (2000). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of infusing
computer technology into social studies instruction. Theory and Research in Social
Education, 28(4), 556–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2000.10505924
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-
70.
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and
practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers &
Education 59, 1109–1121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating
technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue
better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654307309921
Lim, C. P., & Khine, M. (2006). Managing teachers’ barriers to ICT integration in
Singapore schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 97–125.
Liu, S.-H. (2012). A multivariate model of factors influencing technology use by preservice
teachers during practice teaching. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 137–
149.
Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational
research: From theory to practice. New Jersey: Wiley.
Maddux, C., & Cummings, R. (2004). Fad, fashion, and the weak role of theory and
research in information technology in education. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 12(4), 511-533.
Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. W. (2000). Teacher knowledge of educational technology:
A study of student teacher/mentor teacher pairs. ERIC document: ED 442763.
Menard, L. B. (2010). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of technology as a catalyst for
constructivist practices in the classroom: A case study (Doctoral dissertation).
University of South Florida. ERIC document: ED524910.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A
new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108(6), 1017-
1054. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
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 Family Foundation.
Mouza, C. (2009). Does research-based professional development make a difference? A
longitudinal investigation of teacher learning in technology integration. Teachers
College Record, 111(5), 1195–1241.
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Brush, T. A., Strycker, J., Gronseth, S., Roman, T., Abaci, S.,
VanLeusen, P., Shin, S., Easterling, W., & Plucker, J. (2012). Preparation versus
practice: How do teacher education programs and practicing teachers align in their
use of technology to support teaching and learning. Computers and Education,
59(2), 399-411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.014
Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK): A Systematic Review. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 47(3), 186-210.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1052663
Selinger, M. (2001). Learning information and communications technology skills and the
subject context of the learning. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher
Education, 10(1-2), 143-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759390100200108
Slagter van Tyron, P. J., & Schwartz, C. S. (2012). A pre-service teacher training model
with instructional technology graduate students as peer coaches to elementary pre-
service teachers. TechTrends, 56 (6), 31-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-
0611-3
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2011).
Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of
qualitative evidence. Computers and Education, 59(1), 134-144.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009
Wachira, P., & Keengwe, J. (2010). Technology integration barriers: Urban school
mathematics teachers perspectives. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
20(1), 17–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9230-y
Wells, J. (2007). Key design factors in durable instructional technology professional
development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 101–122.
Whitney, J. D. (2007). The use of technology in literacy instruction Implications for
teaching students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. ERIC document: ED
498986.
Wolcott, H. F. (1990). Writing up qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wright, H. W., & Wilson, E. K. (2005). From preservice to inservice teaching: A study of
technology application. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(2), 49-55.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity Award that the
author received at California State University Long Beach (U.S.A.).